|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
BEN FRANKLIN ON THE CHICKEN HAWKS AND THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR. |
Current rating: 0 |
by Rosalinda
(No verified email address) |
12 Mar 2003
|
|
Benjamin Franklin compared the pause in the Peloponnesian Wars, before their flight-forward plunge into the Sicilian invasion (by Alcibiades), with the situation in London at the end of the "French and Indian Wars" of 1756-1763: "Athens had her orators. They did her sometimes a great deal of good, at other times a great deal of harm; the latter particularly when they prevailed in advising the Sicilian war, under the burthen and losses of which war that flourishing state sunk, and never again recovered itself. ...ā€¯ |
In April, 1767, Benjamin Franklin's "Reply to
Coffee-House Orators" was published in London, being his response
to the chatter in England about using force to teach the colonies a lesson.
Franklin saw the efforts of the new William Pitt government
to tax-farm the colonies as an imperial move; and he
compared the pause in the Peloponnesian Wars, before their
flight-forward plunge into the Sicilian invasion (by Alcibiades),
with the situation in London at the end of the "French and Indian
Wars" of 1756-1763:
"Athens had her orators. They did her sometimes a great deal
of good, at other times a great deal of harm; the latter
particularly when they prevailed in advising the Sicilian war,
under the burthen and losses of which war that flourishing state
sunk, and never again recovered itself. To the haranguers of the
populace among the ancients, succeed among the moderns -- your
writers of political pamphlets and news-papers, and your
coffee-house talkers.
"It is remarkable that soldiers by profession, men truly and
unquestionably brave, seldom advise war but in cases of extream
necessity. While mere rhetoricians, tongue-pads and scribes,
timid by nature, or from their little bodily exercise deficient
in those spirits that give real courage, are ever bawling for war
on the most trifling occasions, and seem the most blood-thirsty
of mankind....
"Every step is now taking to enrage us against America.
Pamphlets and news-papers flie about, and coffee-houses ring with
lying reports of its being in rebellion. Force is call'd for.
Fleets and troops should be sent.... The principal people should
be brought here and hang'd, &c.... "[W]hen the wolf is determined
on a quarrel with the lamb, up stream or down stream 'tis all
one; pretences are easily found or made, reason and justice are
out of the question." [Found in Spring, 2003 Fidelio, p. 57.]
COLIN POWELL AND NICIAS. For some experts on Greek history,
Colin Powell's situation today is very reminiscent
of that of the Athenian military commander Nicias,
who attempted, unsuccessfully, to stop the folly of the Greek invasion of Sicily.
The effects of Athens' decision, late in the Peloponnesian
War, to attack Syracuse (in Sicily) was what finally ruined the
power of Athens forever. Syracuse was the largest, and arguably
the strongest and wealthiest Greek city. Although its culture
was Dorian, like the Spartans, it was not engaged militarily, and
had no intention of attacking the Athenian Empire. But the
Athenians were deluded into thinking that they could seize the
riches of Syracuse.
In the debate in Athens, as recorded by Thucydides, the
experienced commander Nicias argued against the project.
Alcibiades, the brilliant but unscrupulous former student of
Socrates, argued for it. The last part of Nicias' argment, after
his other reasons were rejected, was to cite the enormous size of
the fleet and army which Athens would need for such a campaign.
Instead of rejecting the whole idea, as he had hoped they would,
the Athenians voted to provide the forces which he said would be
required, however vast. Nicias and Alcibiades were sent as commanders.
At first, Athens achieved some successes. Alcibiades was
called back home to answer charges of sacrilegious conduct, but
fled to exile in Sparta, leaving Nicias the sole commander.
A Spartan army came to reinforce the Syracusans. When the tide
turned against Athens, Nicias wrote home that the expedition must
either be recalled at once, or else massively reinforced.
Athens sent Demosthenes to Sicily with more troops, but in the end,
the entire expedition was lost, and every man killed either in battle
or in captivity, or else sold into slavery.
As I said, Athens' power never recovered.
|
Comments
|
RICHARD PERLE CAUGHT RUNNING A $100-MILLION SHEIK-DOWN |
by Rosalinda
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Mar 2003
|
As reported in the current (March 17, 2003)
issue of The New Yorker, in an expose by Seymour Hersh, Perle
met, in Marseille, France, on Jan. 3, 2003, with former
Iran-Contra figure Adnan Khashoggi and a second Iraqi-Saudi
businessman, and, according to Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar,
offered to call off of his and his fellow neo-con's Saudi-bashing
operations, in return for a $100-million payoff ``investment'' in
one of his companies, Trireme Partners L.P.
Of course, it was
Perle who brought the stark-raving loon, Laurent Murawiec, before
the Defense Policy Board, on July 10, 2002, to call for the U.S.
military occupation of the Saudi oil fields; and it was Perle,
again, who later got Murawiec his current job at the Washington
office of the Hudson Institute--working under Meyrav Wurmser.
The expose so unnerved the power-mad Perle, that he went
berserk, calling Hersh a terrorist, during a Sunday CNN interview
with Wolf Blitzer. Two weeks earlier, Perle had been similarly
unnerved when Meet the Press host Tim Russert confronted him on
his authorship of ``A Clean Break,'' the warplan that he, Doug
Feith, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser and others had written for
Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, calling for the invasion of the
Palestinian Authority territory and the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The recent spate of public exposes of the ``Clean Break,''
and this latest expose of Perle's $100-million extortion scheme,
are near to drawing blood.
In yet another serious blow to the neo-con war party gang,
the Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung (FAZ) published a major expose
on Tuesday, March 11, of the Wolfowitz cabal inside the Bush
Administration, directly nailing them as members of the
philosophical kindergarten of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom.
The FAZ piece was a promo for a 90-minute television documentary
on the same topic, which aired on Tuesday night on the German TV
station, Arte. This is the second time in less than a week that
the Leo Strauss role has been played up in the German media. Last
week, it was the Suddeutsche Zeitung that lambasted the neo-cons
and named Strauss as the godfather of the war party. By raising
the role of Leo Straussas the fascist existentialist guru of the current breed of war party killers--some factions in Germany have clearly signalled that they are out to draw blood, and stop this damned war. These exposes will strengthen the position of Chancellor Schroeder, and the overall Franco-German resistance to the war, which, must also develop into a key element in the renewed Eurasian Landbridge push.
In Germany, it is far more well-known than in the United
States, that Leo Strauss was the associate and admirer of the
official Nazi philosopher, Martin Heidegger, and the Nazi jurist
Karl Schmitt. It was Schmitt who personally arranged for Strauss
to leave Germany in 1934 on a Rockefeller Foundation grant--to go
to England and France to study the original writings of Thomas
Hobbes. From there, Strauss went to the New School, and then on
to the University of Chicago, where he trained several
generations of Neitzschean fascists, many of whom are now among
the leading neo-cons. Paul Wolfowitz, for example, was the
protege of the leading Straussian, Allan Bloom. When President
George H.W. Bush rejected Wolfowitz and Cheney's demand, in 1991,
to allow the U.S. forces to go on to Baghdad, Wolfowitz called
Bloom to vent his anger at a President who just was not
Neitzschean enough for his taste.
William Kristol, the son of Strauss cohort Irving Kristol,
who was also singled out in the FAZ story, was trained at Harvard
under another of Strauss' leading proteges; and Robert Kagan,
the Brussels-based war party propagandist, who recently wrote,
nonsensically, that the conflict between the U.S. and Europe is a
battle between Hobbes and Kant, is a second-generation
Straussian, whose father wrote a four volume commentary on
Thucydides' {The Peloponnesian War}, which was a typical
Straussian falsification of history (Strauss himself argued that
Socrates and Plato were, indeed, the fascist totalitarians,
described in the writings of I.F. Stone; but, while Stone
attacked them, Strauss embraced the fascist smear of the great
republican philosophers, as both true and commendable).
Two other events highlight
the past days' intensification of the battle:
On Monday, March 10, both the London Times and BusinessWeek
Online drew attention to a speech, given by former President
George H.W. Bush, at Tufts University on Feb. 26, in which he
urged his son not to go to war in anger, and warned against
actions that might irreparably damage America's relations with
longstanding allies abroad.
Second, we have reports from leading Democratic Party
figures, that in a recent speech, Mega Group house pet Joe
Lieberman has declared that: 1. Any Democrat seeking public
office in 2004 must NOT discuss the economy. The only issue to
campaign on is the U.S. strategic interests, and the need for
preventive war; and 2. To win election in 2004, and for the
Democratic Party to be ``relevant,'' it is vital to wipe out all
remnants of Franklin Roosevelt and the FDR tradition.
|
|
NEOCONS GO WILD OVER SPREAD OF CLEAN BREAK EXPOSE. |
by Rosalinda
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2003
|
The neo-con line is that anyone who questions Clean Break is
an ``anti-Semite.'' But most of Perle's defenders are on the same
neo-con foundations' payroll. Among the freakouts:
March 13: in the Moonie Washington Times, columnist Tony
Blankley lunges after NBC's Tim Russert for asking Perle about
Clean Break and the Israeli stake in Iraq war during a Feb. 23 interview.
``If such a respectable citadel of the establishment
as Russert's Meet the Press can air such a question, we could
expect worse....''
But Blankley is not an objective observer; he
was Newt Gingrich's chief of staff, when Gingrich was being
courted by IASPS, the think tank that wrote the Clean Break.
On March 12, the Moonie Times trotted out Shoshona Bryen, a director
of the Likud-linked JINSA group, that infiltrates military
networks, to screech about Rep. Jim Moran's (D-VA) attack on
American Jewish support for the Iraq war.
Also March 13: the ``liberal'' Washington Post, partially
owned by Sharon intimate Lally Weymouth (daughter of the late
Katy Graham), has a long character assassination of Moran, for
having called on ``leaders of the Jewish community [to]...change
the direction'' of the Iraq war policy that they are supporting.
Quoting all neo-con outets: the National Review, the New
Republic, and the Weekly Standard, Kurtz also freaks out about
Patrick Buchanan, who just launched a magazine called American
Conservative and wrote about Clean Break.
But, it is doubtful
that the freakouts will stop the exposes of the neo-cons -- every
day, more ``citadels of the establishment,'' including the London
Financial Times, and ABC's Nightline, are questioning the roots
of Bush's insane policy.
[source: House Appropriations Committee hearing, March 13]
POWELL COMPELLED TO DENY THAT PRO-ISRAEL `CABAL'
IS INFLUENCING ADMINISTRATION POLICY.
Secretary of State Colin Powell was invited
to depart from normal procedure
at an appropriations hearing today,
to respond to allegations about Israeli influence
on U.S. policy toward Iraq.
Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Az), raised the issue in his opening
statement, citing Robert Novak's column, the Washington Post
"Blaming the Jews" editorial, etc. He asked Powell to respond,
even before any other opening statements were made, or before
Powell delivered his prepared testimony.
"U.S. policy with respect to Iraq is not just something that
has been developed in the last month or so; one can go back many
years to the end of the Gulf War," Powell responded, outlining
one version of the history of the past 12 years of Iraq policy
(but without mentioning that Wolfowitz, Libby et al. elaborated
their policy of preventive war about 12 years ago).
Powell said
that "we have a comprehensive policy for the region, and strategy
with respect to Iraq has derived from our interest in the region
and our support of the U.N. resolutions over time."
"It is not driven by any small cabal that is buried away
somewhere, that is telling President Bush or me or Vice President
Cheney or Condi Rice or other members of our administration what
our policies should be...."
"So this is not just the result of a few individuals who are
running loose, as some suggest, but it's a comprehensive policy
developed over the years, over several administrations...."
|
|
A PANICKED RICHARD PERLE SUES TERRORIST JOURNALIST |
by Rosalinda
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Mar 2003
|
[PBS radio; www.daily.nysun.com, March 12]
A PANICKED RICHARD PERLE TOLD THE NEW YORK SUN, `I INTEND TO
LAUNCH LEGAL ACTION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. I'M TALKING TO QUEEN'S
COUNSEL RIGHT NOW,' about suing Seymour Hersh, whose expose of
Perle's business deals to cash in on the Sept. 11 attacks, has
raised questions of conflict of interest. Not only is
Perle suing Hersh in London, not the USA, but he refused to
appear on PBS radio's Diane Riehm Show, a talk show, with Hersh.
Among those defending Perle is the New York Sun, which is
owned by Perle's London patron, Lord Conrad Black of Hollinger Corp.
The Hollinger Corporation owns the Jerusalem Post, Perle is a Director.
The Sun interviewed none other than Stephen Bryen, Perle's
underling in the 1980's Pentagon, who had been, like Perle,
investigated for espionage on behalf of the Israelis.
Bryen, whose wife headed
the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)
during his Pentagon employment, said Perle `
`should get the Medal of Honor,'' for the work he's done on Iraq.
And, last-but-not-least, Laurent Murawiec, who delivered
a most explicit threat against the Saudis at Perle's behest,
added that Hersh's piece is ``pure bull.'' One must say the same
about Murawiec's rump-kissing in his remarks to the Sun, where he
claims that Perle's ``ethics have never been challenged by
anybody,'' in his 30 years of public life.
Perle's legendary egomania, combined with his cowardice --
evidenced by his going for a presumed easy victory in a London
libel court, instead of a US court, merely makes him the most
obvious choice as the fatal Achilles Heel of the whole Wolfowitz
Cabal, for the purges needed to break the march to war.
That Perle would run for protection,
from an open hearing before an American public
and in front of American courts, to seek relief
in front of the powdered wigs of English judges, borders on absurdity.
That Perle would run for protection,
from an open hearing before an American public
and in front of American courts, to seek relief
in front of the powdered wigs of English judges, borders on absurdity.
But what Perleā€™s really running from is his criminal behaviour
in luring the once-great United States into an Eurasian disaster
as at the same time, Perle is profiting from the 911 disaster
whilst sheiking-down wealthy Arabs for protection from
Paul Wolfawitz and Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department!
The removal of Richard Perle is the unavoidable key
to triggering a badly needed purge in Washington DC.
|
|
