More significant than the headline, is Jeremy's comment about making the "drone warfare" political killing normal for a generation of liberals. I'm even more concerned that conservatives, have lost touch with traditional conservative values, a priority of freedom at home, protection capability to defend the homeland, and passionate commitment to distance between local conflicts. The media, and politicians seem to still be enamored with "Shock and Awe" and tragically the public still while bored with it seem not to be offended nor able to demand serious discussions about the morality or effectiveness of our domestic and foreign policy.
Posted by Zengine
Feb 20 2012 - 4:19pm
Most of the conservatives have become neocons. It's odd, but the old-school conservatives that I know (and I only know a handful) have more in common with progressives than progressives have in common with the former liberals who became neoliberals, who now pull the same sled as the neoconservatives.
Luckily, corrupt systems don't have to make sense.
Posted by tellthetruth
Feb 20 2012 - 2:17pm
Kill our way to peace?
A more realistic title would be "Targeted Strikes to Bolster Empire Programs"
This isn't about peace or 'Al Qaeda'. Drone strikes, cruise missile strikes, and 'Al Qaeda' itself (as pretext) serve one objective; to expand the empire and its ability to increase control over populations and resources.
We are all familiar with the amazing technological advances of the last thirty or so years. These advances are now driving the restructuring of societies around the world... and before the restructuring, comes the deconstruction (war/genocide, austerity, etc.). The question is, which traditional populations will assume the importance of 'Indians' banished to the reservations, and which will be reformatted into productive cogs for the new psychotronic massaged surveillance societies.
Posted by PaulK
Feb 20 2012 - 2:37pm
Everyone has relatives and friends.
Every killing of a person, and every wound, causes grief in the survivors, which spreads out as grief in the community. People inherently know that killing people is wrong. It feels bad.
The U.S. is exercising the military philosophy that it's ok to kill a few collateral people as long as we get the baddies. At home, our official policy is that killing one innocent person and 99 guilty people is wrong. Our government officially doesn't want to ever kill any innocent people because it damages the social contract under which we are a civilization. Unofficially? The government puts too many innocent men on death row.
Too often our government shoots first and pays the informants. Sometimes the informants just want money. Remember the informants that told the U.S. about Iraqi WMDs?
Sometimes our government shoots enemy soldiers because they are draftees, not because they had any particular intent against the U.S.
So what happens when our government shoots lots and lots of people without applying much justice? Great portions of the civilized world (and that doesn't include our government anymore) band together against the bully that could easily take away their lives too.
Posted by Birdbrain Alley...
Feb 20 2012 - 3:34pm
Jeremy Scahill assumes that the US is not already supplying weapons to people in Syria. Pepe Escobar has indicated the truth may be otherwise.
Also, it is interesting that Assad is called a "vicious, brutal murderer" (which may be true) , but no such words are used to describe Obama. I wonder which of these men has caused more innocent people to be slaughtered, maimed, and left homeless.
Posted by Zengine
Feb 20 2012 - 4:14pm
Who said peace was the objective?
How is that supposed to fit into the grand design of Empire and profit?
Posted by Lawrence Efana
Feb 21 2012 - 10:58am
A worthy Video to listen to. We must begin to listen to and balance the conscience. A better way out!
Posted by davidt1949
Feb 22 2012 - 3:05am
It amazes me that Common Dreams readers can impose their subjectivity upon a presentation given by a death-defying journalist possessed of the bona fides that Jeremy has. The basis for the criticisms of his comments are selective and flimsy, to say the least. He has been a steadfast excoriator of Obysmal's war policy, starting from his acceleration of the wars in Iwreck & Afghanistan through the militaristic acceptance speech of his Nobel Peace Prize to his cowardly submission to the military at every opportunity. Listen to what he is saying. He echoes accurately what every "whistleblower", iconoclast military careerist has been screaming at any camera that will grant him/her a precious 30 seconds. I hope that those who have chosen to be petty & self-serving in their comments are taking actions to stop the insanity that Jeremy is with the same degree of dedication and longevity. It is quite obvious that we desperately need more soldiers to enlist to fight the war that the Corporatocracy has waged upon Americans who populate the 99% and the rest of the planet. Find a method by which you can make a contribution, none is too little to reap a benefit.
8 Comments so far
Show AllMore significant than the headline, is Jeremy's comment about making the "drone warfare" political killing normal for a generation of liberals. I'm even more concerned that conservatives, have lost touch with traditional conservative values, a priority of freedom at home, protection capability to defend the homeland, and passionate commitment to distance between local conflicts. The media, and politicians seem to still be enamored with "Shock and Awe" and tragically the public still while bored with it seem not to be offended nor able to demand serious discussions about the morality or effectiveness of our domestic and foreign policy.
Most of the conservatives have become neocons. It's odd, but the old-school conservatives that I know (and I only know a handful) have more in common with progressives than progressives have in common with the former liberals who became neoliberals, who now pull the same sled as the neoconservatives.
Luckily, corrupt systems don't have to make sense.
Kill our way to peace?
A more realistic title would be "Targeted Strikes to Bolster Empire Programs"
This isn't about peace or 'Al Qaeda'. Drone strikes, cruise missile strikes, and 'Al Qaeda' itself (as pretext) serve one objective; to expand the empire and its ability to increase control over populations and resources.
We are all familiar with the amazing technological advances of the last thirty or so years. These advances are now driving the restructuring of societies around the world... and before the restructuring, comes the deconstruction (war/genocide, austerity, etc.). The question is, which traditional populations will assume the importance of 'Indians' banished to the reservations, and which will be reformatted into productive cogs for the new psychotronic massaged surveillance societies.
Everyone has relatives and friends.
Every killing of a person, and every wound, causes grief in the survivors, which spreads out as grief in the community. People inherently know that killing people is wrong. It feels bad.
The U.S. is exercising the military philosophy that it's ok to kill a few collateral people as long as we get the baddies. At home, our official policy is that killing one innocent person and 99 guilty people is wrong. Our government officially doesn't want to ever kill any innocent people because it damages the social contract under which we are a civilization. Unofficially? The government puts too many innocent men on death row.
Too often our government shoots first and pays the informants. Sometimes the informants just want money. Remember the informants that told the U.S. about Iraqi WMDs?
Sometimes our government shoots enemy soldiers because they are draftees, not because they had any particular intent against the U.S.
So what happens when our government shoots lots and lots of people without applying much justice? Great portions of the civilized world (and that doesn't include our government anymore) band together against the bully that could easily take away their lives too.
Jeremy Scahill assumes that the US is not already supplying weapons to people in Syria. Pepe Escobar has indicated the truth may be otherwise.
Also, it is interesting that Assad is called a "vicious, brutal murderer" (which may be true) , but no such words are used to describe Obama. I wonder which of these men has caused more innocent people to be slaughtered, maimed, and left homeless.
Who said peace was the objective?
How is that supposed to fit into the grand design of Empire and profit?
A worthy Video to listen to. We must begin to listen to and balance the conscience. A better way out!
It amazes me that Common Dreams readers can impose their subjectivity upon a presentation given by a death-defying journalist possessed of the bona fides that Jeremy has. The basis for the criticisms of his comments are selective and flimsy, to say the least. He has been a steadfast excoriator of Obysmal's war policy, starting from his acceleration of the wars in Iwreck & Afghanistan through the militaristic acceptance speech of his Nobel Peace Prize to his cowardly submission to the military at every opportunity. Listen to what he is saying. He echoes accurately what every "whistleblower", iconoclast military careerist has been screaming at any camera that will grant him/her a precious 30 seconds. I hope that those who have chosen to be petty & self-serving in their comments are taking actions to stop the insanity that Jeremy is with the same degree of dedication and longevity. It is quite obvious that we desperately need more soldiers to enlist to fight the war that the Corporatocracy has waged upon Americans who populate the 99% and the rest of the planet. Find a method by which you can make a contribution, none is too little to reap a benefit.