Mohsen Abdelmoumen: You participated in the march on the Pentagon in October 1967 against the Vietnam War. What do these historic moments represent for you?
Carolyn L. Karcher: The Vietnam War and the mass movement against it transformed my consciousness and changed my life. Although I grew up in Japan and did not come to the US until entering Stanford University in 1962, I attended an American school in Japan that gave me the standard indoctrination. I believed the US was a beacon of democracy with the mission of imparting its benefits to other countries and saving them from oppressive governments. The Vietnam War shattered this belief. The October 1967 march on the Pentagon was the third demonstration against the war in which I participated, but it was the one that marked the beginning of my political re-education. During the night I spent at the Pentagon, I saw soldiers with gas masks and fixed bayonets knocking peacefully seated demonstrators on the head with their rifle butts and kicking them with their heavy boots, while the march’s leaders reiterated instructions for us to remain passive and not resist. What got me through that terrifying experience was the conviction that the press would inform the American public of how US soldiers had treated citizens exercising their constitutional rights, and that the incident would lead to an inquiry and redress. Instead, the next day’s headlines in the Washington Post read: “Troops use restraint against violent crowd.” It would take years before the US press finally started to report the truth about the war and to portray anti-war protesters more sympathetically. I would never again read the mainstream press uncritically.Lire la suite »
Dear Madam the UN,
You have been talking a lot about my country, Algeria, for some time now, and I must confess to you that if your opinions have never convinced me, as I know you are so far removed from any notion of justice and equity, I want react when my homeland is affected. And this is what you do with your legendary subjectivity, obeying a purely imperialist and neo-colonialist agenda that aims at nothing more and nothing less than the dismantling of my country. This is how the gesticulations of your « experts » who claim to be « alarmed » by a so-called « oppression » in Algeria prompted me to take up the pen to write you this missive. As usual, when you point your sights at a country, you bring out the great game of « human rights », « democracy » and « freedom of speech », and you allow yourself to give lessons. It’s the same method you’ve been using for ages and, of course, you don’t change a winning team, don’t you? How many countries haven’t they tasted your deadly poison? Your hands are filled with the blood of the peoples massacred by your imperialist masters and whom you have endorsed.Lire la suite »
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: In your book « Coaching & conflicts« , you talk about the concept of hybrid warfare. Can you explain this concept of hybrid warfare to our readership?
Dr. Leonid Savin: The first known use of the term « hybrid warfare » dated back to 1998 in paper of Robert Walker titled « Spec Fi: the United States Marine Corps and Special Operations » where author labeled hybrid war in such manner: ”’Hybrid warfare’ is that which lies in the interstices between special and conventional warfare. This type of warfare possesses characteristics of both the special and conventional realms, and requires an extreme amount of flexibility in order to transition operationally and tactically between the special and conventional arenas”.Lire la suite »
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: In your very interesting book « Le printemps arabe : une manipulation?” (The Arab Spring: A Manipulation?), you mention both the role of the U.S. administration and Qatar in the uprising. This book is one of the few to address the issue of the Arab Spring. Don’t you think that we are experiencing the consequences of the Arab Spring at the moment with the instability in Libya and Iraq, and the war in Syria and Yemen, and so on?
Dr. Naoufel Brahimi El Mili: The title of my book that was rejected by the publisher was: « No Spring for the Arabs ». As much as the case of Tunisia was a scenario of a spontaneous revolt, as much as the case of Libya was a planned war against Gaddafi. As always, the West does not know how to ensure an « after-sales service » of its untimely interventions in the Arab world, either directly or by putting countries like Qatar in a situation of subcontracting. Since the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have established themselves as exclusive subcontractors of Western interests. They all agree to exaggerate the Iranian threat in order to give centrality to the oil monarchies. Everyone seems to forget that the Iranians, since Alexander the Great, have not won any wars but they have won all negotiations.Lire la suite »
Dr. H. Bruce Franklin: “Ever since World War II, the U.S. has assumed more and more of the hallmarks of a fascist state”
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your book « Crash course: From the Good War to the Forever War » is an essential book for anyone who is interested in U.S. history. The U.S. has waged imperialist wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. In your opinion, why the United States needs to go to war? Behind all these wars, one evokes the weight of the military-industrial complex in the United States. What is its influence in political decision-making?
Dr. H. Bruce Franklin: The U.S. has indeed been waging imperialist war after war ever since the end of World War II. None of these wars has been necessary. As I document in Crash Course, Washington unilaterally divided the nation of Korea into two nations three days before Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945, thus making the Korean War inevitable, and eight days later Washington agreed to full partnership in the French war to recolonize Vietnam. The enormous productive power of American industry had to go somewhere after satisfying consumer needs unmet during the war. Instead of becoming our monstrous military-industrial complex, it could have eliminated poverty, created a near utopia for health care, education, the environment, culture, and ample leisure for everyone. But the class running the society thought that this would be socialism and the end of capitalism.Lire la suite »
Dr. Tony Kashani:“The US is now the richest democracy with the highest level of inequality. The oligarchs run the show”.
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: How do you explain the catastrophic management of the Covid-19 crisis by the Trump administration? Can we talk about the failure of the system?
Dr. Tony Kashani: Indeed, Trump administration’s handling of the Coronavirus Covid-19 Pandemic crisis has been a colossal failure. There is no central leadership and national standard in place. In other countries the scientists are in charge of setting standards and leading the way toward managing the crisis. But here we have the confused VP, Mike Pence going around and simply echoing “progress and good news” preached by Trump. The numbers do not lie, 175 000 lives lost and counting. His lack of compassion for human lives, especially the black and brown Americans and his solipsism combined with a team of incompetent sycophants have created a massive void of leadership at the federal level.Lire la suite »
Dr. Jacques Pauwels: “To further its profit-maximizing purposes, capitalism is willing to use the “carrot” of democracy as well as the “stick” of fascism”
Dr. Jacques Pauwels. DR.
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: In your book « Big Business and Hitler », you talk about the collaboration of the world’s economic, industrial and financial elite with Hitler. Was Hitler a pure product, an instrument, of the capitalist system?
Dr. Jacques Pauwels: Hitler’s so-called “National Socialism,” in reality not a form of socialism at all, was the German variety of fascism, and fascism was a manifestation of capitalism, the brutal, nasty way in which capitalism manifested itself in the interwar period in response to the threat of revolutionary change, embodied by communism, and the economic crisis of the Great Depression. To the extent that Hitler personified the German variety of fascism, he may indeed be called an “instrument” of capitalism; however, as I mention in my book, the term “instrument” is really too simplistic. Lire la suite »