Comments on: Two Articles on Georgia Crisis Well Worth Reading

By: Brad Smith

Brad Smith — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:31:35 +0000

What amazes me is how we have these so called free trade agreements that are hundreds of pages long. How long does it need to be if it’s actually free trade? I would think it would take about one paragraph. For example.

We (the US) agree to full and complete trade with any nation on earth at any time without procondition. We furthermore agree that we will always charge all nations the exact same tarrif without procondition.

Now that would be free trade, treating every nation on earth with the same respect and laws regardless of what we feel about their politics or religions etc. Not only would this be great for our economy but also our standing in the world community. It very well may be that we could actually amend our constitution for just such a provision. but like anything else the US public would first need to be educated as to why this is the best possible solution.

Peace!

By: liberranter

liberranter — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:36:10 +0000

Their love for themselves makes it strictly a matter of war fought and suffered by those others moronic and fearful enough to do their bidding.

Or perhaps more accurately, those weak and pliable enough to be FORCED to do their bidding.

By: little guy

little guy — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:14:41 +0000

Good article Elizabeth, thank you. ;)

But this begs the question: if they’re willing to do this what else are they willing to do?! Indeed, what else have they done?!

By: Vassili

Vassili — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:06:57 +0000

The problem with “actual free markets” is that no one can explain what are the forces that would prevent “free markets” turning into “non-free markets”. Those that have power to keep markets free may apply that power to enslave them. The only way to ensure that markets are free indeed is to have global competition between superpowers. Then IF “free market” is more efficient, it would prevail.

By: Vaughn Treude

Vaughn Treude — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:40:42 +0000

I beg to differ. I do not see an anti-religious bias in antiwar.com.
In fact, its sister site, lewrockwell.com, is quite openly pro-religious.
I see this as a good thing, despite the fact that I am a secularist, because liberty depends on people of all faiths making a commitment to live together in peace and tolerance.
I’m also glad to see that you have a different interpretation of the Bible’s prophetic books than the bloodthirsty Christian right warmongers. Still, it proves my point that prophecy of any sort is meaningless, because people can always interpret it to mean what they want it to mean, It’s like believers in astrology rationalizing their daily horoscope fix.

Vaughn T

By: Vassili

Vassili — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:14:17 +0000

What about snow-white Russians standing in the way?

By: Brad Smith

Brad Smith — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:46:55 +0000

Rowan Berkeley are you writting about liberals, libertarians, both or some strange new highbred (there are quite a few of those around)? It’s pretty hard to get a hold of what your trying to say. I think your saying that liberals, libertarians, and anyone who believes in free markets or non-intervention is mindless. Is that correct? Well I guess it doesn’t matter what label you choose to place on me (I guess you can just call me Mindless). I believe that actual free markets and non-intervention policies would go a long way toward a cure for what ails the US. I’m not saying that’s going to happen. There are simply too many people in power who love the statis quo of endless wars and endless taxes to pay for their mindless interventions and mindless liberal handouts. However, there is always the chance that the mindless sheeple of the US will wake up. I hope so anyway, in fact I think that’s the only Hope we have. Of course me and my mindless head could be wrong and we should just stick with the status quo and hope that somehow things will magically change on their own.

Peace!

By: Ali

Ali — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:32:08 +0000

“especially where brown people get uppity in any way.”

Good that you have clarified your view already, little “master” Rowan.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:01:34 +0000

All this comment and critique is just pissing in the wind, namely, the mindless liberal or libertarian belief that the solution to the world’s problems is ‘free markets’ within which good little freedom loving americans can once again assume their rightful place as the ‘free world’’s beloved heroes. This at least appears to be the Buchananite thesis, though I dare say that intervention would continue to occur, especially where brown people get uppity in any way.

By: the legendary Bill

the legendary Bill — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:15:49 +0000

Still, if the Taliban had accepted UNOCAL’s offer to partner in the natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan then Bush probably would have accepted their offer immediately after 9-11…( the Taliban denounced the attacks on innocent civilians and told the US govt to show them whatever proof they had and they would help apprehend OBL ) and they would be our partners in the BS “GWOT”…

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:49:11 +0000

You put your finger on the essential contradiction–they are in love with the idea of perpetual war, but strictly theoretically. Their love for themselves makes it strictly a matter of war fought and suffered by those others moronic and fearful enough to do their bidding.

By: Eugene Costa

Eugene Costa — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:44:39 +0000

“…but our great-great grandfathers lived, as we do, in a world dominated by British/US Empire”

Your translation is exact.

One might argue about the historical reality of what the original tries to aver.
It was indeed very few great-great grandfathers that lived in that world.

Most Americans are too little acquainted with how intensely the Neo-Cons operate within the framework and imagery of the now defunct “Anglo-American Empire”, the cadaver of which they move about from coffin to bar, and now and then even do a jig with, like the stiff at an olden day Irish wake.

Lavrov put the matter succinctly–the fate of NATO hinges on the “war” in Afghanistan, which has been going on, hot and cold, and in one form or another and with various parties, since the late 1950’s.

The fate of NATO in turn is the the fate of the corpse of “Anglo-American” imperialism.

The stench, which gets worse every year, suggests burial or cremation will be none too soon, with or without the company of some of corpse’s drunken and lunatic dance partners.

The Poles just made a serious blunder, as did Sarkozy.

It will be interesting to see if Karzai is too much a prisoner not to begin a dialogue of sorts with the Russian Federation.