We are a nation of mercenaries
The Lebanese group Hezbollah, the same group that defeated Israel in the 2006 war, threatened to attack U.S. forces if we keep attacking the Assad regime.
A #Hezbollah commander: “Our people are gathering in the #Tanf area right now, so a clash is definitely coming.”https://t.co/fYmq6FIoWB
— Abdulrahman al-Masri (@AbdulrhmanMasri) June 7, 2017
The reason for the threat is because we twice bombed and killed pro-Syrian troops who never once had fired on us.
Both of the opposition groups being trained by coalition forces there have been involved in insurgent operations in the past, making the base an even more appealing target for pro-regime forces.
Yeh, you could see why the pro-regime forces are near the staging area of anti-regime forces. What is interesting is what happened immediately after we routed the pro-regime forces and our rebel jihadists surrogates were in pursuit.
Last week, the US-backed Syrian groups attacked the Shiite militias that had moved south along the highway toward Tanf. Although the Iran-backed militiamen retreated to their staging post at the Zaza checkpoint junction 50 miles north of Tanf, the US-supported forces also were forced to pull back when they were attacked by Russian aircraft.
The potential stakes in the standoff at Tanf are huge.
Meanwhile on the opposite side of Syria.
The military commander of HamzaDivision (trained by US) killed in clashes against #Assad forces around Bazaa by #Albab. #A24
— Aleppo24 (@24Aleppo) June 6, 2017
One might be incline to think we were trying to overthrow the Syrian government.
Why, oh why are we risking so much for a patch of nearly uninhabited desert?
To answer that question I will refer to former Secretary of State John Kerry.
As for al-Tanf, those are American soldiers at the base, who's costs may or may not be reimbursed by Gulf nation monarchs. But those aren't the only Americans in Syria.
Over the summer, a no-bid contract was reportedly awarded to Six3 Intelligence Solutions, a company based in McLean, Va., which in 2014 was acquired by major defense-industry player CACI International. The $10 million award, according to an otherwise pedestrian Pentagon notice, was for “intelligence analysis services” to be performed “in Germany, Italy, and Syria.” It was probably the first sliver of proof that U.S. contractors are actually operating there, despite persistent evasions by military officials.
“I don’t know if there are any contractors in Syria but I suspect there are a lot. We just can’t sustain military operations today without the private sector. We are strategically dependent on the private sector,” said author Sean McFate, also an Army special-forces veteran and assistant professor at the National Defense University.
There are roughly three mercs for every U.S. troop in Afghanistan.
In Iraq today, 7,773 contractors support U.S. government operations — and 4,087 U.S. troops. These numbers do not include contractors supporting CIA or other intelligence community activities, either abroad or in the United States. On April 5, Adm. Michael Rogers, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, declared during a Senate hearing that contractors made up 25 percent of his workforce.
The U.S. deployed 13,774 mercs in “other CENTCOM locations” outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remember, mercs don't count as "boots on the ground".
We NO national interests in that remote Syrian desert. None! Zip. Nada.
But wealthy Gulf oil sheiks do, and they are willing to pay for American soldiers to die for their political cause.
How much? About $1,500 per day.
The KSA and UAE have been using America's private, mercenary armies to fight their war in Yemen.
The mercenaries are from outfits like Academi (formerly Blackwater), R2 (Reflex Responses), Dyncorps, and a secretive company called Vinell Corporation that was bought by Northrup Grumman. The Saudis, because Yemen is next door, have been running the war. The UAE has been doing most of the hiring, with the bill now in the tens of billions of dollars.
The "Saudi army" is even more pathetic.
The Saudi military is almost entirely staffed by mercenaries. The Saudi jets bombing an air defenseless Yemen are piloted by Pakistanis. Its mid and low level officers are mainly from Jordan and most ominously for its ability to actually launch a ground invasion, its rank and file soldiers are almost entirely from Yemen.
The Saudis have a long relationship with American mercs.
The infamous Saudi Arabian National Guard was originally trained by Vinnell Corporation, an American defense contractor, in 1975. Vinnell is now owned by Northrop Grumman.
Blackwater merc pilots are also bombing Libya for the UAE.
Now the Iraqi government, of all people, have hired American mercs.
“The provincial government and the central government have contracted with [private] security police to secure the international road and control it,” said Faleh Al-Issawi, vice-president of the Anbar provincial council.
“The American company will begin its functions on July 15 in accordance with our contract,” he added.
Iraq should know better.
Comments
Goddamn mercenaries.
I really have zero respect for mercs.
While I admit that military SF fiction often portrays them as heroic individuals fighting for the little guy against faceless villains, the truth is that for the most part Mercs are there to do the job the government wants done but doesn't want to admit doing.
They're murderers for money. Their "wars" are fought without declarations, on behalf of the faceless, and for the loot. They're nothing more than bandits with uniforms, in my opinion.
I of course, believe that the honorable thing to do is to fight against mercenaries and bandits, but then, I still believe in the old stories about what the right thing to do is.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBfgNpSQm3I]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks ‘Another Epitaph on an
‘Another Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries’
It is a God-damned lie to say that these
Saved, or knew, anything worth any man’s pride.
They were professional murderers and they took
Their blood money and their impious risks and died.
In spite of all their kind some elements of worth
With difficulty persist here and there on earth.
Hugh MacDiarmid
"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
One of the hardest things in the Army for me...
Was being mocked for having a different definition of Honor than the official Army Value.
Their Version: Live up to all the Army values (Essentially Meaningless. Just means follow your orders, do what you're told, and Worship at the altar of the Chain of Command)
My Version: Conduct yourself as an Honorable Soldier. Give Quarter and respect to the enemy, Respect those that conduct themselves honorably, and never lose sight of the fact that the purpose of all war is to end it.
Yes, I know, I'm an idealist, but I strongly feel that the military in this country has completely lost all honor. The rise of the mercenary as a desired after service position is abhorrent to me and I find it repulsive to the very concept of honorable service.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
There's a fairly widespread view in Lebanon
that real honor is with the militias, these are the people who will defend their friends and family, and these can almost never be corrupted.
The Army on the other hand, can easily be corrupted. The soldiers themselves may be honorable, but when the order is given to stand down, or turn a blind eye to something, they have to do it. The Army has betrayed almost everyone at one point or another, but the militias virtually never.
The American founding fathers didn't trust standing armies. I don't either.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@detroitmechworks I'm not exactly
I'm not exactly excusing it, but I notice that unless you want to become some version of a merc (all private security is, IMO) or a cop, there's not a lot of reasonably-paid employment out there.
That said, there's things you couldn't pay me to do, even if I were trained to.
"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
@detroitmechworks I know this sounds
I know this sounds weird. But I don't blame the military, at least not the rank-and-file, and the lower ranks of officers, so much. Because in our system, the military was designed to be a subsidiary system of something larger, and subordinate to it. Once the civilian side of things has gone completely to hell, how is the military going to hold to something better?
That's a real question, btw, not rhetorical. And my position doesn't hold when you get up to the very top ranks--especially when you're talking about the people high up in the CIA, NSA, and all the other loathsome versions of secret police and assassins and liars. Which is not how military intelligence should be--even military intelligence shouldn't be completely without ethics, even given that it's probably the branch of activity that attracts the most dirt, and offers the most opportunity for doing terrible things. But you can have a less corrupt military intelligence--far less corrupt--than the one we've got, which has apparently pretty much entirely abandoned its original mission.
Unless one thinks that the Dulles brothers put it together in the first place to do exactly what it's doing, which is destroy the U.S. from the inside out and replace it with something worse.
"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
In recent days I’ve adopted the Harry Potter world as a metaphor
for all the real-life, all-Muggle social and political drama we see unfolding.
That’s because it seems at this point nothing short of the Very Deepest Magic can fix it.
Voldemort types in real life? The more that comes to light about them, the more the Dulles brothers seem to fill the bill.
I agree the military was supposed to be subordinate
to the civilians it serves.
My problem is that far too many who serve (This is my personal experience, so feel free to grain of salt it) are very much in the "Just follow orders" camp.
They have been trained for it their entire career, and have no example other than others who do the same thing. It is the rare individual who does the right thing, and they face years of censure and scorn for it. (See: Chelsea Manning)
IMHO, it is the duty of the military to maintain an absolute core of morality when it comes to the taking of life. There can be no "Shades of Grey" when it comes to killing people. The orders must be legal, approved by the people through their representatives (Which means CONGRESS declares war), and even then, the individual soldier must be the final check on pulling the trigger.
I of course, do not believe that just following orders is an excuse, no matter how many flag waving military fetishists claim otherwise.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks I agree with you.
I agree with you.
"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
Nuremberg proved that
"Just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse. Unfortunately, the other thing that Nuremberg proved is that only the losers of a war need fear prosecution for war crimes. The upshot is that war crimes, no matter how heinous, are fine provided that you win the war.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
I guess a lot of people figure
that since they've only got one Government, they'd better support it no matter how crappy it is. Most Americans have to fight just to get a a paycheck -- any paycheck, no matter who pays it. It's not as if ordinary folks have much input about what wars get fought, or why they get fought, or where. That's "above their pay grade" as it were.
native
And, they're Ex-Military
for the most part. Former E-3s, E-4s and up who can make 2, 3, 4 times what they earned as a GI Joe.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Which is frankly disgusting to me.
The idea of a PMC is already disgusting, and those that happily sell their honor for a few silver pieces should be shamed by the rest of the military.
Instead, we laud them and seek their advice. It's the worst possible degradation of the service, IMHO.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
yep, sadly. n/t
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
The business of America
is death, and we excel at it.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
@earthling1 The word "we" is getting
The word "we" is getting hard for me to interpret, under the circumstances I've been living in for the past 25 years or so.
"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
The Tanf garrison is training militias
to fight ISIS? Who knew? I could have sworn they were training them to fight Assad.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish
"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
Thanks gjohn.
This shit has been going on heavily since the first gulf war. The question is: Who do we blame?
Current or past presidents. You bet.
Current or past congress critters? Yup.
Government in general? Your getting close.
MSM? Warmer.
The majority of blame lays with the general population of this country. People are just too fucking busy trying to survive or absorbed in meaningless capitalism.
I blame u.s.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
@Pricknick People say this so often,
People say this so often, and it blows my mind.
We've had next to no control over what the government here does since about the mid-90s. It only became bleeding obvious around 2010. Though, for everyone except the right wing, it should have been obvious the first time an unelected man became President and everybody in politics and law acted like everything was fine.
Americans seem to have a hard time absorbing the fact that they have as little control over what their government does as, say, a reasonably well-to-do freeholding farmer had over whether or not King Bajorkas the V went to war.
"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
no control
Americans have as little control over what their government does as a vehicle owner who has been securely locked in the trunk of the same by the thief stealing it.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides That's perhaps a
That's perhaps a better analogy.
"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
King George the W and Grand Vizier Halliburton-Cheney. n/t
@Pricknick On the other hand, if you
On the other hand, if you want to say we were all a bunch of asshole idiots more concerned with our personal comfort than what was right back in the 80s and early 90s, I'll agree with that heartily. Those of us who were able to vote in '92 and before do have something to answer for, and I'll take my share of the responsibility for 1988, 1990, and 1992.
Once 94 happened, we were fucked. Then they passed the Telecommunications Act, and after that it was all over.
"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
My very first vote was for St Ronnie the Dim in 1980.
And while I know I did not solely elect that vapid dunce there are so many days I regret the hell out of that. My best friend did it too so at least we share some guilt for that. We were 18 and young and dumb, she grew up under very liberal Democrats and I grew up under rabid right Repugnants. I honestly don't remember our rationale for voting Raygun, maybe there really wasn't one but we bought the hype for damned sure.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Hostages in Iran
and 20% interest rates, most likely, that's the drum that they were banging back then. I voted Carter in that one, and still maintain that he was the last honest President the US has had.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish He may have been
He may have been the last President the U.S. had. I don't really count George H.W. Bush, because he got his power through other means than his elected office.
As my Latin professor used to say: "FDR proved that one could become president any number of times; Truman proved that anybody can be president, and Reagan proved we don't need a president."
"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
It's actually probably true
We don't really need a President.
Due to legislative roadblocks and stubbornness, Lebanon found itself without a President for over two years recently. The fact was though, nobody really cared, life went on. There's a few things that didn't get accomplished, but many of those things would have been bad, so overall, it was a benefit.
Nobody missed him.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish Of all the times
Of all the times for Kennedy and Carter to have a fight.
I'm the last person, usually, to preach Democratic unity, but for Christ's sakes! The dregs of the discredited Nixon administration find themselves a charismatic (supposedly) actor to be their front man and are on the brink of taking over the White House--and y'all fight?
Bury the goddamned hatchet, both of you, put both of you on a ticket together and fucking live with it for four years. Fuck's sakes! It's the country at stake.
But no.
"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
yep. sadly. n/t
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Just gotta love how they willingly
admit they're "strategically dependent on the private sector." And yet so many of "us" can't seem to figure out just who wins by fighting war after war after war.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
WTF?
So Yemenis are half-heartedly fighting Yemenis on behalf of Saudi Arabia...or at least that's the upshot I get from reading the source article.
Saudi Arabia is stupid like a lot of other rich fucks are stupid. Slightly fortunately for the poor bastards in Yemen.
Holy shit.
What a world.
One of these days...
A mercenary company is going to realize that all that stands between that Saudi gold and them is a very thin veneer of civilization.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks And then they might ask
And then they might ask themselves, what is civilization, in the current context? Their civilian "leaders" have hardly been behaving in a civilized manner.
"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
When fear no longer contains them...
I think that's the ONLY block on their action. They'd lose the long term cash stream from the US government if they carved out their own little kingdom.
Of course, I'm sure the US would feel obligated to make a deal with those who PROMISE to keep the oil flowing to the US for those lovely petrodollars...
Just a matter of time till the mercs decide to cut out the middlemen paying them to take oil fields, and just start taking the oil fields themselves.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Yemen has a long history of civil war
it was a divided nation for a long time. Hiring Yemenis leverages that rift.
If they can't handle Yemen, how do they expect to fight Iran?
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
I'm sorry, but that is so true and hilarious
in an ugly dark way! What a no-brainer really. They can't handle fighting against the poorest nation on earth but think they're going to take Tehran.... I'll chuckle on the absurdity of that all day.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
I agree that we like the money, and that we are, in effect
using our military as mercenary forces.
However, I'm not about to think that that's our main goal there. Our main goal is to control the Middle East by turning all the countries there that aren't on board with us into failed states, so that our allies are the only ones left standing. That way, we maintain the petrodollar, control a large portion of the world's oil supply, and keep other superpowers in their place.
IMO, that's what's going on, at least that's the large-brushstrokes version of what's going on from the point of view of the assholes running the U.S. But then, I think the Powell memo and PNAC basically cover what we've been doing domestically and overseas for the past 15-30 years.
"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
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal This wonderful strategy
This wonderful strategy also assures a constant justification for more war, so that our friends in the weapons-making industry have a constant stream of maximized profit.
"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
Second by second cost of wars
excluding Libya and Syria or the other countries that JSOC is secretly fighting in.
I wonder if this ticker for the costs of the wars was planted at the bottom of every show that people watch, would it make a difference in our silent consent for wars?
The cost of war
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Nope
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
@snoopydawg Snoop, what happens if we
Snoop, what happens if we DON'T consent? What would change? That we'd refuse to pay our taxes and be thrown into prison?
I'm not aware that I have given my consent in any way other than paying my taxes. In fact, a couple years ago, people like Bob Kagan were complaining in the press that America had lost its stomach for war.
I'm remembering that moment years ago, when a reporter told Dick Cheney "Mr. Vice President, for the first time a majority of the American people oppose the Iraq War."
His response?
"So?"
"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
there are people who are willingly giving their consent to the
military to do what it has been doing, especially since 9/11. These people have totally bought into the "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" bullshit.
As I have stated, I live in Utah close to Hill Air Force Base and many of my coworkers family members were in the military during the Bush administration. And then there are the many people that work at the air base in a support capacity. These are the people that do need to wake up and see that their family members and friends didn't die to protect this country or our freedoms, they died so that defense contractors, Haliburton and every other company that attaches itself to the military can get rich.
There have been many ex military members who have come out and told us that the military isn't fighting to defend this country. Smedley Butler first told us that in 1933. Then we had the Winter Soldier hearings after both the Vietnam and the Iraq wars that said the same things.
That is giving consent to the military to go into any country it wants on the pretense of fighting for our freedoms.
As to what can we actually do to stop this? I don't know. But I do think getting more people to understand that this military worship has got to stop. After that, who knows what can happen?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg We keep talking like, if
We keep talking like, if only the American people would wake up and stop being sheeple, or have a spiritual awakening and stop being selfish bastards, or if only they would stop being such a bunch of materialistic consumers, these policies would change. That's not so. There's no evidence that that is so. We could have the magic fairy wave the Gandhi wand over us tomorrow and nothing would change, except, perhaps, that more of us would be thrown into prisons.
Explain to me how my presence in a prison benefits the Yemeni being blown to bits with the aid of my dollars. Do you seriously think, if there were a major tax protest, for instance, where tens of millions or more withheld their taxes, that the government wouldn't simply use its massive military, including the militarized police and probably JSOC itself, which has permission to police our citizens because of a piece of legislation signed into law by Bill Clinton in the 90s, and lock us all up and probably extract the money via lawyers from whatever property we had anyway?
So explain to me how my presence in a prison helps the Yemeni child who's going to be bombed tomorrow. What will it do except make me look more moral? Well, and give the government another person to put in their prisons.
"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
@snoopydawg There are many problems I
There are many problems I think we can tackle together. The problem of our rogue government and the military force which it relies on to hold itself in place, is not one that I am capable of solving, nor do I believe it's a problem with a populist, civilian solution.
I am, actually, willing to hear ideas on how such a solution could take place. I'm not unwilling to listen and if someone has a new or creative idea, I'd at least consider it.
But the idea that all we have to do is turn out in the street like the Civil Rights movement did in the 60s and we could re-take the government and thus change policy? That's not going to happen. You require a democracy, or at least a republic, for street protest to have that effect without violence. You need at least some attempt at military parity to have street protest have that effect even with violence.
We have no civil society, we effectively don't have the rule of law (or, at least, the law is only a tool for the powerful to use on the weak), and we have little to no influence on our government and politics. That much has been proven by political scientists, but if we didn't already know it, last year's election, where each party chose a candidate disliked and distrusted by over 55% of the population on Election Day, should spell it out pretty clearly. The government doesn't answer to us; it doesn't care what we say. It only cares what we do when what we do interferes, or threatens to interfere, with business, and when that happens they bring out the goons. Civil society is basically gone except inasmuch as we little guys preserve it with each other (kudos to everybody out there who does this, day after day. Y'all are an inspiration.)
That leaves us with military confrontation as a way of getting control over our government back. I'm no military strategist, but it sure looks to me like the power is so asymmetrical, particularly because of the government's surveillance technology and the advanced nature of their weaponry, especially the weapons that can be used on large numbers of people from very far away, that it would basically be suicide.
Changing power relations won't happen unless it comes as much from within the power structure as without, and even then, the fact that those currently in power have access to weapons of mass destruction makes it very tricky.
"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
They government will lose only when...
the people cannot get what they need to live from the government.
As it is right now, far too many depend on the government to live, and the Corporations LIKE it that way.
Flint is just the starting point, and has the potential to spiral out of control as the infrastructure continues to fall apart.
What will defeat the US is not military action, but rather the march of time, and small, little actions that they can't respond to. Yes, they will call everyone who rises against them terrorists. They like to lie like that.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
@detroitmechworks We're not getting
We're not getting what we need to live from the government. Yes, I'm glad the government still paves the roads and does some maintenance, if not enough, on the bridges, and I'm glad there's still schools of a sort, but that's a long way from "getting what we need to live." Which may be your point.
I think we may be on the same page, more or less, in re: "small actions;" the small actions I'm thinking of aren't violent. I do think they need to be done; actually there's massive amounts of work to be done, it's just that none of it has to do with bringing the government back under control. We've failed to do that. The failure is final; this particular arrangement of power will not respond to elections; it will not respond to peaceful temporary protests; it will only respond to peaceful persistent protests by bringing military levels of violence against the protesters (often with a Nazi flavor, I've noticed--they started writing numbers on the arms of the DAPL protesters) and by bringing corresponding economic pressure however they can (the blockade, the pressure on the tribe's economic interests).
That leaves revolution. The ideas certain people on the right have about picking up our father's gun, or the gun we bought at the local gun show, and somehow taking down the US government, seem totally bugnuts insane to me, and it baffles me that sometimes the people who talk like that are (at least supposedly, since online anybody could be anything) former military. I'd think anybody who spent time in the U.S. military would understand that even millions of Americans with rifles or shotguns or handguns or even the kind of military weaponry you can buy at the local gun show, would never be able to defeat the U.S. military (and that's assuming we'd all be willing to bear the terrible costs of trying to defeat them, both morally and materially). When I have these conversations, the person on the other end usually says "Yeah, but the military would come over to our side." They can't seem to conceive that American soldiers would actually fire on vets like them who would, in this imagined scenario, be attacking US Gov. All that sounds like a fever dream to me--not because I don't think some in the military would, sooner or later, refuse to fire on the people they're supposed to defend, but because the notion that all that would happen simply and without division and that it would result in an overthrow of the gov't just seems so unlikely, to the point of being nuts.
I also have often wondered why folks like that feel OK discussing it on the open Internet (!), if they really mean what they say.
I often get into these discussions, oddly enough, by being willing to discuss gun control/2nd amendment issues with people on the other side without feeling the need to shit all over them. When they get over the fact that a leftie isn't going to hurl abuse at them for their (often weird to me, I admit) attitudes toward their guns, the conversations often go in odd but interesting directions. Still, it just ends up making me feel sad, because it's like they don't know what they're saying.
"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
They don't think that American soldiers
would fire on vets? I suppose they've never heard of the Bonus Army.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish That's a terribly
That's a terribly sad story.
I think that, perhaps, like so many of us, they just can't face the truth. I don't altogether blame them. The truth is terrible.
"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
Credexit
I've done it. So can others. If the masses do it too, the Oligarchy will fall.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
@earthling1 That, actually,
That, actually, is one of the things we absolutely should do. I am a bit worried about the impending "cashless society," though.
"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
The People of America Would Defeat the US Military.
300,000,000 people over 4 million square miles.
The US military couldn't defeat 36 million Iraqis in a couple hundred thousand square miles. What makes you think they'd defeat 300,000,000 Americans?
We're soft? You might have a point, but shooting wars tend to make hard guerrillas out of the soft populace.
That said, the intelligence disparity is a HUGE problem. We're so jacked in that we can't escape the prying eyes of the bosses.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc No, not because
No, not because we're soft. Because they can sit in a bunker somewhere in the DC area, or in Colorado, and deploy drones to wherever in the country they want. Because, if they want, they could send one person with a suitcase who could deploy around 25 drones just by themselves. Because they can use microwave on us. Because they can use LRADs on us. Because they have weapons that will kill a lot of people from a distance. Because in every city they have police who now might as well be military forces to come in afterwards and mop up. And that's assuming they wouldn't simply bomb us. It's assuming they want to maintain the physical infrastructure of the cities. And it's just what I know about. They probably have more weapons I don't know about.
If some of the soldiers, and some of the cops, came over to our side, we might be able, if we were all together and armed, to press them, simply because of our numbers. If we did press them, what would happen? They have access to weapons of mass destruction, and I'm not just talking about mustard gas.
My views on this have changed somewhat since it has become obvious over the past year that they are fine with having a shooting war with Russia--in fact, they seem to really desire one. That means they're more than ready to have a nuclear war. And that's when their backs are not against the wall. What would they do if they were really threatened by their own people?
I'm willing to bow to the superior knowledge of someone who knows how to analyze military situations better than me. But my analysis of the character of those running the U.S. is that they'd rather have scorched earth than lose. They certainly seem to feel that way about the planet, so why would they feel differently about the nation?
If somebody has reason to see this differently, I'd be glad to hear the reasons and the logic behind it, but it looks to me like we have one crucial difference between us and them: we want there to be a livable world afterwards. Apparently, they don't give a shit whether there's a livable world afterwards or not.
They sound like terrorists, don't they?
"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
How's That Tech Working in Afghanistan?
I'm with you in that I no longer believe "that we will defeat them" -- the information disparity is too great.
But if warfare starts, all that information disparity is lost, as the infrastructure required for it will no longer be intact.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
I think you're correct.
Though others sometimes bring up the fact that we couldn't 'win' in Vietnam, can't 'win' in Iraq, haven't 'won' in Afghanistan, I think it's important to note that our wars are never supposed to be won anymore; I'm near certain of it. They are supposed to be endless. Cost is no object, either human or otherwise. 'They' just don't care because 'we' are paying for it, so who cares? Didn't we just start lobbing bombs into Cambodia and Laos just because we had so many gathering dust, so why not? We'll just make more and you and I will pay for them. They do enough damage to rationalize their 'effort' but not enough to actually end the fight. So I don't think pointing to these 'failures' is a good measure on how effective/ineffective our weaponry, technology and military is or isn't. I am with CStMS, thinking U.S. military would prove crushing toward a domestic revolt; and I have little doubt they could convince a bulk of the soldiers to go along, protecting our precious 'democracy' from "domestic terrorists." Sure, some would not buy into that, but no doubt there will be plenty to go along because they are screened and molded into the proper mindset during training.
I also don't think the social dissent here at home had much to do with why Vietnam was ended; they didn't care about that either, back 'in the day'...and especially now that our riot police are more geared up these days. But even back during 'nam, they shoot a few students/civilians...no big deal. They don't care. I think Vietnam was supposed to be perpetual, similar to our current Afghanistan/Iraq, but something started to happen....you know why I think Vietnam really ended?
What started to happen toward the latter part of that 'conflict' (to use the popular euphemism)? The soldier morale reached terrible proportions. Drugs were a popular escape, but there was another facet that I think may be a factor - fragging of officers. That trend started to escalate and I think in one of those "Bug's Life" moments, I think someone in D.C. had an epiphany of similar sorts, "Um, what if all those soldiers suddenly realize that THEY hold all the rifles, grenades, mortars? That THEY are the ones that fly the planes? What if they suddenly realize the REAL problem lies here, shoot their officers over there, then just fly back and show up on the doorstep of the Capital?" I think that was nipped in the bud by shutting down early.
Dissent, killing either 'enemies' or native civilians, cost...none of that matters and I don't think has mattered in the last 50 years or so.
Bingo!
No one talks about fragging, but it's what ended both our involvement in Vietnam, and the draft.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
You are right about this
I have often stated that this is one of the most important reasons for why they have militarized the police. During the Obama misadministration, we saw the biggest increase in both income inequality and the militarization of the police.
IMO, they knew that the one day there would be the possibility of the citizenry rising up against those who are subjugating us and they would be ready for us.
We saw that during the OWS and the DAPL protests, which were a direct threat to the bank's and Energy Transfer's profits, how the militarized police brutally broke them up while some of the country cheered their actions. The BLM and the DAPL protests were against minorities and again some of the country cheered them on because in their minds those people should just get jobs and quit interfering with the corporation's profits.
I have read Ray Balko's book The Rise of the Warrior Cop 3 times. Balkos goes into great detail about how the police became militarized during the drug wars and how our rights have been whittled away because of it.
IMO, they will be very ready for us to rise up. Again, I don't have the answers to what we can actually accomplish, but knowing that there is a problem is always the first step towards fixing it.
ETA: During the Obama administration we saw the first time that mercenary contractors were allowed to protect a corporation's profits and they were allowed to secretly spy on U.S. citizens and direct the police action.
Under the constitutional lawyer, we saw the most abuses of the constitution.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg Totally with you on
Totally with you on this. We're seeing the same things. Fascism has basically been justified by that section of the Patriot Act that talks about defending "essential industries."
They didn't mention that they wanted to defend them from us.
"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
They'll just say that it's the price of freedom
Clearly we can't maintain our civil liberties without bombing civilians and destroying whole countries. The neocon propaganda reminds me of the Aztecs, they have to keep feeding their God the hearts and blood of fresh victims in order for the world to keep going.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Aztecs made all their neighbors hate them so very much
that the first outsiders to come along and say "Why don't you, and you, and you get together with us and go fight them?" got an enthusiastic reception.
And down went the Aztec Empire.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Aztec Empire
And their descendants have spoken Spanish and attended Mass regularly ever since.
The Aztec people, once relieved of their Emperor and Priesthood, were quite willing to accept the idea of one blood sacrifice for all and for good. They were therefore fairly easy to convert to Catholic Christianity.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides Thing is, the
Thing is, the Aztecs were kind of shitty pagans. I mean, they were the pagan answer to fundamentalist Christianity, or Wahabbism. They wiped out other tribes' traditions and religions and histories. I mean, they literally destroyed historical records and made it criminal to speak of or teach that history, and they replaced those erased histories with stories of amazing Aztec glory.
It wasn't really Montezuma, exactly, as I understand it; there was a brother or uncle or something who was a power behind the throne and a priest. Nasty guy; sort of like a religious version of Grover Norquist (except a Norquist who literally ripped out hearts).
"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
Aztec Grover Norquist
So it's pretty easy to see why the ordinary Aztec on the street -- much less the enslaved peoples adjacent to the Aztecs -- saw Ferdinand and Isabella as saviors, and their religion as a major relief (you mean that now grapes get to bleed for God instead of us? Dunk me in that baptismal water, you betcha!)
The historical fact is that once the Aztecs were defeated by the Spanish, the relations of all the Mexica with the Spanish Throne had its ups and definitely its downs, but the Mexican people have been devout Catholics ever since. When the Mexican Government threatened to force this to change in the early 20th Century, the result was the Cristero War.
The old truth "You reap what you sow" definitely applies to Aztec paganism. They sowed to oppression, violence, and bloodshed; they reaped the Spanish and all they brought with them.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides
So it's pretty easy to see why the ordinary Aztec on the street -- much less the enslaved peoples adjacent to the Aztecs -- saw Ferdinand and Isabella as saviors, and their religion as a major relief (you mean that now grapes get to bleed for God instead of us? Dunk me in that baptismal water, you betcha!)
No kidding!
And the historical fact is, as you say, they've been good Catholics (basically) ever since. Though I don't know what it's like in the places where there's more indigenous people. I can't remember the name of the region of Mexico that had a fairly successful rebellion a few years back--darn it.
It was back in the 90s, and the first time I got news on the internet long before it emerged in the mass media. Apparently somebody in Mexico went to their computer and sent the information out. Wish I could remember the name of the place!
"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
1990s rebellion in Mexico
It's Chiapas.
If you read the linked article, you'll find that a major direct cause of the Chiapas Rebellion was the enactment of NAFTA and how it shafted the indigenous peoples of Chiapas.
The more I learn about the Clintons..... grrrrrr....
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides Wow, I had
Wow, I had no idea of that connection. Thanks for pointing it out!
"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
Do you mean the Zapatistas in Chiapas?
That's basically near Oaxaca, as I recall. There are a lot of native peoples still around there, and some practice a strange amalgam of Catholic and pagan beliefs. Maximon is one of the idols they worship.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@dervish Yes,
Yes, Chiapas! The people down there are badass. Very smart.
One of the plantation owners they deposed, they punished by putting him in one of their huts, making him eat their food, and do the work they customarily did.
He complained to Amnesty International that he was being tortured.
"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
@thanatokephaloides The old truth
The old truth "You reap what you sow" definitely applies to Aztec paganism. They sowed to oppression, violence, and bloodshed; they reaped the Spanish and all they brought with them.
Also lies. It's usually not a good idea to base your magic on lies for an extended period. Shit tends to come back and bite you in the ass.
"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
I'm not sure.
There is a significant number of Americans that like the fact that the US has the most powerful military in the world and can go anywhere on the globe to kick some ass.
To a very large extent, this plays into the American mythos of being the "exceptional" nation. The reality is, in everything that truly makes a nation great, the USA ranks average or below.
truly makes a nation great
And in nearly all cases, worsening over time!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Wait. Wait.
Six3 Intelligence Solutions? Like in 666?
The object of human sacrifice is human sacrifice. And that's an unironical explanation of what the rulers are up to.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
It's all about oil and gas pipelines. Hopefully the rise of
renewables as the cheapest form of energy will blunt the rush to get oil and gas from the M.E. to Europe.
Bold added. More: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-approved-sending-libya-sarin-syrian-rebels.html
TPTB are desperate to cut the Russian's off from selling their fossil fuels to Europe. In the meantime, death will continue to be our number one export.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Here's a good article on the current situation in Syria:
Syria’s Cauldron: One Step Away from Major Showdown
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020