Thursday, February 28, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Illusory State of the Empire
| THE ROVING
EYE The illusory state of the Empire By Pepe Escobar Barack Obama would never be so crass as to use a State of the Union (SOTU) address to announce an "axis of evil". No. Double O Bama, equipped with his exclusive license to kill (list), is way slicker. As much as he self-confidently pitched a blueprint for a "smart" - not bigger - US government, he kept his foreign policy cards very close to his chest. Few eyebrows were raised on the promise that "by the end of next year our war in Afghanistan will be over"; it won't be, of course, because Washington will fight to the finish to keep sizeable counterinsurgency boots on the ground - ostensibly to fight, in Obama's words, those evil "remnants of al-Qaeda". Obama promised to "help" Libya, Yemen and Somalia, not to mention Mali. He promised to "engage" Russia. He promised to seduce Asia with the Trans-Pacific Partnership - essentially a collection of corporate-friendly free-trade agreements. On the Middle East, he promised to "stand" with those who want freedom; that presumably does not include people from Bahrain. As this was Capitol Hill, he could not help but include the token "preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons"; putting more "pressure" on Syria - whose "regime kills its own people"; and to remain "steadfast" with Israel. North Korea was mentioned. Always knowing what to expect from the horse's mouth, the foreign ministry in Pyongyang even issued a preemptive attack, stressing that this week's nuclear test was just a "first response" to US threats; "second and third measures of greater intensity" would be unleashed if Washington continued to be hostile. Obama didn't even bother to answer criticism of his shadow wars, the Drone Empire and the legal justification for unleashing target practice on US citizens; he mentioned, in passing, that all these operations would be conducted in a "transparent" way. Is that all there is? Oh no, there's way more. Double O's game Since 9/11, Washington's strategy during the George W Bush years - penned by the neo-cons - read like a modified return to land war. But then, after the Iraq quagmire, came a late strategic adjustment, which could be defined as the Petraeus vs Rumsfeld match. The Petraeus "victory" myth, based on his Mesopotamian surge, in fact provided Obama with an opening for leaving Iraq with the illusion of a relative success (a myth comprehensively bought and sold by US corporate media). Then came the Lisbon summit in late 2010, which was set up to turn the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into a clone of the UN Security Council in a purely Western format, capable of deploying autonomous military interventions - preemption included - all over the world. This was nothing less than classic Bush-Obama continuum. NATO's Lisbon summit seemed to have enthroned a Neoliberal Paradise vision of the complex relations between war and the economy; between the military and police operations; and between perennial military hardware upgrading and the political design of preemptive global intervention. Everything, once again, under Obama's supervision. The war in Afghanistan, for its part, was quite useful to promote NATO as much as NATO was useful to promote the war in Afghanistan - even if NATO did not succeed in becoming the Security Council of the global American Empire, always bent on dominating, or circumventing, the UN. Whatever mission NATO is involved in, command and control is always Washington's. Only the Pentagon is able to come up with the logistics for a transcontinental, global military operation. Libya 2011 is another prime example. At the start, the French and the Brits were coordinating with the Americans. But then Stuttgart-based AFRICOM took over the command and control of Libyan skies. Everything NATO did afterwards in Libya, the virtual commander in chief was Barack Obama. So Obama owns Libya. As much as Obama owns the Benghazi blowback in Libya. Libya seemed to announce the arrival of NATO as a coalition assembly line on a global scale, capable of organizing wars all across the world by creating the appearance of a political and military consensus, unified by an all-American doctrine of global order pompously titled "NATO's strategic concept". Libya may have been "won" by the NATO-AFRICOM combo. But then came the Syria red line, duly imposed by Russia and China. And in Mali - which is blowback from Libya - NATO is not even part of the picture; the French may believe they will secure all the gold and uranium they need in the Sahel - but it's AFRICOM who stands to benefit in the long term, boosting its military surge against Chinese interests in Africa. What is certain is that throughout this convoluted process Obama has been totally embedded in the logic of what sterling French geopolitical analyst Alain Joxe described as "war neoliberalism", inherited from the Bush years; one may see it as a champagne definition of the Pentagon's long, or infinite, war. Double O's legacy Obama's legacy may be in the process of being forged. We might call it Shadow War Forever - coupled with the noxious permanence of Guantanamo. The Pentagon for its part will never abandon its "full spectrum" dream of military hegemony, ideally controlling the future of the world in all those shades of grey zones between Russia and China, the lands of Islam and India, and Africa and Asia. Were lessons learned? Of course not. Double O Bama may have hardly read Nick Turse's exceptional book Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam, where he painstakingly documents how the Pentagon produced "a veritable system of suffering". Similar analysis of the long war on Iraq might only be published by 2040. Obama can afford to be self-confident because the Drone Empire is safe. [1] Most Americans seem to absent-mindedly endorse it - as long as "the terrorists" are alien, not US citizens. And in the minor netherworlds of the global war on terror (GWOT), myriad profiteers gleefully dwell. A former Navy SEAL and a former Green Beret have published a book this week, Benghazi: the Definitive Report, where they actually admit Benghazi was blowback for the shadow war conducted by John Brennan, later rewarded by Obama as the new head of the CIA. The book claims that Petraeus was done in by an internal CIA coup, with senior officers forcing the FBI to launch an investigation of his affair with foxy biographer Paula Broadwell. The motive: these CIA insiders were furious because Petraeus turned the agency into a paramilitary force. Yet that's exactly what Brennan will keep on doing: Drone Empire, shadow wars, kill list, it's all there. Petraeus-Brennan is also classic continuum. Then there's Esquire milking for all it's worth the story of an anonymous former SEAL Team 6 member, the man who shot Geronimo, aka Osama bin Laden. [2] This is familiar territory, the hagiography of a Great American Killer, whose "three shots changed history", now abandoned by a couldn't-care-less government machinery but certainly not by those who can get profitable kicks from his saga way beyond the technically proficient torture-enabling flick - and Oscar contender - Zero Dark Thirty. Meanwhile, this is what's happening in the real world. China has surpassed the US and is now the biggest trading nation in the world - and counting. [3] This is just the first step towards the establishment of the yuan as a globally traded currency; then will come the yuan as the new global reserve currency, connected to the end of the primacy of the petrodollar... Well, we all know the drill. So that would lead us to reflect on the real political role of the US in the Obama era. Defeated (by Iraqi nationalism) - and in retreat - in Iraq. Defeated (by Pashtun nationalism) - and in retreat - in Afghanistan. Forever cozy with the medieval House of Saud - "secret" drone bases included (something that was widely known as early as July 2011). [4] "Pivoting" to the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, and pivoting to a whole bunch of African latitudes; all that to try to "contain" China. Thus the question Obama would never dare to ask in a SOTU address (much less in a SOTE - State of the Empire - address). Does the US remain a global imperial power? Or are the Pentagon's - and the shadow CIA's - armies nothing more than mercenaries of a global neoliberal system the US still entertains the illusion of controlling? Notes: 1. Poll: 45% approve of Obama's handling of the economy, CBS News, February 12, 2013. 2. The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden... Is Screwed, Esquire, February 11, 2013. 3. China Eclipses U.S. as Biggest Trading Nation, Bloomberg News, February 10, 2013. 4. Secret drone bases mark latest shift in US attacks on al-Qaeda, The Times, July 26, 2011. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com. (Copyright 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) |
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
Chomsky: Washington's Dilemma
| Washington's dilemma on a 'lost'
planet By Noam Chomsky [This piece is adapted from "Uprisings," a chapter in Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to US Empire, Noam Chomsky's new interview book with David Barsamian (with thanks to the publisher, Metropolitan Books). The questions are Barsamian's, the answers Chomsky's.] David Barsamian: Does the United States still have the same level of control over the energy resources of the Middle East as it once had? Noam Chomsky: The major energy-producing countries are still firmly under the control of the Western-backed dictatorships. So, actually, the progress made by the Arab Spring is limited, but it's not insignificant. The Western-controlled dictatorial system is eroding. In fact, it's been eroding for some time. So, for example, if you go back 50 years, the energy resources - the main concern of US planners - have been mostly nationalized. There are constantly attempts to reverse that, but they have not succeeded. Take the US invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it's maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You're not supposed to say this. It's considered a conspiracy theory. The United States was seriously defeated in Iraq by Iraqi nationalism - mostly by nonviolent resistance. The United States could kill the insurgents, but they couldn't deal with half a million people demonstrating in the streets. Step by step, Iraq was able to dismantle the controls put in place by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it was becoming pretty clear that it was going to be very hard to reach US goals. And at that point, interestingly, those goals were explicitly stated. So in November 2007, the George W Bush administration came out with an official declaration about what any future arrangement with Iraq would have to be. It had two major requirements: one, that the United States must be free to carry out combat operations from its military bases, which it will retain; and two, "encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments". In January 2008, Bush made this clear in one of his signing statements. A couple of months later, in the face of Iraqi resistance, the United States had to give that up. Control of Iraq is now disappearing before their eyes. Iraq was an attempt to reinstitute by force something like the old system of control, but it was beaten back. In general, I think, US policies remain constant, going back to the Second World War. But the capacity to implement them is declining. DB: Declining because of economic weakness? NC: Partly because the world is just becoming more diverse. It has more diverse power centers. At the end of the Second World War, the United States was absolutely at the peak of its power. It had half the world's wealth and every one of its competitors was seriously damaged or destroyed. It had a position of unimaginable security and developed plans to essentially run the world - not unrealistically at the time. DB: This was called "Grand Area" planning? NC: Yes. Right after the Second World War, George Kennan, head of the US State Department policy planning staff, and others sketched out the details, and then they were implemented. What's happening now in the Middle East and North Africa, to an extent, and in South America substantially goes all the way back to the late 1940s. The first major successful resistance to US hegemony was in 1949. That's when an event took place, which, interestingly, is called "the loss of China". It's a very interesting phrase, never challenged. There was a lot of discussion about who is responsible for the loss of China. It became a huge domestic issue. But it's a very interesting phrase. You can only lose something if you own it. It was just taken for granted: we possess China - and if they move toward independence, we've lost China. Later came concerns about "the loss of Latin America", "the loss of the Middle East", "the loss of" certain countries, all based on the premise that we own the world and anything that weakens our control is a loss to us and we wonder how to recover it. Today, if you read, say, foreign policy journals or, in a farcical form, listen to the Republican debates, they're asking, "How do we prevent further losses?" On the other hand, the capacity to preserve control has sharply declined. By 1970, the world was already what was called tripolar economically, with a US-based North American industrial center, a German-based European center, roughly comparable in size, and a Japan-based East Asian center, which was then the most dynamic growth region in the world. Since then, the global economic order has become much more diverse. So it's harder to carry out our policies, but the underlying principles have not changed much. Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure "uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources". That goes beyond anything that George W Bush said. But it was quiet and it wasn't arrogant and abrasive, so it didn't cause much of an uproar. The belief in that entitlement continues right to the present. It's also part of the intellectual culture. Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he's a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It's a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn't throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they're "amazingly naive", silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that "one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by Western powers". Of course, he didn't mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I'm happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to. I merely mention that to illustrate that in the intellectual culture, even at what's called the left liberal end of the political spectrum, the core principles haven't changed very much. But the capacity to implement them has been sharply reduced. That's why you get all this talk about American decline. Take a look at the year-end issue of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal. Its big front-page cover asks, in bold face, "Is America Over?" It's a standard complaint of those who believe they should have everything. If you believe you should have everything and anything gets away from you, it's a tragedy, the world is collapsing. So is America over? A long time ago we "lost" China, we've lost Southeast Asia, we've lost South America. Maybe we'll lose the Middle East and North African countries. Is America over? It's a kind of paranoia, but it's the paranoia of the superrich and the superpowerful. If you don't have everything, it's a disaster. DB: The New York Times describes the "defining policy quandary of the Arab Spring: how to square contradictory American impulses that include support for democratic change, a desire for stability, and wariness of Islamists who have become a potent political force". The Times identifies three US goals. What do you make of them? NC: Two of them are accurate. The United States is in favor of stability. But you have to remember what stability means. Stability means conformity to US orders. So, for example, one of the charges against Iran, the big foreign policy threat, is that it is destabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. How? By trying to expand its influence into neighboring countries. On the other hand, we "stabilize" countries when we invade them and destroy them. I've occasionally quoted one of my favorite illustrations of this, which is from a well-known, very good liberal foreign policy analyst, James Chace, a former editor of Foreign Affairs. Writing about the overthrow of the Salvador Allende regime and the imposition of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in 1973, he said that we had to "destabilize" Chile in the interests of "stability". That's not perceived to be a contradiction - and it isn't. We had to destroy the parliamentary system in order to gain stability, meaning that they do what we say. So yes, we are in favor of stability in this technical sense. Concern about political Islam is just like concern about any independent development. Anything that's independent you have to have concern about because it might undermine you. In fact, it's a little ironic, because traditionally the United States and Britain have by and large strongly supported radical Islamic fundamentalism, not political Islam, as a force to block secular nationalism, the real concern. So, for example, Saudi Arabia is the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world, a radical Islamic state. It has a missionary zeal, is spreading radical Islam to Pakistan, funding terror. But it's the bastion of US and British policy. They've consistently supported it against the threat of secular nationalism from Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt and Abd al-Karim Qasim's Iraq, among many others. But they don't like political Islam because it might become independent. The first of the three points, our yearning for democracy, that's about on the level of Joseph Stalin talking about the Russian commitment to freedom, democracy, and liberty for the world. It's the kind of statement you laugh about when you hear it from commissars or Iranian clerics, but you nod politely and maybe even with awe when you hear it from their Western counterparts. If you look at the record, the yearning for democracy is a bad joke. That's even recognized by leading scholars, though they don't put it this way. One of the major scholars on so-called democracy promotion is Thomas Carothers, who is pretty conservative and highly regarded - a neo-Reaganite, not a flaming liberal. He worked in Reagan's State Department and has several books reviewing the course of democracy promotion, which he takes very seriously. He says, yes, this is a deep-seated American ideal, but it has a funny history. The history is that every US administration is "schizophrenic". They support democracy only if it conforms to certain strategic and economic interests. He describes this as a strange pathology, as if the United States needed psychiatric treatment or something. Of course, there's another interpretation, but one that can't come to mind if you're a well-educated, properly behaved intellectual. Within several months of the toppling of [President Hosni] Mubarak in Egypt, he was in the dock facing criminal charges and prosecution. It's inconceivable that US leaders will ever be held to account for their crimes in Iraq or beyond. Is that going to change anytime soon? That's basically the Yglesias principle: the very foundation of the international order is that the United States has the right to use violence at will. So how can you charge anybody? And no one else has that right. Of course not. Well, maybe our clients do. If Israel invades Lebanon and kills 1,000 people and destroys half the country, okay, that's all right. It's interesting. Barack Obama was a senator before he was president. He didn't do much as a senator, but he did a couple of things, including one he was particularly proud of. In fact, if you looked at his website before the primaries, he highlighted the fact that, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, he cosponsored a Senate resolution demanding that the United States do nothing to impede Israel's military actions until they had achieved their objectives and censuring Iran and Syria because they were supporting resistance to Israel's destruction of southern Lebanon, incidentally, for the fifth time in 25 years. So they inherit the right. Other clients do, too. But the rights really reside in Washington. That's what it means to own the world. It's like the air you breathe. You can't question it. The main founder of contemporary IR [international relations] theory, Hans Morgenthau, was really quite a decent person, one of the very few political scientists and international affairs specialists to criticize the Vietnam War on moral, not tactical, grounds. Very rare. He wrote a book called The Purpose of American Politics. You already know what's coming. Other countries don't have purposes. The purpose of America, on the other hand, is "transcendent": to bring freedom and justice to the rest of the world. But he's a good scholar, like Carothers. So he went through the record. He said, when you study the record, it looks as if the United States hasn't lived up to its transcendent purpose. But then he says, to criticize our transcendent purpose "is to fall into the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds" - which is a good comparison. It's a deeply entrenched religious belief. It's so deep that it's going to be hard to disentangle it. And if anyone questions that, it leads to near hysteria and often to charges of anti-Americanism or "hating America" - interesting concepts that don't exist in democratic societies, only in totalitarian societies and here, where they're just taken for granted. Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of numerous best-selling political works, including recently Hopes and Prospects and Making the Future. This piece is adapted from the chapter "Uprisings" in his newest book (with interviewer David Barsamian), Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to US Empire (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books). Excerpted from Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to US Empire, published this month by Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Copyright (c) 2013 by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian. All rights reserved. Used with permission TomDispatch. |
Capital Sound: Higher Love
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up to higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up
Come feel the bass coming in your face
Like an alien visit from outer space
See running off the ground, see rhythm and soul
............hard ................... souls take control
Feel the vibe movin up inside
It's so steady with me, so fine
You can have it don't be .... your body force and go higher and higher
Go soul to soul and feel the bass
That's perfect time that's not a way
Let you break it down and turn it up
Let the music yeah go round and round
Cause it's here for you let me hear you say
Move this and take it all the way
So let the rhythm move you on and on
Just make it happen now
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up to higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up
Uh uh
Come on, come
Uh uh
Yeah that's the way I like it baby
Uh uh
Ah yeah ah yeah
Uh uh
Come on - Talk to me
Yeah face the bass and we'll break the beat
For the rhyhtm move you down the streets
Well those Detroit City and Paris friends
Gonna get it on now yeah we'll be in a trance
What a perfect night that will shine bright
So we'll turn it up till the morning light
Say DJ don't stop in that place
And we'll turn it up, cause it's never too late
Now feel the bass coming in your face
Like an alien visit from outer space
So we'll break it down, say we'll turn it up
Let the music go, yeah round and round
So we'll feel the vibe, moving up inside
It's so steady with me, so fine
Cause it's here for you let me hear you say
H.I.G.H.E.R. L.O.V.E.
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up to higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up
Lift me up
Lift me up
Lift me up
To a higher love
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up to higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up
Come feel the bass coming in your face
Like an alien visit from outer space
See running off the ground, see rhythm and soul
............hard ................... souls take control
Feel the vibe movin up inside
It's so steady with me, so fine
You can have it don't be .... your body force and go higher and higher
Go soul to soul and feel the bass
That's perfect time that's not a way
Let you break it down and turn it up
Let the music yeah go round and round
Cause it's here for you let me hear you say
Move this and take it all the way
So let the rhythm move you on and on
Just make it happen now
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up to higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up
Uh uh
Come on, come
Uh uh
Yeah that's the way I like it baby
Uh uh
Ah yeah ah yeah
Uh uh
Come on - Talk to me
Yeah face the bass and we'll break the beat
For the rhyhtm move you down the streets
Well those Detroit City and Paris friends
Gonna get it on now yeah we'll be in a trance
What a perfect night that will shine bright
So we'll turn it up till the morning light
Say DJ don't stop in that place
And we'll turn it up, cause it's never too late
Now feel the bass coming in your face
Like an alien visit from outer space
So we'll break it down, say we'll turn it up
Let the music go, yeah round and round
So we'll feel the vibe, moving up inside
It's so steady with me, so fine
Cause it's here for you let me hear you say
H.I.G.H.E.R. L.O.V.E.
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Lift me up
Take me higher
Lift me up
To a higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up to higher love
Bodies moving with the beat
Pull me up
Lift me up
Lift me up
Lift me up
To a higher love
Jam & Spoon: Right in the Night
Right in the night
Right in the night
Right in the night you'll find
That if you want to fall in love you'll fall in love
Right in the night
Right in the night sweet thing is what you'll get
When you fall in love, you fall in love
Fall in love with music, fall in love with dance
Fall in love with anything that makes you want romance
Make a little softer on the way that you go
Just think that everything you touch could turn to gold
Fall in love with everything that you would love to love
You know that laughter is a kind form to wake you up
So don't make me feel unpleasant like you do
You know that everything will fall right back on you
So fall in love with everything, fall in love with life
Forget about your troubles and be a little nice
You will not see me if you don't want to look
Just come and get me in my big big bed of love
Big big bed of love
Right in the night
Right in the night
Right in the night you'll find
That if you want to fall in love you'll fall in love
Right in the night
Right in the night sweet thing is what you'll get
When you fall in love, you fall in love
So fall in love with stories if fairy tales are true
Innocence is part of what you're losin' with your youth
Show a little confidence, show a little class
Don't kiss the past, the past ain't gonna last
Just fall in love with passion, fall in love with lust
Fall in love with all the things you're always dreaming of
Fall in love with music and you will get by
Right in the night
Right in the night
Right in the night you'll find
That if you want to fall in love you'll fall in love
Right in the night
Right in the night sweet thing is what you'll get
When you fall in love, you'll fall in love
Right in the night
Right in the night you'll find
That if you want to fall in love you'll fall in love
Right in the night
Right in the night sweet thing is what you'll get
When you fall in love, you fall in love
Fall in love with music, fall in love with dance
Fall in love with anything that makes you want romance
Make a little softer on the way that you go
Just think that everything you touch could turn to gold
Fall in love with everything that you would love to love
You know that laughter is a kind form to wake you up
So don't make me feel unpleasant like you do
You know that everything will fall right back on you
So fall in love with everything, fall in love with life
Forget about your troubles and be a little nice
You will not see me if you don't want to look
Just come and get me in my big big bed of love
Big big bed of love
Right in the night
Right in the night
Right in the night you'll find
That if you want to fall in love you'll fall in love
Right in the night
Right in the night sweet thing is what you'll get
When you fall in love, you fall in love
So fall in love with stories if fairy tales are true
Innocence is part of what you're losin' with your youth
Show a little confidence, show a little class
Don't kiss the past, the past ain't gonna last
Just fall in love with passion, fall in love with lust
Fall in love with all the things you're always dreaming of
Fall in love with music and you will get by
Right in the night
Right in the night
Right in the night you'll find
That if you want to fall in love you'll fall in love
Right in the night
Right in the night sweet thing is what you'll get
When you fall in love, you'll fall in love
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)