@Amanda Matthews I wake every morning, happy that we have no war in country (save NoDAPL) and only 7 outside. What have we become? A crazy POTUS, dysfunctional (again, this year) Congress. Helpless in the hinterlands.

#2
the dimwits and the easily led that do.

@The Wizard
Looks like someone wants to hide it now.
Basicly, it was a compilation of parts of the following:

#4
The second video will not play, I get a "private video" message.

I'm always impressed with his objective and analytical responses. He gives you a real answer, explains some details of history, and then tells you why he thinks that way. We are very lucky that Russia is run by a level headed, intelligent, knowledgeable, moderate leader. You have just heard his perspective about the never ending cyclical bashing of Russia by politicians from both parties in the US. He is exactly right. I am not at all surprised that he has an 85 to 90% approval rating in Russia.

@The Wizard @The Wizard

Video's just over 2 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

Uploaded on 11 Sep 2011

Originally published in March 2007
General Wesley Clark:
Because I had beenthrough the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

Later, though, the mention made of Africa not being militarily invaded, (because of not having plunder,) made me rather sad.

Do please, if you can, read this following in full at source, even if it is older, because it is a very informative article and I think makes the actual effects very, very clear.

http://www.alternet.org/world/us-military-buildup-africa-lightning-fast-...

US Military Buildup in Africa Is Lightning Fast -- and It's Going to Be There for Decades
Military missions reach record levels after U.S. inks deal to remain in Africa for decades.
By Nick Turse / TomDispatch
April 14, 2015

For three days, wearing a kaleidoscope of camouflage patterns, they huddled together on a military base in Florida. They came from U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and U.S. Army Special Operations Command, from France and Norway, from Denmark, Germany, and Canada: 13 nations in all. They came to plan a years-long “Special Operations-centric” military campaign supported by conventional forces, a multinational undertaking that -- if carried out -- might cost hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of dollars and who knows how many lives. ...

... behind closed doors and unbeknownst to most of the people in their own countries, let alone the countries fixed in their sights, a coterie of Western special ops planners were sketching out a possible multinational military future for a troubled region of Africa. ...

... it was a tabletop exercise building on something all too real: the ever-expanding panoply of U.S. and allied military activities across ever-larger parts of Africa. ...

... Despite the grim outcomes since the American military began “pivoting” to Africa after 9/11, the U.S. recently signed an agreement designed to keep its troops based on the continent until almost midcentury. ...

... During an interview, an AFRICOM spokesman once expressed his worry to me that even tabulating how many deployments the command has in Africa would offer a “skewed image” of U.S. efforts. Behind closed doors, however, AFRICOM’s officers speak quite a different language. They have repeatedly asserted that the continent is an American “battlefield” and that -- make no bones about it -- they are already embroiled in an actual “war.”

According to recently released figures from U.S. Africa Command, the scope of that “war” grew dramatically in 2014. In its “posture statement,” AFRICOM reports that it conducted 68 operations last year, up from 55 the year before. ...

... Billions of dollars have been pumped into Africa to build bases, arm allies, gather intelligence, fight proxy wars, assassinate militants, and conduct perhaps thousands of military missions -- and none of it has had its intended effect. Last year, for example, Somali militants “either planned or executed increasingly complex and lethal attacks in Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti, and Ethiopia,” according to AFRICOM. Earlier this month, those same al-Shabab militants upped the ante by slaughtering 142 students at a college in Kenya.

And al-Shabab’s deadly growth and spread has hardly been the exception to the rule in Africa. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, AFRICOM commander Rodriguez rattled off the names of numerous Islamic terror groups that have sprung up in the intervening years, destabilizing the very countries the U.S. had sought to strengthen. While the posture statement he presented put the best gloss possible on Washington’s military efforts in Africa, even a cursory reading of it -- and under the circumstances, it’s worth quoting at length -- paints a bleak picture of what that “pivot” to Africa has actually meant on the ground. Sections pulled from various parts of the document speak volumes: ...

... All this, mind you, is AFRICOM’s own assessment of the situation on the continent on which it has focused its efforts for the better part of a decade as U.S. missions there soared. In this context, it’s worth reemphasizing that, before the U.S. ramped up those efforts, Africa was -- by Washington’s own estimation -- relatively free of transnational Islamic terror groups. ...

... AFRICOM commander David Rodriguez continues to put the best face on U.S. efforts in Africa, citing “progress in several areas through close cooperation with our allies and partners.” His command’s assessment of the situation, however, is remarkably bleak. “Where our national interests compel us to tip the scales and enhance collective security gains, we may have to do more -- either by enabling our allies and partners, or acting unilaterally,” reads the posture statement Rodriguez delivered to that Senate committee. ...

They always spell 'corporate/billionaire' as 'national' when followed by 'interests' to be militarily enforced protected, don't they? How many other 'secret wars' are being inflicted on how many other countries? And how many of these new terrorist groups may have been funded/armed/trained - as well as motivated - by involved interests? Who's making the big bucks off this? (Other than the MIC, including corporate suppliers, of course.)

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO SYRIA:

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

by Dr. Zoltan Grossman

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2014.

Below the list is a Briefing on the History of U.S. Military Interventions.

The list and briefing are also available as a powerpoint presentation.

This guide does not include:

mobilizations of the National Guard
offshore shows of naval strength
reinforcements of embassy personnel
the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)
military exercises
non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
the permanent stationing of armed forces
covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
the use of small hostage rescue units
most uses of proxy troops
U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
foreign or domestic disaster assistance
military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
civic action programs
and many other military activities. ...

... COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as "accidental" or "unavoidable."

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism," "atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing," but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition "defensive," but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition "offensive."

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends" and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions. ...

My searches, especially in certain areas, turn up very little of use, though. Almost everything following what I'd garnered and posted above (Africa having been separately looked up) shows a multitude of reasons as to why often unnamed sites are unavailable; account suspended, a great variety of errors, not available, page could not be found, etc..

And the variety of unrelated stuff showing up continues, search terms used: America's attacks on Mid-East countries long planned

Results? One not-the-best but at least pertinent item, posted above; one related item, posted above; stuff on ISIS/Al-Qaida attacking and such as this, below. Say 'bye-bye' to the internet as a useful information tool... at least on my computer. Maybe yours will work better.

Suspended Site
America is inspired to hilariously #RenameMillionWomenMarch thanks to...
[Search domain www.kaboom.news] kaboom.news/wp-content/

Thanks, Obama, nothing like 'public-private' Domain Name control...

(Edited for a case of missed punctuation and a missed word.)

#9
One of my favorites from the era.

The question, thought keeps coming up. Why do we make war? I don't buy any of the standard answers. This could be a continuum from the European days of imperialism, where every Western European nation wanted foreign nations to control. Now it seems to be concentrated in one nation, us. We are compulsive war makers and do it at our own detriment. Perhaps it's Capitalism, or perhaps the nature of our peculiar democracy. Or maybe it's culture, a thread from German to Anglo-Saxon to American. I don't know and worse I don't see a mechanism to stop it, save global thermonuclear war.