America 'tis of thee ...

Seduced by the image of the white hats rescuing people from the evil blackhats, the cavalry riding to the rescue of the pioneers bent on creating a new land of freedom where everyone is created equal. But wait, was it all good? What about the non-whites? What about those whose land it was? Slavery and genocide. The commander asked "Is this the new world?" "No, this is the Washita River." The new world had blemishes, but we are not supposed to talk about those, we are not supposed to look beyond the image.

It is a sad reality that the finest ideals and better angels too often succumb to the less noble aspects of human nature. Lincoln called for a "new birth of freedom", but what would he think of what has happened, of the new kind of chains and of temporary necessities become the norm? His war was to maintain the unity of the state, now the wars are to expand the empire.

Herein we shall mark the progress of the empire.

"Beware the military-industrial complex." Tom Engelhardt presents Chalmers Johnson - "It's Much Later Than You Think."

Chris Floyd - "Dogs of War Hijacking National Policy."

A follow up the above.

"I've got an idea, and it's a gas." What remedy was applied to those accused of having WMD? Physician, heal thyself.

When it comes to observing US and international laws, treaties and norms, the Bush administration is a serial offender. Since 2001, it's:

-- spurned efforts for nuclear disarmament to advance its weapons program and retain current stockpiles;

-- renounced the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and asserted the right to develop and test new weapons;

-- abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) because it expressly forbids the development, testing and deployment of missile defenses like its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and other programs;

-- refuses to adopt a proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) that would prohibit further weapons-grade uranium and plutonium production and prevent new nuclear weapons to be added to present stockpiles - already dangerously too high;

-- spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined plus multi-billions off-the-books, for secret programs, and for agencies like the CIA;

-- advocates preventive, preemptive and "proactive" wars globally with first-strike nuclear and other weapons under the nihilistic doctrines of "anticipatory self-defense" and remaking the world to be like America;

-- rescinded and subverted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to illegally develop new biowarfare weapons; in November 1969 and February 1970, Richard Nixon issued National Security Decision Memoranda (NSDM) 35 and 44; they renounced the use of lethal and other types of biological warfare and ordered existing weapons stockpiles destroyed, save for small amounts for research - a huge exploitable loophole; the Reagan and Clinton administrations took advantage; GHW Bush to a lesser degree;

-- GW Bush went further by renouncing the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that prohibits "the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons....;" on May 22, 1990, GHW Bush signed it into law to complete the 1972 Convention's implementation; what the father and Nixon established, GW Bush rendered null and void; "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is his central policy document for unchallengeable US hegemony; among other provisions, it illegally advocates advanced forms of biowarfare that can target specific genotypes - the genetic constitution of individual organisms.

"What if those weapons fall into the hands of the wrong people?"

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thus the rise of the dark angels.

emissions trading is really stupid ...

  .. a) it won't work and (worse, worser, worst!) ...

    .. b) it's trading with the Devil[1], aka the Great Satan

-=*=-

[Dreaming: What we would like - from our so-called free-market capitalism - is enough food, water and housing for all; a chicken in every pot, an SUV/4WD always full of fuel in every double/triple garage McMansion driveway, for use whenever a change from the wide-flat 5.1ch 'home-entertainment' system was however fleetingly desired, and cheap medical insurance ensuring that we all live to be 100+. Not gunna happen.]

-=*=-

There are at least three possible ways of limiting emissions of the main greenhouse gas (namely CO2), two of which (cap and trade, tax) directly involve so-called market mechanisms.

But. If 'the invisible hand' really worked as claimed, we would hardly be in the position we're in (namely, the coming greedastrophe®, including resource wars and mass-starvations.) Thinking that cap and trade and/or tax will solve the greedastrophe is just as much dreaming as the 'chicken in every pot' above. Of the two, taxing would be by far the most effective, as well as simple and easy to implement - but it's not the preferred option, since no-one can make any money out'a taxing something - except the taxing authority, namely governments - and as 'everyone' knows, governments are not just hated by capitalists, they are to be killed off wherever and as quickly as possible (starve the beasts!)

Only blind utopists believe that humans can live without effective police, or that markets will function without effective regulation. Yet markets have been steadily de-regulated, now mostly well beyond the point of utter corruption (Think Telstra's Trujillo: "We want to leverage our monopoly!" Bah! 'All' he wants is to rip us off, like all the rest of such capitalists.) Ergo, any cap and trade system will be rorted, and the effort will fail - while probably loading up the sheople® with ever more misery.

-=*=-

I mentioned at least three possible ways of limiting emissions, and here is the 3rd, the only method absolutely guaranteed to work: leave the carbon in the ground. Reduce carbon mining to the point of a sustainable planet, ASAP. Set the target, so many tons that may be mined then burned without burning up our ecosphere; set the time frame, then progressively *reduce* the amount mined to the point of guaranteed sustainability. Uncorrupted, fully regulated supply and demand will do the rest; a fair rationing/price control mechanism could be incorporated, so that all people could get equal access, and that at a fair price.

Just get on and do it!

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] devil —n. 1 (usu. the Devil) (in Christian and Jewish belief) supreme spirit of evil; Satan. 2 a evil spirit; demon. b personified evil. 3 a wicked person. b mischievously clever person. [POD]

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.]

no appeal to decency works (A-bombing) ...

  .. no hope for truth and justice ...

    .. no honour among murdering thieves

-=*=-

Preamble: I am by profession no historian, rather I have become a 'seeker of truth (and justice)' by force of events. By the same token, neither is the 'scribe' known as Max Hastings by profession an historian, rather he was mainly a newspaper person and was also born after WW2. As for the troll calling her/himself variously 'spinifex,' 'C Parsons' and 'Eliot Ramsey,' we may judge only by what s/he writes. Finally, WD ethics: what ethics?

Purpose: IMHO, we the sheople® are being propagandised, on a massive scale. What is presented, by politicians (from both 'sides'), via the corporate MSM, in a well-integrated web of deceit, is a propaganda effort aimed at both shoring up some sort'a élite and enabling that élite to rip us off, as they continue to enrich themselves ever more obscenely beyond avarice. My intent is to illustrate aspects of these lies, with the hope that others may see and understand, then demand - as I do - justice for all.

-=*=-

Even 'Blind Freddy' ort'a have realised by now, that the B, B & H invasion of Iraq was not what it was initially 'promoted' as. If you think that 'promoted' is not the correct expression, then I'd remind you of one 'joke' made at the time (2002), something like one doesn't "introduce new products in August"[1]. Long story short and in clear text: they lied to us (a sample of 935 lies documented here.) I define this 'they' as not 'just' the (lying!) politicians themselves but also the (venal!) MSM (incl. big bits'a the AusBC & SBS, boo! Hiss!) So far, nothing new. But before 'moving on,' I must emphasize: the politicians - on both 'sides' - are not properly representing us (rather, they toe the 'big end of town' line), and the 4th estate, by relaying and amplifying the politicians' lies are traitors to us, we the sheople - just as both lying politicians and venal MSM are traitors to 'our' (US, UK, Aus & Israel) putative but failed democracies.

The 'joke' at [1] is headed "Why now?" and one could well ask "Why this, why now?" - Q: Why should I consider the lies currently being pushed by some ugly troll, when I usually scream totally ignore? A: Because some lies are simply too egregious to stand unchallenged. (Yes, sadly hooked. Again. Still. Looping; Q: Who/what can set me free? A: The truth, leading (eventually) to justice!)

-=*=-

A veritable flood of lying propaganda forms a common background to these four events of interest (as of course to far more), two from the past and two from the (possible) future:

1. The A-bombing of Japan.

2. The (illegal) invasion of Iraq.

3. The (much threatened) invasion of Iran.

4. The (possible, probable) excess-CO2 induced greedastrophe®.

-=*=-

The A-bombing of Japan.

Old: The topic was well treated here, "Is All Fair In Love and War?"

A curious oddity: The commenter C Parsons repeatedly alleged that the Japanese emperor had 'sacked' his cabinet. On being challenged (by Bob Wall, g'day!) - no response whatsoever was ever forthcoming.

New: The topic is now getting a re-run here, "While truth regrows its torn-off limbs."

An even greater oddity: The commenter Eliot Ramsey has taken up the C Parsons allegation of 'cabinet sacking' with a vengeance. Ramsey now gives as reference a book by one Sir Max Hastings, as if this was some sort'a be-all and end-all. Perhaps the 'flavour' of Hastings may be sampled here [2,3,4]. My comment: the flavour of Hastings is uncannily similar to that of the Parsons/Ramsey construct itself; no wonder Ramsey is pushing Hastings like mad. Keyword: unbalanced, to say the least, and NB: still no substantiation for "sacked."

To do: any WD pretence that Eliot Ramsey is not the same commenter as C Parsons must be abandoned (as I have done long ago), and WD might explain exactly why the banned Parsons is now allowed, even actively encouraged, to comment as Ramsey. Otherwise, Q: WD ethics: what ethics? A: Well, as we see; as good as none.

Conclusion on CP/ER: The deploying of at least one undeclared alias marks Parsons/Ramsey as a liar and violator of the WD commenter ethics. As such a liar, should s/he to be extended the benefit of the doubt on any matter? If so then why? I say not; once a (premeditated!) liar, always a liar. That CP/ER is a pushed-paradigm propagandist is just too obvious, even for 'Blind Freddy.' That s/he is actually encouraged by WD is scandalous.

Q: Any more lies and liars? A: More than a few. First off is an obvious lie from Truman, that Hiroshima was a military target. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians. Then there was a cover-up. Lies and cover-ups; same old same old.

  "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]

Patently false, then:
  «Three days after publication of Mr. Burchett's shocking dispatch, Mr. Laurence had a front-page story in the Times disputing the notion that radiation sickness was killing people. His news story included this remarkable commentary: "The Japanese are still continuing their propaganda aimed at creating the impression that we won the war unfairly, and thus attempting to create sympathy for themselves and milder terms. ... Thus, at the beginning, the Japanese described 'symptoms' that did not ring true."»
[Goodman&Goodman/The Hiroshima Cover-Up]

Backing up a bit:
  «Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war.»
[Mark Weber/Was Hiroshima Necessary]

Going back even further:
  «... on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials.
...
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.»
[ibid.] Citation posted by Bob Wall on July 14, 2006 - 10:25am.

(Note: January 20, 1945 preceded both the battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa, hardly minor matters. Yet surrender overtures already existed... hmmm?)

My comment: One might think, that the way to reduce *all* casualties, would be to stop the war as soon as possible - yes, also consistent with some sort'a 'justice,' i.e. not letting anyone get away with any nefarious goings-on - say. The Japanese were clearly seeking to surrender - but *none* of their efforts were even acknowledged, let alone explored - that we can see. The one absolute sticking-point for the Japanese, namely the preservation of the person of the Emperor, was *accentuated* by the US throughout in the negative, right up to and past the bombing - then abruptly conceded. Can we theorise as to why? To keep the war going until the bombs were ready, say?

Let me be perfectly clear: I do not dispute, even for the smallest part of a pico-sec, that the Japanese acted in extremely barbarous ways. The real questions vis-à-vis the A-bombing are two: (1) was the end of the war delayed so as to enable the deployment of the A-bombs (my answer: yes), and (2) was the A-bombing a war crime (my answer: also yes).

One more thing for now:
  «Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the "patriotic" political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to one million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90%) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.»
[John V Denson/The Hiroshima Myth]

My comment: They'd have to deploy some excuse, even if 'only' to avoid mass cognitive dissonance. And so the lies are propagated, also by filthy trolls. My tip: read all the linked articles, compare to reality, decide for yourselves.

-=*=-

Fazit: That lying propaganda is deployed at all is a disgrace on our so-called leaders, and a damnable failing of our MSM. That apparent amateurs are 'in the game' too is perplexing; what could possibly be in it for them? One might think that combating lies everywhere they manifest would be the democratic duty of all citizens - but obviously a duty not taken up by all. Some of the worst may be the enablers, those who are presumed to be smart enough to detect bullshit, but nevertheless fail to proscribe it. Too bad.

Nothing can be done about the past, but if the lying propaganda is not exposed and effectively countered, we will not be able to avoid some real nasties like the (much threatened) invasion of Iran and 'the biggie,' the (possible, probable) excess-CO2 induced greedastrophe®.

All hands to the pump!

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] CNN.com - Marketing Iraq: Why now? - September 12, 2002
White House chief of staff Andrew Card told The New York Times last week, ``From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'' ...
[archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/schneider.iraq/]

[2] Why we had to use the bomb on Japan
By MAX HASTINGS
Last updated at 11:01 18 September 2007
[dailymail.co.uk/Why-use-bomb-Japan]

[3] Sunday, Feb. 17, 2008
THE BATTLE FOR JAPAN
Max Hastings' analysis in a bombshell
By KEVIN RAFFERTY
[japantimes]

[4] Mutinous jibe angers veterans
Frank Walker
December 2, 2007
[theage.com.au/mutinous-jibe-angers-veterans]