.. was - still is - outright state terrorism
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
.. now finished trip#1 through your cited tinyrevolution/Bernard Chazelle's The Meaning of Shock-and-Awe.
Here's a (repeated) excerpt:
«It's unambiguous. The goal is to use violence to inspire fear in a way that will shut down all or part of society. The objective is the same as that of 9/11: bring a society to its knees by using terror. (The Ullman-Wade book even mentions Hiroshima approvingly as an example of Shock-and-Awe.)»
Here's a comment:
«The real tragedy here was that in 2003, HDTV sales were fairly low, correspondingly the prices were sky high, and I had to put up with shock and awe, red white and blue cgi graphics, and cheerleading military punditry in low def on a standard 27" teevee.
Oh, the agony.»
Here's a last comment (for now, and long):
«Harlan Ullman, the military adviser who created the shock-and-awe doctrine, says he doesn't recognize it in action in Iraq.
"The current campaign does not appear to correspond to what we envisioned," said Ullman, principal author of the 1996 book, "Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance."
"This bombing campaign did not immediately go after Iraqi military forces in the field, particularly the Republican Guard divisions and political levers of power, such as the Baath Party headquarters," explained Ullman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
He says that if the air campaign had destroyed a big chunk of Iraq's ground forces, it's possible that Iraqi resistance might have been softened, and U.S. troops might already be in Baghdad by now.
Is it too late for shock and awe now? "We have not seen it; it is not coming," Ullman said flatly.»
I'm supposing that Ullman's implication was that 'his' shock and awe was not the same as what the US actually delivered as "Shockin' whore"; 'his' was prefaced on military objectives?
In other words, IF non-military (Ullman said so) THEN what else but at the whole Iraqi population-at-large. i.e. an utter, outright war-crime - of the 'ultimate' Nuremberg type.
-=*=-
What you see is what you get.
What the Iraqis got was their country's infrastructure as good as totally destroyed. (And it has as good as stayed that way.)
The basis for their civil society; laws, government etc. were also as good as totally destroyed.
Bremer's 'orders' allow for the rape of Iraq's everything, commerce, farming, services, resources, you name it.
The installed 'democracy' is a farce; only candidates who swore not to even try to dismantle Bremer were allowed to stand. The puppet government that resulted is under enormous pressure, even open bribery (threatened violence? Recall "Hit Man") - to sign away anything that remains of Iraq's sovereignty or 'patrimony' (read oil.)
-=*=-
All of this filthy corruption is happening 'in plain sight,' reported as anything but by (crooked!) 'Western' (actually mostly Anglo majors, Israel as poisonous minor) politicians relayed and amplified by their 'pet' venal MSM.
For example, some Australian soldiers are staying in Iraq "to protect the off-shore oil infrastructure." (A closer interpretation: 'Hold hostage?')
All of this from 'the World's policeman,' claimed freedom-loving US. HAW! (Hang all the order-giving bastards, and gaol all their criminal carpet-bagger rip-off followers - for ever.)
Truth must out; justice must be done.
2008/06/06
US' "Shockin' whore" ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
G'day Phil, all these years, all the evidence, yet some still don't (or won't) see. Here is a good explanation as to why. And a good case is put.
G'day Bob,
...and another fine link you've provided, begorrah! (This last devoid of any religious overtones, natch; we leave such to the poor, even impoverished child-mind abusing believers.)
I particularly liked this bit:
«They are simply frightened to death. Frightened of bad people, frightened of brown people, frightened of terrorist threats blown ridiculously out of proportion, frightened of existential meaningless, frightened of cosmic insignificance. And now, to that weighty pile, must be added this: They are so frightened of their own complicity in bringing death, disaster, destruction and ungodly sorrow to Iraq that they can now only resort to astonishing levels of self-delusion to maintain their sanity.»
Read on, but I doubt the 'sanity' angle. I can't see at all, how anyone can murder for oil (or deny same!) - and even remotely claim a single shred of sanity - let alone any morality - except, of course, of the exceedingly bad sort, in this case, un-natch. In plain text: criminal immorality, as in pathological.
G'day Phil, a question was posed in the Green article:
Or did he have a secret transplant at some point, and the surgeon’s assistant unknowingly grabbed the jar with the criminal sociopath’s heart in it for the operation?
That was referring to Cheney and illustrated Green's reaction to the depths of criminality. So what about those, such as Bush, who have had no heart operations? Natural born criminal sociopaths? Seems so.
Gordon Prather looks at the deceit and Bush's breaches of US law.
By law, the constitutional powers of the president to "introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities" are limited, and can only be exercised "pursuant to; (a) a declaration of war, (b) specific statutory authorization, or (c) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
So, DCI Tenet hurriedly prepared the "slam dunk" NIE on "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," which was central to gullible Congresspersons passing, within days of its receipt, the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" Resolution of 16 October, 2002.
Years later, the March 2005 report of the Commission on Intelligence contained a scathing chapter on the ‘intelligence' Bush used to obtain his Congressional "authorization."
"As war loomed, the U.S. intelligence community was charged with telling policymakers what it knew about Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. The community's best assessments were set out in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, a summation of the community's views."
"These assessments were all wrong."
[And in its first report, the Senate Intelligence Committee had come to similar conclusions.]
Now, that "specific statutory authorization" provided by Congress was conditional.
Conditional ...
It was contingent upon Bush first pursuing a "diplomatic" or "peaceful solution" through the United Nations. If diplomacy "failed" to "disarm" Saddam Hussein, Bush was then to seek a new Security Council resolution, authorizing the use of "all necessary means," including force.
If – and only if – Bush could then get such a new Security Council resolution, was he authorized to use our armed forces to enforce it.
Hold on, weren't there inspections which found nothing? And I don't recall a second resolution. If you haven't finished the article you'll find the answers there.
And what of the media? More on the matter from Glenn Greenwald.
No matter how many times one sees it, it will never cease to amaze that the exact same media mavens who righteously strutted around demanding that Bill Clinton be impeached or forced to resign because the "honor" of our political system demanded that, continue casually to dismiss every crime of the last seven years as nothing more than a garden-variety, good faith "policy dispute" which only shrill rabble want to see "turned into a criminal or impeachable affair." So the Senate issues a report documenting that the President and Vice President repeatedly made false statements to induce the citizenry to support a war against another country that has left hundreds of thousands of people dead for no reason -- added on to the piles of outright lawbreaking under this administration -- and to David Broder, those are just mere "policy disputes" which (unlike Bill Clinton's grave crimes) merit no punishment.
Complicit enablers? Seems accurate. And not limited to the main stream.
more of the same ...
.. ho hum - when will they ever learn?
-=*=-
G'day Bob,
.. 'see' your two[prather,greenwald]; and 'raise' you two:
1. «Phase II
The Senate intel committee's Phase II report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq is just out.»
[talkingpointsmemo]
2. «Today's Must Read
By Kate Klonick - June 6, 2008, 11:02AM
Phase II, the 200+ page Senate intelligence committee's report»
[tpmmuckraker]
Fazit, Q: Did they get *anything* correct?
A: The general consensus is: "No!"
(Troll response: "So?")
My response to trolls: So they went off to murder for oil on lies, at least 935 of which have been minutely documented, and now the US Senate basically confirms all that. But Q: Does the US Senate do anything about it? A: No; bah!
-=*=-
Then, when I was following your antiwar/Gordon Prather/Intelligence [sic] Committee Report link up, this:
«Ledeen: It’s 1938-1941, Hitler is Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Khomeinists, Wahabis, Etc.
June 7, 2008 in News by Jim Lobe»
[antiwar]
Now, that's pretty 'standard' war-pimping stuff (with Lobe's deconstruction, natch) - but in the comments, was a citation to this:
«Robert Fisk: The West's weapon of self-delusion
There are gun battles in Beirut - and America thinks things are going fine
Saturday, 7 June 2008»
[theInd]
«So they are it again, the great and the good of American democracy, grovelling and fawning to the Israeli lobbyists of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), repeatedly allying themselves to the cause of another country and one that is continuing to steal Arab land.
...
Yes, Israelis deserve security. But so do Palestinians. So do Iraqis and Lebanese and the people of the wider Muslim world. Now even Condoleezza Rice admits - and she was also talking to Aipac, of course - that there won't be a Palestinian state by the end of the year. That promise of George Bush - which no-one believed anyway - has gone. In Rice's pathetic words, "The goal itself will endure beyond the current US leadership."
Of course it will. And the siege of Gaza will endure beyond the current US leadership. And the Israeli wall. And the illegal Israeli settlement building. And deaths in Iraq will endure beyond "the current US leadership" - though "leadership" is pushing the definition of the word a bit when the gutless Bush is involved - and deaths in Afghanistan and, I fear, deaths in Lebanon too.»
My comment: The US, plus Israel, combining via M-W's 'Israel Lobby,' forming USrael, constitute the greatest (I can not think of a valid exception), the greatest threat to world peace and security, even human/environment/planet survival itself.
-=*=-
The point I wanna make is this: no more of the same!
The USrael 'murder for spoil' criminals must be stopped - and gaoled, if not hanged - and soonest.
G'day Phil, an omnibus today, beginning with William Blum looking at a few US areas of activity - "The Empire -- A Status Report"
An appropriate extract:
Here's White House spokeswoman Dana Perino at a recent press briefing:
Reporter: The American people are being asked to die and pay for this, and you're saying that they have no say in this war?
Perino: I didn't say that ... this President was elected --
Reporter: Well, what it amounts to is you saying we have no input at all.
Perino: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up.[2]
In 1941, Edward Dowling, editor and priest, commented: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."
Latin America gets a mention and his is more from Tomdispatch via an article by Greg Grandin - "Losing Latin America".
People are starting to stand up - even over Israel's despicable activities.
ISRAEL’S POSTURE as a heavily armed victim is preposterous in face of the evidence, of course, but it has been remarkably successful in the mainstream U.S. media, totally successful in Washington, and almost as effective in Europe since the 9/11 attacks, when Ariel Sharon adroitly conflated Israel’s battle to hold down the Palestinian territories with Washington’s “war on terror.” Given the current demonization of Hezbollah and Hamas, it is worth remembering that the first victims of this mischaracterized vendetta were in fact Sharon’s old enemies: Yasser Arafat, Fateh and the Palestinian Authority.
The West seemed not to learn from this experience just how expedient Israel’s definition of terrorism is, and has not challenged this constant expansion of “terrorist” to any opponent of Israeli policies.
However, chutzpah can be a banal form of hubris, and it has its penalties. Although its experience of the last few years may have led Israel’s leaders and diplomats to assume that no one would ever be so rude as to point out the profound difference between their promises and their performance, there are limits. After renewing its commitment to cease settlement expansion as its part of the so-called “road map,” Israel’s explicit announcements of new building in the occupied territories seem to have caused the various partners in the Quartet to take a reality check.
On Israel's activities.
Pro-Israel PACS distribution of "largesse".
The best government money can buy. Not sure about the "best" bit, though. And what was that about democracy?
Another activity ... the spy case.
On Iraq - Tony Karon.
On how to circumvent restrictions on action - call a national emergency ... or fourteen.
A good opening can get the reader's attention:
“I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting.” ~ President Ronald Reagan
Sleepers awake!
G'day Phil, Maliki might ask, but what would the answer be?
BAGHDAD — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki raised the possibility that his country won't sign a status of forces agreement with the United States and will ask U.S. troops to go home when their U.N. mandate to be in Iraq expires at the end of the year.
Maliki made the comment after weeks of complaints from Shiite Muslim lawmakers that U.S. proposals that would govern a continued troop presence in Iraq would infringe on Iraq's sovereignty.
"Iraq has another option that it may use," Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."
Perhaps a negotiating ploy but some definitely want them gone.
G'day Phil, Mondays can be slow ... but along comes Tom Engelhardt on those "non"-permanent bases and the Yanks hanging around in Iraq ...
Colonialism, anyone?
G'day Phil, another piece on bases ... and lies. This from Glenn Greenwald.
Some people just don't want to admit it ... and will studiously ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit their stance.
Post a Comment