There is an enormous amount of disinformation on the "left" about events in Ukraine.  

I wrote a piece based on what I consider better information.  It is accessible at a number of places, but http://ukrainesolidaritycampaign.org/2015/08/03/maidan-and-after is one of the better ones.

I am also reading a very interesting book on the Ukrainian social formation and politics 

Ukraine and the Empire of Capital: From Marketisation to Armed Conflict by Yuliya Yurchenko

best
sam

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Sep 18, 2018 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: David Barouh's position on Trump

I assume that Phil and Mitchel agree that, contra David B., Hillary would have been far superior to Trump on most issues, except her claimed hawkishness. The Foreign Policy article Phil cites is actually somewhat nuanced, despite its title, as to how hawkish she is, despite mostly  cherry picking arbitrary anecdotes against her. It ignores for instance that she was the sponsor of Holbrooke’s desperate efforts to find a peaceful solution in Afghanistan. I don’t know what Mitchel means about Ukraine; Hillary was years out of office when the pro-Russia administration (backed by Manafort) was overthrown and Russia invaded. Was it really best to allow Assad with Russian help to kill incredible numbers of Syrians? Certainly Trump’s Middle East posture and his general saber-rattling are much worse than anything one could reliably have expected HC to countenance. 

I don’t agree that leftists have to be sloppy thinkers. 


Best,
Michael

On Sep 18, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Let's not leave out the Ukraine, here, and Honduras. (Maybe those are mentioned in the articles Phil cites.)

Mitchel

At 05:23 PM 9/18/2018, you wrote:
Clinton had a long record of backing the use of US military force:

What Hillary Clinton wants you to forget: Her disastrous record as a war hawk
https://www.salon.com/2015/09/10/what_hillary_clinton_wants_you_to_forget_her_disastrous_record_as_a_war_hawk/ 

Hillary the Hawk
https://socialistworker.org/2016/03/09/hillary-the-hawk

Hillary the Hawk: A History
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/ 

She was the key figure in the Obama administration pressing for US military involvement in Libya. She clearly relished her role ("We came, we saw, he died"), even though the results have been disastrous:

The Libya Gamble: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Push for War & the Making of a Failed State
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/3/the_libya_gamble_inside_hillary_clinton 

She was also a hawk on Syria, urging great US military intervention, which Obama initially vetoed:
 
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html 

I think it's perfectly fair to call her a "warmonger."

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:02 PM Michael Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi all, 

I agree with Claudia’s request to end the discussion just who is racist, but I feel David's remarks below should not go un-replied to. While he is quite willing to attempt some sort of seeming precision about who is racist, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, all pretense at objectivity seems to go out the window. I agree with most on this list that she was not the progressive we would have liked, but to claim she would have been almost as bad as Trump is ludicrous—” utterly unfounded by any clear facts. On the environment, on immigration, on international relations, on taxes, on regulation, on voting rights, on the courts, on education and on many other issues, she would clearly have been far superior to the awfulness www now have, and that was perfectly evident well before November. 

Calling HC  a war monger is a huge exaggeration even though she did make some choices we certainly or probably (especially in hindsight) wouldn’t have. As Secretary of State, she advocated in favor of the Arab Spring and in particular some involvement in Libya, which certainly did not work out well. But remember, at the time Khaddafi was killing numerous peaceful protesters against his regime. Exactly what would have happened if the US as well as Western European countries had not intervened is hard to know. The idea that terrible regimes should best be left alone to carry out whatever crimes against their own citizens they want rather calling for some sort of intervention is quite imperfect as far as I can see. Our responsibility for others  simply does not stop at our national borders, no  matter how bad the US’s earlier record now looks.  Obviously we need enhanced, not diminished, international organizations, even with their  continuing imperfections. HC understood that, and I believe as President would have acted on it as best she could.  As far as I could see,  Jill Stein understood very little, and in some states voting for her helped  Trump win. I find that hard to forgive.


Best,

Michael

On Sep 16, 2018, at 7:32 AM, David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

To answer Kamran's last question, yes indeed I oppose Trump for his regressive environmental, economic, social, and international (i.e. war) policies—and, for good measure, his offensive personality. I doubt that Hillary Clinton would have been all that much better. Marginally better perhaps on the first three, and on the fourth, who knows? we might have already been at war with Russia stemming from an air confrontation over Syria's would've been No Fly Zone...just speculating. The Repugnant Republicans may be the open fascists, but the Dimwit Democrats are their willing collaborators, and their performance at the polls have increasingly reflected that over the years. I voted for Jill Stein and the Greens.