The whole world is at war...because of us

Submitted by OPOL on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 4:00pm

Now that our idiot 'president' is threatening to end our involvement in the war in Syria (that was never authorized by congress) and now Afghanistan too, the establishment is losing its shit.

I don't credit Trump because there no telling what he's really up to or why he's doing this. But if he ends those wars or any others I will certainly welcome it. It's time to put a halt to this nefarious business.

People are warning that there will be grave consequences if we withdraw. Of course there will. There's no easy way out of war, that's one of the many reasons why they're best avoided. But that's no reason not to get out of one. We should get out of all of them. None of them are justified and none of them are doing good in the world. That's just a right wing fantasy. It's time for the USA to lead the world to peace and be done with the business of war.

A right wing acquaintance was lamenting that our military had been allowed to languish to its lowest point since WWII...which is of course nonsense. We outspend practically the entire rest of the world combined in how much of our treasure we waste on the militaristic fever dream that passes for American foreign policy. Even if that right wing Fox News frame were remotely accurate, WWII should be viewed as an anomaly, an exceptional case for an arms build up – not some perverse kind of new normal. What sane and compassionate human being would expect WWII levels of militarism to be the standard of measure for eternity? It's not like we have a Nazi army threatening to take over the world...unless you count us, of course.

For a time after the end of the Vietnam War, it looked like we'd learned some important lessons. The American people were not eager for further military interventionism. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was even talk of a 'peace dividend.' That went up in smoke in a hurry. One can imagine the flurry of activity in the halls of the Pentagon, 'Hurry up and find a new enemy!'

Then came the neocons. Then came 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. Then came drones. Then came Syria, Libya, Iraq II, and all the rest, Yemen, Africa and so on.

How Many Wars Is the US Really Fighting?

Hint: the answer is way more than you think.

US Special Forces training soldiers in Sudan

This year, US Special Operations forces have already deployed to 135 nations, according to Ken McGraw, a spokesman for Special Operations Command (SOCOM). That’s roughly 70 percent of the countries on the planet. Every day, in fact, America’s most elite troops are carrying out missions in 80 to 90 nations, practicing night raids or sometimes conducting them for real, engaging in sniper training or sometimes actually gunning down enemies from afar. As part of a global engagement strategy of endless hush-hush operations conducted on every continent but Antarctica, they have now eclipsed the number and range of special ops missions undertaken at the height of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In order to ensure an adequate supply of enemies, we've had to be very inventive.

How the US Helped Create Al Qaeda and ISIS

(snip)

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

(snip)

In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.

That same right wing acquaintance agrees with me every time I bring up Eisenhower, the military industrial complex, and how Ike was right to warn us of this terrible threat and how his dystopian vision has come to pass.

He agrees, yet goes right back to bemoaning our neglected military – as though he cannot bridge the gap between the military industrial complex and the right wing framing that, for some magical reason, none of that matters. That it doesn't necessarily mean that war for profit is immoral or that misplaced militarism is evil. (But yes they are.)

“There is too much money in it,” said HRC in explaining why pot would never be legalized. She could have said the same thing about war. It'll never end, there's too much money in it. Hopefully, that's just as wrong.

Without a sufficiently compelling enemy, the whole military industrial complex scheme falls apart. So, being an industrious and creative, war-like people, we've simply invented enemies as needed. Anything to rationalize the entirely irrational so that rich people can continue to profit off of human misery. It's as simple and as sad as that.

According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is "unleashing the dark forces of violence" in the United States. Unleashing them?

This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed poor innocent villagers from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.

We pretend to advocate for world peace, or did until fairly recently, but we bring nothing but war. Our economic system thrives on it, depends upon it. The system as presently constituted would collapse without it. Rather than stepping up and making drastic changes to the existing monstrosity that our war-based system has become, we have turned a blind eye. We've sold our souls to avoid the hard work of making peace and tending to justice and changing our fundamentally unsound and immoral system so that it functions in such a way that people of conscience can accept and feel an enthusiastic part of it.

In the mean time, humanity has been cheated and played for fools by greedy capitalist war pigs.

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin.

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?

Nah. Probably not.

Humanity deserves to be revered because we harbor such genius, such joy and wonder, such tenderness and beauty, but collectively we are (or have been, I'd prefer to think) some incredibly stupid, mean and yes, evil bastards.

We've known we were on an unsustainable path since at least the fifties, yet we have failed to stop the bastards among us from ruining it for everyone.

Let us hope that's not how the story ends. Let's hope that once again we rise above. That we reach down deep and find our humanity before it is forever lost. We're better than this. We have to be or it'll be the end of us.

Tags:

War

Peace

Vote

Comments

Submitted by OPOL on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 4:01pm

Hey everybody.

Wouldn't a little peace be nice for a change?

Submitted by bobswern on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 5:19pm

@OPOL Language that some

@OPOL Language that some Democrats and even a few Republicans would understand...

From the Economist's View (Mark Thoma's) blog:

Stiglitz and Bilmes: The True Cost of the Iraq War

Saturday, September 04, 2010

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes:

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond, by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes, Commentary, Washington Post: Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict's most sobering expenses: those in the category of "might have beens," or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only "what if" worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?

The answer to all four of these questions is probably no. ...

From 2000 through 2016, the U.S. had spent (including ongoing obligations) a minimum of $4.792 trillion dollars on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and Homeland Security, per Brown University's Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs. See: "COSTS OF WAR." (Per the almost $5 trillion number, this also includes the militarization of U.S. law enforcement, apparently, via the Department of Homeland Security.)

Of course, this $4.792 trillion doesn't even include the $21 trillion in unaccounted Pentagon spending between 1998 and 2015.

Meanwhile, the NY Times tells us this is a grossly overstated number, with lameass commentary and pretzel logic such as this quote from the article linked at the beginning of this paragraph:

...Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the $21 trillion figure “double and triple counts funding that is transferred internally.”

“And just because a transaction cannot be fully traced and documented does not mean it was fraudulent or wasted,” Mr. Harrison said. Instead, it means the Defense Department “has not been able to pass an audit,” he said.

So, gee, it might only be a few trillion dollars that are unaccounted for! That makes me feel SO. MUCH. BETTER.

# # #

—

"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson

Submitted by OPOL on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 5:23pm

@bobswern It's stunning isn't it?

@bobswern It's stunning isn't it? It's been a heist too big to be believed. ALmost beyond imagination.

#1 Language that some Democrats and even a few Republicans would understand...

From the Economist's View (Mark Thoma's) blog:

Stiglitz and Bilmes: The True Cost of the Iraq War

Saturday, September 04, 2010

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes:

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond, by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes, Commentary, Washington Post: Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict's most sobering expenses: those in the category of "might have beens," or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only "what if" worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?

The answer to all four of these questions is probably no. ...

From 2000 through 2016, the U.S. had spent (including ongoing obligations) a minimum of $4.792 trillion dollars on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and Homeland Security, per Brown University's Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs. See: "COSTS OF WAR." (Per the almost $5 trillion number, this also includes the militarization of U.S. law enforcement, apparently, via the Department of Homeland Security.)

Of course, this $4.792 trillion doesn't even include the $21 trillion in unaccounted Pentagon spending between 1998 and 2015.

Meanwhile, the NY Times tells us this is a grossly overstated number, with lameass commentary and pretzel logic such as this quote from the article linked at the beginning of this paragraph:

...Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the $21 trillion figure “double and triple counts funding that is transferred internally.”

“And just because a transaction cannot be fully traced and documented does not mean it was fraudulent or wasted,” Mr. Harrison said. Instead, it means the Defense Department “has not been able to pass an audit,” he said.

So, gee, it might only be a few trillion dollars that are unaccounted for! That makes me feel SO. MUCH. BETTER.

# # #

Submitted by OPOL on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 5:25pm

@bobswern I just noticed who I

@bobswern I just noticed who I was talking to. Awesome to see you.

#1 Language that some Democrats and even a few Republicans would understand...

From the Economist's View (Mark Thoma's) blog:

Stiglitz and Bilmes: The True Cost of the Iraq War

Saturday, September 04, 2010

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes:

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond, by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes, Commentary, Washington Post: Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict's most sobering expenses: those in the category of "might have beens," or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only "what if" worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?

The answer to all four of these questions is probably no. ...

From 2000 through 2016, the U.S. had spent (including ongoing obligations) a minimum of $4.792 trillion dollars on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and Homeland Security, per Brown University's Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs. See: "COSTS OF WAR." (Per the almost $5 trillion number, this also includes the militarization of U.S. law enforcement, apparently, via the Department of Homeland Security.)

Of course, this $4.792 trillion doesn't even include the $21 trillion in unaccounted Pentagon spending between 1998 and 2015.

Meanwhile, the NY Times tells us this is a grossly overstated number, with lameass commentary and pretzel logic such as this quote from the article linked at the beginning of this paragraph:

...Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the $21 trillion figure “double and triple counts funding that is transferred internally.”

“And just because a transaction cannot be fully traced and documented does not mean it was fraudulent or wasted,” Mr. Harrison said. Instead, it means the Defense Department “has not been able to pass an audit,” he said.

So, gee, it might only be a few trillion dollars that are unaccounted for! That makes me feel SO. MUCH. BETTER.

# # #

Submitted by bobswern on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 5:33pm

@OPOL Your sentiments are

@OPOL Your sentiments are quite mutual, OPOL! I miss your work, bigtime!!!

—

"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson

Submitted by dkmich on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 12:00pm

Merry Christmas Bob

@bobswern @bobswern

So nice to have you dropping in more often.

#1 Language that some Democrats and even a few Republicans would understand...

From the Economist's View (Mark Thoma's) blog:

Stiglitz and Bilmes: The True Cost of the Iraq War

Saturday, September 04, 2010

Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes:

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond, by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes, Commentary, Washington Post: Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict's most sobering expenses: those in the category of "might have beens," or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only "what if" worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?

The answer to all four of these questions is probably no. ...

From 2000 through 2016, the U.S. had spent (including ongoing obligations) a minimum of $4.792 trillion dollars on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and Homeland Security, per Brown University's Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs. See: "COSTS OF WAR." (Per the almost $5 trillion number, this also includes the militarization of U.S. law enforcement, apparently, via the Department of Homeland Security.)

Of course, this $4.792 trillion doesn't even include the $21 trillion in unaccounted Pentagon spending between 1998 and 2015.

Meanwhile, the NY Times tells us this is a grossly overstated number, with lameass commentary and pretzel logic such as this quote from the article linked at the beginning of this paragraph:

...Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the $21 trillion figure “double and triple counts funding that is transferred internally.”

“And just because a transaction cannot be fully traced and documented does not mean it was fraudulent or wasted,” Mr. Harrison said. Instead, it means the Defense Department “has not been able to pass an audit,” he said.

So, gee, it might only be a few trillion dollars that are unaccounted for! That makes me feel SO. MUCH. BETTER.

# # #

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by bobswern on Sun, 12/23/2018 - 1:37am

@dkmich Same to you DK!!! And

@dkmich Same to you DK!!! And, a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year to you, as well!

—

"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson

Submitted by dervish on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 9:09pm

Damn it's good to see you, OPOL!

@OPOL Great essay!

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by OPOL on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 10:32pm

@dervish Thanks very much. Good

@dervish Thanks very much. Good to see you too.

Submitted by divineorder on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 5:13pm

Hola, amigo!

End the war in Syria.
End the war in Afghanistan.
End the war in Iraq.
End the war in Yemen.
End the war in Somalia.
End the war in Libya.
End the war in Niger.#NoMoreWar

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) December 21, 2018

The same Barack Obama who enabled Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war on Yemen and created the world’s biggest humanitarian catastrophe in which millions of children are now being starved to death. https://t.co/mmkQQ3dL0L

— Sarah Abdallah (@sahouraxo) December 20, 2018

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by OPOL on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 5:24pm

@divineorder Hola, 'mano.

@divineorder Hola, 'mano.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 10:06pm

Love Abdallah's tweet!

@divineorder

She nails both the hypocrisy of Obama's kindness to the children in hospital after he supported the Saudi's genocide in Yemen. But she also nails the hypocrisy of his supporters who refuse to see how bad a president he was.

At least these packages aren't being delivered by a Predator Drone, eh?

— Dustin Bremner (@Bremmy_Guy) December 21, 2018

Shades of his bombing weddings, funerals and the Saudis of the school bus, hospitals and civilian infrastructure in Yemen.

ToP is all agog with this story. Such a kind and decent man.

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 5:39pm

I loved it as well sd.

@snoopydawg Friends really HATE for me to see their Mr. Obama loving posts, because I simply cannot avoid challenging them.

Heh. Same goes for Her.

In welcomed contrast to the deceitful, warmongering MSNBC/neocon axis, Hillary is candid about why she wants permanent war in Syria (remember, she was harshly critical of Obama for not doing more): standard Bush/Cheney dreck about fighting them there, not here, being Strong, etc.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 22, 2018

... This:

We should never forget that US went there to overthrow the legit Syrian govt by supporting jihadi terrorists. ISIS didn't even exist when the US went in.

— Sunny Jim (@sunnyjim4) December 22, 2018

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by The Wizard on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 5:28pm

Most of the world oposses US militarism

If you consider yourself a citizen of the world, you see the situation somewhat differently. The US is in denial and conjures up the coalition of the paid and the sycophants to deny the fact that it, and it alone, is the bad-boy of nations. Think about it. South America hates US imperialism, Africa hates American imperialism, also most of the far east, with the exception of Japan, the Middle East same, and of course Russia. It is very doubtful that the US gets to continue this behavior. Not surprisingly Europe buys this US nonsense, since they get their vicarious thrill watching their evil spawn continue European imperialism. But Europe is becoming a smaller and smaller part of the modern world. The US cannot achieve military superiority over China and Russia, and is becoming a smaller and smaller fraction of global GDP. I don't see haw it can possibly maintain global hegemony. The current wars and increase in war budget is only a last reflex of a dying empire, trying to convince itself that it is still in charge. Fortunately both China and Russia are an order of magnitude more sane. Neither has committed to war, nor desires global hegemony. Their actions have been to defend themselves against US aggression, and that is unforgivable. Now Russia guarantees that nuclear blackmail from the US is not possible and China guarantees that economic blackmail is not possible. For the first time there is no need in the world for the US, neither technology nor natural resources, nor food, nor governance. I'm predicting a radical change in the world order in the next ten years.

—

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

Submitted by OPOL on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 5:32pm

@The Wizard Very interesting and well

@The Wizard Very interesting and well elucidated. Big changes. You can almost feel it coming.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 10:27pm

Love this essay, OPOL

@The Wizard

Well done! Good to see your writing again.

As for this comment: brilliant, mate!

I'm seeing numerous articles about how Mattis' letter is screaming alarm bells all over the globe. "Mattis was the last adult in Trump's cabinet and his resignation is horrible because of the way that he was able to keep Trump in control. But as you wrote, Mattis was just another war criminal who had no problem with the amount of suffering that we brought and would bring to countries that don't play by the USA's rules. Want to nationalize your corporations and give people a decent life? Nope. Here's a loan from the IMF that will bankrupt your country and put people into poverty.

Just look at the first words Mattis wrote in his letter.

Mattis explained which of his views aren’t “better aligned” with Trump.

“While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies,” Mattis wrote.

Translation: Mattis believes that Trump treats America’s closest allies with derision, which endangers America’s national security and its interests around the world.

Nope. Mattis doesn't say he's concerned with our national security because that isn't what the military is doing.

“Similarly,” Mattis wrote, “I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours,” naming Russia and China in particular.

Translation: Trump is weak and erratic in his policies towards America’s greatest rivals, including Russia and China.

No again. Russia and China aren't going to threaten our national security, they are threatening our hegemony. Russia probably wouldn't be in Syria if Obama hadn't invaded and threatened Russia's oil interests or its naval base. As I said in another comment here, John Kerry testified before congress and stated that we're in Syria for the Saudis and that they are paying us" a lot of money" to overthrow Assad. Then he giggled!

The media has gotten their talking points no doubt about that. Sirens. Alarm bells. And other types of words that hype up what he said. Mattis just took his balls and is going home. Or more probably to sit on some defense company's board and make lots of money. Or going on the boob tube to tell people how bad a president Trump is. Yup. This is my guess.

Submitted by Big Al on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 6:11pm

Well, look on the bright side,

since all the wars are ending and Trump is ending the quest of the U.S. to rule the world (even though Putin and Xi don't believe it) thereby bringing Peace on Earth, people like me can quit complaining that we don't have an antiwar movement. That saves a lot of time.
My work here is done.

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 10:46pm

But he might invade Mexico

@Big Al
to make them pay for his damn idiotic wall.

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 11:15pm

Ha, I just posted about that topic

@The Voice In the Wilderness

But he’s not trying to make Mexico pay for The Wall. He’s holding american taxpayers hostage for it now.

But you’re right about him turning his focus to the “invasion” from Mexico. And it’s a short hop from there to US troops in Mexico. Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me at this point. Trump does know his base, and they hate and fear Mexicans and other Latinos far more than they care about Syria or the middle east.

Submitted by JtC on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 10:03pm

Excellent...

work OPOL, and right on. At times I think the naming was wrong, Earth should have been named Mars, the planet of war, or maybe Plutus, after the god of wealth (greed). We as a species just seem to not be able to get past that shit. Wake the fuck up is exactly right.

Thanks mi amigo.

Submitted by OPOL on Fri, 12/21/2018 - 10:34pm

@JtC De nada, hermano. Gracias

@JtC De nada, hermano. Gracias.

Submitted by lotlizard on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 1:11am

Germany has been in Afghanistan for 18 years too

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Beteiligung_am_Krieg_in_Afghanistan

The Atlanticist elite here in Germany is presenting Mattis’s resignation as bad because it’s an article of faith with them that any diminution in U.S. hegemony and war is bad.

And why do they think it’s bad if U.S. hegemony and war diminish?

Because if Washington loosens its grip over German minds the way Gorbachev ended the U.S.S.R.’s control of people in its eastern European satellites, Germans would either have to (1) start thinking and acting like a sovereign country again, or (2) immediately shove the hot potato of sovereign decisions and leadership into the hands of the E.U. and the Eurocrats of Brussels.

The trouble with option two is that the E.U.-level political class — avid centralizers like France’s Macron — are unpopular and not yet ready for full extinction of national sovereignty in favor of a Brussels-led federal state.

And the trouble with option one is the post-war psychological conditioning that says that Germany must remain in thrall to the Allies, in a kind of held-over-from-the-occupation-era Stockholm syndrome, a winter of mental and spiritual submission, or else — what else? — oh, of course: it’ll be wall-to-wall neo-Nazis and springtime for Hitler all over again.

Submitted by QMS on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 7:57am

that song

by John and Yoko...War is Over, if you want it.

We need it over badly.

—

question everything

Submitted by Lookout on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 9:06am

in the forever war on terror...

we are the terrorists. It is past time to stop. Perhaps we should bring back the draft? At least regular folks might care about the wars if their kids had to go.

This data is from 2016 -
Currently, there are about 9,800 US troops stationed in Afghanistan and more than 26,000 contractors.

The defense industry has also made incredible profits since 2001, including nearly $100 billion in Afghanistan since 2007.
https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-how-many-private-contractors-and...

Most Americans can't find Yemen nor Syria on a map. It is past time to awaken!

Thanks for the essay.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 11:12am

The contractors is why

@Lookout @Lookout
Washington is moaning. Those contractors could be shooting penguins in Antarctica for all they care. As long as the profits roll in.

EDIT:
I assume they are doing the traditional mercenary jobs - terrorizing civilians and torturing prisoners.

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by dkmich on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 11:58am

I love this. Absolutely one of your best.

You and Bob Swern - what more could we ask for?

Merry Christmas OPOL. Let's all wish for world peace this holiday.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by wendy davis on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 12:01pm

a fine essay with great graphics, opol.

but if i might make an unasked for suggestion? i'm pretty sure than none of here see ourselves as part of the military/industrial/newsOtainment/ congressional complex, so my suggestion is for us not to use 'we', but instead 'the US', amerika', etc. as the largest purveyor of violence on the planet (h/t MLK, jr.)

there used to be a 'valued guest', mark from ireland at firedoglake, and on every anti-war diary i ever wrote, he'd blame us individually for not stopping the wars. sure, mark, ya think if i light myself on fire in downtown mancos, co as an anti-war protest...that'll do the trick?

anyway. they're all rich man's wars in aid of profits for the manufacturers of the tools of war, and for profit in nations with startling levels of mineral wealth. (see esp. 'the newest pivot to africa'.) but even the late, great john trudell uses the collective 'we' in this musical talking poetry.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDOZ00A1aos]

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 1:37pm

I hope people take you up on that...

@wendy davis

the idea that the ordinary joe is in control and therefore to blame for this retrograde suicidal nonsense is strong.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by enhydra lutris on Sat, 12/22/2018 - 6:43pm

Hola, OPOL, grat essay and much needed, not just here,

but everywhere, and daily. Thanks a bunch.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --