Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.
“Humanitarian” War Contradicts 200 Years of Liberal Thought
The Founding Fathers – the basis for American values – warned against standing armies and foreign entanglements, saying that overgrown military establishments destroy our liberty.
Liberal economists – such as Nobel prize winner Joe Stiglitz and James Galbraith – have demonstrated that large military budgets and war destroy our economy, and help the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Progressive University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – points out:
Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn’t to blame — the root of the problem is foreign military occupations.
***
Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined.
***
New research provides strong evidence that suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance. Although this pattern began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s, a wealth of new data presents a powerful picture.
More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research [co-authored by James K. Feldman - former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies] that we conducted at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans.
Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.
Some have disputed the causal link between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, pointing out that some occupations by foreign powers have not resulted in suicide bombings — for example, critics often cite post-World War II Japan and Germany. Our research provides sufficient evidence to address these criticisms by outlining the two factors that determine the likelihood of suicide terrorism being employed against an occupying force.
The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.
Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists).
Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community — this is why Osama bin Laden never misses an opportunity to describe U.S. occupiers as “crusaders” motivated by a Christian agenda to convert Muslims, steal their resources, and change the local population’s way of life.
The second factor is prior rebellion. Suicide terrorism is typically a strategy of last resort, often used by weak actors when other, non-suicidal methods of resistance to occupation fail. This is why we see suicide attack campaigns so often evolve from ordinary terrorist or guerrilla campaigns, as in the cases of Israel and Palestine, the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, or the LTTE in Sri Lanka.
One of the most important findings from our research is that empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism. In Iraq, the surge’s success was not the result of increased U.S. military control of Anbar province, but the empowerment of Sunni tribes, commonly called the Anbar Awakening, which enabled Iraqis to provide for their own security. On the other hand, taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism. In Afghanistan, U.S. and Western forces began to exert more control over the country’s Pashtun regions starting in early 2006, and suicide attacks dramatically escalated from this point on.
***
The first step is recognizing that occupations in the Muslim world don’t make Americans any safer — in fact, they are at the heart of the problem.
Security experts – including many liberal doves – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
Killing innocent civilians is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this). As one of the top counter-terrorism experts (the former number 2 counter-terrorism expert at the State Department) told me, starting wars against states which do not pose an imminent threat to America’s national security increases the threat of terrorism because:
One of the principal causes of terrorism is injuries to people and families.
(Indeed, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country.)
Liberal icon Noam Chomsky agrees that 9/11 happened because of American imperial policies in the Middle East.
Regime Change: A Decades-Long Neocon Project
Liberals – justifiably – despised Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neoconservatives’ warmongering.
The U.S. government – and especially the neocon element – has been consistently planning regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change for 50 years.
Why are progressives are falling for a continuance of this decades-old neocon effort?
Why Are We Fighting on the Same Side as Al Qaeda?
The Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
Terrorist rebels have been responsible for much of the violence inside Syria. And outside monitors have confirmed that the situation on the ground is much different than it is being portrayed in the Western media. (And according to the large German newspaper FAZ, those recently massacred in Hama were on the same side as Syrian leader Assad).
The United States is actually fighting on the same side as 3 terrorist groups in Syria. And see this.
Reuters notes that the leader of Al Qaeda – Ayman al-Zawahri – is backing the Syrian rebels, and asking his followers to fight the Syrian government.
Some of the main Al Qaeda fighters who overthrew Gadaffi – and now appear to be in control of Libya – are already helping the Syrian rebels.
Even Pat Buchanan asks:
If its good for Al Qaeda, can it be good for us?
The U.S. is arming the Syrian opposition, even though Secretary of State Clinton admits that will help Al Qaeda.
American government officials and corporate media are applauding Al Qaeda attacks in Syria. See this, this and this. Rather than condemning suicide terrorist attacks, they simply say Al Qaeda’s bombings show that the “window is closing” for Assad, and he should give up power. (Samples here, here and here – the latter tweeted by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice right after an Al Qaeda bomb attack.)
We supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. Are we going to create another 9/11 by backing Al Qaeda in Syria?
The Antithesis of Real Liberal, Progressive Values
Given that U.S. support of Middle Eastern battles increases terrorism, weakens our national security, hurts our economy, continues a long-held Neocon agenda, supports Al Qaeda, hurts freedom here in America, it is the antithesis of real liberal, progressive values.
Public Relations to Blame?
Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.
Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University James Tracy notes:
In April 1917, when Democratic President Woodrow Wilson led America into the war that he promised would “make the world safe for democracy,” he called on some of America’s foremost progressive journalists to “sell” the war to a reluctant American population through the greatest propaganda campaign ever put together. Wilson’s anxiety over securing liberal support for the war effort brought him to recognize how well known “Progressive publicists” exercised credibility in the public mind through their previous work in exposing government and corporate corruption. One such journalist was George Creel, who Wilson tapped to lead the newly formed Committee on Public Information (CPI). New Republic editor Walter Lippmann and “father of public relations” Edward Bernays were also brought on board the elaborate domestic and international campaign to “advertise America.”
Because of Creel’s wide-ranging connections to Progressive writers throughout the US, Wilson was confident that Creel would be successful in getting such intellectual workers on board the war effort, “to establish a visible link between liberal ideals and pursuit of the war,” Stuart Ewen observes. “On the whole, Wilson’s assumption was justified. When the war was declared, an impassioned generation of Progressive publicists fell into line, surrounding the war effort with a veil of much-needed liberal-democratic rhetoric.”
Well known for his derisive critiques of big business interests, such as the Rockefellers and their infamous role in the Ludlow massacre, Creel was the perfect candidate to lead a propaganda apparatus at a time when suspicion toward “a ‘capitalists’ war’” was prevalent. “When the moment to lead the public mind into war arrived, the disorder threatened by antiwar sentiments—particularly among the lower classes—was seen as an occasion that demanded what Lippmann would call the ‘manufacture of consent.’”
The sales effort was unparalleled in its scale and sophistication. The CPI was not only able to officially censor news and information, but to manufacture it. Acting in the role of an advanced and multifaceted advertising agency, Creel’s operation “examined the different ways that information flowed to the population and flooded these channels with pro-war material.”
The Committee’s domestic organ was comprised of 19 subdivisions, each devoted to a specific type of propaganda, one of which was a Division of News that distributed over 6,000 press releases and acted as the chief avenue for war-related information. On an average week, more than 20,000 newspaper columns carried data provided through CPI propaganda. The Division of Syndicated Features enlisted the help of popular novelists, short story writers, and essayists. These mainstream American authors presented the official line in a readily accessible form reaching twelve million people every month. Similar endeavors existed for cinema, impromptu soapbox oratory (Four Minute Men), and outright advertising.
Creel himself recalls the unparalleled efforts of the thought control apparatus he oversaw to sell the war to a skeptical American public
“It is a matter of pride to the Committee on Public Information, as it should be to America, that the directors of English, French, and Italian propaganda were a unit in agreeing that our literature was remarkable above all others for its brilliant and concentrated effectiveness.”
Alongside Creel’s recollections, out of their experiences in the CPI the liberal-minded Lippmann and Bernays wrote of their overall contempt for what they understood as a malleable and hopelessly ill-informed public that could not be trusted with serious decision-making. In their view, public opinion had to be created by an “organized intelligence” of technocrats (Lippmann) or “engineered” by “an invisible government” (Bernays), with the average citizen relegated to the role of idle spectator.
Anyone who doubts that the government continues to hire numerous well-known liberal reporters to act as propagandists to sell war should read this, this and the rest of Tracy's post.
Note 1: I believe that true progressive liberals tend to be against war, just like true conservatives. On the other hand, neoliberals and neoconservatives are actually very similar. The liberals who follow Obama’s justifications for war are being duped just like conservatives who followed Bush’s siren call to war.
Note 2: We are in no way endorsing the official 9/11 story. A discussion of 9/11 is beyond the scope of this essay.
WAR is caused by MOM [Mad Old Men] with limp dicks - young people have better things to do...
Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Iran - oil & gas, trend to war look familiar. War for resource gain; might makes right; blood for convenience and domination.
While there may be some truth to that. I'm sure we can account for Hillary somehow. It's sort of like saying that they cause business failures too. Never trust anyone over 30 failed only because it's not long enough to build a "reputation". So I doubt if MOM are the cause of the problem. I've met young psychopaths too in my life.
truer words have not been spoken
Why don't you ask why conservatives always fall for defensive, fear-based war? Which most of them have been, since WWII.
I believe that the last real Liberal and Conservative species died out about 25 years ago. They were replaced by a new species called: statists. This new species has no morals, is greedy, pathological, and very dangerous. Beware.
It's surprising, perhaps, how much classic liberals and conservatives still around (though not often heard anymore in the MSM, which has reduced even intellectual life to "reality tv" flavored mud wrestling between twisted midgets representing the red and blue factions of The Party) find meaningful agreement on matters of national defense, civil liberties and such.
Chris Hedges still stands as a voice of "real" liberalism, which he asserts has been profoundly corrupted over the last 30 years by those who now claim it:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/In-Depth-with-Author-and-Journalist-Chris-H...
Chris Hedges is unfortunately way too smart for most of the 'Murkin audience. Way too many folks can't hear his points because the sound of their knees jerking drowns him out.
Didn't we have an election recently where it was determined that anything other than black and white moralism is a bad thing?
There isn't 200 years of liberal thought. Liberalism today is vastly different than liberalism even 50 years ago. 50 years ago JFK lowered taxes during a recession to spur economic growth and he believed in fighting communism. Not only that, liberals would reject what Thomas Jefferson believed: limited government with the people having guns to fight governmental tyranny.
The war with Syria is advertised as a humanitarian war but there are many leaders around the world who oppress their own people. This is really about getting rid of secular middle east rulers and replacing them with radical islamic regimes who are hostile to Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood will be in charge of Egypt, Libya, and soon it will be Syria too.
Agreed that fundamental changes have occurred in the actions of people who wear the labels of conservative and liberal over the past 50 years. These labels have been emptied of meaning and rebranded as fashions that change as the designers desire. Much like Obama as a liberal . . . primarily on the basis of his color and clever marketing.
Chris Hedges addresses it pretty well:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/In-Depth-with-Author-and-Journalist-Chris-H...
Progressives are not only a problem in the U.S. but the British have a problem with them too. NPR is a big mouthpiece for the Progressive British, who, like Israel, feel they need to influence American Elections. NPR broadcasts BBC at least twice a day, but often you can here some British Accent on the radio waves speaking their brainwashed talk.
london is known to have more surveillance than any city. What happens in G. Britain always gets around to the U.S. Pretty soon it will be illegal to speak about US/UK/ISraeli involvement in 9/11, just like they imprison people for speaking about Holocost inaccuracies and anything remotely relieving to a German.
Daily bell has a good article about the Queen's snitches being taught in schools now.
http://www.thedailybell.com/4126/Her-Majestys-Tax-Collector-Tells-Childr...
Look I'm not sure "progressives" are the problem. Neocons and other flora and fauna of Republicanism embrace indiscriminate nation-bombing much more than progessives do. Progressives just use misguided humanitarianism to assuage their guilt and provide moral air cover. Repugs do it out of regular old ignorance, bigotry, and empire building fantasies. Which is worse?
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/most_likely_to_attack_iran/
Might I also point out that both Islam and Christinsanity both wage a war against the feminine.
Maybe your "christ-insanity" is anti feminine but biblical christianity has done more to elevate and equalize feminine humanity in relation to masculine brutish insensitivty than any other teaching attempting to order the conduct of human beings. The Christ himself publically spoke with females that shocked his contemporary jewish brothers. He showed compassion and instinctively healed these whom the male dominating society discounted as chattel. His example is seen as a model for believers to emulate to this day.
Perhaps because he did not elevate it to be above the masculine, you may find fault in, but to my mind, elevating the two to an equal status with one another, though differing in natural functions, (maternal vs. paternal), has continued to be the hallmark of the revolutionary status christianity still enjoys. imho.
Thanks. I was more trying to point out the error in both religions, which is a the source of the justification of the coming war. I once read a term paper that supported the belief that southern slaves were better off under the control of their oppressor. This was before Catrina and Barbara's infamous words. That's a mindset. I find it interesting that war could be rationalized by any cognitive individual.
That is just stupid, and wrong. Christianity has eviscerated the feminine. Keep up your bullshit propaganda, but people have learned otherwise. Oh, and christianity has little to do with the teachings of Christ.
people have learned otherwise...
I have no doubt that what you say is true. People have learned otherwise.
The problem may be if what they have learned is indeed the truth. Unfortunately, it's as easy to believe the lie, possibly easier, as this site makes manifestly clear. imho.
"The crowd is untruth" - Kierkegaard
Hey, you never know...
Some day Al Quida might come and liberate the US Fema camps.
I'm bringing a prayer rug with me just in case...
First it would take US FEMA camps, very unlikely.
Second, Al Qaeda are US citizen material. They are US citizens in the making.
Across history, US citizens have shown various eases of relationship and usually, there are people US citizens work to topple and people US citizens work to enthrone.
Al qaeda is part of the second.
Perhaps the majority of people come by the beliefs they claim as little more than the currency of group membership. The popular culture "progressive" crowd is widely known as the group that "cares about people." They are easily useful idiots for anything that gets packaged that way.
Likewise, why would the group that traditionally supports American labor agitate for virtually unfettered illegal immigration from Mexico?
Something similar is blatant at ZH with people who claim to be anti-globalization yet uncritically/ignorantly support "Austrian Economics" that cheerleads globalization in the name of "Liberty".
It looks to me like most people just wanna parrot what their version of the "cool crowd" embraces as the party line.
Like Junior High school. Yes, that is very sad.
"Perhaps the majority of people come by the beliefs they claim as little more than the currency of group membership."
It's more likely the beliefs they have created the group that they are members of.
Your take on globalization is ass backwards, too.
Juggling the Spheres
All this brings us to a theory of how the moral sense can be universal and variable at the same time. The five moral spheres are universal, a legacy of evolution. But how they are ranked in importance, and which is brought in to moralize which area of social life — sex, government, commerce, religion, diet and so on — depends on the culture. Many of the flabbergasting practices in faraway places become more intelligible when you recognize that the same moralizing impulse that Western elites channel toward violations of harm and fairness (our moral obsessions) is channeled elsewhere to violations in the other spheres. Think of the Japanese fear of nonconformity (community), the holy ablutions and dietary restrictions of Hindus and Orthodox Jews (purity), the outrage at insulting the Prophet among Muslims (authority). In the West, we believe that in business and government, fairness should trump community and try to root out nepotism and cronyism. In other parts of the world this is incomprehensible — what heartless creep would favor a perfect stranger over his own brother?
The ranking and placement of moral spheres also divides the cultures of liberals and conservatives in the United States. Many bones of contention, like homosexuality, atheism and one-parent families from the right, or racial imbalances, sweatshops and executive pay from the left, reflect different weightings of the spheres. In a large Web survey, Haidt found that liberals put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group loyalty, authority and purity. Conservatives instead place a moderately high weight on all five. It’s not surprising that each side thinks it is driven by lofty ethical values and that the other side is base and unprincipled.
Reassigning an activity to a different sphere, or taking it out of the moral spheres altogether, isn’t easy. People think that a behavior belongs in its sphere as a matter of sacred necessity and that the very act of questioning an assignment is a moral outrage. The psychologist Philip Tetlock has shown that the mentality of taboo — a conviction that some thoughts are sinful to think — is not just a superstition of Polynesians but a mind-set that can easily be triggered in college-educated Americans. Just ask them to think about applying the sphere of reciprocity to relationships customarily governed by community or authority. When Tetlock asked subjects for their opinions on whether adoption agencies should place children with the couples willing to pay the most, whether people should have the right to sell their organs and whether they should be able to buy their way out of jury duty, the subjects not only disagreed but felt personally insulted and were outraged that anyone would raise the question.
The institutions of modernity often question and experiment with the way activities are assigned to moral spheres. Market economies tend to put everything up for sale. Science amoralizes the world by seeking to understand phenomena rather than pass judgment on them. Secular philosophy is in the business of scrutinizing all beliefs, including those entrenched by authority and tradition. It’s not surprising that these institutions are often seen to be morally corrosive. Stephen Pinker
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&page...
of course we lose if we lose our simple judgement of the difference between right and wrong. And the ability to act against the wrong i might add. There is no worse form of human behavior than those that depress the ability to act..."relieve the human being from his/her spirit" as it were. the replacement of ALL religion by this rather odd strain of secularism...in the most religious country outside of the Middle East i might add...only goes to show "there are good Gods...and evil ones." and this type of "evil God" if he is not destroyed...will lead to the total collapse of Western Civilization.
By the way. War occurs for the same exact reasons as kids fight on the play ground. Drunk college age men fight. And domestic fights occur. It isnt until people get very old and litterally don't give a sh1t about much of anything except, good sleep, fresh air, a good constitution and a warm meal.
Anyone see the Human-ist connection?
Oh yes. Many mamals who organize into "societies/groups" war with each other too.
Starting to get the idea of the REAL cause of war.
PS - it aint some elite cabal. It's the same folks who caused the financial crisis and elect politicans.
Cheers & go USA!
liberals are totalitarian fascists just as are banksters.....they both want an engorged state to enforce their personal ideologies on everyone else, because they, the ones with the brilliant ideas, believe that god made them to rule over the little people...
i don't blame the iranian students for taking the american hostages because of what the cia did to that nation...the cia put the evil shah in power who maintained his arrogant opulence through the cia trained savak which like the homeland security, tsa, fema, and a host of other barbaric agencies ruthlessly murdered people and crushed dissent....
so yes, the opposition of arabs to america is rooted entirely in cia interference in their affairs and the murders foisted upon them....and it happens domestically....the cia is blatanly advertising on the radio for agents for domestic clandestine operations.....it is savak all over again with stassi thrown in for good measure....
Oh Georgie, there you go again with your liberal lemming linquistics.
"Progressive University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – points out: Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn’t to blame — the root of the problem is foreign military occupations."
Right... Islam.
Islam, that beautifully peaceful ideology that has used violence against EVERY people and culture that did not bow to its commands.
As opposed to the USA. Whose used violence against every people and culture that did not bow to our business elites.
Right...
What a post to kick off the Olympics.
I think you've achieved a critical insight right there.
The Islamist world-view demanding "total control of society by religion" is entirely equivalent to the bankster world-view demanding "total control of society by flows of money."
No matter how you look at it, a battle between religions.
The only people that make these last violent 11 years into religous wars are the Government's of the US/UK/Israel (Which one do you work for? ), and they are doing the same with Syria as I write, pushing the "sectarian" bull shit that even Christian Nuns in Aleppo are speaking out about saying these are all phony lies by the FSA and their backers.
Humanitarian War?
Aint it, excately what,tells it all!
Never was, and never will be, an Humanitarian war.
Who would argue,that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an Humanitarian act!
War is an remenisens of The Urhuman,the need to control others!
If there should be a such thing,as Humanitarian war,the Bombs would be made of LOVE,imagine,to Bomb exp,Russia with Love,or Cuba for that matter,turning the Bay of Pigs into the Bay of Love.
We ,Most of us,know what is needed,seems like the way to There,is paved with Blood,cause its the wrong way, that has been taken:
And it is said over and over again:So, i risk my ARSE(i am one of them(confesion) who knows all about nothing ,and nothing about everything),Power corrupts,nobody,it seems like,can hold this quest,and never has been,without getting rotten!
spot on. like how you write, too "i am on to you."
Bill Whittle;
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=1808
You would benefit from a history lesson and a little perspective.
It's nice to see that laid out so clearly. But what's really the big problem?
Is there supposed to be something wrong with the fact that Jon Stewart holds a different opinion about some historical event?
(I don't have any strong moral opinion on the nuking of Hiroshima/Nagasaki myself because I think it was just business. We had to know if that shit was really going to WORK. Japan was just the only practical target at the time. Their loss. This has a lot to do with why States should avoid war.)
"Is there supposed to be something wrong with the fact that Jon Stewart holds a differentopinion about some historical event?"
It would also be an opinion to think the banksters want nothing but the best for us. While anyone could be entitled to their own opinion, it does not save them from being a dumbass. There is nothing wrong with Stewart having a different opinion. His opinion itself is just dead wrong.
We apparently have incompatible understandings of the word "opinion."
I believe opinion is a personal PREFERENCE. Just as no other group or person can tell me which flavor ice cream I personally prefer, no one can tell me that my lack of moral judgment on nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki is "incorrect."
You appear to think that opinions can be evaluated from a non-subjective perspective. If I say I prefer chocolate ice cream, you can find some kind of evidence which PROVES that, say, strawberry is better, and thus I am "wrong."
I'd be curious to hear how you think we as a society should determine which opinions are correct and which are incorrect. Would it be by selecting one person who has all the best opinions, and then just enforcing what he says? Should each opinion be evaluated by everyone in some kind of election or bidding process? Does ANY opinion need some certain number of adherents to be considered legitimate?
It does get a bit confusing when you look at the language in these cases. If you interpret Stewart's words as a statement of FACT, it's a bit easier to understand where the conflict comes in. "I think nuking Japan was a war-crime" can be interpreted in the same way you'd interpret "The cat is meowing to be let out." Two people can simply observe the act and the definition of war-crime and say either, "yes" or "no."
On the other hand, it may be that "I think nuking Japan was a war-crime" actually means, "I prefer that others share my perspective that nuking those cities was criminal," in which case, there's no "yes" or "no" to assign.
The simplest response is: "Fine, but who cares what you prefer?"
Go ahead New York City people/media. "Phuck with the Americans." he forgot to add the part where "we had already fire-bombed the entirety of the Japanese home islands" as a "warning" as well. The Imam is calling Jon Stewart! He wails for you! Shall we attack with a comedy of errors? Or shizophrenia?
maybe the off shore wars are a diversion from the war that the elite banks/brokers/politicians rulers have waged upon the Citizens of the USA and that War is destroying Our Nation.
out of sight out of mind.
Maybe?
heh, yeah suicide is usually a last resort
I actually know a person who's a repeat offender in that field.
Failed 3 times already.
Should be good for some self-esteem.
or, if you're female and english, help publish your poetry
As is always forgotten about Wilson the greatest progressive:
He segregated the arm forces;
He was a great believer in eugenics;
Passed a series of sedition acts that imprisoned thousands of people that criticized the war with Eugene Debs being one of the more famous prisoners;
Entered the war to be a big man on the world stage, despite his Secretary of State, who resigned because of the declaration of War, who told Wilson that he would be the peacemaker as all the countries at war were running out resources - people and arms;
GB's blockade of German was causing hundreds of thousands of people in Germany and Austro-Hungry to die from starvation and that does not fit with your position of stopping the killing by joining the British and the French;
A larger percentage of the population of Germany could vote than those in Britain, France and Russia;
Seized assets, trademarks and patents that were distributed as Wilson saw fit, which resulted in two Mercks today and Bayer AG only in last decade getting to use its trademark in the US buying the company that owned it because it was taken by Wilson; and
Wilson refused to accept the revision of the Treaty of Versailles permitted by the League of Nations that was counter to our Constitution that said only Congress could declare war and the US could not give up that right to the league - the sole objection of Losge in the Senate, but Wilson was the good guy by refusing the compromise and the treaty.
The result was the US entered into a separate treaty to end its participation in the War in 1922, Wilson had no impact on the severity of the surrender terms that would lead to WWII, concurred with slice of Southwest Acadia and Middle East, which still haunts us, and Wilson left the world a far worse place because he was President.
Interestingly General "Black Jack" Pershing wanted to "go all the way" and not stop the war with Germany and indeed "go all the way and demand an unconditional surrender." You'd better "broaden your view of history" as interesting a snippet as this is for "history would have turned out far differently if the Americans had listened to the only Six Star General in its history."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing#World_War_I:_1918_and_full...
politics is a complex business even in the most straightforward of times. this time is no different. point well taken of course.
And... some of the strongest propganda for WWI was a humanitarian crusade to stop the Turkish Muslims' genocide of the Armenian Christians. Woodrow Wilson helped found the institution that made that poster in 1915. I am supposed to believe by this craptastic article that he was either not Progressive, or he was not for pushing humanitarian justification for war other than being deceived by his advisors. Furthermore, I'm supposed to believe that that war was the "antithesis of progressive values." Yeah. Sure.
Of course, we got into WWI and did absolutely nothing about the Armenian genocide. So yes--in a sense--Progressives aren't for humanitarian wars, just for claiming that and then fighting wholly unrelated wars.
Because they're idiots who only know how to worship greedy psychopaths ie... banksters.
they hate our freedom bitchez!
Murray Rothbard wrote a book that goes into great detail about this phenomenon. It is called For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
One thing that really pisses me off is how the Counterpunch types didn't help Ron Paul in his run for President. RP has the most ethical ideas for a presidental candidate on foreign policy in the last 70 years.
But they are able to do it because so many "progressives" and those on the right actually WORK for the war system, which is owned by the Central bankers. These banking families that go way back have bragged over the years about benefitting from whatever happens. They make SOMETHING happen when times are changing and keep surpressing humanity. Look at all the energy discoveries and developers who cannot get their ideas out there.
The 'little' system people that work for this war machine, are only little in respect to their masters, because many make 6 figure incomes themselves.
Colorado is a state that has masses of people (progressive and conservative) working for the system. They have norad, the universities there are highly entwined with the NSA, the new NSA plant they are building. And then you get all these shootings there. It's a weird state.
The point is, we can't stop this without confronting these little eichmans that are working for the elites, but they are usually well respected people in their communities....Technology people, science, math, etc.
really? 9 up and zero down on that? really? "The bankers are in league with the intelligence services"? how does that work? this whole ONGOING crisis at its most basic is a simple inability to tell the truth....indeed "even recognize it after the fact." How does the government help with that? I would argue "it destroys the very foundation of finance" because of it's INSATIABLE need for BIGGER AND BIGGER LIES. HEY PHUCKERS...THAT'S A TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. Go ahead..."blame the Central Bankers." Don't forget to raise taxes while you're at it! "The American people got your back" all the way on this one...
People love to be fed their own beliefs whether or not the beliefs make any sense.
The Founding Fathers would find the modern Democratic Party and GOP to be completely indistinguishable. Anyone that votes for either party is part and parcel of the problem. The very idea of a "Lesser of two evils" is exactly the problem.