What it means when the US goes to war

Truth-Bringer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
880
Excerpts from a MUST READ article. These are the facts that Neoconservative Republicans like to ignore. This will be the history that remains once the propaganda of the Bush administration has been swept out of office.

What it means when the US goes to war

By Chris Hedges

War as betrayal

"This unit sets up this traffic control point, and this 18-year-old kid is on top of an armored Humvee with a .50-caliber machine gun," remembered Sergeant Geoffrey Millard, who served in Tikrit with the 42nd Infantry Division. "And this car speeds at him pretty quick and he makes a split-second decision that that's a suicide bomber, and he presses the butterfly trigger and puts 200 rounds in less than a minute into this vehicle. It killed the mother, a father and two kids. The boy was aged four and the daughter was aged three.

"And they briefed this to the general," Millard said, "and they briefed it gruesome. I mean, they had pictures. They briefed it to him. And this colonel turns around to this full division staff and says, 'If these f---ing hajis learned to drive, this **** wouldn't happen'."

Punishing the local population


Sergeant Camilo Mejia, who eventually applied while still on active duty to become a conscientious objector, said the ugly side of American racism and chauvinism appeared the moment his unit arrived in the Middle East. Fellow soldiers instantly ridiculed Arab-style toilets because they would be "****ting like dogs". The troops around him treated Iraqis, whose language they did not speak and whose culture was alien, little better than animals.

The word "haji" swiftly became a slur to refer to Iraqis, in much the same way "gook" was used to debase the Vietnamese and "raghead" is used to belittle those in Afghanistan. Soon those around him ridiculed "haji food", "haji homes", and "haji music". Bewildered prisoners, who were rounded up in useless and indiscriminate raids, were stripped naked and left to stand terrified for hours in the baking sun. They were subjected to a steady torrent of verbal and physical abuse. "I experienced horrible confusion," Mejia remembered, "not knowing whether I was more afraid for the detainees or for what would happen to me if I did anything to help them."

These scenes of abuse, which began immediately after the American invasion, were little more than collective acts of sadism. Mejia watched, not daring to intervene yet increasingly disgusted at the treatment of Iraqi civilians. He saw how the callous and unchecked abuse of power first led to alienation among Iraqis and spawned a raw hatred of the occupation forces. When army units raided homes, the soldiers burst in on frightened families, forced them to huddle in the corners at gunpoint, and helped themselves to food and items in the house.

Rest of Article Here
 
Werbung:

Jeugenen

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
178
BUSH IRAQ WAR FAUCETS

The Podhoretz Neo-Con Republican president, George Bush, got elected on his solemn promise that there would be “no nation building”; then, on the notorious pretense of a nuclear threat, he illegally turned on two faucets: out of one flows the American People’s precious wealth, and out of the other faucet flows their priceless blood, to the sole benefit of Israel: now approaching 4000 sons and 1 trillion dollars.

This heinous treasonous betrayal of the sacred trust of the American People is a black mark on his family name which can never be erased, and will damn him forever in American history.

Google: “Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”; “Evans Blacklisted by History: Untold Story of Joe McCarthy”; “Wall Street Journal McCain-Feingold”; Stricherz Why the Democrats are Blue; “Human Events Ron Paul Interview”; McClelland "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

ne·o·con·serv·a·tism

–noun moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists.
----------------------------------

Carry on...
 

Truth-Bringer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
880
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

ne·o·con·serv·a·tism

–noun moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists.
----------------------------------

Carry on...

Yes, your master Bush does appear to be quite liberal and socialist on economic matters, seeing as he's spent more than LBJ and 4 times more than Clinton domestically. The size of government has increased every single year under Bush. Government spending has gone up every single year under Bush. And the national debt has increased every single year under Bush.

But carry on, and keep your head buried in the sand.
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
TB,

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source -

Former–adjective

1. preceding in time; prior or earlier: during a former stage in the proceedings.
2. past, long past, or ancient: in former times.
3. preceding in order; being the first of two: Our former manufacturing process was too costly.
4. being the first mentioned of two (distinguished from latter): The former suggestion was preferred to the latter.
5. having once, or previously, been; erstwhile: a former president.
------------------------------------------------
Bush has been an ACTIVE Liberal Republican. Your examples of spending reinforce my assertion that he is not a Neo-Con and backed by the fact that he hasn't abandoned his Liberal leanings...

So thank you for agreeing with me. :)
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who believe in the conclusions of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which called for a strengthening of the American hegemony around the world by force of arms. NeoConservatives are the most likely supporters of the invasion of Iraq and the continuation of American presence there.

NeoConservatives are not conservatives, new or otherwise, any more than neoliberals are new liberals. The one is a philosophy quite independent of classic conservatism (fiscal responsibility, limited government) while the other is not really related to liberalism (strong central government, social programs, income redistribution).

Bush is not a neoconservative, but many of his top advisers at the time of the invasion of Iraq are: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney are among them.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Excerpts from a MUST READ article. These are the facts that Neoconservative Republicans like to ignore. This will be the history that remains once the propaganda of the Bush administration has been swept out of office.

What it means when the US goes to war

By Chris Hedges

War as betrayal

"This unit sets up this traffic control point, and this 18-year-old kid is on top of an armored Humvee with a .50-caliber machine gun," remembered Sergeant Geoffrey Millard, who served in Tikrit with the 42nd Infantry Division. "And this car speeds at him pretty quick and he makes a split-second decision that that's a suicide bomber, and he presses the butterfly trigger and puts 200 rounds in less than a minute into this vehicle. It killed the mother, a father and two kids. The boy was aged four and the daughter was aged three.

"And they briefed this to the general," Millard said, "and they briefed it gruesome. I mean, they had pictures. They briefed it to him. And this colonel turns around to this full division staff and says, 'If these f---ing hajis learned to drive, this **** wouldn't happen'."

Punishing the local population


Sergeant Camilo Mejia, who eventually applied while still on active duty to become a conscientious objector, said the ugly side of American racism and chauvinism appeared the moment his unit arrived in the Middle East. Fellow soldiers instantly ridiculed Arab-style toilets because they would be "****ting like dogs". The troops around him treated Iraqis, whose language they did not speak and whose culture was alien, little better than animals.

The word "haji" swiftly became a slur to refer to Iraqis, in much the same way "gook" was used to debase the Vietnamese and "raghead" is used to belittle those in Afghanistan. Soon those around him ridiculed "haji food", "haji homes", and "haji music". Bewildered prisoners, who were rounded up in useless and indiscriminate raids, were stripped naked and left to stand terrified for hours in the baking sun. They were subjected to a steady torrent of verbal and physical abuse. "I experienced horrible confusion," Mejia remembered, "not knowing whether I was more afraid for the detainees or for what would happen to me if I did anything to help them."

These scenes of abuse, which began immediately after the American invasion, were little more than collective acts of sadism. Mejia watched, not daring to intervene yet increasingly disgusted at the treatment of Iraqi civilians. He saw how the callous and unchecked abuse of power first led to alienation among Iraqis and spawned a raw hatred of the occupation forces. When army units raided homes, the soldiers burst in on frightened families, forced them to huddle in the corners at gunpoint, and helped themselves to food and items in the house.

Rest of Article Here

A cartoonish, agitprop version of current events, that would probably embarass even some appeasers.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Bush is a neoconservative. The vast majority of his positions fall under neoconservatism.

He was not and is not a part of the PNAC. His senior advisers, the ones really pulling the strings are neoconservatives.

Not that it really matters, as the second part of your post is correct: His positions fall under neoconservatism.
 

Truth-Bringer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
880
He was not and is not a part of the PNAC.

Well I certainly reject that as the only standard under which allegiance to the philosophy can be measured.

His senior advisers, the ones really pulling the strings are neoconservatives.

And he chose neoconservatives, because he's a neoconservative and they will espouse that philosophy on all levels.

Not that it really matters, as the second part of your post is correct: His positions fall under neoconservatism.

Right, because he is a neoconservative. Even if he wasn't, by the vast majority of his positions falling under the philosophy, he'd be a de facto neoconservative regardless of what he chose to call himself.
 

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
PLC1,

Thanks for the link but why does this definition of NeoCon not show up - not even a mention of PNAC - in any Dictionary definitions?

I'm not contesting your definition, sounds reasonable enough... at least you provided some qualifier/definition to the term... Just curious.

Your definitions aren't complete. You're lying by omission.

:) I left out only the Pronunciation key in both definitions... :D

This will be the history that remains once the propaganda of the Bush administration has been swept out of office.

Iraq was a Utopian land of sunshine and lollipops before the US arrived... ne'er a slur could be heard, not one single feeling was ever hurt. Human, as well as Civil, Rights guaranteed perfect equality and tranquility for each of Iraq's citizens. The free, fair and open elections were world class in their transparency... and with only one choice on the ballot - things were never confusing.

Boy did we screw that up... Mr. Hedges anecdotal evidence proves decisively that all Americans - especially American Soldiers - are greedy, racist, sadists running roughshod over all of Iraq - with no discernible level of accountability.
--------------------------------------------

Too bad Mr. Hedges couldn't find a terrorist group to follow around... They're all very kind, considerate and open minded, they'd never do anything to harm innocent civilians or journalists... Just ask Daniel Perl.

Better yet, watch the video.
d_perl.jpg


---------------------------------------------
I'll not deny there has been abuse on many levels. Corruption on many levels. Waste at all levels... But scapegoating "Bush and the NeoCons" effectively ignores the people from the "other" side of the isle, who have just as much culpability for our current state of affairs.

I found this quote interesting:

"The word "haji" swiftly became a slur to refer to Iraqis, in much the same way "gook" was used to debase the Vietnamese and "raghead" is used to belittle those in Afghanistan..."

[For the Left]...The word "NeoCon" swiftly became a slur referring to those on the Right, in much the same way "Uncle Tom" was used to debase Black Republicans... etc, etc.

Of course Iraqi's have never used derogatory names for Americans... Iraqi's have never kidnapped, tortured and killed Americans... There is also NO context to whats going on in Iraq, just reports about American Troops wandering around aimlessly - "terrorizing kids women and children in the dark of night" completely at random.
 

Truth-Bringer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
880
Iraq was a Utopian land of sunshine and lollipops before the US arrived...

No, Iraq was already screwed up BECAUSE OF PRIOR U.S. INTERVENTION. The U.S. played a major role in strengthening and empowering Saddam Hussein to begin with.

They did the same with Bin Laden.

I'll not deny there has been abuse on many levels.

Who gets held responsible in your world? Answer: No one.

Corruption on many levels. Waste at all levels... But scapegoating "Bush and the NeoCons" effectively ignores the people from the "other" side of the isle, who have just as much culpability for our current state of affairs.

If you'll look through my previous posts, I have criticized Democrats, on several different forums, for just playing a "Republican lite" version of foreign policy. Which is equally dangerous and foolish. I do hold them accountable, BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM. The same way I hold Neoconservative Republicans responsible, BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM.

Of course Iraqi's have never used derogatory names for Americans... Iraqi's have never kidnapped, tortured and killed Americans...

Iraqi's aren't occupying our country right now. The Iraqis never gave millions of dollars to maintain repressive regimes here.
 
Werbung:

GenSeneca

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
6,245
Location
={CaLiCo}= HQ
Context for the truth you have brought
The U.S. played a major role in strengthening and empowering Saddam Hussein to begin with.
True.
Now lets add some context: The US overthrow of the Iranian Shaw, the '72 Olympics, The Iranian Hostage Crisis... any of this sound familiar? We had none of those problems with Saddam in Iraq, so when Iran invaded, we helped out to see to it there would not be a decisive winner - we aimed for a stalemate and thats what happened, neither became dominant in the region.
Somebody needs to be held accountable for that "Failed Policy"?
They did the same with Bin Laden.
True.
Now lets add some Context: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the Cold War, Berlin Wall, Expansion of Communism through the Asian Continent, Korea, Vietnam... There was one major enemy to focus on. We did help support Bin Laden in his fight against the Communists. His Al-Qaeda group was was one of nearly 400 that we supported in Afghanistan's fight against Communist expansion... But because ONE group came back to bite us in the ask, you think WE'RE the bad guys?
Who gets held responsible in your world? Answer: No one.
I appreciate you trying to answer for me but that would not be my answer.
For cases like those described by Mr. Hedges, Military personnel are held accountable to the Military Courts. Our Military is the most professional on the planet, thanks in no small part to the role our free press plays in keeping them honest. None of our enemies have ever trusted a free press to exist in their nation - let alone tag along with them during a war... that says something, even if you can't hear it, and provides the context which was lacking from Mr. Hedges article.
If you'll look through my previous posts, I have criticized Democrats, on several different forums, for just playing a "Republican lite" version of foreign policy. Which is equally dangerous and foolish. I do hold them accountable, BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM. The same way I hold Neoconservative Republicans responsible, BY NOT VOTING FOR THEM.

Do you consider - criticizing politicians, on several forums, and not voting for them "accountability"? I take a slightly different approach.

Even though we disagree... I want to let you in on a secret... We can write our Congressmen, and other politicians, directly to let them know how we feel about things.

Talk about "Change" being a grassroots movement among the people is true and its all thanks to our Constitution placing power with the people. It starts with We The People contacting our Representatives - so they know how best to represent us... Even people who don't vote have the power of the pen. I don't focus any hopes or dreams on whatever opportunist is currently holding, or seeking, the White House... After which calling it a day and wondering why I'm so horribly represented.

I don't cry about lobbyists or special interests because I'm my own special interest and I lobby the Government - alone if necessary - to get the representation I expect.

435 Representatives
100 Senators

Once you have them on your Email Contact list, its easy to write to all of them at once... some of them even reply. (I don't agree with Dennis Kucinich on ANYTHING but he understands what being a Representative is all about and has my admiration for his dedication, openness and availability)
 
Top