Bush/Cheney warmongering exposed in new book

Top Gun: Superb posting. How refreshing to read rational and reasonable comments about the situation as it really is. Keep up the good and intelligent work.


Dahermit. : excellent points too.

Nice to see that some are grounded in reality....and true awareness.


bravo to both of you.

Thank you Shadow I also appreciate your contributions to the discussions as well.

Same thing with Dahermit. It's funny... Dahermit and I have both agreed and disagreed on things but he's a tough old school debater and it always pleases me when we agree. He will definitely fight a thread out.
 
Werbung:
Seems that this article ties in with the thread title :~ so rather than start another thread that would be similar ......will tuck it in here. (hope that is ok)

Fear, Procurement, Profit: Permanent War and the American Way
Sunday, 17 August 2008

When it comes to determining the true thrust and implication of world events, the old adage is still valid: "Follow the money."

The lust for long green is not the sole determinant of state policies, of course. For example, there are also the psychosexual anxieties of blustering elites, the soul-corroding pathology of political ambition, the ignorance and arrogance of the powerful and the privileged, the herd instinct that can drive whole populations into self-deluding frenzies of nationalistic fervor -- all kinds of factors in the mix. But money is never not in the center of things.

This is especially true in systems where war and rumors of war have become the foundation of the national economy. This is the ultimate condition of every empire (or rather the penultimate position; the ultimate position is the inevitable decline and fall). And the United States, with its globe-spanning military empire, is no exception. Here we have a nation that has stripped its own industrial base, brutally neglected its educational system, allowed its physical infrastructure to rot, and driven its small-holding farmers from the land, dispossessing its own citizens and degrading their communities, all for the short-term profit of a moneyed elite -- and, what's more, has based its prosperity on the profligate and disproportionate use of a finite resource which it cannot produce in sufficient quantities within its own borders.

Andrew Bacevich discusses this latter point this way in his new book, The Limits of Power, in a passage picked out by Bill Moyers which puts the American people in the frame along with our predatory elite:


"The pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit. The chief desire of the American people is that nothing should disrupt their access to these goods, that oil, and that credit. The chief aim of the U.S. government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part of through the distribution of largesse here at home, and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad."


The decades-long quest for military-enforced dominance of geopolitical affairs has been both producer and product of this ravenous system. And now, the war machine is pretty much the only thing left. It has eaten all our seed corn, and must keep prowling constantly in foreign lands to feast on the resources of others. So war and the ever-present threat of war will continue to be the driving forces of American policy, at home and abroad, both in the public and private sectors – because that's where the money is. Big money, gargantuan money, money out the wazoo. And what's more, it's free money – because most of it comes from the taxpayers, through insider sweetheart deals that very often guarantee profits for the crony contractor. No muss, no fuss, no risk – just gravy.

And so the Russian response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia – "Six Days That Changed the World!" as the deathless (or rather, death-filled) headlines proclaim – has been the usual win-win situation for the war-profiteers in the cockpit of the American corruptocracy, as the Wall Street Journal reports. The Journal writes for those who really count in American society – the movers and shakers and shifters of Big Money – so you can often get a better analysis of what's really going on than you would from, say, the New York Times, with all its weighty think-tank lumber. The headline from Saturday's WSJ story says it all: Attack on Georgia Gives Boost To Big U.S. Weapons Programs.

Just as the rash and bloody deed of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili – who assaulted South Ossetia in a ferocious sneak attack -- gave the Kremlin war machine the excuse it needed to flex its muscles, so the Russian response has been a godsend for the Pentagon. Now you see why we need all them big new weapons we've been hankering for, say the boys from Hell's Bottom: we got to keep them Russkies down. And of course, in keeping with the noble tradition of our bipartisan foreign policy establishment, a top Democrat (an erstwhile hero of the "anti-war" movement, no less), is in the forefront of the Pentagon's fear-mongering gobble at the pork barrel. From the Journal:


Russia's attack on Georgia has become an unexpected source of support for big U.S. weapons programs, including flashy fighter jets and high-tech destroyers, that have had to battle for funding this year because they appear obsolete for today's conflicts with insurgent opponents.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has spent much of the year attempting to rein in some of the military's most expensive and ambitious weapons systems -- like the $143 million F-22 Raptor jet -- because he thinks they are unsuitable for the lightly armed and hard-to-find militias, warlords and terrorist groups the U.S. faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been opposed by an array of political interests and defense companies that want to preserve these multibillion-dollar programs and the jobs they create.

When Russia's invading forces choked roads into Georgia with columns of armored vehicles and struck targets from the air, it instantly bolstered the case being made by some that the Defense Department isn't taking the threat from Russia and China seriously enough. If the conflict in Georgia continues and intensifies, it could make it easier for defense companies to ensure the long-term funding of their big-ticket items.

For example, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, quickly seized on the Russia situation this week, saying that it indicates the Russians see the toll that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking on the U.S. military. "We've spent so many resources and so much attention on Iraq that we've lost sight of future threats down the road. The current conflict between Russia and Georgia is a perfect example," said Rep. Murtha during a recent visit to his district.


Go tell it, Brother John! Ivan's on the march, and he's headed straight for downtown Latrobe. If we don't get them Raptors up pronto, they'll be dishing up borschtburgers at McDonald's next week. [Bernard Chazelle has a somewhat different take on Russia's motivations over at A Tiny Revolution.]

But behind all the bull-roaring in the Beltway, the Journal cuts to the chase with admirable dispatch:


Some Wall Street stock analysts early on saw the invasion as reason to make bullish calls on the defense sector. A report from JSA Research in Newport, R.I., earlier in the week called the invasion "a bell-ringer for defense stocks."

…The change in administration [after the 2008 election] comes at a time of record profits and sales in the industry, reflecting historic highs in defense spending. Yet budget pressure is already undeniable. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan require laying out almost $12 billion a month and the Pentagon faces a massive tab for repairing and overhauling equipment when troops start coming home.

Now, the Russian situation makes the debate over the equipping of the U.S. military a front-burner issue. "The threat always drives procurement," said a defense-industry official. "It doesn't matter what party is in office."


And here our candid if unnamed war-profit maven has neatly encapsulated both the last century of American policy – and the next century as well: "The threat always drives procurement. It doesn't matter what party is in office." His vatic pronouncement should be emblazoned on billboards, streamed constantly beneath the natterers on TV news, and chiseled in marble on the Capitol Dome. For it is, in a very real sense, what America is about today: Threat. War. Procurement. Profit.


continued here:http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1587/135/


.....be afraid, be very afraid. The Borscht burgers are taking over.

that power of fear tactics. If someone could materialize fear into a commodity........he would be richer than Bill Gate.

the sad thing is that soon folks cannot differentiate between what is a real problem and one that is propaganda based. So, they learn to live in continuous fear. It is the degree (voltage) that changes.
 
Top Gun: Superb posting. How refreshing to read rational and reasonable comments about the situation as it really is. Keep up the good and intelligent work.


Dahermit. : excellent points too.

Nice to see that some are grounded in reality....and true awareness.


bravo to both of you.

But no response by my rebuttal of Dahermit, eh? :D That puts a cowardly twist on what is nothing but a wussy cheerleading post. ;)
 
But no response by my rebuttal of Dahermit, eh? :D That puts a cowardly twist on what is nothing but a wussy cheerleading post. ;)

Do you object to any & all civility on the board my friend? I see people posting up together all the time from all sides myself?

If the agreement is there and someone thinks the point has been made one could copy all the same points and still end up at the exact same place.

There's nothing "wussy" about that. It's just another person posting their opinion for or against.
 
But no response by my rebuttal of Dahermit, eh? :D That puts a cowardly twist on what is nothing but a wussy cheerleading post. ;)
At some point it becomes apparent that a person is wasting their time responding to the posts of persons who are motivated by ideology. You are not capable of being swayed by any argument that does not coincide with your point of view.

Nevertheless, CIA; A pathetic history of successful projects. Masad; Many successful undertakings including the Syrian infiltration I mentioned, and the Munich terrorist assassinations, Adolf Eichmann capture. Israel has a stated policy of always responding to terrorist acts...they had to be restrained from striking back at Saddam in the first Gulf War because of the missile attacks. It is likely they would have undertaken to remove Saddam if they had been encouraged.
All the resources exhausted before Bush-Chaney went to war? Hardly. But, I am sure you will not be swayed. Perhaps if you were a substance farmer with no political interest, having your wife and children killed or maimed by an errant American bomb, you would adapt a different view of what constitutes a very last resort.
 
different view of what constitutes a very last resort.

INDEED. and "Pre-emptive" does NOT define "LAST resort"....


In fact it contradicts it.

( wonder at times, if all the busheviks have trouble with the english language or have they been over exposed to the multitude of slogans that seem to be the key communication tools. & the core of the propaganda )
 
Do you object to any & all civility on the board my friend? I see people posting up together all the time from all sides myself?

If the agreement is there and someone thinks the point has been made one could copy all the same points and still end up at the exact same place.

There's nothing "wussy" about that. It's just another person posting their opinion for or against.

To make a cheerleading post for another post, when that post has been rebutted with yet another post, is cowardly. If he agrees with the first post, he should rebut my post. Failing to do so allows my rebuttal to stand, and makes his post look evasive and intellectually cowardly. "Civility" has nothing to do with it.
 
At some point it becomes apparent that a person is wasting their time responding to the posts of persons who are motivated by ideology. You are not capable of being swayed by any argument that does not coincide with your point of view.

Far from not responding to my so-called "ideology", you are just ducking facts.

You said the US didn't use all possible means short of war to rid the world of him. You said assassination should have been attempted. I pointed out that it had and failed, and that Saddam used extraordinary means to head it off, including continuously moving. At that point, you just quit.
 
Far from not responding to my so-called "ideology", you are just ducking facts.

You said the US didn't use all possible means short of war to rid the world of him. You said assassination should have been attempted. I pointed out that it had and failed, and that Saddam used extraordinary means to head it off, including continuously moving. At that point, you just quit.
You pointed out that the U.S. had failed, not that the Masad had attempted and failed (another resource that could have been used instead of war). The Munich terrorist assassins also keep moving, and were eventually killed by the Masad. Have you addressed this or are you "...just ducking facts..."?

"...At that point, you just quit..."

It obvious that you are not clever enough to perceive a plan that would work; you should join the CIA (or the Bush administration) and put your intellect to use to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction. Be sure to look in every sock and underwear drawer in Iraq; they have to be there...Bush and Chaney said so.
 
and put your intellect to use to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction. Be sure to look in every sock and underwear drawer in Iraq; they have to be there...Bush and Chaney said so.

What a superb idea, herm.!! In fact anyone that bought into the bush lies about those MASSIVE STOCKPILES of WMD should be in Iraq looking for them. Anyone that still "believes" that the Invasion/ occupation of Iraq was about "liberating" the Iraqis, ........should joing them too.


Or was it liberating them from their resources,(oh, that ugly OIL word again) territory ( think massive Embassy and humongous military bases ) lives, limbs , essentials for every day existence??? That was never clearly defined by the LIARS in washington.( IF so, they should be there tending to these dead and maimed.. Let them get some genuine "cultural emersion" of living in a US created WAR ZONE.
 
To make a cheerleading post for another post, when that post has been rebutted with yet another post, is cowardly. If he agrees with the first post, he should rebut my post. Failing to do so allows my rebuttal to stand, and makes his post look evasive and intellectually cowardly. "Civility" has nothing to do with it.

What if the poster thinks the other poster has already taken you to the wood shed and beat you severely about the head & face?

Does he then need to pile on & kick you when you are so obviously down?

Personally I think not doing that and just agreeing with the original beat down was trying to be kind to you... but that's just me.:)
 
To make a cheerleading post for another post, when that post has been rebutted with yet another post, is cowardly. If he agrees with the first post, he should rebut my post. Failing to do so allows my rebuttal to stand, and makes his post look evasive and intellectually cowardly. "Civility" has nothing to do with it.


sounds a lot like someone has a Masters degree in whining.;)
 
You pointed out that the U.S. had failed, not that the Masad had attempted and failed (another resource that could have been used instead of war). The Munich terrorist assassins also keep moving, and were eventually killed by the Masad. Have you addressed this or are you "...just ducking facts..."?

You are aware that it is illegal technically to assassinate a head of state like that. So even had we gone that route Bush would be getting blasted for breaking the law in that manner, and we would still have had an explosive situation in Iraq.

Add to that, you make it sound like we can simply wave our hand and other nations intelligence services will line up to assassinate people for us, this is simply not the case. The idea that Israel will simply assassinate whoever we want is laughable. Fact is, assassinating Saddam would only have worsened the problem, and then we would have been blamed anyway, since Israeli actions are viewed as sanctioned by the US.
 
You are aware that it is illegal technically to assassinate a head of state like that.
Yes, I am aware. There is no such law however in Isreal...if anything, they are not that naive to enact such a law.

So even had we gone that route Bush would be getting blasted for breaking the law in that manner, and we would still have had an explosive situation in Iraq.
Masad is skilled enough to cover own tracks...re: assassination of John Bull.

Add to that, you make it sound like we can simply wave our hand and other nations intelligence services will line up to assassinate people for us, this is simply not the case. The idea that Israel will simply assassinate whoever we want is laughable.
Bush administration itself stated that Israel had to be restrained from responding to missile attacks during first gulf war( They have a stated policy of always responding to any attack or threat). They assassinated John Bull, Canadian citizen (who was building "super gun). Bombed nuke facility in Iraq years ago., etc., etc. We pay millions of dollars to Israel each year. They viewed Saddam as a threat to Israel. They have an obvious history of preemptive (and successful )actions.
In short there is a lot to indicate that they would have done it. Not so laughable after all. You do not seem to understand the Israeli mind set or its history of preemptive violent reactions to perceived threats...you have not been paying attention.

Fact is, assassinating Saddam would only have worsened the problem, and then we would have been blamed anyway, since Israeli actions are viewed as sanctioned by the US.
Not a fact, only your opinion. My opinion: assassinating Saddam would have been a better option than what we have now.
 
Werbung:
Yes, I am aware. There is no such law however in Isreal...if anything, they are not that naive to enact such a law.


Masad is skilled enough to cover own tracks...re: assassination of John Bull.

What we need to remember in this situation. Even if no one knew who it was (but it would widely be suspected it was Israel) Saddam being assassinated would still have resulted in an explosive situation in Iraq.

If Israel was thought to be behind this, many in that part of the world would blame the US by proxy as it it widely viewed that we OK many of their actions.

Bush administration itself stated that Israel had to be restrained from responding to missile attacks during first gulf war( They have a stated policy of always responding to any attack or threat). They assassinated John Bull, Canadian citizen (who was building "super gun). Bombed nuke facility in Iraq years ago., etc., etc. We pay millions of dollars to Israel each year. They viewed Saddam as a threat to Israel. They have an obvious history of preemptive (and successful) actions.
In short there is a lot to indicate that they would have done it. Not so laughable after all. You do not seem to understand the Israeli mind set or its history of preemptive violent reactions to perceived threats...you have not been paying attention.

Israel did indeed have to be restrained from responding during the Gulf War, but think about why. If Israel did respond, the entire coalition would have fallen apart. That is why Saddam attacked them to begin with, to try to break up the coalition.

The Israeli mindset is indeed as you say, and I do not disagree with it, but look at it from an American point of view. We do give them loads of aid, and we get blamed for many of the things that they do. If we did not want Saddam dead at the time (which we did not) there is no way we would condone his assassination when it would simply be blamed on us.

Israel would have to pay attention to this as they rely on our aid and weapons for their protection.

The Osirak reactor, as well as the recent incident in Syria do show that Israel will take a preemptive approach, but bombing a reactor and assassinating a sitting head of state are two very different matters in regards to foreign policy, and the US knows it.

Not a fact, only your opinion. My opinion: assassinating Saddam would have been a better option than what we have now.

Maybe, but the problems in Iraq would still have come, but there have been no force to maintain some form of stability. Odds are that then Iran, Turkey, and the Saudis would have then gotten a lot more involved.

Also, keep in mind why GHW Bush left Saddam in power to begin with. It was for that very reason. The power vacuum that his absence would create would destabilize much of the region, much as we have seen today.
 
Back
Top