Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
End the Occupation of Iraq -- and Afghanistan
So far, Bush's plan to maintain a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq has been stymied by resistance from the Iraqi government. Barack Obama's timetable for withdrawal of American troops has evidently been joined by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Bush has mentioned a "time horizon," and John McCain has waffled. Yet Obama favors leaving between 35,000 and 80,000 U.S. occupation troops there indefinitely to train Iraqi security forces and carry out "counter-insurgency operations." That would not end the occupation. We must call for bringing home -- not redeploying -- all U.S. troops and mercenaries, closing all U.S. military bases, and relinquishing all efforts to control Iraqi oil.
In light of stepped up violence in Afghanistan, and for political reasons -- following Obama's lead -- Bush will be moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans see it as a justifiable response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the casualties in that war have been lower than those in Iraq -- so far. Practically no one in the United States is currently questioning the legality or propriety of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The cover of Time magazine calls it "The Right War."
The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the Council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the September 11 attacks, and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information; and urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.
The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because the attacks on September 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after September 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly.
Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Ft. Benning, Georgia under that specious rationale.
Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan is not the answer and will only lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghanis.
The hatred that fueled 19 people to blow themselves up and take 3,000 innocents with them has its genesis in a history of the U.S. government's exploitation of people in oil-rich nations around the world. Bush accused the terrorists of targeting our freedom and democracy. But it was not the Statue of Liberty that was destroyed. It was the World Trade Center -- symbol of the U.S.-led global economic system, and the Pentagon -- heart of the U.S. military, that took the hits. Those who committed these heinous crimes were attacking American foreign policy. That policy has resulted in the deaths of two million Iraqis -- from both Bill Clinton's punishing sanctions and George W. Bush's war. It has led to uncritical support of Israel's brutal occupation of Palestinian lands; and it has stationed more than 700 U.S. military bases in foreign countries.
Conspicuously absent from the national discourse is a political analysis of why the tragedy of 9/11 occurred and a comprehensive strategy to overhaul U.S. foreign policy to inoculate us from the wrath of those who despise American imperialism. The "Global War on Terror" has been uncritically accepted by most in this country. But terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. You cannot declare war on a tactic. The way to combat terrorism is by identifying and targeting its root causes, including poverty, lack of education, and foreign occupation.
There are already 60,000 foreign troops, including 36,000 Americans, in Afghanistan. Large increases in U.S. troops during the past year have failed to stabilize the situation there. Most American forces operate in the eastern part of the country; yet by July 2008, attacks there were up by 40 percent. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor for Jimmy Carter, is skeptical that the answer for Afghanistan is more troops. He warns that the United States will, like the Soviet Union, be seen as the invader, especially as we conduct military operations "with little regard for civilian casualties." Brzezinski advocates Europeans bribing Afghan farmers not to cultivate poppies for heroin, as well as the bribery of tribal warlords to isolate al-Qaeda from a Taliban that is "not a united force, not a world-oriented terrorist movement, but a real Afghan phenomenon."
We might heed Canada's warning that a broader mission, under the auspices of the United Nations instead of NATO, would be more effective. Our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan should emphasize economic assistance for reconstruction, development and education, not for more weapons. The United States must refrain from further Predator missile strikes in Pakistan, and pursue diplomacy, not occupation.
Nor should we be threatening war against Iran, which would also be illegal and result in an unmitigated disaster. The U.N. Charter forbids any country to use, or threaten to use, military force against another country except in self-defense or when the Security Council has given its blessing. In spite of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency's conclusion that there is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the White House, Congress, and Israel have continued to rattle the sabers in Iran's direction. Nevertheless, the antiwar movement has so far fended off passage of HR 362 in the House of Representatives, a bill which is tantamount to a call for a naval blockade against Iran -- considered an act of war under international law. Credit goes to United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, Peace Action, and dozens of other organizations that pressured Congress to think twice before taking that dangerous step.
We should pursue diplomacy, not war, with Iran; end the U.S. occupation of Iraq; and withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.
Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and her new book, Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd), will be published this winter. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.
149 Comments so far
Show AllGreat article. Perhaps all politicians should be required to read the CONSTITUTION and the U.N. Charter. The Constition talks about having a strong NAVY & no less than George Washington warned against having a large standing Army that would be involved in oversea's War's...What kind of 'CHANGE" is Senator Obama going to make if he is just 'cutting back' & 'redeploying' the troops?!...A more 'compassionate' Empire(700 bases!!)...Yes, lets add 15,000 Peace Corps workers and change the world...How are the Dems going to pay for Health Care(or anything) unless they have the Balls to cut the obese military budget? Cut the Army,Air Force, nuke subs,etc & have a lean, elite military that is used ONLY in conjuction with United Nations mandates...
Yes, I know the Repubs are criminals('All options are on the table!' Bush Jr.) & Obama is less warlike than 'Bomb,Bomb' McCain but he hasn't convinced me he will make any significant change in our insane 'military-industrial complex' Department of 'Defense'....Hawaii is a blue state..I'm voting GREEN.
You should have included: and Palestine!!!
Let's start to whittle down the power of the U.S. govorporation by making a law that simply states that there shall be no foreign boots on a foreign land. If U.S. soldiers land upon a foreign soil, the U.S. govorporation shall be held accountable. Hmmm, and where shall the U.S. govorporation be held accountable? There's the trillion dollar question because so far the U.S. govorporation has been held accountable by exactly no one.
Reduce the boots in foreign nations, & the flow of the tax payer dollars to the coporate arm of the govorporation just might wane for a short period. Now, there's a pipe dream. The lazy U.S. plebes lie about w/ their electronic toyz as the govorporation grows stronger daily. Watch for more "accidents" in the U.S. by those doing the wet work for the shadow gov't within the U.S. govorporation.
No change shall occur as long as you have the current crop of politicians in the three constitutional branches of the govorporation.
We are doomed.
I don't see any war as the right war. I am disappointed that Obama is encouraging more troops for Afghanistan, but maybe he feels he has to at this point.
Very well written and persuasive argument why America's occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan has been not only criminally but morally wrong. Particularly instructive was Ms. Cohn's noting how there has been practically no examination by the corporate media as to why those terrorist attacks happened on Sept. 11, 2001. They did not occur capriciously but rather, as Ms. Cohn points out, because of America's foreign policy in the Middle East. As bin Laden had mentioned in one of the tapes, Al Qaeda did not attack the United States because of its freedoms. If that were the case, as bun Laden said, Al Qaeda would have attacked Sweden. But Sweden was not attacked because they do not have their soldiers stationed in the Middle East like the United States does. The last thing, it would seem, that journalists and pundits wish to engage in is any kind of introspection as to why this country was attacked on 9/11. It is much easier to react viscerally than to dare question why the United States should have been assaulted for [supposedly] no justifiable reason whatsoever.
How can one be a Military man and not care whether the war one engages in is just?
This criticism applies to Senator John McCain and to all those soldiers who knew something about George W. Bush but enlisted anyway.
They shared the morality of Blackwater.
Even the Winter Soldiers started out as apologists for the war. They along with civilian supporters bought the incredibly dumb line that, "Yes, well, there may have been mistakes at the beginning, but now we're there and need to finish the job."
The mistake did not go away on the second day, however, or on the ninth, 399th, 688th, or 977th.
As the only heroes of the war, The Winter Soldiers, pointed out, mistakes and confusion were the daily fare of their lives. No one has disputed their assertions, with evidence, or even tried to. The horrifying movies they produced, of their own and others' gruesome killings of innocent persons, suggested much more of the same but documented only in the mortality statistics by Johns Hopkins/Columbia School of Nursing/Lancet and other international groups.
John McCain should address these groups by name every day if he really thinks the Iraq war is so hot.
I'll put the words in his mouth for him. "A complete bamboozle!"
Of course these studies never were a bamboozle, are NOT a bamboozle, and won't be a bamboozle in the future. They show more than a million Iraqis killed (as a result of the war WE blindered Americans pursued) and the quality of research is very good and clearly explained every step of the statisticians' way.
The naive or malevolent John McCain, even at the present, speaks of "winning" in Iraq. The only way he can do it, however, is by bringing a million persons back from the dead.
Obama--the new war without end to insure US hegemony guy.
A mouthful, yes but remember folks--we have but one political party in this country--the Party of the Rich--it has, as we all know, two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats.
Can we rid ourselves of this Corptocracy?
You talk to who you can talk to. You reach who you can reach. Maybe today you reach a few people you couldn't reach yesterday.
What you don't do is to decide that you can't reach everybody so you stop trying. What you don't do is to decide that you can't change the world today with a magic wand, so why bother?
You keep trying. You keep doing what you can do. You reach who you can reach. Then you hope they reach a few more people you can't reach.
This will go on for awhile, and at times it will seem frustrating. But, when the change comes, you probably won't see it coming and it will come fast. It will be because of all the work you did when it seemed hopeless to do anything, but it won't be obvious that this is the case.
Remember, when the Soviet Union collapsed, no one saw it coming.
What can you do now? Well, for one thing you can support political parties and candidates that don't support this. Except for a few rare cases like Paul and Kucinich, that means don't support most Democrats and Republicans.
Will that change the world today? Probably not. But it can build for a change to come. Certainly better than supporting candidates who support these evil policies just because you think they can win. Who cares if they can 'win' if you think the result is your nation acting immorally and in an evil fashion?
You can work outside politics for change. Protest, Demonstrate, March, civil disobedience. Will that change the world today? Probably not. But it makes people aware that change is required.
And, both the political acts and the acts outside politics are ways of communicating to even more people out there. I was reading a book once about the early Vietnam war protests at some midwestern college. It began with just a couple of people, who were generally ridiculed and ignored. But they served the role of making other people think about the issue. And they created space for other people over time to question the war and what we are doing. Those first two people are neccessary.
Someday we can think about bigger actions like shutting down a city with our numbers, or a work stoppage. But those don't work so well when its just a handful of people. So the actions above help you get to that point.
You can talk to your neighbors. You can talk to your friends. You can talk to your co-workers. By now, most are opposed to the war. So, take the conversation to the next level and ask "if 70% of this nation opposes the war, what do we have to do to really end it?"
Movies make it seem like its one hero, or one heroic act that changes everything. Real-life doesn't work that way. Its lots of little acts from lots of people that creates change. Don't get discouraged just because you can't change things in one two-hour movie-length period of time.
"Perhaps all politicians should be required to read the CONSTITUTION and the U.N. Charter"
Should be already of course. After all, they stand up before the nation and give a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Maybe we should refuse to re-elect any politician that is so immoral that they will give a solemn oath and then fail to live up to it.
"The Winter Soldiers, pointed out, mistakes and confusion were the daily fare of their lives. No one has disputed their assertions, with evidence, or even tried to. The horrifying movies they produced, of their own and others' gruesome killings of innocent persons"
Anyone been watching Generation Kill on HBO? So far it seems to be capturing this quite well.
Kucinich has requested impeachment petition support. Wednesday is the deadline.
htttp://kucinicj.us:80/
Given the current power structures, the U.S. is an incapable of ending its occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as it is of withdrawing from the regions of the American Southwest that were taken from Mexico. It would be instant bankruptcy to withdraw fully from Iraq. The U.S. dollar would become toilet paper. It will take only a little longer to reach bankruptcy under the current occupation scenario.
Just wait until the Ides of August and we can add Iran to the list.
The US doesn't believe in international law, that quaint little agreement that binds civilized nations together in war and peace. It is now but a footnote in US history. I do agree that we should get out Iraq as soon as possible and criminalize the entire US government for promoting this disaster capitalism to benefit the very few and destroying the lives of many. With voter purges curreently underway in Colorado, Ohio and New Mexico, the bad guys are winning again.
Why should anyone expect the US to leave Iraq, Afghanistan or the other 130 countries it keeps permanent military bases in?
War is American government policy, it has been for 100 years, it's how the US has built its wealth. This isn't going to change, not unless we stop voting for Democrats or Republicans, and that too isn't about to happen any time soon.
Sung, nor should they. The UN has been an unmitigated disaster in the realm of international security. Why should the US bow to the will of outside entities which do not share the same interests?
Our government is foremost responsible to our citizens. Perhaps you disagree with this sentiment, but yet it remains.
Pray tell, what could we exchange for this "disaster capitalism?" Perhaps high unemployment rates and decreased production capacity? Yes, that sounds like the American Dream alright. Merit is such an outdated value.
It is obvious to most here that Obama's positions on this and most else are similar to Bush's and McCains i.e. endless war, millions of uninsured, etc.
CommonDreams nevertheless has few articles on the alternative candidates whose positions on the issues are remarkably similar to most progressives here.
So we end up having debates over which is better, "the real Obama" of permanent Iraq bases or "the imaginary Obama" who, we hope, is secretly planning to end the occupation.
What a bunch of garbage. Relying on the UN is ridiculous and will cause the deaths of potentially millions more. HTF can you put your faith into this organization, so rife with compromised officials. That routinely condemn israel for defending itself while never condemning Palestinian terrorists that indiscriminately fire unaimable rockets into residential neighborhoods.
Really, you people are sick sick sick
Jlocke,
I would disagree on domestic/economic issues. Obama would be committing political suicide to abandon all attempts to further American security, but I think his domestic agenda is far more anti-enterprise than you give him credit for.
MM29, don't forget that the UN took time to condemn "Fitna," essentially calling it hate speech, but has been painfully inept in combating Islamic extremism.
Yes, Amurj, I agree that the UN has been a failed dream, but the US can't bomb and murder its way into energy dependence or global dominance without paying a huge price of being isolated politically and at the whims of foreign investors seeking our huge debt. Our foreign policies have been a failure and have severely impacted our nations ability, as you put it, to be responsible to her citizens. The disaster we now have is a national infrastructure failure, failed public educational system, and a failed health care. Now what candidate(s) will be able to reverse this trend without the entire population working for prisons, law enforcement, or defense contractors?
There is a criminal administration running Washington and Congress is complicit. Ms Cohn needs to get out more and learn we have been invading Iran for years and trying to stir up anything that will make them retaliate. We will kill innocent women and children if necessary but do not make any mistake thinking the routine is simple, practiced on many continents in countless countries all with the same outcome: instigate a war, when they respond hit them with overwhelming force and then take what we want. That is our entire foreign policy and it is naive to juxtapose articles that render arguments both sorry and late. The war is happening now and to cover it periodically is insincere.
Thanks Marjorie. Good post. I believe that it's time for us to start thinking in terms of theater of operations instead of individual countries. It's quite obvious that Obama (after "refining his position") has no intention of decreasing forces in the theater. Most of those he has slated for "withdrawal", will simply be shifted to Laffghanistan for strategic positioning.... errr, I mean to catch Osama.
As for bringing the troops home... it was all just a dream... go back to sleep.
Samson,
Thank you for your excellent posts.
As Ralph Nader put it: "Pessimism is a function of inactivity." ... And I don't plan on being inactive.
Can you imagine what the history of East Europe would be like if Lech Walesa and his colleagues had said: "Oh screw it, we can't change things. Let's just give up."
The dissenters who brought down the Soviet Union did so with absolutely no democratic tools, no democratic mechanisms in place. We, in the United States, on the other hand, have a myriad of democratic tools with which to accomplish change -- real, meaningful change. And yet most people don't use those democratic tools.
I also like your point, Samson, about how when change happens, it often happens very quickly, re. the tipping point for change. (e.g., When the Soviet Union collapsed, baby, did it collapse!)
A great many people think that things are hopeless here in the US, that nothing meaningful can be changed. This is such utter nonsense. And it's the kind of nonsense, the kind of thinking, that those in power count on. They COUNT on fear, they COUNT on cynicism, they COUNT on despair, they COUNT on inactivity, they COUNT on hopelessness. Without those "givens," they're sunk.
Those in power may have the power, but they are dwarfed in numbers by the general population. And it's that simple equation that makes it difficult for them to sleep at night. It's that simple equation that causes them to spend, literally, billions of dollars on political propaganda. It's that simple equation -- the few versus the great many -- that causes them to move heaven and earth to "keep the con going."
Sadly, many people in the United States are unaware how much more progressive average citizens are in other advanced industrial countries. Many Americans say: "Oh a viable third party, that's impossible." And yet there are in many European countries not only third parties but also proportional representation -- something that many Americans would reject out of hand as ... "impossible."
In terms of almost every political category, America ranks towards the very bottom of the list as compared to other advanced industrialized countries. There is in other advanced industrialized countries (Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan):
-- a greater rate of unionization;
-- greater voter turnout;
-- better wages;
-- greater employment benefits;
-- greater pay-equity between the sexes;
-- less unemployment;
-- less poverty;
-- a much smaller gap between the rich and the poor, and the rich and the middle class;
-- cleaner air;
-- safer streets;
-- more humane prison systems;
-- less "social stressors" -- social stressors leading to crime outwardly, and illness inwardly;
-- a much stronger "social safety net" -- for the sick, the old and the disabled.
These things are not utopian dreams, THEY EXIST IN OTHER COUNTRIES -- other countries not nearly as rich as the United States.
Those in power have a host of weapons at their disposal -- highly sophisticated weapons and highly sophisticated policing techniques -- and have shown absolutely no hesitancy in using these brutal forces against the world's innocents ... so that an armed revolution against war and injustice would be suicidal. ...
But the general population has one weapon the ruling classes don't have -- the truth. And in the battle for peace and justice, truth is the most powerful weapon of all. It's a power that's indivisible, and it's a power that can't be "incrementalized."
Here's something about the truth from Pete Seeger:
"God bless the grass that grows toward the sun.
They pour the concrete over it and think that it is done.
But the concrete gets tired of what it has to do.
And it breaks and it buckles and the grass grows through.
And God bless the grass. ...
God bless the truth that fights toward the sun.
They pour the lies over it and think that it is done.
But the lies get tired of what they have to do.
And they break and they buckle and the truth breaks through.
And God bless the grass."
Sung,
Our foreign policies have been fairly adequate in keeping the citizenry safe from outside aggressors. Let us not forget that we weren't in the Hindu Kush when 9/11 was plotted. We weren't in Iraq when the Cole was attacked. Simply leaving the battleground will not halt the aggression of those who seek to harm the United States.
As for your question, no candidate will rebuild infrastructure or repair our schools. Our first problem is that we've created an entire country which depends on public schooling as the primary source of education for American children. Public schools will never succeed where individuals and families fail. Never. No amount of money or strategy will solve this problem, as the solution requires an invigorated emphasis on personal and familial responsibility. What infrastructure do you refer to? I too agree that we have some infrastructure problems, but to respond to your concerns I'd need a bit more specificity. As for health care, I see this as a societal problem, not a governmental one. Nothing is keeping you from paying for the policy of 4 or 5 of your neighbors.
Yes, the criminals who attacked on 9-11 should be brought to justice. New Yorkers, support the ballot initiative to have a real investigation of 9-11.
http://www.petersnewyork.com/9-11ballot.html
Unbelievable, the hatred this writer feels for her country. Imagine drawing moral distinctions between our country and the Islamofascists who committed the Sept. 11 terrorist acts and continue today. I can almost feel the bile she spews.
Now chiclayo here, is the voice of America that the world hears most frequently. Most of the rest of you here at CD are like an oasis of sanity.
chiclayo,
Perhaps Professor Cohn considers herself first and foremost a citizen of the world.
AUMJ is a troll.
"Let us not forget that we weren't in the Hindu Kush when 9/11 was plotted."
No, but the US was in Saudi Arabia at the time.
"We weren't in Iraq when the Cole was attacked."
Well thats news to everyone on the planet. We all thought the Bush (elder) invaded Iraq in 1990, and the subsequent blockade killed over 1,000,000 Iraqis.
"[UN] routinely condemn israel for defending itself while never condemning Palestinian terrorists that indiscriminately fire unaimable rockets into residential neighborhoods."
Israeli settlers attack Palestinian school children, but I guess that is OK in your mind (Ref: http://www.cpt.org/).
Where do these Bush-loving idiots get their information from?
Both MM29 and AUMRJ are both trolls,WTF.
They try to give the impression that if we were not fighting there we'd be in the streets - the politics of fear
I also sense some AIPAC background in their diatribes about how nice the Israelis are. I was in Israel and my experience was not what they are touting. The Palestinians have in essence lost hope - nobody is enforcing humane behavior on the Israelis. MM29 and AUMRJ seem to miss the point that people forced to desperation by a stormtroooper environment, do what they can to exact a toll on the oppressors.
WTF July 29th, 2008 4:57 pm
Israeli settlers attack Palestinian school children, but I guess that is OK in your mind (Ref: http://www.cpt.org/).
WTF, thats not what Kathy Kelly reported in her article about the incident. Which is right?
End the occupation. Show these ungrateful peons who has the biggest and best nukes.
I think the main thing not directly pointed out here is; voting for Democrats get you as much war and misery as voting Republican. The difference being the Democrats at least pretend to "feel your pain".
The central issue here is the US' welfare policy the with the government of Israel (we give them several billion in welfare.) And we all saw Obama at the Western Wall, and did we see him paying respects at the Dome of the Rock? Or any such place? No, he was too busy securing Florida's electoral votes by sucking up to the Israeli government.
Obama will never end these wars, look at the Clintonista hacks he has working for hhis as policy advisors.
"Our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan should emphasize economic assistance for reconstruction, development and education, not for more weapons. The United States must refrain from further Predator missile strikes in Pakistan, and pursue diplomacy, not occupation."
This is wishful thinking and will never happen. How about disarmament and ending the funding of Pakistans already considerable military might to start with.
http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/07/29/Analysis_Pakistan_PMs_moment_of_truth/UPI-14721217364354/
from the above link: "Gilani, currently visiting Washington, is still playing for time. Sources told UPI he promised Bush Monday that the Pakistani army, which still numbers 100,000 men in the frontier regions, would be sent to attack al-Qaida and Taliban bases in Pakistani territory, but only after Washington lavishly re-equipped them with body armor and night-vision goggles, and boosted its intelligence-sharing with Islamabad. That could take months."
The lavishly re-equipped Pakistani Army will be promptly re-directed back to the Indian border so Pakistan can continue its endless shenanigans on that front. How does putting a loaded weapon in a criminals hand supposed to provide security. Its the age old 'fox guarding the henhouse' syndrome and we are as usual complicit.
Aumrj,
So what's wrong with publicly supported education or health care for that matter? Is a never-ending war the answer to continued economic collapse? Some of the problems now harming individual citizen's lives is an erosion of home values, which have fallen 17 percent in the past year, and home foreclosures rose to 252,363 filings in June. We are also now witnessing the highest jobless rate in 20 years, at 5.5%. Additionally, three million good paying middle class manufacturing jobs have disappeared in the last 5 years converted to low paying service jobs requiring little or no education and many without heath insurance or publicly assisted daycare. These and other factors, place tremendous strain on local tax revenues and on families trying to survive in today's weakening economy. But if you're a CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, college administrator or a lobbyist or a congress critter, you are doing just fine. The system works. It's so good in fact that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes to reduce hourly wages for 200,000 state workers to minimum wage.
The infrastructure sector includes airports, rails, schools, bridges, dams, water delivery, wastewater, transport and the national power grid, all of which need in excess of $1.4 trillion to repair and upgrade according to the American Society of Engineers. Who will pay? State bonds or private investment? Or will we see more foreign acquisitions of our basic infrastructure as the dollar weakens? Of course we haven't been attacked in a military sense. Instead, foreign buyers acquiring US companies as well as investing huge financial stakes in our banking system have invaded the US without firing a single round. In essence, the US is slowly loosing her sovereignty and the ability to invest directly for our own national interest and national good (However, foreign direct investment is good, globalization and all, but at what cost).
As the federal deficit now reaches $490 billion, excluding the price tag for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to a lesser degree in Africa, the US finds itself for sale. The US cannot continue to fund its budget by printing massive amounts of paper money with the expectation that foreign nations will purchase inflated U.S. Treasury securities. Instead, they are buying US companies, and god forbid our own congress. But they have always been for sale.
I cannot emphasize that the best approach is contained in the book:
"Three Cups of Tea"
One Man's Mission to Promote Peace...One School At A Time
By Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin
VIKING Hardcover 2006 / PENGUIN Paperback 2007
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/
And when you are done - pass it on!
Give as gifts!
Spread the word!
This a curious little pod: MM29, AUMRJ, and chicalayo....
AUMRJ, not only was 9-11 absolutely an "inside job", but the bombing of the USS Cole is highly questionable in terms of the Official story of two arab attackers (Yemeni?) riding up to the USS Cole in a dinghy. The story does not match the forensic evidence available. Additional evidence was conveniently lost or destroyed. There is an interesting article by Wayne Madsen of the Wayne Madsen Report covering this incident. It seems that a FBI team headed by John O'Neill (the same John O'Neill who was killed on 9-11 at the WTC-his first day on the job). O'Neill and his investigative team were asked to depart the crime scene in Aden when they started asking too many questions, obviously the "wrong" questions. To my knowledge, it hasn't been proven, but many signs point to Mossad. Not only does Mossad have a long history of torture and other cruelties, but an equality long history of "false flag" operations to manipulate public opinion in favor of their agenda.
Thank you Mister Chips
I'll bet the 'pod' supported the attacks on the USS Liberty!
Re. Afghanistan, four words. The Former Soviet Union.
I truly hate to say it, but "most" Americans are just plain brain dead and have no volition to learn anything beyond their pathetic, narcissistic consumer lives.
Military conquest of others' natural resources has been the policy of these United States pointedly since the Spanish American War. Read that history and our policies then and you will see the terrible atrocities we committed (the other side was not impeccable, but WE invaded their country) and think about our foreign policies (if you want to know) since.
The unvarnished support of the State of Israel is an atrocity in itself.
Space limits what I can say and what I've learned over my 77 years of life in the United States and as a 5 year veteran.
Just couple of good researched books to read:
"Killing Hope" US Military and CIA Interventions Since WW2
by, William Blum
"Empire as a War of Life"
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy"
both by, William Applemman Williams
Most important to understand our way of foreign policy is the, "Church Commission Report" which you can easily Google.
Activism can be pursued in many ways....
One person can make a difference.
But, with two major parties in our country genuflecting not only to the corporatocracy/military/industrial/media/pharma moguls and also their homage to AIPAC will not change our major thrusts in foreign policy in the near future.
It is true, if those on 9/11 wanted to attack our "democracy" (remember we are a republic with democratic processes) they would have destroyed the Statue of Liberty.
No amount of subterfuge or media distortion can change facts; we have trod heavily across this globe killing hope in all those countries that opposed our consumer society while vigorously stealing their natural resources.
And, the most atrocious fact is that we have NEVER tried to do it to a country stronger than us. Forget the Soviet Union; and the propaganda of the Cold War. The arms race was a farce. That's not to say that they were dumb; far from it; their priorities were different. And they weren't able to rid themselves of the old rotten aristocracy that still controlled so much.
What the US needs is an "Orange Revolution." From within, of course.
Write letters to local papers; speak truth to power and your unbelieving neighbors and keep plodding ahead.
We will have an election that may possibly put Obama into office but it will not change our foreign or domestic policies significantly. That is up the to people if they awaken from their slumber.
When people in any country are hurt enough, both economically and politically they will revolt. Americans have not been hurt enough yet and their historical memory is zilch.
Re-register as non-partisan; vote for Obama for president (hold your nose) and vote GREEN for all other running candidates. They are growing slowly across this great land.
I disagree with those who proclaim that we who do not agree with the criminal domestic or foreign policies of these United States "hate their country." On the contrary. I say we love it more than those who are too brain dead and lazy to learn about their own country and do not care about anyone else...as I said above: selfish, narcissistic consumer demons who constantly wrap themselves in a false flag.
Our Flag needs to be washed.
Time to start.
I think we need to debunk "The Good Afghanistan War" myth. Obviously the ruling military oligarchy has decided to cut their loses... ease up on unsolvable Iraq, and focus resources back on the primary target, invasion number one Afghanistan.
My opinion is that Afhganistan is about 4 or 5 things...
1. Denying the Chinese the ability to build a pipeline across Afghanistan to transfer Iranian oil.
2. Occupy a strategic position on Russia's southern border.
3. Occupy a strategic position on China's southern border.
4. Park some missile defense hidden up in those Afghani mountains.
5. Put pressure on two communist countries at once, because the Cold War ain't over.
Remind people that 19 of the 19 terrorist hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Afhganistan. And if Osama was really a priority- he'd be dead by now.
Terrorism is a scapegoat- it is not the reason. Neocons are not scared of cavedwellers. But they always have been and always will be scared of anti-capitalist commies that out number us 5 to 1!!
First, I am a troll. If by "troll" you mean capitalist who promotes personal responsibility, autonomy, and doesn't believe in the entitlement culture espoused by many here. Further, I believe in protecting American lives first, even if collateral damage is the unfortunate by product of ensuring that security.
Additionally, you're right, we did have people in Saudi Arabia. Of course, they were allowed there by the House of Saud, but that is an irrelevant matter, and surely 9/11 was a legitimate response to that. Good call.
Finally, thanks for admitting that Palestinians are actively engaged in terrorism. I suspect that is the reason you refused to address the substantive point brought up by the other poster, and instead referred to a single event perpetrated by the Israelis. Of course, you also failed to mention that the United States and Israel spend billions on weapons systems and training which avoid collateral damage. American troops die in training exercises meant to prepare them to avoid just such collateral damage. But sure, you're right, we're on the same moral plane as the Islamic extremists who indiscriminately lob rockets into Israel and who purposefully target western civilians. I guess they don't talk about such things on the Daily Kos or Asia Times, do they?
Yup! That's a 'troll' alright.
Cedar,
Thank you for your kind words.
Afghanistan is the 20th country the United States has bombed since the end of World War II.
All 20 countries are third world countries. Some without air forces. Iraq without even a standing army!
Each of these third world countries is dwarfed in comparison to US military might. ... Moreover, most of these countries were bombed for considerable periods of time -- several years in most cases (e.g., Vietnam, Laos, Korea, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan.)
I read that *before* George Bush attacked Afghanistan --or more accurately, before the ruling class in the United States attacked Afghanistan, the Democratic Party fully-complicit in the attack -- that 1 out of every 7 Afghans were either starving or in imminent danger of starving. I don't know what the statistic is now, but I assume that it's much worse.
I also read that hours after Afghanistan was first bombed, commanders in the field were running out of targets to hit, so devastated was the country even *before* the bombing started. … So devastated was the country even before the bombing started that there were, in short order, no "worthwhile targets" left to bomb. … Whereupon Donald Rumsfeld is reported to have screamed to his underlings: "Goddamit! Find me worthwhile targets to bomb!"
(Continued)
So here we have Barack Obama ... the peace candidate. … The peace candidate, that is, up until he captured the Democratic Party nomination. Now he's something quite different. Now he's changed his tune. To wit:
-- Barack Obama supports the US presence in Iraq. His position went from that of a "peace candidate" during the primaries to what it is now. That is to say: Barack Obama *now* says that he will defer to the judgment of the commanders in the field. (Now all we have to do is find a commander in Iraq who's a dove!) On July 2, 2008, in a speech in Colorado Springs, Obama stated:
"I have always said I would listen to the commanders on the ground. I have always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability."
In other words: I may withdraw troops in 16 months; but, if conditions change, I may not.
Meaning: Obama's current position on Iraq is essentially the same as that John McCain and George Bush.
-- As for Iran ... Months ago, Barack Obama, along with the rest of the Senate, gave George Bush the green light to invade Iran. (The Senate to Bush: If you invade Iran, we won't object.)
-- As for Afghanistan ... Now "the peace candidate" wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In a July 14th "New York Times" op-ed piece, Obama proposed sending 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
Interestingly enough, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, also feel that there are an insufficient number of troops in Afghanistan. And guess how many additional troops they recommend be deployed in Afghanistan -- the same number as Barack Obama, 10,000.
Note: What did George Bush do *the day after* Obama's aforementioned "New York Time" op-ed piece? In a White House press conference, Bush indicated that the US and its NATO allies were already initiating a "surge" in Afghanistan.
-- As for Pakistan ... Obama has threatened to invade Pakistan. Quoting Obama from the above-cited op-ed piece:
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents.
"We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
In the same July 2, 2008 speech in Colorado Springs cited above, Obama praised the US military and vowed to increase its ranks. Obama has called for an overall increase of American ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and "investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."
Last year, writing in "Foreign Affairs" magazine, Barack Obama wrote:
"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale."
In short, Obama supports two wars now in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has shown a clear-cut willingness to engage in two more wars (Iran and Pakistan).
… Some peace candidate.
(Continued)
In the above article, Marjorie Cohn writes:
"Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Ft. Benning, Georgia under that specious rationale."
I would simply add that the United States military has done more to terrorize the people of this planet -- in terms of number of year as well as overall destruction -- than any terrorist organization in the history of the world.
The same US rationale for attacking Afghanistan -- that Afghanistan harbors terrorists -- if the tables were turned, that is to say, if the rationale was applied to the United States, would mean that all US military bases in the world would be legitimate targets for counter-terrorists.
In other words, simply hold the US to its own definition of terrorism.
Quoting Noam Chomsky in a recent interview:
" ...what I write causes extreme anger for the very simple reason that I use the U.S. government's official definition of terrorism from the official U.S. code of laws. If you use that definition, it follows very quickly that the U.S. is the leading terrorist state and a major sponsor of terrorism and since that conclusion is unacceptable, it arouses furious anger.
"But the problem lies in the unwillingness to recognize that your own terrorism is terrorism. This is not just true of the United States, it's true quite generally. Terrorism is something that they do to us. In both cases, it's terrorism and we have to get over that if we're serious about the question." Click here for the entire interview -- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15416.htm
Chomsky also writes in the following CounterPunch article:
" ... terrorism (according to the US definition of terrorism, from the official US code of laws) is 'the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature ... through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear,' typically targeting civilians.
"The British government's definition is about the same: 'Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause.'
"These definitions seem fairly clear and close to ordinary usage. There also seems to be general agreement that they are appropriate when discussing the terrorism of enemies.
"But a problem at once arises. These definitions yield an entirely unacceptable consequence: it follows that the *US* is a leading terrorist state ..." (Asterisks added.)
Click here for the entire article, "The Terrorist in the Mirror," http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky01242006.html
Nobody seems to understand that the United Nations committed policy suicide in 1947 when it decided that it had the right to partition the Mandate of Palestine which it had inherited WHOLE from the League of Nations whose responsibility had been to see to it that the British would help Palestine to become an sovereign and independent state which, of course, they never did. Ever since the UN has been a dysfunctional political plaything of the great powers. The UN can still do fine things on social and health issues throughout the world but it is totally useless to learn the part of its charter that has to do with relationships between states. That part has been a dead letter for many years. Forget it.