I’ve been thinking about why the US population is so oblivious to U.S.-initiated wars and the destruction that they bring; both to the US and its foreign victims.
The average US citizen isn’t very bothered by the death, damage, and misery the US military inflicts worldwide. The majority seem not to care at all.
But I figured out why.
The reason why is that too little US citizens experience the military, and have to live with the nasty consequences of war.
This also makes most US citizens quite complacent, and ignorant of world affairs. If more of them served in the military, then they’d be more interested in what their country’s military does, how it does it, and in the ugly results of the military’s actions. US citizens would then hold the government more accountable for its policies.
US citizens generally don’t care about these wars and what happens if it’s ‘someone else’ who does the fighting and dying. But when everyone is expected to put their ass into the fire, they’ll start caring, because at that point it will be, literally, a matter of life and death for all of them.
That’s why I believe that the military draft must be brought back, for males and females.
This would finally wake up all these corn-syrup fed, iphone hugging, coffee-swilling lard-asses and pathetic flakes from their consumerist comas, and force them to think beyond just a few hours into the future.
When the military becomes a must, many of these people, and their families, would personally experience the danger, anxiety, and loss that comes from being in the military and from knowing that their son, daughter, brother, sister may be sent somewhere to die.
The age-old instinct of self-preservation would kick in with a vengeance.
People would start educating themselves about what is going on in the world, and would begin scrutinizing the US government’s every word, action, and policy. Protests against the draft and wars would also force people to wake up and educate themselves.
It also comes down to simple psychology: When people are forced to do something dangerous that may cost them their lives, they’ll start scrutinizing the reason for that action very closely, and won’t let propaganda, bare-faced lies, and manipulations by war-hawk demagogues to slip by anymore.
The draft would also do wonders for the USA’s bulging waistlines as well.
By bringing back the draft, US citizenry would finally start asking questions, and holding the government accountable for what it does. This would have very dramatic, and positive, repercussions for the entire world. Bases would close, soldiers would come home, needless wars for profit would have to be wound down, military budgets would be cut, and more people would get to live to a ripe old age.
Now, wouldn’t this be a better idea than perpetual, wasteful wars fought by only those who want to?
Friday, October 23, 2015
Sunday, October 4, 2015
US - Dazed and Confused
The US regime has been so embarrassed by Russia’s air strikes against ISIS that they don’t know what to do. In haphazard and wily ways, the US regime’s spokes-creatures have lowered their rhetoric to grade-school level.
At the same time, the US President admitted
that the Pentagon’s support to the so-called moderate rebels has not worked the
way it was planned, because the rebels consider President Assad their primary
target and are not willing to confront Islamic State.
“The training and equip program was a specific initiative by the Defense Department to see if we could get some of that moderate opposition to focus attention of ISIL in the eastern portion of the country,” Obama said. “And I’m the first one to acknowledge it has not worked the way it was supposed to, and I think that the Department of Defense would say the same thing.”
“Lavrov added: "If it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it
walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist,
right?"
So Kerry has a different concept of what terrorism is, and judging by the US regime’s past
flirtations with proxy terror forces, it’s clear that he means the US is
supporting terrorists in Syria.
Even former CIA director and retire general David Petraeus has spilled the beans about what US policy ought to be, and probably already is:
“To achieve victory in the Middle East, the US needs to establish and protect rebel enclaves in Syria, and launch another “surge” in Iraq, former CIA director and retired US Army general David Petraeus told a Senate panel.” (4)
From their own words, we can ascertain the following facts:
The bottom line going forward is that the US and its regional and European allies are going to have to decide whether they want to be on the right side of history here or not, and as we’ve been careful to explain, no one is arguing that Bashar al-Assad is the most benevolent leader in the history of statecraft but it has now gotten to the point where Western media outlets are describing al-Qaeda as “moderate” in a last ditch effort to explain away Washington’s unwillingness to join Russia in stabilizing Syria.
This is a foreign policy mistake of epic proportions on the part of the US and the sooner the West concedes that and moves to correct it by admitting that none of the groups the CIA, the Pentagon, and Washington’s Mid-East allies have trained and supported represent a viable alternative to the Assad regime, the sooner Syria will cease to be the chessboard du jour for a global proxy war that’s left hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead." (6)
Russian involvement has been
denounced as ‘unprofessional, ‘destabilizing,’ and ‘ineffective.’ (Such descriptions don't seem to apply to the year-long-plus US bombing of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, which has done nothing to blunt ISIS, stop its spread, and end their on-going control of Mosul, Iraq's second biggest city)
Russia has also been accused
of targeting civilians, dropping ‘dumb’ bombs, and targeting ‘US sponsored
opposition.’
In the litany of lies,
contradictions, and hypocrisy, the US terror-supporting racket has been
exposed.
Check this out from Barry the
Bomber’s recent speech:
“The moderate opposition in
Syria is one that, if we ever going to have a political transition, we need.
And the Russian policy is driving those folks underground or creating a
situation in which they are decapacitated and it is only strengthening ISIL,” said Obama.
“The training and equip program was a specific initiative by the Defense Department to see if we could get some of that moderate opposition to focus attention of ISIL in the eastern portion of the country,” Obama said. “And I’m the first one to acknowledge it has not worked the way it was supposed to, and I think that the Department of Defense would say the same thing.”
But right after this, Obama was quoted as saying:
“The problem here is Assad and the brutality
he’s inflicted on the Syrian people,”
Obama stated, adding that the US will continue to support moderate opposition
groups to ensure an eventual transition to “democracy. (1)
Obama
also lays down his final prophetic vision of the future:
“It was in our interest to make sure that we
were engaged with[the] moderate opposition inside of Syria because eventually
Syria will fall. The Assad regime will fall, and we have to have somebody who
are working with, that we can help pick up the pieces and stitch back together
a cohesive, coherent country.”(1)
Wow!
All that’s missing from the picture is for Barry to beat himself over the head with
a shoe while screaming ‘Assad will fall! His regime will fall!’
It’s
clear that Barry is becoming unhinged, and is having some sort of a nervous
breakdown. He’s visibly unable to cope with the mess he helped create. Maybe he
just needs to take some vacation and clear his head.
Does Obama really expect the world to believe that his
priority isn’t to overthrow the Syrian government? The entire US involvement
there is for that specific purpose. He’s just basically throwing his rebel
creatures under the bus by saying that they’re interested in regime change, but
the US isn’t.
So
which is it, Barry? Regime change or just fighting terrorism? You can’t do
both; they’re mutually exclusive.
Syria already has, and had a
legitimate national opposition, but since this opposition didn’t want to be
bribed and high-jacked by the US, and refused to support the violence that the
US-sponsored foreign fighters unleashed on Syria, the US totally ignores them.
Further evidence of on-going
US support for rebel groups in Syria which are linked to Al Qaeda, Al Nusra,
and ISIS has been forthcoming, much of it from the US regime’s spokes-creatures
themselves. Check out Mr. Hairy Kerry’s answer to a question about terrorism
posed by Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov recently:
Asked if he
agreed with Lavrov, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said: "Well, in concept."
"What
is important is Russia has to not be engaged in any activities against anybody
but ISIL," Kerry said. "That's clear. We have made that very
clear."(2)
Even former CIA director and retire general David Petraeus has spilled the beans about what US policy ought to be, and probably already is:
“To achieve victory in the Middle East, the US needs to establish and protect rebel enclaves in Syria, and launch another “surge” in Iraq, former CIA director and retired US Army general David Petraeus told a Senate panel.” (4)
From their own words, we can ascertain the following facts:
1. US government has been
sponsoring ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and affiliated rebel groups either directly,
or through their Arab sheikh proxies
2 US priority in Syria is not
fighting terrorism, but regime change for the USA’s own political,
economic, and strategic reasons; no matter how much they try to hide, or dress
it up as something else
3. US doesn’t really care
about what rebel groups in Syria it supports, and what their ideology or
motives are, as long as they can be used to fight the Syrian government.
This whole PR about ‘secular’ or ‘moderate’ rebels is bullshit. There never
were such groups, and the US doesn’t really care whether they’re moderate or
not. Also, the astonishment and disappointment of US officials that their
‘moderate’ rebels changed sides to the Islamic extremists is also suspect. The US knows those rebels were extremists from the get-go; there was no ‘changing sides.'
Russian airstrikes in Syria have exposed these things,
and the US is so unhappy with the fact that Russia is bombing their monsters,
that the US regime is practically admitting its supporting these religious
extremist freaks. This whole thing has caught the US in a PR nightmare. Their
criminal policies have been exposed.
Look at what the US regime’s wonderful Free Syrian
Army has been up to for four years.
Since 2012, Syrian president Bashar Al Assad has been
ready and willing to sit down and bring this chaos to a peaceful end. Putin has
also offered to help. But the US has slapped away the hand of cooperation,
while talking about ‘peaceful transition to democracy.’
If the US wants a peaceful, negotiated solution to
Syrian war, why does it even support any rebels there at all?
The truth is that the US doesn’t want a peaceful
resolution to the Syrian crisis. It wants to aid its rebel proxies to overthrow Assad, so the US can
then step in and have everything its own way in Syria. The US knows that they'll get more by using violence than by negotiations.
Even the US regime’s rotten ally, Saudi Arabia, is
exposing what it’s really all about:
“Analysts are concerned about the apparent escalation, which
many fear could further exasperate the already bloody four-and-a-half-year
civil war. An independent analyst told the Guardian that Qatar –
acting with the agreement of Saudi Arabia – may already have started sending
planeloads of weapons to Turkish airbases.
“I would expect a
huge influx of weapons into the north to try to blunt any ground assault by
the regime,” the analyst said. “The stakes are very high.” (5)
How much things have changed
since 9/11.
What happened to "Either you are with us, or you are
with the terrorists” tough-talk of George W. Bush?
It seems that today the US
just cannot live up to its own expectations, because it has decided to side
with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in Syria.
Hillary
Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who
harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
Sadly, Hillary defied herself
when in 2011 she and her boss enthusiastically sent US warplanes to Libya
to aid ISIS-type Islamic fanatics and overthrow the secular regime of Muammar
Gaddafi. After Gaddafi’s murder-execution, she bragged about it in front of the
cameras, all smiles.
But at least the last part of
her quote is coming true: the US is paying the price for supporting violent
extremists in Syria.
There have also been accusations of Russia killing civilians.
Overnight, actually before any Russian airstrikes even started, photos of
maimed and killed Syrian ‘civilian’ victims of perfidious Russian bombings were
immediately posted on You Tube and social media. These images were either fake
or were made days or weeks before, as we’ve seen with similar atrocity
propaganda in the past.
For example:
Where the FUCK were these US/western
media pricks in the last fifteen years during which the US and its allies, and
Israel, have bombed, burned, and massacred country after country from the air, including
wedding parties and funerals? There was no talk of innocent civilians back
then; no! There was only ‘collateral damage,’ ‘enemy combatants,’ ‘terrorists,’
or ‘suspected militants;’ toddlers and infants included.
Why is the US regime and its controlled media
apparatus suddenly concerned about civilian casualties and bombing of
residential areas when Russia is conducting airstrikes? The US doesn’t have the
right to condemn anyone of bombing civilians after its own sordid and criminal
history.
The bloody and autocratic Saudi regime has been
bombing Yemen for months, and has killed thousands of civilians. Just the other
day a US ‘collision’ airstrike hit a hospital In Kunduz, Afghanistan and killed
civilians. But there’s no US regime and
media outrage about it. It’s being presented as just an honest, unfortunate
mistake; It’s all apologetics; it was simply unintended ‘collateral’ damage,
and everyone is just supposed to hug, say sorry, and let the US regime move on
to its next atrocity.
“Lt. Gen. Robert Otto, deputy
chief of staff for intelligence and surveillance for the Air Force, said the Russians
have been dropping "dumb bombs" — munitions that are not
precision-guided. The use of such indiscriminate targeting could lead to the
deaths of innocent civilians, he said, and create more terrorists than they
kill.”(3)
No one in the world has
dropped more ‘dumb’ bombs than the US
military, whether it was from their planes or their mouths.
And why are barrel bombs
which end up killing civilians suddenly worse than a laser-guided US missile
which kills civilians?
After all, the use of barrel bombs
was pioneered by the Israelis during their war in 1948. The US army used them
in Vietnam as well.
And who the fuck gave the US
the authority to decide which governments to overthrow, and which leader stays
or goes? This is blatantly illegal in international affairs, and the US should
be condemned for this, by the UN and by everyone else.
Deciding another country’s
government and leaders for them without bothering to even consult its citizens
is the antithesis of democracy, which the US professes to care so much about.
The US and its allies better be
careful, because they all have quite spotty, if not nasty records of war
crimes, human rights abuses, bombing civilians, and colluding with terrorists.
They better look over their shoulder so their regimes don’t get changed by
anyone else.
The fascist-infested,
war-criminal regime ruling Ukraine today is a marvelous example of US and
western double-standards.
"We
can all agree that when any US regime official opens their mouth about the
Russian airstrikes in Syria, the world is left more and more confused, and/or
disgusted about what exactly the US wants, and what it’s doing. US rhetoric seems
to change every few hours.
The bottom line going forward is that the US and its regional and European allies are going to have to decide whether they want to be on the right side of history here or not, and as we’ve been careful to explain, no one is arguing that Bashar al-Assad is the most benevolent leader in the history of statecraft but it has now gotten to the point where Western media outlets are describing al-Qaeda as “moderate” in a last ditch effort to explain away Washington’s unwillingness to join Russia in stabilizing Syria.
This is a foreign policy mistake of epic proportions on the part of the US and the sooner the West concedes that and moves to correct it by admitting that none of the groups the CIA, the Pentagon, and Washington’s Mid-East allies have trained and supported represent a viable alternative to the Assad regime, the sooner Syria will cease to be the chessboard du jour for a global proxy war that’s left hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead." (6)
Sources:
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Russian Roulette
The US regime is currently in a bind over their failed Syria regime change policy.
Ever since their 70 or so so-called ‘moderate rebels,’ who were trained to the tune of $500 million flew the coop and gave their US-provided weapons over to the extremist freaks, and Russia’s announcement that it will help Syria fight ISIS, the US has been scrambling to provide damage control.
Their initial asinine demands of ‘Assad must go,' and their stupid accusations that 'Russia has invaded Syria,' and that it’s 'destabilizing the region' have now become more muted, if not silly and hypocritical.
Russian president Vladimir Putin has finally had enough, and decided to call the US out on their so-called fight against ISIS. He offered to cooperate with the US in fighting the militant group.
The US doesn’t know what to do since their aim is to overthrow the current Syrian government under the guise of fighting terrorism, while secretly aiding and abetting the militants to further that aim.
The US also can’t say ‘yes’ to Russia, because that would be against the US regime’s core objectives. But by not taking Russia up on its offer to help, the US would also expose the truth about its involvement in that region. Saying no to Russia will mean that the US isn’t serious about fighting ISIS, and that the US aim in Syria is not to get rid of ISIS but to overthrow governments.
The US will be exposed as a liar if it says no to Putin and does anything to hamper Russia’s efforts to help fight ISIS.
Will the rest of Europe be just as immature? Will they hamper Russia, whose help may be vital to stemming the tide of Syrian refugees? But since the EU has a habit of shooting itself in the foot by blindly going along with looney and destructive US demands, it remains to be seen how they react to all this.
Putin is clearly giving the US an opportunity to correct its mistakes, just like he has multiple times during the last few years. But if the US doesn’t take advantage of this opportunity, and continues its nefarious and failed policies, then Putin will turn his back and act with the Syrian government in whatever way he can to destroy ISIS, and every single rebel. There will be no differentiation.
So either way, US regime change policy is doomed to failure. Either they join with Russia and truly fight ISIS, or Russia will help Syria fight ISIS, and every other militant group.
And if Russia is successful, the US won’t be able to call the shots at all. If the US joins Russia to truly fight ISIS it will still have to talk to Assad and Russia at the negotiating table.
But the US can also forget about their Plan B, namely to cajole Russia into persuading Assad to leave. This was actually the main reaction from the US State Dept. freaks after Russia announced their involvement in Syria, that Russia tells Assad leave. It clearly shows what the priority of the US is.
But whether Assad leaves or not can only be decided by the Syrian people, not the US regime nutcases and their bought fake Syrian ‘opposition’ puppets sitting in Turkish and European hotel room suites.
Putin is too smart not to notice such US scams. What he’ll do is extend a genuine hand of cooperation to test US sincerity. If, and when, he sees that the US regime isn’t serious, that they’re trying to stall and make idiotic and unreasonable demands, Putin will turn his back and do what he and the Syrians need to do.
Once the Russian base in Syria is ready, we shall see what a real anti-terror operation looks like.
So the US has only two choices:
1. Join with Russia, the Syrians, Iraq and Iran in a genuine coalition against ISIS and other militant groups, give up on regime change, and work for a negotiated solution where it won’t get all it wants
2. Refuse to join Russia, Syria, and Iran, be exposed as a liar and a hypocrite, still fail to overthrow the Syrian government, and have no say whatsoever after ISIS is destroyed.
It’s up to the US what it wants out of all this Syria business: a little, or nothing. It can’t, and won’t have it all this time.
Putin has loaded a bullet into a gun, spun the chamber, and handed the gun to the US. Will the US dare to pull the trigger?
Ever since their 70 or so so-called ‘moderate rebels,’ who were trained to the tune of $500 million flew the coop and gave their US-provided weapons over to the extremist freaks, and Russia’s announcement that it will help Syria fight ISIS, the US has been scrambling to provide damage control.
Their initial asinine demands of ‘Assad must go,' and their stupid accusations that 'Russia has invaded Syria,' and that it’s 'destabilizing the region' have now become more muted, if not silly and hypocritical.
Russian president Vladimir Putin has finally had enough, and decided to call the US out on their so-called fight against ISIS. He offered to cooperate with the US in fighting the militant group.
The US doesn’t know what to do since their aim is to overthrow the current Syrian government under the guise of fighting terrorism, while secretly aiding and abetting the militants to further that aim.
The US also can’t say ‘yes’ to Russia, because that would be against the US regime’s core objectives. But by not taking Russia up on its offer to help, the US would also expose the truth about its involvement in that region. Saying no to Russia will mean that the US isn’t serious about fighting ISIS, and that the US aim in Syria is not to get rid of ISIS but to overthrow governments.
The US will be exposed as a liar if it says no to Putin and does anything to hamper Russia’s efforts to help fight ISIS.
Will the rest of Europe be just as immature? Will they hamper Russia, whose help may be vital to stemming the tide of Syrian refugees? But since the EU has a habit of shooting itself in the foot by blindly going along with looney and destructive US demands, it remains to be seen how they react to all this.
Putin is clearly giving the US an opportunity to correct its mistakes, just like he has multiple times during the last few years. But if the US doesn’t take advantage of this opportunity, and continues its nefarious and failed policies, then Putin will turn his back and act with the Syrian government in whatever way he can to destroy ISIS, and every single rebel. There will be no differentiation.
So either way, US regime change policy is doomed to failure. Either they join with Russia and truly fight ISIS, or Russia will help Syria fight ISIS, and every other militant group.
And if Russia is successful, the US won’t be able to call the shots at all. If the US joins Russia to truly fight ISIS it will still have to talk to Assad and Russia at the negotiating table.
But the US can also forget about their Plan B, namely to cajole Russia into persuading Assad to leave. This was actually the main reaction from the US State Dept. freaks after Russia announced their involvement in Syria, that Russia tells Assad leave. It clearly shows what the priority of the US is.
But whether Assad leaves or not can only be decided by the Syrian people, not the US regime nutcases and their bought fake Syrian ‘opposition’ puppets sitting in Turkish and European hotel room suites.
Putin is too smart not to notice such US scams. What he’ll do is extend a genuine hand of cooperation to test US sincerity. If, and when, he sees that the US regime isn’t serious, that they’re trying to stall and make idiotic and unreasonable demands, Putin will turn his back and do what he and the Syrians need to do.
Once the Russian base in Syria is ready, we shall see what a real anti-terror operation looks like.
So the US has only two choices:
1. Join with Russia, the Syrians, Iraq and Iran in a genuine coalition against ISIS and other militant groups, give up on regime change, and work for a negotiated solution where it won’t get all it wants
2. Refuse to join Russia, Syria, and Iran, be exposed as a liar and a hypocrite, still fail to overthrow the Syrian government, and have no say whatsoever after ISIS is destroyed.
It’s up to the US what it wants out of all this Syria business: a little, or nothing. It can’t, and won’t have it all this time.
Putin has loaded a bullet into a gun, spun the chamber, and handed the gun to the US. Will the US dare to pull the trigger?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)