home| Spitting on our troops and Why War? Why the hell not? and Rename Nine-Eleven!! Unitary Executive Dictatorship email discussion and letters Spitting on our troops
John Riggs spent 39 years in the Army, earning a Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery during the Vietnam War and working his way up to become a three-star general entrusted with creating a high-tech Army for the 21st century. "That's the coldest way in the world to leave," Riggs, 58, said. "It's like being buried and no one attends your funeral." (kicked out for criticizing Rumsfeld's tactics) FROM "GI
SPECIAL" website, missing but hosted here my friend replies: I am torn between being glad for once a general got disciplined for violating procedures (as opposed to a private) and anger over Rumsfeld using his power to punish military people for political reasons. We don't often mention it but separation of powers is important with the military too. The USA has a tradition of the military answering to and obeying civilian political leaders (power). When Rumsfeld punishes a military man by the use of civilian power because the military man made a "military" recommendation, well I think that erodes the separation of military civilian roles in the USA. That kind of stuff promotes military coups .... at the very least it stifles the free flow of ideas and information between the military and civilian leaders. This is not good for the "people". I respond: I am NOT glad that sincere
Americans in the upper ranks are being sacrificed, even if
they are deluded, BUT what most of these military men are recommending
is simply a more effective
imperialism, more successful Full Spectrum Dominance. They are
not like USMC Gen. Smedley Butler
(who wrote War
is a
Racket), after
his retirement regretting all the
strangers and Americans who died under his command,
as he played a 'gangster
for Wall Street'.
These officers are
like the first
part of former Stan Goff's
book "Full Spectrum Disorder"
(Army
Special Forces, ret.) pointing
out that Rumsfeld is a technocrat fuckup. They are not like the 2nd part of
the book, describing what's wrong with US imperial strategy in detail,
and how Goff was misled.
Full Spectrum Disorder at Amazon dot com Stan Goff suggests, the American "Left" must NOT "dis" the military, must stop irrational criticism of the military as a whole, because a military IS essentially for necessary defense against those who would harm us. A military that is friendly to the population (including "liberals" meaning "average citizens who seek liberty") may be critical in the future. The problem is that OUR military has been MISUSED for Empire and Repression ... for a long time. Elitist US Leftists end up opposing morally legitimate indigenous struggles, like guerilla movements of Indians and others who are fighting brutal dictatorships. For example, Goff says, sometimes FARC guerillas accidentally kill their own civilians (and issue apologies not insincere like when we shoot down some civilian airplane) and sometimes guerillas target the rich bourgeois who are funding the military and paramilitary death squads. War for survival
is not "neat and clean and sunday school moral", with
white hats and black
hats.
This is the essense
of "blowback" theory on 9-11:
The Islamics
targetted the rich bourgeois in the US who are not only funding their
oppressors but providing billions in high tech military equipment
specifically to
sustain their oppression, in our interests. I would tend to concur with Chomsky and Ward Churchill and Bill Blum on this chickens-coming-home-to-roost theory, were it not for overwhelming evidence of US Intelligence involvement in planning, executing, and funding the 9-11 attack, blocking investigation before and after. Goff's other point is WE who believe in Justice and Liberty on the Left will need our military. WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ??? Why War? Why the hell not?I originally thought we were invading Iraq for simple extortion and armed robbery but that's only part true. We don't NEED the oil, at the moment. We don't need lower prices. It's a combination of control of oil, and control of petro-dollars. (We might need the oil in the future, but I don't think that's the point.)Kissinger told
OPEC to raise prices in the 80's. Higher
prices, within certain margins, brings in more petro-dollars into US
banks to float Wall Street. Too high prices destabilizes the
corporate bubble with higher production and distribution costs, too
low means insufficient room to finance exploding government and
corporate debt, like for "leveraged buyouts" and the
military-industrial complex.
Like the Mafia, our leaders don't need to
confiscate all the
butcher's chickens. They just have to make sure that he pays
protection, or provides some other favor in kind. Perhaps the
butcher is required to transport drugs inside dead chickens, for
example, or provide some other service. Perhaps the butcher
agrees to refuse to serve crime competitors. The point is, he
must be willing to comply with
our demands.
Even if we were
running 100% renewable we would still be in Iraq. (... per Noam
Chomsky, but that's obvious) (People
with basic physics backgrounds and spreadsheets have done the math on
energy and come to the conclusion that renewables cannot
come close to meeting US energy demands. But that's another topic.)
Strategically, energy resources renders control
of the region both important and valuable. As resource
alternatives run low in the future, it's important that another country
does not control the Middle East, including Arabs or Europeans. Dominance over strategic areas
is our stated foreign policy, beginning decades ago. We can believe the latest fairy tales about
"nurturing democracy" or "terrorism" or "WMDs" but we openly stated our imperatives on this in the past.
Should
Industrial China be coming to Saddam for oil, or do we want China
coming to Exxon and come begging to future neo-con PNAC administrations? (Why would wethepeople give a shit?)
What if another country fails their compliancy test with US trade
demands? What if another country is not sufficiently open to
extortion requirements? What if they choose health care over
interest payments to the IMF? What if they don't want to sell
their most prized industry to private global investors? What
if they refuse to privatize their WATER???
Then we close the oil tap to
punish them, or raise their price. (OPEC decided to NOT use oil
flow as a weapon, against the US or the West.)
However,
we shall not assume our government is there to protect our access to oil for American people to drive our
cars and run our stuff, any more than
protecting American
jobs is a priority. The
health and welfare of Americans is NOT a priority.
Americans need to understand that. Our lives don't count for
jack. Look around. Is this not obvious? Duh!
People are so freakin gullible.
Keeping 200+ million Americans sufficiently
propagandized or frightened or
feeling isolated IS
critical, but serving Americans is not only irrelevant, it's politically punishable.
Actually, they only need to fool most of the people most of the time.
Can't let the cat out of the bag.
In a nutshell, we are at war to secure the oil
for the Chinese -- at the price US investors
want to charge -- for the benefit of global investors in China or
Europe or elsewhere. We are there to secure the oil for the
highest bidder, and to be able to play chess with it. Oil equals
survival.
If the US restricts or controls the flow of oil
--- currently there is less flowing in Iraq than before we invaded ---
or if we control WHO gets it (Chinese industry, not Americans, where
Wall Street has much investments and would lose money without oil, but
at the price and terms we set), then the US wins!! At least the elites win. The bourgeois
win. The population, which must pay for all this adventure in blood and
in labor, loses.
Here's the ironic part, for
all the pro-America
rhetoric bulloney:
Our
public officials hold no national allegiance to
the USA. They are the MOST
anti-American. http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/neocon_powergrab_at_nsa.htm
Democrats and Republicans who advocated this war or who "reluctantly" agreed that this farce called the "War on Terror" is legitimate, are all traitors to America. If I can learn all these facts with Google, and from other persons who got access to government documents and historical records, and from world newspapers, how could it be possible that Congress or Senators do not have this info? The USA can be
a wastebasket. Who cares? If American society collapses, oh well.
I read a paper that explained why national strength or national unity for economics and profit went out the window after World War II, 1945. Global Capitalism runs on global strategies. Countries don't matter. Private profits matter. USA! USA! USA! My ass. How much it
costs ordinary Americans in terms
of money, economic hardship, or deaths is 100% IRRELEVANT.
It's not as tho the elites are paying Halliburton or Carlysle or
Dyncorp or MPRI out of their pocket. Taxpayers are paying. China
is lending.
If 10 million Americans were to die in the Middle East, we still got 240 million more. Three thousand in New York was a pittance ... but it worked. Nine-Eleven shocked people into blind obedience. It was our domestic "Shock and Awe". If millions of Americans die in a staged
nuclear attack on a US city, that's more shock and awe. Alex
Jones warned Americans about 9-11 in July
2001, as other countries warned our government. Insiders
knew. David
Schippers, House prosecutor on Clinton, was defending FBI and DIA
agents who were trying to stop al-Qaida, but were threatened with
arrest. Schippers contacted John Ashcroft six times with valid
information, but was ignored.
You have to think
like a strategic
ruthless heartless sociopath to make sense of this.
Fortunately, we don't
have to guess. PNAC -- Project for a New American Century -- clearly
spelled out exactly
what US goals and interests must be in the Middle East, and worldwide
-- TOTAL MILITARY DOMINANCE in the region and worldwide (but not "to benefit Americans").
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz all sit or sat on that board,
with all the other heavy hitters -- the crazies, as previous government
people called that group (due to their extremism, towards
meeting their goals).
They
write our policy. It's not as though their ideas are "mere
opinions".
RENAME
"Nine-Eleven" to "Operation Northwoods 2001"
Join my campaign. We must acknowledge those Americans, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA, who wrote the1962 Northwoods plot to launch terror on US cities, fly planes into buildings, blame it on a foreign enemy. Agents were to dress up as enemy soldiers and attack US servicemen. Maybe shoot a US passenger jet out of the sky, real or fake. It took almost 40 years for their political descendants to pull off this scheme, but it succeeded. The "official enemy" switched from Cuban Communists to Arab Terrorists. The "New Northwoods" fooled most Americans, despite the fact that the typewritten Northwoods memo is a public document. Northwoods 2001 (Nine-Eleven) achieved the same intended propaganda aim as the original plan --- "a helpful wave of public indignation". When you ask at the library, or Google "Operation Northwoods". http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/news/20010430/ http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html You
may want to
Google some other terms --- Bush + Nazi and Dulles +
Nazi.
The Dulles brothers, Nazi promoters in the 1930's, lawyers and go-between for the Nazis money machine and our President's grandfather Prescott, were acting as CIA Director and Sec of State when Northwoods was drafted. Allen Dulles was most certainly consulted. Arranging covert operations for assassinations and mass murder was his job decription. Dulles was later made lead investigator of the Kennedy murder -- one year after Kennedy fired him. Draw your own conclusions. These are not hypothetical connections. There
should be no question as to why this is relevant to America Today.
How much larger must Northwoods '05 or Northwoods '06 be made, to
justify War on Iran? (A teenage girl submitted this question following
David Ray Griffin's talk on CSPAN.) How much tighter will
they make "security" after the fact?
Clinton
killed way more innocent persons than
Bush ... so far anyhow. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge. The
use of Depleted Uranium in Bosnia harmed our troops and caused massive
illness to civilians, true, but intentional
starvation and infection caused by the tightest embargo in history
murdered 1.5 million Iraqis, many more than Bush. Albright
bragged about that on TV, as she pretended it was a tough choice to
kill 5000 kids per month, but "worth it".
the
Beacon Journal
newspaper ran this essay (trimmed) on June 14, 2005.Either Clinton OR Bush killed far more people than Ted Bundy and Charles Manson combined. Bundy (serial killer) and Manson (death cult leader) are in prison. Like our leaders, Charlie killed indirectly, he ordered others to kill on his behalf. Charlie's plan was "Helter Skelter". Clinton and Bush had other reasons -- missing WMDs, or GWOT, a New World Order, or "Freedom", or "saving the Children" or September 11, oops I mean Northwoods 2001. UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY -- by Gary Goodman (letter to the Editor) The Illuminati is seizing control and
ushering in a communist-fascist world dictatorship.
That sounds really weird. But a few
months ago, who would have thought Americans would ever be faced with
Unitary Executive Theory? This Bushco legal stance claims that
within Article II of the Constitution there exists an invisible
meaning (if you play it backwards at 78rpm) that gives the
President (our servant) ultimate authority over Congress, over the
Judiciary, over States, over every human being, the power to do
whatever he wants, whenever, to whomever, so long as he can claim to be
leading the country at war. The office of the President was intended to be "ceremonial", and
subservient to Congress. No more Kings.
Recall, the "War on Terrorism" is
permanent. Recall, the Sept 11 investigation was blocked
until a group of yes-men were assembled who would conclude that a vast
expansion of military and intelligence budgets and power was needed for
domestic "security", since our $12 trillion defense system "failed to
respond" to over 100 dire warnings or intercept even one plane.
Sounds like some tinpot dictatorship
implanted in Washington like a virus. A-ha, the
Illuminati?! Exactly.
Opinions run to wild fantasy,
religion, and even Jew-hating, but let's just say "A rose by any
name smells as foul." Americans are ruled by secretive
international bodies that wield enormous power over our political and
economic infrastructure, and our Liberty. Many of our "elected"
leaders are also members. Included are the World Trade Org, the
International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Council on Foriegn Relations,
Tri-Lateral Commission (who "co-founded" Al-Qaeda under Jimmy Carter --
seriously), the Bilderburg Group, the Bank of Int'l Settlements,
various "Intelligence" orgs, and the United Nations, the wolf in
sheep's clothing.
I once applauded the UN defending the poor
(much like Jesus), until I realized the UN was the tool by which the
West murdered two million Iraqi civilians via starvation and
bio-warfare. Founded by Rockefeller, the UN follows CIA, NATO,
and/or the IMF plundering humans in Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan,
Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Latin Am, all over the planet causing civil war
and genocide, then offers a band-aid plus military authority.
(Many nice people surely work there too.)
Joke about tinfoil hats. But as
President Bush or President Hillary solidifies Unitary Executive
Privilege Act by edict and precedent, with a 90% yes vote from "the
opposition", and the remainder of our Liberty is shredded, remember you
heard it here first.
|