I would urge everyone who is capable of thinking to visit the following link and watch the 10 minute video contained therein!

It might refresh your programmed mind, set it free for a few minutes!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36158.htm

Good to see the left wing finally coming around to Ron Paul's position. Only took them a few hundred thousand murders by their darling war criminal Barack "Nobel Peace Prize" Obama who seems more like George Bush III every day, doesn't he?

It's not that this is *not* about left and right. It's that the left wing keep confusing the right wing with two fundamentally different philosophies: the national socialist neo-cons, who are a species of socialist in believing in thorough-going government control of anything and everything; and the libertarians, whose views the leftists are agreeing with in deploring aggressive war.

However David G obviously doesn't understand *why* he favours the libertarian position on foreign policy.

David, after the second world war Fiat stopped making great engines of war and started making little motor scooters for Italians to dink their girlfriends around for coffee. Are you starting to get it now?

Governments using their monopoly coercive powers to tax their subject populations, and licensing monopolies to inflate the money supply in exchange for buying as much government debt as the government wants to issue, and using those funds in reliance on their monopoly war power, to make undeclared unconstitutional perpetual aggressive war against other States, by funding government's monopoly armed forces, and co-opting with stolen funds corporations who would otherwise be making peaceable products is not "capitalism" you fool. It's the opposite. It's monopolistic state aggression which all the economic arguments for liberty are aimed against; only the socialists keep not getting it.

By definition leftists are in favour of aggression by the biggest monopolyl corporation of all: the State. They love the idea that government's coercive powers are presumed to be used for some higher greater good; the idea that, when advocating policy, we never mention the fact it's based on violence; the idea that anyone who criticises the use of government aggression to serve their own values is merely spouting bourgeois "ideology". You are hoist with your own petard.

And so is John Pilger, whose views on foreign policy completely contradict his views on domestic policy. Abroad he sees clearly when the State is acting merely as a monopolist of aggression, sees through their pretended justifications, and rightly criticises unprovoked aggression to achieve alleged higher social goals. But domestically, all of a sudden that disappears, and he's in line with all the other leftists, urging the idea that the State's aggressive attacks against person and property form the necessary basis of the good and humane society! The idea that we create wealth by attacking and looting the wealth-producing people: the standard left-wing delusion; unchanged in principle since Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Who are you to criticise the State attacking people? All leftists are by definition in favour of it! It's the basis of their entire ideology, because if it wasn't, there'd be no question of trying to advance economic ends by "policy", it would be left to people's voluntary and property-based interactions, and it would be capitalism.

I love John Pilger's inverted worldview. His opinions make a lot of sense provided that you can accept certain fundamental opinions.

They are, that the USA is not a democracy it has been taken over by a military coup. And the USA started a war with peace loving Japan who only wanted to surrender in 1945 instead of committing national suicide. The USA is backing cruel despots in Egypt who want to destroy democracy, because the Muslim Brotherhood are all social democrats who only want to bring peace, prosperity, democracy and Human Rights to Egypt.

The USA wants Syria to become part of it's empire and it has allied itself with Al Qaida to do it. Defoliants who's toxic properties were never appreciated before 1970 are equated with nerve gas.

Gareth Evans is an evil man because he sucks up to Indonesia and conspires to steal the resources of poverty stricken East Timor who is currently the beneficiary of $500 million dolars a year in Aussie taxpayer aid.

This bloke lives with the fairies.

It is years since I read anything this con man wrote. Even back then I could see that his style was contrived to appeal to a limited number of people, but earn him a living.

Today I can see the real value of his writings.

He brings all the nut cases to the surface, making it easy for ASIO to identify them, & keep a check on their activities.

I still wonder if he actually believes any of the cr4p he writes, or has just found a good line of bull droppings, that keep him getting published, & more importantly, paid.

While I don't for a minute believe Pilger sides with anti-Western authoritarian governments whenever feasible - he is, of course, a truth teller...

The Russian proposal should be considered as it:

- may take years

- may involve 75,000 Boots on the Ground

- will provide Assad more time to prolong and end the war under his (not Pilger's) control...

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/if-it-happens-destroying-syrias-chemical-arms-will-be-massively-complex-undertaking/