Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Fritz, please see my post, "NewsMax 'Poll' and The Propaganda Machine." Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: Fritz Friesinger To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 6:56 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran Hi Mike, What's the deal in your country? Is your government walking in lockstep with the will of the overwhelming majority of the "ordinary" citizens? What is "ordinary" anyway I'll leave it at that for now.My government would not dare to nuke anybodys Country,its already enough for us if we have to due "Peaceceeping" ,and this only because of the mess your very government has createt! As Keith had put it, you guys have a very short memory and pretty selectiv too! Fritz ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
It goes deeper than short memory and only the Bush machine. Bush is only taking unfair advantages of a much large and loner term effort. For the Americans the WWII has not yet stopped, so also the fight against an illusive communism. It is a part of the general picture of keeping the Americans happy in their belive about heroism and the good purposes, it is a part of empire building. It is not new, the Greeks and Romans understood this well, with the gladiator games. They keep us, the public, entertained and controllable. The motives and the gains are obscure with smoke screen of higher moral values. AH understood this and voiced many times an envy over the American skills. He built his propaganda apparatus with US as the model, he was especially impressed by the Hollywood part of it. Hakan At 04:54 08/05/2006, you wrote: I think this poll shows how the short term memory of Americans is totally lacking. Also it shows how effective the propaganda machine of BushCo is. In a word, terrorfying. Peace, D. Mindock P.S. We have met the enemy and he is us. Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons program are not working. A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. Here are the poll questions and results: 1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons program are working? Working: 7 percent Not Working: 93 percent 2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program? Yes: 11 percent No: 89 percent 3) Do you believe Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War? Yes: 88 percent No: 12 percent 4) Should the U.S. undertake military action against Iran to stop their program? Yes: 77 percent No: 23 percent 5) Who should undertake military action against Iran first? U.S.: 45 percent Israel: 35 percent Neither: 20 percent ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
--- D. Mindock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this poll shows how the short term memory of Americans is totally lacking. Also it shows how effective the propaganda machine of BushCo is. In a word, terrorfying. Peace, D. Mindock P.S. We have met the enemy and he is us. Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons program are not working. A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. Here are the poll questions and results: 1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons program are working? Working: 7 percent Not Working: 93 percent 2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program? Yes: 11 percent No: 89 percent 3) Do you believe Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War? Yes: 88 percent No: 12 percent 4) Should the U.S. undertake military action against Iran to stop their program? Yes: 77 percent No: 23 percent 5) Who should undertake military action against Iran first? U.S.: 45 percent Israel: 35 percent Neither: 20 percent ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ hi, Americans are still living in the wild west. They have to catch up with the rest of the civilised world. The only super power left-should behave with responsibilty for this planet. Unfortunately US is run by cow boys. God help this planet. fox Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Hi Mike, What's the deal in your country? Is your government walking in lockstep with the will of the overwhelming majority of the "ordinary" citizens? What is "ordinary" anyway I'll leave it at that for now.My government would not dare to nuke anybodys Country,its already enough for us if we have to due "Peaceceeping" ,and this only because of the mess your very government has createt! As Keith had put it, you guys have a very short memory and pretty selectiv too! Fritz ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Hakan,"...so also the fight against an illusive communism.""Illusive" is a good word to describe it, although I prefer to call it non-existant?The confrontation was betweenthe US andan expanding fascist empire in Russia. However, calling it "communist"is as deceptive as the so called "war on terror", "war on drugs" or "war on...", etc. Either way, I think we're on the same page and in my opinion, your observation is an important one."When the Stalinist bureaucracy arose beginning in the early 1920s, Trotsky, who had been the key organizer of the 1917 insurrection and who had led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War, became the champion of the fight against Stalin. Before his death in 1924, Lenin had begun to challenge the rising bureaucracy, which included a proposal (suppressed by the central committee after his death) to remove Stalin from his position as General Secretary of the party."http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/543/543_09_Intenationalism.shtml MikeHakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It goes deeper than short memory and only the Bush machine. Bush is only taking unfair advantages of a much large and loner term effort. For the Americans the WWII has not yet stopped, so also the fight against an illusive communism. It is a part of the general picture of keeping the Americans happy in their belive about heroism and the "good purposes", it is a part of empire building. It is not new, the Greeks and Romans understood this well, with the gladiator games. They keep us, the public, entertained and controllable. The motives and the gains are obscure with smoke screen of higher moral values. AH understood this and voiced many times an envy over the American skills. He built his propaganda apparatus with US as the model, he was especially impressed by the Hollywood part of it. Hakan At 04:54 08/05/2006, you wrote: I think this poll shows how the short term memory of Americans is totally lacking. Also it showshow effective the propaganda machine of BushCo is. In a word, terrorfying.Peace, D. Mindock P.S. We have met the enemy and he is us.Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons program are not working. A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. Here are the poll questions and results:1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons program are working?Working: 7 percentNot Working: 93 percent 2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program?Yes: 11 percentNo: 89 percent 3) Do you believe Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War?Yes: 88 percentNo: 12 percent 4) Should the U.S. undertake military action against Iran to stop their program?Yes: 77 percentNo: 23 percent 5) Who should undertake military action against Iran first?U.S.: 45 percentIsrael: 35 percentNeither: 20 percent ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Mike, Since I think I introduced corporacracy (in greek, corporation power as opposite to democracy that is people power) on this list and think it describes well this phenomena. A logical definition of capitalism is today is better described as corporatism. What I mean is that it could easily replace both communism and capitalism, since it is and has always been a question of which elite group that take the power. Interesting that you brought in Stalin in this, maybe he and Bush are only the two sides of the same coin, in representing a relatively small groups interests. Lenin by the way, was heavily supported by the emerging American corporations, who instigated the Russian revolution. Hakan At 14:25 08/05/2006, you wrote: Hakan, ...so also the fight against an illusive communism. Illusive is a good word to describe it, although I prefer to call it non-existant? The confrontation was between the US and an expanding fascist empire in Russia. However, calling it communist is as deceptive as the so called war on terror, war on drugs or war on..., etc. Either way, I think we're on the same page and in my opinion, your observation is an important one. When the Stalinist bureaucracy arose beginning in the early 1920s, Trotsky, who had been the key organizer of the 1917 insurrection and who had led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War, became the champion of the fight against Stalin. Before his death in 1924, Lenin had begun to challenge the rising bureaucracy, which included a proposal (suppressed by the central committee after his death) to remove Stalin from his position as General Secretary of the party. http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/543/543_09_Intenationalism.shtmlhttp://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/543/543_09_Intenationalism.shtml Mike Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It goes deeper than short memory and only the Bush machine. Bush is only taking unfair advantages of a much large and loner term effort. For the Americans the WWII has not yet stopped, so also the fight against an illusive communism. It is a part of the general picture of keeping the Americans happy in their belive about heroism and the good purposes, it is a part of empire building. It is not new, the Greeks and Romans understood this well, with the gladiator games. They keep us, the public, entertained and controllable. The motives and the gains are obscure with smoke screen of higher moral values. AH understood this and voiced many times an envy over the American skills. He built his propaganda apparatus with US as the model, he was especially impressed by the Hollywood part of it. Hakan At 04:54 08/05/2006, you wrote: I think this poll shows how the short term memory of Americans is totally lacking. Also it shows how effective the propaganda machine of BushCo is. In a word, terrorfying. Peace, D. Mindock P.S. We have met the enemy and he is us. Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons program are not working. A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. Here are the poll questions and results: 1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons program are working? Working: 7 percent Not Working: 93 percent 2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program? Yes: 11 percent No: 89 percent 3) Do you believe Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War? Yes: 88 percent No: 12 percent 4) Should the U.S. undertake military action against Iran to stop their program? Yes: 77 percent No: 23 percent 5) Who should undertake military action against Iran first? U.S.: 45 percent Israel: 35 percent Neither: 20 percent ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
My thoughts only. If Ike E wanted to stop W.W.II why did he halt the advance of Montgomery? Did this halt mean that the "cold war" and all it entails kept the war machines/companies alive? I put it to you if the war had stopped in one hit how many would have been out of work and how many companies ruling global economies would have been affected? Could we not look upon the drawing out of W.W.II that extra year as a preliminary to give time to set up the cold war and thus there was no Communism as such just a different form of democracy which seems now to have hit real hard in the US. $36M compensation to GM by the US for bombing the GM factory that was making equipment for Germany. This does not sit right as does not the extension of the war for one year after reading Montgomery and other such books, it sure seems like a set up as does the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. What a lot of top paying jobs, one gets to be President and to pay GM and others out. How neat does it all fit? The US Govhave the funds to give GM and Chrysler for bailouts but zippo to Harley Davidson which was more American than America. Thanks to Dr Demming and some of his principals the Hogs still run with no thanks to the US Gov at all let alone bankers and the Loan shark after the railway lands. Given a thousand years we may be able to straighten out the mess that so few have made with the blinded majority as followers. Wanderings only. Doug - Original Message - From: Michael Redler To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran Hakan, "...so also the fight against an illusive communism.""Illusive" is a good word to describe it, although I prefer to call it non-existant?The confrontation was betweenthe US andan expanding fascist empire in Russia. However, calling it "communist"is as deceptive as the so called "war on terror", "war on drugs" or "war on...", etc. Either way, I think we're on the same page and in my opinion, your observation is an important one."When the Stalinist bureaucracy arose beginning in the early 1920s, Trotsky, who had been the key organizer of the 1917 insurrection and who had led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War, became the champion of the fight against Stalin. Before his death in 1924, Lenin had begun to challenge the rising bureaucracy, which included a proposal (suppressed by the central committee after his death) to remove Stalin from his position as General Secretary of the party." http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/543/543_09_Intenationalism.shtml MikeHakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It goes deeper than short memory and only the Bush machine. Bush is only taking unfair advantages of a much large and loner term effort. For the Americans the WWII has not yet stopped, so also the fight against an illusive communism. It is a part of the general picture of keeping the Americans happy in their belive about heroism and the "good purposes", it is a part of empire building. It is not new, the Greeks and Romans understood this well, with the gladiator games. They keep us, the public, entertained and controllable. The motives and the gains are obscure with smoke screen of higher moral values. AH understood this and voiced many times an envy over the American skills. He built his propaganda apparatus with US as the model, he was especially impressed by the Hollywood part of it. Hakan At 04:54 08/05/2006, you wrote: I think this poll shows how the short term memory of Americans is totally lacking. Also it showshow effective the propaganda machine of BushCo is. In a word, terrorfying.Peace, D. Mindock P.S. We have met the enemy and he is us.Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons program are not working. A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. Here are the poll questions and results:1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons program are working?Working: 7 percentNot Working: 93 percent 2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program?Yes: 11
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Hakan, Which Mike are responding too? I invoked corporotacracy (but I think corpatism is equally apt) but not Stalin. Mike the Elder Hakan Falk wrote: Mike, Since I think I introduced corporacracy (in greek, corporation power as opposite to democracy that is people power) on this list and think it describes well this phenomena. A logical definition of capitalism is today is better described as corporatism. What I mean is that it could easily replace both communism and capitalism, since it is and has always been a question of which elite group that take the power. Interesting that you brought in Stalin in this, maybe he and Bush are only the two sides of the same coin, in representing a relatively small groups interests. Lenin by the way, was heavily supported by the emerging American corporations, who instigated the Russian revolution. Hakan At 14:25 08/05/2006, you wrote: Hakan, ...so also the fight against an illusive communism. Illusive is a good word to describe it, although I prefer to call it non-existant? The confrontation was between the US and an expanding fascist empire in Russia. However, calling it communist is as deceptive as the so called war on terror, war on drugs or war on..., etc. Either way, I think we're on the same page and in my opinion, your observation is an important one. When the Stalinist bureaucracy arose beginning in the early 1920s, Trotsky, who had been the key organizer of the 1917 insurrection and who had led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War, became the champion of the fight against Stalin. Before his death in 1924, Lenin had begun to challenge the rising bureaucracy, which included a proposal (suppressed by the central committee after his death) to remove Stalin from his position as General Secretary of the party. http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/543/543_09_Intenationalism.shtmlhttp://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/543/543_09_Intenationalism.shtml Mike Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It goes deeper than short memory and only the Bush machine. Bush is only taking unfair advantages of a much large and loner term effort. For the Americans the WWII has not yet stopped, so also the fight against an illusive communism. It is a part of the general picture of keeping the Americans happy in their belive about heroism and the good purposes, it is a part of empire building. It is not new, the Greeks and Romans understood this well, with the gladiator games. They keep us, the public, entertained and controllable. The motives and the gains are obscure with smoke screen of higher moral values. AH understood this and voiced many times an envy over the American skills. He built his propaganda apparatus with US as the model, he was especially impressed by the Hollywood part of it. Hakan At 04:54 08/05/2006, you wrote: I think this poll shows how the short term memory of Americans is totally lacking. Also it shows how effective the propaganda machine of BushCo is. In a word, terrorfying. Peace, D. Mindock P.S. We have met the enemy and he is us. Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons program are not working. A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. Here are the poll questions and results: 1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons program are working? Working: 7 percent Not Working: 93 percent 2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program? Yes: 11 percent No: 89 percent 3) Do you believe Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War? Yes: 88 percent No: 12 percent 4) Should the U.S. undertake military action against Iran to stop their program? Yes: 77 percent No: 23 percent 5) Who should undertake military action against Iran first? U.S.: 45 percent Israel: 35 percent Neither: 20 percent ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Hakan,You said: "What I mean is that it could easily replace both communism and capitalism, since it is and has always been a question of which "elite" group that take the power."I respectfully disagree.Re: Replacing Communism1.) You can't replace whathasn't existed. If you mean Stalinism, then say it.2.) Show me where Marx proposes elitism in the manifesto. Communism wasA RESPONSE TO elitism and the imbalance of a class society.Re: Replacing Capitalism - Corporatism and capitalismmust coexist.One representsthe logical progression of the other and (IMO) can only be quantified since it's existence is a forgone conclusion.I don't evenfeel comfortable making a direct comparison between capitalism and any model of government sinceelements ofit exists everywhere. Both capitalism and libertarianism exist in democracies as well as anarchist states (for example). They are elements of a larger scheme.If Lenin and the Bolsheviks were supported by corporations, it certainly wasn't welcome (unless of course they were willing to redistribute their wealth).Early in the revolution, Trotsky and the Mensheviks mayhave welcomed that kind of support (although I doubt it) until hejoined Leninand fought together on the same side.You need to back up your statement withsome more information. To my knowledge,there weremany events that led to the Russian revolution, like the February 1917 breadriot duringa woman's daycelebration. Thecounterinsurgency was fought by theCzar's White Armywith troop support fromthe US. I know of no serious contribution to the Bolsheviks byUS corporations. If anything, corporations may have assisted in putting down the revolution by supporting Stalin.Mike Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Mike,Since I think I introduced corporacracy (in greek, corporation power as opposite to democracy that is people power) on this list and think it describes well this phenomena. A logical definition of capitalism is today is better described as corporatism. What I mean is that it could easily replace both communism and capitalism, since it is and has always been a question of which "elite" group that take the power. Interesting that you brought in Stalin in this, maybe he and Bush are only the two sides of the same coin, in representing a relatively small groups interests. Lenin by the way, was heavily supported by the emerging American corporations, who instigated the Russian revolution.HakanAt 14:25 08/05/2006, you wrote:Hakan,"...so also the fight against an illusive communism.""Illusive" is a good word to describe it, although I prefer to call it non-existant?The confrontation was between the US and an expanding fascist empire in Russia. However, calling it "communist" is as deceptive as the so called "war on terror", "war on drugs" or "war on...", etc. Either way, I think we're on the same page and in my opinion, your observation is an important one."When the Stalinist bureaucracy arose beginning in the early 1920s, Trotsky, who had been the key organizer of the 1917 insurrection and who had led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War, became the champion of the fight against Stalin. Before his death in 1924, Lenin had begun to challenge the rising bureaucracy, which included a proposal (suppressed by the central committee after his death) to remove Stalin from his position as General Secretary of the party."http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/543/543_09_Intenationalism.shtmlMikeHakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:It goes deeper than short memory and only the Bush machine. Bush is only taking unfair advantages of a much large and loner term effort. For the Americans the WWII has not yet stopped, so also the fight against an illusive communism.It is a part of the general picture of keeping the Americans happy in their belive about heroism and the "good purposes", it is a part of empire building. It is not new, the Greeks and Romans understood this well, with the gladiator games. They keep us, the public, entertained and controllable. The motives and the gains are obscure with smoke screen of higher moral values.AH understood this and voiced many times an envy over the American skills. He built his propaganda apparatus with US as the model, he was especially impressed by the Hollywood part of it.Hakan[snip]___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Mike, Lenin had western support, from industrial interests, this is documented. I even read about Lenins return to Russia, which was arranged by western friends. Trotsky supported by competing western interest, yes. Stalin, I do not know enough and have not seen any records of that, he also had minimal western exposure, compared with the others. It is however records of that the industrialist expected that Russia would offer more opportunities after the revolution, which never materialized. They flirted heavily with Stalin. The major corporate players was the French, Germans and to much lesser extent US. As with Vietnam, the Americans tried to jump in when the French failed, they never learn. It was probably the backlash from the disappointment of the Russian revolution, that made the Germans to support and bring AH to power. AH was for a long time seen as the defender against communism and had support from the industrialists and royalists during the 1930's, when the west was afraid of communist revolutions. AH's invasion of Austria was both supported and welcomed by Austria and the west. It was not until the invasion of Poland that France and UK acted, with the mutual defense treaty with Poland as the reason. France by a lackluster attack on Germany, which led to WWII. AH was an Austrian as you know, not German, he was also a corporal in the royal army during WWI. I am convinced that there are many more revelations in the pipe line in the coming decades. The real history take at least 100 years to write, they say. By the way, it was similar naive expectations on that the Americans would be welcomed by the people on the streets, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. They never learn. Hakan At 16:51 08/05/2006, you wrote: Hakan, You said: What I mean is that it could easily replace both communism and capitalism, since it is and has always been a question of which elite group that take the power. I respectfully disagree. Re: Replacing Communism 1.) You can't replace what hasn't existed. If you mean Stalinism, then say it. 2.) Show me where Marx proposes elitism in the manifesto. Communism was A RESPONSE TO elitism and the imbalance of a class society. Re: Replacing Capitalism - Corporatism and capitalism must coexist. One represents the logical progression of the other and (IMO) can only be quantified since it's existence is a forgone conclusion. I don't even feel comfortable making a direct comparison between capitalism and any model of government since elements of it exists everywhere. Both capitalism and libertarianism exist in democracies as well as anarchist states (for example). They are elements of a larger scheme. If Lenin and the Bolsheviks were supported by corporations, it certainly wasn't welcome (unless of course they were willing to redistribute their wealth). Early in the revolution, Trotsky and the Mensheviks may have welcomed that kind of support (although I doubt it) until he joined Lenin and fought together on the same side. You need to back up your statement with some more information. To my knowledge, there were many events that led to the Russian revolution, like the February 1917 bread riot during a woman's day celebration. The counterinsurgency was fought by the Czar's White Army with troop support from the US. I know of no serious contribution to the Bolsheviks by US corporations. If anything, corporations may have assisted in putting down the revolution by supporting Stalin. Mike Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike, Since I think I introduced corporacracy (in greek, corporation power as opposite to democracy that is people power) on this list and think it describes well this phenomena. A logical definition of capitalism is today is better described as corporatism. What I mean is that it could easily replace both communism and capitalism, since it is and has always been a question of which elite group that take the power. Interesting that you brought in Stalin in this, maybe he and Bush are only the two sides of the same coin, in representing a relatively small groups interests. Lenin by the way, was heavily supported by the emerging American corporations, who instigated the Russian revolution. Hakan At 14:25 08/05/2006, you wrote: Hakan, ...so also the fight against an illusive communism. Illusive is a good word to describe it, although I prefer to call it non-existant? The confrontation was between the US and an expanding fascist empire in Russia. However, calling it communist is as deceptive as the so called war on terror, war on drugs or war on..., etc. Either way, I think we're on the same page and in my opinion, your observation is an important one. When the Stalinist bureaucracy arose beginning in the early 1920s, Trotsky, who had been the key organizer of the 1917 insurrection and who had led the Red Army to victory in the Civil War, became the champion of the fight against Stalin. Before his
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Hakan, You wrote: Lenin had western support, from industrial interests, this is documented. Documented? Where? Perhaps it's filed under L just before the Leuchter report. Lenin and Trotsky were influential in the creation of the first labor movement in the US (IWW) by virtue of one of it's most influential leaders, Eugene Debs - a Socialist. The first labor leaders followed Trotsky ideology. Why would industrialists support an organization which brought power to the masses. More importantly, why on Earth would leaders of that movement embrace those who want to take it away? You have no direct response to anything I've posted so far. You suggest that a corporacracy (as if one can differentiate between that and capitalism) will replace communism when a communist state has yet to emerge, giving you nothing to replace. I stated that Communism was a response to elitism and the imbalance of a class society. I even challenged you to show me where Marx proposes elitism in the Manifesto (a document which led to Lenin's vision of revolution in Russia). I mention US military support of the Czar's White Army and still, you feel that US industrialists oppose both their government and their own ideology by supporting the Bolsheviks. Despite all that, you just keep going without missing a beat. Mike R Hakan Falk wrote: Mike, Lenin had western support, from industrial interests, this is documented. I even read about Lenins return to Russia, which was arranged by western friends. Trotsky supported by competing western interest, yes. Stalin, I do not know enough and have not seen any records of that, he also had minimal western exposure, compared with the others. It is however records of that the industrialist expected that Russia would offer more opportunities after the revolution, which never materialized. They flirted heavily with Stalin. The major corporate players was the French, Germans and to much lesser extent US. As with Vietnam, the Americans tried to jump in when the French failed, they never learn. It was probably the backlash from the disappointment of the Russian revolution, that made the Germans to support and bring AH to power. AH was for a long time seen as the defender against communism and had support from the industrialists and royalists during the 1930's, when the west was afraid of communist revolutions. AH's invasion of Austria was both supported and welcomed by Austria and the west. It was not until the invasion of Poland that France and UK acted, with the mutual defense treaty with Poland as the reason. France by a lackluster attack on Germany, which led to WWII. AH was an Austrian as you know, not German, he was also a corporal in the royal army during WWI. I am convinced that there are many more revelations in the pipe line in the coming decades. The real history take at least 100 years to write, they say. By the way, it was similar naive expectations on that the Americans would be welcomed by the people on the streets, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. They never learn. Hakan At 16:51 08/05/2006, you wrote: Hakan, You said: What I mean is that it could easily replace both communism and capitalism, since it is and has always been a question of which elite group that take the power. I respectfully disagree. Re: Replacing Communism 1.) You can't replace what hasn't existed. If you mean Stalinism, then say it. 2.) Show me where Marx proposes elitism in the manifesto. Communism was A RESPONSE TO elitism and the imbalance of a class society. Re: Replacing Capitalism - Corporatism and capitalism must coexist. One represents the logical progression of the other and (IMO) can only be quantified since it's existence is a forgone conclusion. I don't even feel comfortable making a direct comparison between capitalism and any model of government since elements of it exists everywhere. Both capitalism and libertarianism exist in democracies as well as anarchist states (for example). They are elements of a larger scheme. If Lenin and the Bolsheviks were supported by corporations, it certainly wasn't welcome (unless of course they were willing to redistribute their wealth). Early in the revolution, Trotsky and the Mensheviks may have welcomed that kind of support (although I doubt it) until he joined Lenin and fought together on the same side. You need to back up your statement with some more information. To my knowledge, there were many events that led to the Russian revolution, like the February 1917 bread riot during a woman's day celebration. The counterinsurgency was fought by the Czar's White Army with troop support from the US. I know of no serious contribution to the Bolsheviks by US corporations. If anything, corporations may have assisted in putting down the revolution by supporting Stalin. Mike Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike, Since I think I
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Mike, I think that you misunderstood what I said, deliberately or not, and to start an ideological debate. What I wanted to point out, was the similarities in that both (or all three), was set up for a relatively small group to control the people. The US democracy of today, is also in reality govern by corporate interests in US. The only that will be interesting is how the two term rule going to be handled in US. Hakan At 21:06 08/05/2006, you wrote: Hakan, You wrote: Lenin had western support, from industrial interests, this is documented. Documented? Where? Perhaps it's filed under L just before the Leuchter report. Lenin and Trotsky were influential in the creation of the first labor movement in the US (IWW) by virtue of one of it's most influential leaders, Eugene Debs - a Socialist. The first labor leaders followed Trotsky ideology. Why would industrialists support an organization which brought power to the masses. More importantly, why on Earth would leaders of that movement embrace those who want to take it away? You have no direct response to anything I've posted so far. You suggest that a corporacracy (as if one can differentiate between that and capitalism) will replace communism when a communist state has yet to emerge, giving you nothing to replace. I stated that Communism was a response to elitism and the imbalance of a class society. I even challenged you to show me where Marx proposes elitism in the Manifesto (a document which led to Lenin's vision of revolution in Russia). I mention US military support of the Czar's White Army and still, you feel that US industrialists oppose both their government and their own ideology by supporting the Bolsheviks. Despite all that, you just keep going without missing a beat. Mike R Hakan Falk wrote: Mike, Lenin had western support, from industrial interests, this is documented. I even read about Lenins return to Russia, which was arranged by western friends. Trotsky supported by competing western interest, yes. Stalin, I do not know enough and have not seen any records of that, he also had minimal western exposure, compared with the others. It is however records of that the industrialist expected that Russia would offer more opportunities after the revolution, which never materialized. They flirted heavily with Stalin. The major corporate players was the French, Germans and to much lesser extent US. As with Vietnam, the Americans tried to jump in when the French failed, they never learn. It was probably the backlash from the disappointment of the Russian revolution, that made the Germans to support and bring AH to power. AH was for a long time seen as the defender against communism and had support from the industrialists and royalists during the 1930's, when the west was afraid of communist revolutions. AH's invasion of Austria was both supported and welcomed by Austria and the west. It was not until the invasion of Poland that France and UK acted, with the mutual defense treaty with Poland as the reason. France by a lackluster attack on Germany, which led to WWII. AH was an Austrian as you know, not German, he was also a corporal in the royal army during WWI. I am convinced that there are many more revelations in the pipe line in the coming decades. The real history take at least 100 years to write, they say. By the way, it was similar naive expectations on that the Americans would be welcomed by the people on the streets, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. They never learn. Hakan At 16:51 08/05/2006, you wrote: Hakan, You said: What I mean is that it could easily replace both communism and capitalism, since it is and has always been a question of which elite group that take the power. I respectfully disagree. Re: Replacing Communism 1.) You can't replace what hasn't existed. If you mean Stalinism, then say it. 2.) Show me where Marx proposes elitism in the manifesto. Communism was A RESPONSE TO elitism and the imbalance of a class society. Re: Replacing Capitalism - Corporatism and capitalism must coexist. One represents the logical progression of the other and (IMO) can only be quantified since it's existence is a forgone conclusion. I don't even feel comfortable making a direct comparison between capitalism and any model of government since elements of it exists everywhere. Both capitalism and libertarianism exist in democracies as well as anarchist states (for example). They are elements of a larger scheme. If Lenin and the Bolsheviks were supported by corporations, it certainly wasn't welcome (unless of course they were willing to redistribute their wealth). Early in the revolution, Trotsky and the Mensheviks may have welcomed that kind of support (although I doubt it) until he joined Lenin and fought together on the same side. You need to back up your statement with some more
Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
Hakan, By the way, it was similar naive expectations on that the Americans would be welcomed by the people on the streets, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. They never learn. No we don't. I can't tell you frustrating THAT is. BTW, Redler and I have agreed that he will argue with you on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and I will argue with you on Tuesday and Thursday, and alternate Sundays. On Saturday, any Mike is free to argue with you. The first weekend of each month is reserved for Redler and I to argue with each other, and any other Mike that cares to join in. On the last day of any month with 31 days, all Mikes will argue with you together. As tomorrow is Tuesday, I will be arguing with you after my treatments. Redler will then argue with you sometime after noon, when his meds kick in. I will NOT be arguing with you after six PM, as I am taking therapeutic Ambien, and cannot be trusted to write anything that makes sense. Finally, on my days I prefer to argue about Trotsky. Thank you. Mike Weaver Hakan Falk wrote: Mike, I think that you misunderstood what I said, deliberately or not, and to start an ideological debate. What I wanted to point out, was the similarities in that both (or all three), was set up for a relatively small group to control the people. The US democracy of today, is also in reality govern by corporate interests in US. The only that will be interesting is how the two term rule going to be handled in US. Hakan At 21:06 08/05/2006, you wrote: Hakan, You wrote: Lenin had western support, from industrial interests, this is documented. Documented? Where? Perhaps it's filed under L just before the Leuchter report. Lenin and Trotsky were influential in the creation of the first labor movement in the US (IWW) by virtue of one of it's most influential leaders, Eugene Debs - a Socialist. The first labor leaders followed Trotsky ideology. Why would industrialists support an organization which brought power to the masses. More importantly, why on Earth would leaders of that movement embrace those who want to take it away? You have no direct response to anything I've posted so far. You suggest that a corporacracy (as if one can differentiate between that and capitalism) will replace communism when a communist state has yet to emerge, giving you nothing to replace. I stated that Communism was a response to elitism and the imbalance of a class society. I even challenged you to show me where Marx proposes elitism in the Manifesto (a document which led to Lenin's vision of revolution in Russia). I mention US military support of the Czar's White Army and still, you feel that US industrialists oppose both their government and their own ideology by supporting the Bolsheviks. Despite all that, you just keep going without missing a beat. Mike R Hakan Falk wrote: Mike, Lenin had western support, from industrial interests, this is documented. I even read about Lenins return to Russia, which was arranged by western friends. Trotsky supported by competing western interest, yes. Stalin, I do not know enough and have not seen any records of that, he also had minimal western exposure, compared with the others. It is however records of that the industrialist expected that Russia would offer more opportunities after the revolution, which never materialized. They flirted heavily with Stalin. The major corporate players was the French, Germans and to much lesser extent US. As with Vietnam, the Americans tried to jump in when the French failed, they never learn. It was probably the backlash from the disappointment of the Russian revolution, that made the Germans to support and bring AH to power. AH was for a long time seen as the defender against communism and had support from the industrialists and royalists during the 1930's, when the west was afraid of communist revolutions. AH's invasion of Austria was both supported and welcomed by Austria and the west. It was not until the invasion of Poland that France and UK acted, with the mutual defense treaty with Poland as the reason. France by a lackluster attack on Germany, which led to WWII. AH was an Austrian as you know, not German, he was also a corporal in the royal army during WWI. I am convinced that there are many more revelations in the pipe line in the coming decades. The real history take at least 100 years to write, they say. By the way, it was similar naive expectations on that the Americans would be welcomed by the people on the streets, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. They never learn. Hakan At 16:51 08/05/2006, you wrote: Hakan, You said: What I mean is that it could easily replace both communism and capitalism, since it is and has always been a question of which elite group that take the power. I respectfully disagree. Re: Replacing Communism 1.) You can't replace what hasn't existed. If you mean Stalinism, then say it. 2.) Show me where Marx proposes
[Biofuel] Poll in favor of bombing Iran
I think this poll shows how the short term memory of Americans is totally lacking. Also it shows how effective the propaganda machine of BushCo is. In a word, terrorfying. Peace, D. Mindock P.S. We have met the enemy and he is us. Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons program are not working. A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. Here are the poll questions and results:1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons program are working?Working: 7 percentNot Working: 93 percent 2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program?Yes: 11 percentNo: 89 percent 3) Do you believe Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War?Yes: 88 percentNo: 12 percent 4) Should the U.S. undertake military action against Iran to stop their program?Yes: 77 percentNo: 23 percent 5) Who should undertake military action against Iran first?U.S.: 45 percentIsrael: 35 percentNeither: 20 percent ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
