(np) good article for today

Thu Sep 16 10:07:18 UTC 2021

Except for the US decision to leave.

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 11:52 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> Thanks for that. Really a remarkable look into the history of rural
> Afghanistan  mostly from the remarkably detailed memories of a poor woman.
> It explains in a personal way, with local  and family experiences  why the
> Taliban regained the support of so many rural Afghanis. The US role is
> nightmarish.
>
> > On Sep 15, 2021, at 11:53 AM, Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > For anyone who has a sub to the New Yorker or who hasn't used up their
> free articles, this artile says it all:
> >
> >
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the+other+afghan+woman+new+yorker&oq=the+other+afg&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0i131i433j0i131i433i512j0i512l2j69i64.5041j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> <
> https://www.google.com/search?q=the+other+afghan+woman+new+yorker&oq=the+other+afg&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0i131i433j0i131i433i512j0i512l2j69i64.5041j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:37 AM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net <mailto:
> brook7 at sover.net>> wrote:
> > I would say you missed not just the satire, which Schwarz engages in
> frequently and which is the essence of the disputed lines, but you missed
> or simply don't reckon with the substance of the article which was about
> the practical nature of what Wesley Clark called the policy coup of neocons
> at PNAC who wanted unbridled freedom to target those resisting US hegemony
> and even wrote that such freedom would likely require a traumatizing event.
> That this imperialist pride and general big dickism  is a major factor in
> these fascistic wars and  the  deep appeal to the patriotoc psyche  that
> these wars depended on despite their enormous failures to accomplish the
> stated goals of the neocons, is a premise Schwarz builds with practical
> historic reference to the breadth of the plans.  The final lines about
> Rumsfeld don’t need to persuade the reader in detail, or provide hacked
> notes form Rummy’s non-existant therapist,  the point is that these shits
> were crazy and that Rumsfeld personified their stupidity and personal
> ambition, we know they  easily seduced the Democrats  and the New York
> Times and spent trillions to accomplish exactly nothing but the massive
> loss of lives, civility, and hard earned money.
> >    Most of these article about 9-11 and the shameful end of the shameful
> occuption of Afghanistan are a disgusting attempt to justify the whole
> fiasco of US militarism by summoning our good intentions. We did it so
> little girls could go to school, not to ram a bayonet up Gaddafi’s ass or
> terrorize the world with drones. Sure.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 12, 2021, at 6:36 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com <mailto:
> mark.kohut at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Did I miss a satire here?. The Intercept-- of investigative reporting
> is
> > > all I know of them---did a sly Swiftian piece on
> > > Rummy?...where's the clue?.......
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 6:20 PM Michael Bailey <
> michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com <mailto:michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > >> From: Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com <mailto:
> michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>>
> > >> Date: Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 5:38 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: (np) good article for today
> > >> To: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com <mailto:mark.kohut at gmail.com>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> But the reason they wanted to cobble together an excuse to attack
> Iraq — is
> > >> that deep seated need for control and empery that the article’s
> premises
> > >> (go way over the top to) limn…
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps the author even knows he is hyperbolizing (which Pynchon never
> > >> does, of course) by the time he gets to Rumsfeld figuring that
> bombing Iraq
> > >> will get his daughter to break up with the white guy with dreadlocks?
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, Rumsfeld, great dude who had no trouble ramrodding approval for
> > >> NutraSweet thru FDA over vigorous objections of scientists, and then
> > >> accepting $12 million from Monsanto after they bought Searle. And I’m
> sure
> > >> he was a lot of help at the Pentagon…
> > >>
> > >> Not to speak ill of the dead. Requiescat in pace, Rummie, you go to
> the
> > >> Bardo Thodol with the karma you’ve got, not the karma you might want.
> > >> And nobody’s perfect. God bless and heaven help us all.
> > >>
> > >> But I think the Interceptor was right: the war on terror was itself
> mondo
> > >> scary, and reflects the personalities of its architects.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 4:53 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com
> <mailto:mark.kohut at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> What the Interceptor guy wrote is ridiculous; the way so many
> feelingful,
> > >>> idealistic progressives go into fantasyland, into
> > >>> being mirrors of Right Wing crazies. Conspiracy explanations beyond
> > >>> reality all the time.
> > >>>
> > >>> Knowing a little history--looking it up-- and refusing to be so
> stupid
> > >>> will lead one to understand that what Rumsfeld was talking about
> > >>> was bad enough just as it was: wanting to gather all the info he
> could to
> > >>> justify--lead to---the conclusion that the US had to attack Iraq
> > >>> now and take out Saddam Hussein.
> > >>>
> > >>> Rumsfeld had not the power to even be Ahab, if one wants to work that
> > >>> metaphor; he was Stubb if anyone. Bush would be Ahab if he hadn't
> > >>> let Cheney be him.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 4:04 AM Thomas Eckhardt <
> > >>> thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de <mailto:thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Rumsfeld as Ahab?
> > >>>>> The “it,” then, that Rumsfeld wanted to destroy on 9/11 was almost
> > >>>>> certainly every frustration he felt at the rest of humanity.
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l <
> https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l <
> https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l>
> > >>
> > > --
> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l <
> https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l <
> https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l>
>
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>