Home | About | Donate

The Myth of the "Clean War"


#1

The Myth of the "Clean War"

Paul Rogers

Trump's worldview promises low-cost military success. The blasting apart of civilian lives in Iraq says otherwise.


#2

Where are we at now that Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden, dozens of al Qaeda / ISIS leaders and several thousand innocent men, women, and children and Donald Trump defeated ISIS, also killing several thousand innocent men, women, and children?

Both the Democrat and Republican Party power structures are fully committed to never-ending, world wide, war with impunity against any and all who US leaders decree to be the ‘enemy’.

Noam Chomsky stated that the “Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history.” Perhaps. But, given both Party’s embrace of war, plutocratic economics, unsustainable environmental practices, and anti-democratic practices, while the Republican Party may be the most dangerous organization in human history, the Democrat Party is a close 2nd.


#3

The lesson of Vietnam was that killing civilians created more enemy fighters than those killed. Trump has authorized the US military killing machine to commit the same mistake. Civilian casualties under Commander Obama were less, too many, but less than billionaire elitist international PIG Trump.


#4

I agree. Trump is atrocious and much more committed to killing large numbers of innocent men, women, and children, than Obama.

But, Trump is a distraction. He is a cover for the Republican Party establishment who guide the long-term direction of policy/implementation. At some point, Trump will be discarded, without many tears shed by Republican Party elite. When that happens, the Republican Party, along with their Democrat Party partners, will ensure that plutocratic economics, unsustainable environmental practices, anti-democratic structures, and worldwide never ending US war with impunity will continue unabated.


#5

“The military dropped 3,554 weapons against the Taliban as of Oct. 31”

Not hitting much with them apparently… Been bombing them since 2001 and there’s still left.


#6

Recommend view "Warm Bodies"
Tract: "Everybody’s got a hungry heart"
Nicholas Hoult follow after "Jack the Giant Slayer"
The CURE was found…


#7

4 U bro,

“Trump a distraction, a cover over Republican Party establishment long-term agenda policy implementation. Trump discarded with no tears shed by either party elite ensuring plutocratic economics, unsustainable environmental practices, anti-democratic structures and worldwide never-ending war will continue unabated.”

LOOK !! Tell self-driving car jokes, please?
Daimler can build level 3. touche!


#8

Nicholas Hoult loves.


#9

Unfortunately the killing of civilians has been going on for a long time in muslim countries in the ME and Africa. I don’t usually give CIA reports much credence, but they do an assessment report every ten years. And one detail stuck out. Back in 2002 they reported about 17000 Taliban and about 500 terrorists each in somalia and the sudan. In 2012, they reported that there was 17000 taliban and about 10000-12000 terrorists each in somalia and the sudan. The reason they gave was the killing of families by our bombing and drone attacks, they angered the people there so, it was quite easy to recruit men to be taliban or terrorists.
And while Obama was president, the number of countries went from about 12 to 17. All making new terrorists who now hated us for our freedom as Bush claimed. Maybe it was the freedom to kill that they were jealous of. A number of organizations that try to watch what is happening claim that from the mid-90s to today over a million and a half muslims have been killed because of our war against terror.
Now the US didn’t kill all those people, but they created the situation of instability where war was unleashed upon so many countries.
Trump is certainly going to make it worst by declaring war on families. Defeating ISIS on the ground will prove to be no better than defeating the taliban in afghan. Neither are going away.


#10

That lesson learned from Vietnam - (10 civilian death = 100 fighters),
‘unlearned’ now in wars of tribal culture against civilization. Leaving
bombed out cities behind another predictable call to fighters.

Richard Heinberg Sonoma Valley fires interview Monday worth hearing.
Disaster capitalism vs resilient water/energy/cropland production.
Agrees self-driving and robotics tech is nonsense.
Supports rooftop solar + EV storage survives grid failure, etc.
Electric trains, maybe not superfast, but working respectably,
despite Warren Buffett’s refusal to upgrade his BNSF lines,
Amtrak’s least on time line thanks to Mr coal/oil billionaire Buffett.


#11

Whether we want it or not robotics will be taking more jobs, inc. driving. Though most americans will resist self-driving cars because of their love to drive.
Corporations love robotics and will increase the use. It cuts the overhead of spending money on benefits.
The problem with electric trains is that a power source is still needed and so far the US government is resisting solar and wind for energy, the current calls are to increase subsidies for carbon and decrease the amount for green tech.
For every step forward, we take two steps backwards.


#12

Amazon purports to incorporate self-driving trucks and delivery vehicles, not because it’s possible, it isn’t, nor is it desirable, but rather to bankrupt major retailers like Sears and small businesses, and corner the market on retail. Once Amazon has reached that point, they can increase prices on commodities and use Uber style delivery using standard automobiles. As for robotic manufacturing, we already employ sweatshop labor. Electric trains remain the most energy efficient travel mode devised ever.


#13

There are others who want self-driving cars besides amazon. Besides online shopping is destroying physical stores, everyone is getting into delivery. As for being possible, of course it is. It may take some years for it to happen, but it will.
We have both robotic and sweatshops, both are making finding a decent paying job difficult.
Electric trains may be the most efficient, but since when do americans really practice efficiency? Our transportation system is not the most efficient. Most of our systems are not the most efficient. Most of our systems are decades old and quite inefficient like our electrical grid. To modernize would take a couple trillion dollars for all the systems we have in place.
But if we are still burning carbon to run that electric train (the electricity has to come from somewhere), it is still not the best we can do.


#14

Supporting the dubious notion of self-driving cars supports corporate oligarchy. The technological gains are only possible at its “level 3” where the onboard computer can prevent accidents and restrict hazardous driving habits like speeding. This differentiates the term ‘autonomous’ which is possible, from totally ‘self-driving’ which is NOT possible. Eliminating a driver’s constant attention to road conditions eliminates a basic safety feature with a safety record of something like an accident for every 10,000 trips; not bad. Totally self-driving is a ruse to distract attention from corporate takeover schemes.


#15

It is not supporting, but acknowledging that technology always progresses. The horseless carriage was seen as something not practical, yet today we don’t use horses to pull our wagons. And the automobile soon dominated. As for the computers they are advancing at a high rate, doubling in capacity every few years. Time is the only factor before they arrive.
As for corporate takeover, that will happen no matter what, driverless cars or not. They don’t need driverless cars to take us over, they have the government doing a splendid job of that already. One little piece of tech won’t be our doom, the buying of our government has already given the corporates what they need.


#16

The progress of technology produced the atom bomb. What’s next? a Star Wars planet-destroying death star contraption? Don’t give me this horseless carriage crap, the republican argument. If you don’t want to listen to reason, I should just let you continue to gullibly believe the corporate lies. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.


#17

Wow a bit of anger there. It isn’t corporate to state the obvious that technology is always getting more advanced. My response was that the corporations don’t need self-driving cars to take us over. They are already using plain old bribery to take over.
If you don’t want technology in your life, stop using the computer.


#18

No offense meant. Just that tech excess, abused tech, misdirected tech,
I’ll discuss determining how regional utility grids adapt to solar arrays:
"atop roofs VS in big arrays?"
Or California HSR to serve “Altamont first” then Gilroy with a Talgo set
that’ll do 135, but for the terrain, the impact lighter.
Self-driving however is nonsense. Losing constant human attention loses a
safety factor, period. AVs more then a ruse.
not a technology that will ever evolve. “I’m sorry, but I cannot do that,
Dave.” my parting joke. good grief. Is this WWIII?