We invaded Iraq 13 years ago on Sunday, but you would barely know from watching the news. Perhaps because there are so many war anniversaries these days it’s hard to keep track, or perhaps, it’s because our country has learned virtually nothing from the biggest foreign policy debacle of our generation.
Here is the guy HRC (we came, we saw, he died) removed from Libya:
Gaddafi does not appear too worried about his citizens here. He probably was worried about the central banks' resistance to his development of the gold Dinar that would have buoyed economies throughout Africa without the banksters getting their entitlements. HRC served the banks well, now didn't she.
And remember folks, Bernie Sanders also promises to smash ISIS. His foreign policy is 98% the same as Hillary.
AFTER INVADING IRAQ 13 YEARS AGO THE US IS STILL MAKING BILLIONS!
The US is still making the same ... mistakes??!! funny use of words and framing war crimes. Maybe there's the problem.. that enough people are willing to call the crimes for what they are and reporters tell half truths giving the illusion to activists that we can change things by supporting voices that are basically afraid, terrorized to tell it as it is.
Trevor Trimm should have the courage to admit if he has seconds thoughts about pushing too hard the establishment. For change, for sure, we need people with more guts. Don't all keep telling us what we already know. That's a mind numbing hum in a broken record.
Pushing, celebrating, announcing, cajoling all war all the time... it's Mars Rules!
"In a two-week period leading up to the initial airstrikes in the Isis war in 2014, the progressive media watchdog Fair did a study of the major cable and network news shows and found out of 205 guests, only 3% were against going to war with Isis. On the Sunday talkshows, ground zero for DC conventional wisdom, exactly one out of 89 guests could be identified as “anti-war” when it came to the subject."
Borrowing from the book title, "Who Will Tell The People." Their consent is no longer sought or required.
The above frame is as disingenuous as Tom Johnson's relentless conflating of the citizenry with the military.
Did the U.S. make billions or did the MIC and banksters?
There is a distinction. It's the same distinction pointed out by Occupy Wall St., the Page and Gilens' Study, the Piketty study, and many of Bernie Sander's stances.
When I say US, I mean the the economic elite. Yes, there is a distinction. Thanks for the clarification.
Oh, why do we have to discuss this as though there were some reason to believe that people in charge were sane and well motivated? If they have indeed convinced themselves that white is black and that they bomb toward peace and security, is there not something horrible and dark in that?
If Timothy McVeigh successfully bombed federal buildings for 25 years, for how much of that time would any of us be willing to discuss his actions as a mistake?
Looking at the current electoral process, what legitimacy do the lies and fanfare give any sovereign to murder and destroy? Just when is policy presented to a population that is supposed to vote. When is the matter presented even to Congress?
The United States commits acts of war against a dozen or so countries within the space of any few years time. It is often hard for citizens to even tell which. If we hear descriptions of government action, we hear after the fact, in past tense when the action are ongoing, in a hailstorm of propaganda, and before the persecution of those who would bring us truth.
Enough of these people.
Is there any reason to sugarcoat a crime as a "mistake"?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
You and Tom narrow your frames to make voters/citizens responsible while leaving out things like who controls the vetting of candidates, what media time they will receive, what super-delegates will christen them, what voting machines will produce pre-set numbers, and how many will be disenfranchised.
And when the subject is war, all of the machinations that lead to the manufactured consent of SOME of the governed are similarly eliminated from the discussion.
In my mind, it's pure disinformation when all of the salient factors that produce an engineered outcome are left out of discussion so that only a narrow, militaristic outcome is thrust forward as some kind of proof positive.
No. It is bull shit.
This bears repeating:
"You can attack the "WE frame" all you want, but the consensus (nobody knows the actual numbers) among U.S. citizens has been to consistently support U.S. interventionism and militarism, with the exception of the U.S. wars in Southeast Asia (only after a long period of failure and defeat)."
Missing from your "analysis" are all of the following:
Any mention of the powerful role that propaganda plays when it comes to militarizing a nation. It worked for Nazi Germany and similar tactics (in fact, these are far more advanced given 6 decades of improvements in technologies) are being used 24/7 inside "the homeland."
The deliberate removal of ANY and all voices that called for peace or diplomacy after 911.
The saturation of the MSM with generals and pro-war hawks.
The role of the churches in applauding and justifying war--in the form of a modern Middle East Crusades--rather that honoring the teachings of Christ in acting as a bulwark against War of Aggression--defined as THE Supreme Crime against humanity by the Geneva Conventions
The likelihood that 911 was a well-planned false flag that involved multiple targets and the final trauma--the Anthrax Letters--to ensure that trauma would hit the American collective psyche quite hard
The use of Hollywood to sex up films about war, narrow versions of history, simplistic "good guys versus bad guys" plot lines, and so forth.
The pervasive presence of the MIC in that many states (and this factor is significant in a jobless "recovery") guarantee jobs by making items for the MIC's war machine
The high numbers of those who showed up to oppose war against Iraq initially
The FBI/CIA threat of domestic spying and its capacity to infiltrate, demean, and bust up any organizations that work against Deep State interests (as evidenced in how it broke up OWS).
How Obama's election victory was made on the LIE that he would end the war in Iraq and intimations were made to indicate that a shift away from Bush's policies of aggressive war would occur. It did not. (As many in this forum pointed out, Obama's betrayal did a lot to defang the Left in its anti-war stance.)
Anyone who pushes the meme that the people "wanted" war while leaving out all of the metrics used to manufacture consent for lawless exploits by Empire, presents a disingenuous narrative.
It's of the same fiber that insists that whatever the MIC does (i.e. how many it killed or droned lately) is tantamount to what The People do.
Well, there are 2 explanations for this frame:
- Adolescent arrested development that views the world as nothing more than a football game
- Military training
Lots of women escaped both to our spiritual and intellectual advantage.
As a result, we don't view the world through a narrow team sport prism that segues itself into war so seamlessly.
Yeah, what is so sad is that they are being used unknowingly, to murder others and being murdered themselves by being supported to die and kill others.
Our side is the only side bombing people. That includes our allies especially Israel. The USA & UK have been bombing Iraq since Gulf War I. Obama said he'd bring "hope & changestrong textbut he brought us more of the same. GITMO is still open. The war in Afghanistan is still going on. The NSA **strong textIis still in effect. He started a war in Libya & toppled Gaddhaffi. He did not do anything to the nations that bombed Libya. Obama lied by saying there was genocide going on. I would like to know where Sanders stands on the war in Afghanistan.
If you really are a Sioux, and the USA were as advanced in the 19th century as it is now, the USA would be bombing your people.**