absolute obscenity vs. utter futility ...

  .. seems they just can't leave their criminality ...

    .. but d*g might help those who help themselves

-=*=-

The US ended WW2 on a 'high note' as 'top d*g,' letting off a few extra 'bungers' for effect. 'Only' a lousy few extra (non-Anglo) collaterals: «The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings.»

I dimly recall reading a book about those bombings, and wondering why they (the US) didn't demonstrate their demonic constructions without actually going so far as to murder so many innocents. Of course, that viewpoint ('murdering innocents') is a bit controversial, for the utterly simplest of reasons: those 'who dunnit' felt somehow justified, and those who dunnits had (still have) supporters, and both groups need to avoid any cognitive dissonance (aka guilty consciences, assuming any of that sort actually have any sort'a consciences at all.)

At the time, they (the US, as apparently other war parties) were heavily into propaganda. (Sadly, we find that the propaganda just never stopped). Among other bits, we got this from Truman:

  "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
[9Aug’45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman]

It is (scarcely) possible that Truman was in error because he did not allow himself to be properly informed, but we now know that: «Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.» [My emphasis.]

It is a task that truth-seekers (I am one) set themselves, to uncover the facts behind (lying!) propaganda. Another piece of that WW2 A-bombing propaganda was that the bombings avoided (one quarter, one half, one million - you choose a number, just as they did) - allied casualties. It's a lie that the sheople® easily, even eagerly, swallowed back then, just as some still do.

Aside: truth-seekers may also be called revisionists[1] as an attempted slur, but I don't see anything derogatory in exposing lies to reveal the underlying truth. As an illustration, a quote:

  «He concluded that, while there was no masterplan for expulsion, the IDF played a significant part in precipitating the flight of more than 700,000 Palestinians from Palestine. The Birth was followed by half a dozen books that helped to consolidate Morris's reputation as a rigorous revisionist historian.»

Comment: it's from a review of another book, one that puts the lie to the Israeli "David vs. Goliath" propaganda myth. Sadly, as an offset to that good work, the author seems to fall foul of some jihadi/Islamo-fascism rubbish:

  «The only major departure from the evidence, and from common sense, is the stress on the jihadi character of the two-stage Arab assault on the Jewish community in Palestine. Echoing Samuel Huntington's silly and superficial notion of a "clash of civilisations", Morris depicts the 1948 war as "part of a more general, global struggle between the Islamic east and the west". The empirical evidence for this view is utterly underwhelming, consisting as it does of a collection of random quotes.»

Parting shot: what's going on now, as then, in the immediate surrounds to Israel, is the IDF (*not* defence, but actually *attack* forces) attempting to murder in order to steal ever more land and water.

Getting back 'on-track:' instead of moving to any sort'a 'peace dividend,' the US moved us on - even before the end of WW2 - to the 'cold war.' The A-bombings were carried out for at least three reasons not admitted: (1) because they could; they'd spent the dough and had the 'toys,' (2) they wanted data from 'real live targets' (at least four possible targets were reserved as pristine; they could do that because they were not militarily significant), and (3) to 'send a message' - to Russia, and the world: "See what we can - and will - do." The 'save our boys' excuse was not much more than a propaganda furphy - directed at and swallowed by the sadly Oh so gullible sheople.

-=*=-

Now, skipping to the present, we come to a very important article cited by Bob Wall (G'day!):

  «There are basically three main rationales for keeping the imperial adventure in Mesopotamia going in one form or another. First, that it is a fight against terrorism, a battle to uphold the values of civilization against the evil Islamofascist hordes. (This is the argument always offered for public consumption, and it may well be that a few of its champions actually believe it.) Second, that the United States must dominate this all-important oil region as a matter of vital national interest, regardless of the "legality" or "morality" of the project. (This is the "savvy" insider view, the realpolitik of the Cheney Faction and "gritty realist" commentators.) Third, that U.S. forces must remain in Iraq until the country is stable enough to ensure an "orderly" withdrawal. (This is Barack Obama's public stance -- one which, as we noted the other day, virtually guarantees many more years of occupation. Not to mention Obama's plan to leave behind a "residual" force -- of up to 80,000 troops -- even after his "orderly" withdrawal.)»
[Disorderly Conduct: Subverting the Bipartisan Paradigm on Iraq]

In the above, we can see three elements, (1) the propaganda lies they feed to the sheople, (2) the geopolitical/Realpolitik excuses for the so-called sophisticated murdering thieves, and (3) the political cop-out for the so-called representatives.

-=*=-

It was only ever a matter of time, before the magnitude of the US' depravity would be seen in all its filthy tawdriness; we knew all along it was murder for oil in Iraq, and now we can see all the grisly details emerging. With the latest mooted oil-deals, the mainly US oil-majors will attempt to get fully 75% of the value, vertically integrating their rip-offs, as I've always maintained, from the sand to the sea. Cost (honestly reckoned) plus 10% would be fair, leaving the Iraqis their sovereign share - but it is not, under the great Satan's current plans, so to be.

Thanks to the internet, and thanks, but "No, thanks!" to GWBush&Co, we may ever more clearly see the US' criminality emerging. Books from Blum, Chomsky, Perkins & Klein - among a growing multitude - give witness.

Read the whole chris-floyd/William Pfaff article, and the other stuff Bob puts up.

Then try to work out how the US crooks can be stopped.

-=*=-

Fazit: The neoCons and their PNAC are neither unique nor new. US depredations began long ago and have continued down to the present, through Afghanistan and Iraq and now threatening Iran. We may contemplate how this could come about, and here I think of the "Harvard Business School (for Sharks.)" More than one commenter has said that one can't be both honest and successful in competition with 'that lot.' Perkins' "Hit Man" gives us a glimpse, as does Klein's "Shock Doctrine/Disaster Capitalism," Blum's "Rogue State" and "Killing Hope" list out the crimes. But, and this is where the absolute obscenity vs. utter futility comes in, the mostly US capitalist system *is already filthy-rich*, rich far beyond avarice. They just can't spend it, they've got so much. And yet the ravening greed continues, threatening our very ecosphere, truly our one and only life-support system.

Q: How will they, the greed-masters, live, when our ecosphere collapses?

Talk about futile, Q: How will they live, by eating their money?

One last Q for now: If they're so clever, why do they have to employ murdering violence and theft?

  «Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits.»
[Edward M. Kennedy]

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] revisionism n. often derog. revision or modification of an orthodoxy, esp. of Marxism.  revisionist n. & adj. [POD]

revisit v. (-t-) visit again. [ibid.]

revitalize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing) imbue with new life and vitality. [ibid.]