ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, the G8 became the G7 again when they booted out Russia in 2014. And their meeting in Glenragles was in 2005.
We were saying that long before 2008. For instance, this from 1970:
What a surprise. Not. Another entry in the Black Book of the record of the Starmer Labour government:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2krlgekpxo.amp
UK military support for the Nutty Yahoo regime as part of course to maintain Western capitalist control of the Middle East oil resources and trade routes.
Review here in this month’s Socialist Standard:
A comrade in the US has dug out this;
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1992
Here is the Carter Doctrine:
“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
And here is the Qualitative Military Edge for Israel Doctrine:
“We are required by statute to guarantee that Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region. It’s not a discretionary question. It is a statutory requirement, and it is one that we are committed to. So there is also an important deterrent effect to the United States continuing to send a message to Israel’s adversaries that if they attack Israel, we will defend it.”
Taken together they explain US policy in the Middle East and Israel’s role in it. As can be seen, the US is just as much a “malign influence” in the area as Iran. But this sort of thing is par for the course under capitalism when a source of a key raw material and the trade routes to get it out are at stake.
It appears to be this:
The author of that article seems to have been quoting what Matthew Miller, a spokesperson for the US Department of State, said at a press conference on 19 September. The official account of the press conference has him saying:
“By the way, we are mandated – we are required by statute to guarantee that Congress has a – I’m sorry – that Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region. It’s not a discretionary question. It is a statutory requirement, and it is one that we are committed to. So there is also an important deterrent effect to the United States continuing to send a message to Israel’s adversaries that if they attack Israel, we will defend it. And that’s a message that we will continue to send loud and clear.”
See: https://www.state.gov/?post_type=state_briefing&%3Bp=92333
You’re right. It would be interesting to track down what particular law he was referring to.
As that article from the weekend i paper is behind a paywall, below is the key part. Together with the Carter Doctrine (that the US will go to war if any state in the region threatens its domination of the Middle East oilfields and the trade routes out), it explains US policy in the region –Israel is its guard dog there and they are committed to it being militaruily superior to any other state or combination of states in the area.
Anyway, here’s the key passage:
“Washington did oppose Israel’s nuclear weapons activities in the 1950s and 1960s. After the June 1967 war, however, a quid pro quo with Israel was established. In return for Israel maintaining a policy of nuclear weapons ambiguity, Washington would guarantee what was termed Israel’s “qualitative military edge”, or QME.
That is, Washington will ensure that as long as Israel keeps its “bombs in the basement” -undeclared, unacknowledged,
and unused – Washington will guarantee Israel the conventional weapons arsenal necessary to defeat any combination of regional enemies.
In the decades since, every change in US political or defence policy, eveiy diplomatic or military engagement with Israel, has featured a ritualistic reaffirmation of Washington’s commitment to maintain Israel’s QME.
The State Department recently reaffirmed that “the US is by statute mandated… to guarantee that… Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region. It’s not a discretionary question. It is a statutory requirement… There is also an important deterrent effect to the US continuing to send a message to Israel’s adversaries that if they attack Israel, we will defend it.”That’s why the US supports and arms Israel with the most up to date and dealiest “conventional” weapons. Without that support Israel would be nothing or rather just another small and weak state like Lebanon.
Manchester branch report the same kind of thing. The announced demonstration was cancelled as it clashed with an anti-Gaza war one. So our members distributed our leaflet there.
The more like this that comes out about the current leaders of the Labour Party the more it becomes clear that in opposition they were just exploiting people’s problems to further their own lust for power and pelf (I think that’s the right word).
At least one Labour MP has now come to see this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3vkdy997rko
Of course even if they were saints it wouldn’t make any difference; they would still have to apply the economic laws of capitalism and put profit-making first, though so early and so eagerly as the current crop of Labour bleeders.
The trouble is that, historically, when people realise that they have been hoodwinked by Labour they have tended to turn to the right not the left. So the main beneficiary is likely to be Farage — though, hopefully, some will turn to socialism.
Don’t tell TM but here’s something that will really scare him. The crazies currently in control of the Israeli killing machine also have the bomb.
According to this article, it is US policy to ensure that “Israel has a qualitative military edge over rivals in the region”. Obviously of course since otherwise it wouldn’t be much use as their proxy in the region.
There seems to be some sort of deal between the US and Israel that if Israel doesn’t use the bomb as a deterrent then the US will supply it with the most deadly non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction. This will also be why the US is so opposed to Iran developing nuclear weapons. But, capitalism being capitalism, the only logical response from Iran will be to itself acquire the bomb.
The stake of course is oil and the trade routes to get it out.
There was supposed to be a counter-demonstration at 12 noon in Trafalgar Square against a rumoured meeting of Tommy Robinson’s followers. But there was hardly anybody there at that time and two hours later there were a dozen far-rightists separated by a row of police from 50 or so counter-demonstrators shouting “no fascists here”.
Fortunately there was another march in central London — by demonstrators from all over the country calling for Britain to rejoin the EU — so they got leafletted instead. I am sure they all agreed with End Racism; a few might have agreed perhaps with ending capitalism at some distant point. Don’t know what they made of No Solution Without Revolution.
We weren’t the only leafletters. The trotskyoid Alliance for Workers Liberty were there. Also the Rejoin the EU Party.
Here’s the AWL’s report:
https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2024-09-28/rejoin-eu-polls-and-marches
That entry that Lenin wrote in 1914 for a Swiss Encyclopaedia that Lih refers to is quite good and does back up his view that up until 1917 Lenin was a more or less orthodox leftwing Social Democrat and one who did understand what Marx was on about. It can be found here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/index.htm
After 1917 of course he went off in a different direction, repudiating political democracy and defending a one-party dictatorship and so ceasing to be a Social Democrat.
Ironically, just like some other pre-war Social Democrats, in the end he found himself the prime minister in a government that could not bring about socialism and so had to accept capitalism and its economic laws, in his case to actually encourage the development of capitalism. Which is what the Bolshevik government did when had to adopt a New Economic Policy in 1921 which he himself described as “state capitalism” in the sense of the development of capitalism under the control of a “proletarian state” (ie a Leftwing government).
Everybody can now see that, under its present government led by Benjamin NuttyYahoo, Israel is a rogue state on the rampage even from the point of view of the capitalist world order. Established as a state to protect the members of a particular ethnic minority in and supposedly from the region, it now seeks to defend its existence through waging a ruthless war against its enemies — those displaced as a result of its establishment and extension and their supporters — regardless of how many ordinary members of the other inhabitants of the region it kills. Their lives don’t because they are not members of the same ethnic group.
Let this be a warning of where nationalism and its mindset leads — “my” nation uber alles. It is the opposite of everything socialists stand for: one world, one people.
There are three council by-elections in Ealing in West London on 10 October. Galloway’s party is contesting all three. Here is an interview with one of their candidates. Nothing about socialism (which of course is a good) or even about the workers, just a concern about child poverty and local businesses.
“This is connected with my other primary task which is to tackle child poverty — we have 40% child poverty in many areas of South Acton. This is a complete outrage in a modern, developed country, and a problem that the Council needs to address. Other than that, It’s the independent traders & small businesses that I want to empower and help prosper.”
This sort of thing seems to be typical of candidates of the so-called “Workers Party” — as of LibDem and even Tory candidates too.
