Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Keeps His Campaign Pledge …Because a Better Option Wasn’t Available
What if, last Friday, President Obama had stepped to the podium at the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room and begun his remarks this way: “Good afternoon, everybody. As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end -- for the sake of our national security and to strengthen American leadership around the world. After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011. Today, I’m here to tell you that I’m breaking that pledge. It will not happen. Instead, I’m leaving 3,000 to 5,000 U.S. troops in that country indefinitely.”
Of course, the president made no such claim (nor, if things had turned out differently in Iraq, would he have done so). Nonetheless, according to news reports, such an outcome -- thousands of American troops in Iraq, possibly for years -- was the administration’s first choice, while military commanders were evidently eager to leave tens of thousands of troops behind. It was the outcome that Washington had been negotiating for and lobbying Iraqi politicians about all year.
Because the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to give U.S. troops legal immunity, full withdrawal (with the possibility of reinsertion later) became the administration's default position, and President Obama was left to take unreserved credit for fulfilling an election campaign pledge to bring all U.S. troops home by the end of 2011, the outcome he hadn’t wanted. (“Today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year...”) Keep this in mind as well: given the State Department’s militarization there -- it plans to run a mercenary “army” of perhaps 5,000 hired guns from its monster Baghdad embassy in 2012 -- and a recent, little-noted statement by Iraqi cleric and American opponent Muqtada al-Sadr, the American war will not necessarily end next year either.
Mainstream papers reported all this, including the preferred plans for staying in Iraq, even while hailing the president’s decision to leave and keep his pledge, with no hint of the striking hypocrisy involved. (The New York Times front-page headline read: “Last U.S. Soldiers to Exit From Iraq in 2011, Obama Says, Fulfilling Vow to End Eight-Year War -- Dispute With Baghdad Is Cited.”) Whether anyone outside the mainstream media is impressed with this sort of presidential maneuver anymore is an open question. Certainly, Glenn Greenwald wasn’t and that shouldn't surprise anyone. With his scathingly on-target regular columns at Salon.com, it would be no exaggeration to say that Greenwald has had a hand in making many of us immune to American political and financial hypocrisy of every sort.
Now, he’s written a new book, just out today, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, that -- again, who could be surprised? -- is surely the book for the Occupy Wall Street moment in this country. Riveting to read, it’s a must for understanding how the Washington and Wall Street elite put themselves above the law, any law -- a subject he takes up in a new essay “Immunity and Impunity in Elite America
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book, co-authored with Nick Turse, is Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050. His other most recent book is The United States of Fear (Haymarket Books). Previous books include: The End of Victory Culture: a History of the Cold War and Beyond, The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
50 Comments so far
Show AllSorry Tom, this is incomplete. You begin with "What if..." but do not answer your own question. Of course you know what the answer is. Our nation would be legally at war with Iraq again because it does not matter how our armed forces got there in the first place. They would be in another country without the consent of its government, let alone of its people. The overwhelming majority of our nation does not realize this and President Obama failed to point that out. I have no idea why he did not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Mr. Obama ran for the presidency he knew or should have known that some kind of agreement with Iraq had to be reached in 2008, not by him but by the Bush administration. By the time when Mr. Obama was sworn in as US president the Bush administration had essentially fulfilled Mr. Obama's campaign pledge which had already become irrelevant on that day. The issue became " will president Obama fulfill the agreement signed by president Bush or will he not"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would have liked to be a fly on the wall in the rooms where the negotiations for "immunity" took place because we still do not know exactly what the government of Iraq demanded. El Maliki's comment about "they do not need immunity on the bases" suggests to me that his government was willing to accept the limited but very weak no-immunity contained in SOFA-Iraq. Of course Al Sadr demanded "no immunity, period" which may have swayed Al Maliki to make the same demand. My point however is that the notion, peddled by the Pentagon, that members of the Armed Forces and their civilian component had absolute immunity between December 2008 and today is false.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I understand there has been no peace treaty signed with Iraq. SOFA-Iraq sort of took its place. That situation is identical to our relationship with the German Bundesrepublik. No peace treaty but a SOFA-Germany plus NATO of course. The Obama administration will have to negotiate some agreement with Iraq, be it a true peace treaty or some other kind of "accord" and will have to do this soon because that treaty will have to cover all aspects of the gigantic US embassy in Baghdad. Pressure on the Obama administration is now needed to treat Iraq as a truly sovereign nation which deserves essentially the same relationship as with every one of our NATO allies. It is time to ignore what president Obama did or did not do but focus on "what next"? The bullying of Iraq by our nation must end now. The government of Iraq should at least have the power to extradite every US citizen that is not truly covered by diplomatic niceties. Al Sadr has already let it be known that his movement considers the 10,000 extra "diplomats" to be concealed soldiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statements of "US Embassy = Vatican City" are more than just a joke by a late-night comedian. It is almost literally the truth because it will be in essence an independent state set up within Iraq and it will cause no end of trouble. Iraqi students will not be able to "occupy it" but they and sympathizers might be able to cut off all supplies by a "siege". Why does president Obama set up this future "casus belli" for renewed occupation of Iraq? Do you understand this?
Crowsnest sez: "As far as I understand there has been no peace treaty signed with Iraq."
***
No need. The U.S. was never at war with Iraq.
SOFA is an agreement between a client state and an empire which retains the right to march back into it at any time, for any reason.
Tom and all of you posters are chasing a red herring.
Although i don't know how "troops" and "exit" were defined, Team Dubya "negotiated" the exit of US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 and Obama is just reminding us of that so the GOP can push back on him and give him cover for keeping troops in Iraq forever.
I am surprised none of you saw through this since this is the same strategy Obama has used with nearly every issue.
Sadly you and even to a lesser extent Tom are just as blind to reality as "Team Dubya", Obama, and the current GOP , because it does not matter any more what they have cooked up or continue to cook up. They are no longer in the driver's seat. The people of Iraq are, no matter how divided they are internally. There are more of them than any number of soldiers and Xe's that the Obama administration can leave behind. Please open your mind and stop being a provincial who views everything in the world through the befogged glasses of an American, even a "liberal American". Try to look at Iraq like a citizen of Iraq might look at his own country. Then you will realize that Dubya did not end the war and occupation, that Obama did not end it, but that the people of Iraq, Shia, Sunni, and Christian ended it by sticking together and telling its governments: "the Yanks must go". And I do not believe the stories of some US soldiers and "embedded journalists" that most Iraqis want us to stay militarily. Our soldiers talk only to their soldiers and it is the armed forces of Iraq who profit by our "staying". Journalists always get to hear what they want to hear.
Perhaps in the very near future, if not now, the OWS movement will see fit to also occupy that war making machine known as the Pentagon.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War"-Cicero [106-43 BC], Roman statesman and philosopher
I want a ticket to that!
"Readers may recall that Amazon is one of the U.S. corporations that kicked Wikileaks off its servers after Julian Assange's organization began to attract worldwide attention to U.S. government lies and other improper acts. This abrupt expulsion lead to significant Internet access problems for the whistleblowing site. Many progressives supported a boycott of Amazon due to its politically motivated action -- which essentially was a blow against free speech. Many people will never purchase anything from Amazon ever again due to this betrayal of fundamental ideals." -- Visiting Professor
Great reminder -- in case some readers and writers might have forgotten!
In addition, I have also noted the words "BUY THIS BOOK" as an added part of recent articles posted on CD. Per se, I'm not against good writers selling their books, but this is more blatant and is right in my face and difficult to ignore. Here we are in this forum seriously discussing other forms of government that might be more people friendly, and CAPITALISM is staring back at us with advertising and with one click, we find ourselves on Amazon.com.
This morning, Glenn Greenwald was interviewed on Democracy Now! and he discussed WikiLeaks being forced to shut down due to lack of funding, pointing to Amazon, Mastercard, Visa, etc., as the corporations that have forced Julian Assange to shut down the site, at least for the time being. From what I understand, WikiLeaks will now put what they have left of their resources into fighting these corporations. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
If CD chooses to promote the selling of books on their website, possibly, those (including Tom Engelhardt and TomDispatch.com) who make the decisions can come up with an alternative link/option for promoting the books. To link to Amazon seems to me to be beyond hypocritical. I will close with a question -- is selling a part of what CD, and other such websites, should be undertaking? If it's OK for the website to sell items, like books, is it then OK for those of us who write and read on these sites to sell items?
I agree that Greenwald's book ought to be bought from any other seller than Amazon and its kin. On the question of selling books or any other product, activists, writers, organizations sell such items to finance their efforts, I'm reminded of Mike Ruppert's essay related to this topic where he rejects impoverishment as a mandatory asset for the anti-establishment writer/activist as he makes the point that writers/activists need to eat, pay rent, maintain a vehicle, and buy clothes like everyone else--That the only "pure Progressive" is one that's poor is a widely held yet incorrect notion.
Your purist notion is curious. There is that thing known as "the greater good," and what that represents in this instance is that it's more important that people gain access to Greenwald's incisive, scathing analysis, than repudiate what Amazon did to Wikileaks. While relevant, that's a side issue, and one you're using to discredit a serious author for using what tools he (and Mr. Engelhardt) can to make the public aware of significant works.
How much media time do you suppose Glenn Greenwald will be allotted for the promotion of his book? Do you think he'll be granted a speaking tour of the species that awaited the likes of Condi Rice, Dick Cheny, or Bush The Lesser?
As a writer, I can tell you that unless you are anointed by The Chosen, i.e. the financial elites who run just about every form of publishng these days, it's a tough rode to self-promotion. The media wields the power to name its own stars and grant them enormous public homage. Principled people who are trying to rip through all the covers used by The Deceivers to awaken more citizens to what's going on in this nation get very little HELP in doing so.
Progressive writers generally have small audiences and are lucky if they can eke out a living on their books. If a book takes over a year to write, and no mainstream publisher is onboard to pay the author an advance, that's a year without salary. I know because that is how I operate. Therefore this idea of trying to demonize a writer, teacher, or messenger for doing what they can to share their understanding, and God forbid make enough money to pay the rent, is an insidious form of character assassination. It places the interest of the work aside to suggest that instead, they are motivated by some sinister profit motive. That's a DISGUSTING allegation.
Provided that you really are a professor, and visiting from wherever, one would assume you had a solid salary. Many writers operate as freelancers. Glenn Greenwald has provided an enormous service to informed citizens due to his courageous exposures of government malfeasance, along with the inversion of law. I think we should lend him ALL the support we can!
BTW: I hardly agree with every author that CD publishes, but I do find it disturbing that the same voices always show up to damn with faint praise or otherwise aim their intellectual muscle at discrediting people who matter. Ironically, these are often the same forum voices who later chastise others for fomenting an atmosphere of divisiveness. As if knee-capping the best Progressive authors is anything else?
Your defense of capitalism was very well stated SR!
Just kidding... :)
You present an interesting dichotomy to say the least.
" I think we should lend Glenn Greenwald all the support we can"! As someone who comes from a family of writers and newspaper puiblishers, I can tell you Sioux Rose that your punctilious post is right on target. Just excellent!
So, you don't support the Amazon boycott? interesting.
They always are.......
hey, Siouxrose!
I was loaned a copy of a recent NYT bestseller...I was unable to make it through the book because the underlying premise of the entire story required one to swallow the official story on 911, and the subsequent wars overseas...
I cannot do that, so found the book offensive...insulting...propaganda...
I wholeheartedly believe 911 was a Bush\Cheney operation...
I must, therefore, vociferously counter the official story at any opportunity, whether that opportunity is a work of 'fiction', or an article posted on CD...
the question: why is one 'fiction', and not the other, if they both hold the same fantastic position?
why is Tom's version of 'Washington and the Middle East' not also 'fiction', also propaganda?
it is...
it is simply published in a different place, with a veneer of 'news' about it...
it is no more factual than the work of fiction...
if I appear to knee-jerk insult given authors, it is because they do not waver in their stances, and their stances are suspect...
why should they be able to spew any garbage without being called on it?
you use an interesting word: 'matter'...'people who matter'...
who are those people, and why do you grant them such a distinction?
you consider this man one of them?
DUBET: In my view, the thoughtful person is one capable of nuance. I am not 100% opposed to capitalism, although I am 100% opposed to capitalism in a number of areas, like health "care." In parallel, Tom Engelhardt does a GREAT job of informing us about things like what DARPA is up to, and through the research and scholarship of Nick Turse, we learned about the global labryinth of military bases, the truth of which is found no where else... in such ominous detail. So I would toss him a pass; although like you, I remain UTTERLY convinced that 911 was an inside job. (Chomsky, Nader & Chris Hedges have never come OUT on this subject either; but do you expect me to disregard, or throw away all of their serious scholarship due to that particular flaw? Many writers specialize in specific areas, and do NOT hold credibility or any claim to greatness in others. It's a mistake to assume perfection of any figure on the Left (or otherwise committed to Progressive causes).
As for the issue regarding Amazon: Yes, by all means boycott it. In my view the larger issue is the importance of Greenwald's work. Since I have noted a pattern in this forum where a number of posters use their intelligence to denigrate a variety of writers and activists, I am always suspicious when the means are overly regarded without due consideration for the ends. CD's own version of "The lady doth protest too much."
I think that pretty much ties up the questions tossed my way. And Paul Revere, thank you. We often see eye to eye... perhaps it's due to the altitude allotted by that bird's eye view!
Powell's Books!!
Siouxrose, considering there is an ongoing boycott against Amazon, I don't think Visiting Prof was off the mark. Boycotts or similar actions are hugely important, for they are one of the few ways we can build up our own power. There are other bookfish in the sea.
From Powell's Books: "ILWU Local 5, the union that represents Powell’s workers, is asking you to show your support. When you shop for books, shop with the union alternative. That’s not Amazon. Not Barnes and Noble. Not Borders. That’s Powell’s. So we would like to invite everyone to join us in shopping Powell’s online store. As an added bonus of shopping union, when you shop through our link, 7.5% of every purchase (except gift cards) will go towards the ILWU Local 5 strike fund."
Good Points Siouxrose! Nothing to add.
VP writes, "I suggest that Common Dreams create a section called "Recommended Reading" in which people could offer suggestions and reviews of books they like. I think that would be preferable to blending commercial messages into the articles as is the case now."
That's an excellent suggestion. While I agree with Siouxrose that writers need an outlet to sell their books, your suggestion of a "Recommended Reading" site is surely doable and would be much preferable to what is going on now.
As for Siouxrose, I generally agree with most of what she says, but there have been some issues between us that I think could have been dealt with more rationally and respectfully on her part, to say the least. A week or so ago she told me, twice I think, that maybe I should “up my meds.” She knows that I am against the ways anti-psychiatric meds are used in this country, that I don’t take them, that when I did they caused me much pain, and that I was trying to put information out on the issue because most on this site think “mental health” to be a hallowed pursuit—I say she knows this because she responded to my comments on this issue, and she seems to keep quite close tabs on what I say, having once actually attacked me for issues I HAVEN’T commented on, as in “I notice you haven’t commented on this and that.” As the search function has been removed from CD, I can’t access the exact quote, but her close examination of all I say is creepy, to say the least. But that was an incredibly low, cheap shot, indicative of how she deals with people she doesn’t like.
You and I have had our disagreements, but disagreed respectfully, as I recall. This should be a site where people can discuss issues freely without fear of character assassination. Otherwise, let’s just have a handbook written up and added to the “About Us” section. It will tell us specifically what we can and cannot discuss or question as proper “progressives.” Then we’ll really be on the right track!
Nice point. i have no complaint with having the opportunity to buy Glenn Greenwald's new book, but Common Dreams should not be linking to corporate goon Amazon!
Go instead to the ILWU / Powell's Books link that contributes to the strike fund of the Union local that organizes the Powell's workers: http://www.ilwulocal5.com/support
Maybe we should contact CD and ask them to switch their book links from Amazon to Powell's.
Common Dreams long ago became
just another advertisement
sunk in the political marsh.
It cites nothing new, but a stale,
gross one dimensionality.
Thoughtless perspectives in muck and mire.
Common
Only in its uselessness
Dreams
Only to its self-involved "activists"
Looking beyond the swamp-filled basin
One finds a world brimming with possibility.
Wow, thanks for your insightful contribution! We can all use your wisdom to improve ourselves and our world!
FWIW, I find the Amazon link deplorable, and the "BUY THIS BOOK" banner gratuitous and mildly obnoxious at best-- just a shade worse than the "To stay on top of important articles like these..." blurb that accompanies Engelhardt's articles.
"Counterpunch" hawks their contributors' books , too, albeit mostly for their own press.
It brings to mind Byron's couplet:
"Condemn'd to drudge, the meanest of the mean
And furbish falsehoods for a magazine."
But as long as we're taking this tangent, I've also noticed that lately CD has published stand-alone bits from Engelhardt that are really just "teasers" or introductory prefaces to somebody else's article; they're clearly distinct from his own independent articles.
CD usually also publishes the article that Engelhardt references, but doesn't explicitly connect Engelhardt's introduction with the associated article. I think it would make more sense to publish the Engelhardt prefaces and the articles together, as Englehardt presumably intends.
Where there's a will, there's a way to sort out the dual bylines, headlines, layout, etc.
I agree 100%, VP. Its been very disturbing to see this trend develop. A column for an ad. Not right. Not right at all. Give a web address and if people (if they're interested) can flock there and spend their money.
CD. please drop the commercialism.
Interesting observation VP. The bottom line is that they are advertisements. And maybe that’s okay, but Common Dreams has long bragged of its independence and frequently has that giant-size donations counter on the upper left to prove it...
Visiting Professor,
I stand beside you VP, please do not leave and continue to post. SR defense of capitalism was well stated. I mean it and not kidding! (Borrow from alugilac Oct 26 2011 - 11:37am).
Many writers, including media hosts and well-known personality from the "left" "progressive and “Liberals” making a good living on the clueless suffering Americans, genuinely wanted "change" and not the lies sprout by the Dim especially Obama.
It makes me sick when SR highlights "the greater good," for their own pockets. SR the grand lady here has lots of followers. This is “capitalist” or I should say “democracy” at its finest. They will even sell you ropes to hang (save) yourself (it does not matter who said it or in what context). Everyone feels good when POTUS, politicians, writers.... tell you of the suffering. We the clueless jump onto the bandwagons including buying their books. I cannot write well as many here. Nevertheless, I will speak my peace regardless! BTW, never bought anything from Amazon or books from any the so call.... I will feed my family, I and others that need help (in the order).
SIVA offers:
"It makes me sick when SR highlights..."
This is a revolting thing to say, and if I "make you sick," you more than deserve that status. I am defending the RIGHT of a principled writer to make a living. My idea of a sane society is one more in keeping with the social democracies of Europe. There is nothing wrong, in my view, with enterprise, so long as the entirety of society does not fall to a broken worship of mammon. I would encourage both a minimum income and a maximum income; or, if anyone's bothered to read any of my books, as I stated in "2020: After the Transition" copyright date 1990... the TIME BANK exchange would be the ideal medium of exchange for any society.
Any imbecile who attempts to make me look like a Koch Brother style capitalist is really something, and in more humane times would qualify for a carnival act. I've ENDURED numerous attacks on my integrity and motives in this forum, and it's always by the same crew who curiously enough post round the clock, deny the truth about 911, frequently deny the evidence of global warming, conveniently blame Israel for all aspects of America's foreign AND domestic policy, champion Ron Paul, consider the decimation of the public education system a good thing. They also denomize feminists, often rationalize militarism, champion the status quo... and what else did I leave out? So to all you right wing pretend-leftists taking a punch at me whenever you can because I see right through you, you are UNDER COVER embeds.
When YOU devote YEARS of your life to writing book after book without any salary or compensation (aiming your altruistic efforts towards the benefit of mankind, fueling your engine with idealism) THEN you can talk to me about my alleged rapture over capitalism, or try to paint me as a hypocrit. I have more decency in one of my toes than my attackers have in their essences.
Nor do I feel any need to please you, conform to your authoritarian standards, or waste my time playing parlor games with the likes of you. YOUR KARMA will find you...
Defending a writer is not a defense of capitalism. And your pal MORTICIA can't even spell proletariat; she writes proletariate, while assuming a pseudo-Marxist stance whenever she can. I noted her recently stating that she'd "served" as if giving time to the military constitutes some noble ideal or proof of patriotism. YUCK!
I suggest you learn how to spell "hypocrite" before attacking others on their spelling errors.
Siouxrose,
I never object writers or ANYONE making an "HONEST" living. That is their right! Before the 2004 the Democratic National Convention an unknown Senator gained prominent national wide. From the books and speeches he made millions and soon becomes the POTUS, you too may one day become the POTUS and make millions. I have great respect for Greenwald, Chris Hedge, Dinh, Pepe Escobar and many "progressive" and their work. I do not buy books nowadays and am too poor. Nevertheless, I do not agree 100% their views. What I am saying, (hope I express clearly) There are many writers, hosts or whatever, using the media to “promote/sell” their books here, DN, The Real News and more, I again respect their actions. Silently nitpick the fakes among the writers that make me "feel good,” like Obama, Pelosi or whoever.
You should know better than anyone here, as a writer you must expect disagreement not "Attack.” Calling me an "imbecile,” my goodness......! Wordperfect: "imbecile >noun informal a stupid person. >adjective stupid. Like you I had lived, worked but also studied in many countries. I know what's cooking below the surfaces. I am no imbecile for sure.
Siouxrose, all I am saying is why help Amazon when there are better, more progressive, choices? Many of us support the boycott of Amazon and believe it's our duty to speak up. I'm not against promoting books! Just the opposite, in fact. I have personal friends who are authors and, believe me, they need all the help they can get these days.
This is absolute BS. I have always appreciated your comments until now. Shame. Shame. You have exposed your self. Not a pretty sight.
"If someone in the comments section tries to sell anything -- no matter what it is -- their comment is quickly flagged and deleted by the editors."
Well, no, not if posters mention their own books for sale, and I see nothing wrong with them doing so. If someone's posts intrigue me, I might just buy the book. And I don't see anything wrong with Englehardt promoting Greenwald's book, although I agree with you wholeheartedly that Amazon is the wrong place to direct people. If someone like Greenwald has a new book out, I want to know right away so I can buy it and also suggest its purchase by the libraries I am connected with.
Maybe I'm being hypocritical: if I say hawking books is OK, then why not cancer cures? OK, I agree, I'm a hypocrite on the book issue, and further, I will go to Amazon to see customer reviews yet refuse to buy from them. Yet I doubt many here on CD will be swayed by the "imperative" words "buy the book." At least I hope not.
We have more than "3,000 to 5,000 troops" in many countries around the world, such as Germany and Italy and Japan. I still don't under stand why -- none of those countries are a threat to us militarily, so why are we subsidizing THEIR economy with our taxes rather than bringing all those dollars back home (money now squandered on military salaries, schools, meals, base housing, infrastructure, building heating and cooling, transportation, training, administrative and legal services)? Time to wind down the empire, before the Republic at home crumbles. Those dollars could pay off a lot of student loans, for example.
There are four basic reasons.
1. Projection of power (some are actually there to protect trade routes)
2. Profits to the suppliers
3. More troops and bases, more power to the General Staff
4. Benefit to the local and the country's economy as you noted.
These misspent dollars could cure many problems by redirecting them to productive pursuits. And cuts are coming, make no mistake about it. The military knows it and are trying their best to limit the "damage".
Thanks for your reply. I too was wondering about that, but what I don't understand is why those countries allow that.
Japan tried hard to kick them off. There was a great article here not too long ago about how high the crime, rape, ect rate is around them. Not to mention the toxic pollution done to their lands.
The abuse of power by the U.S. military against the indigenous population is especially egregious in Okinawa
THAT should be on the first list of bases to be closed. There is simply no reason to maintain a base there. Of course you can say that about 70% of them without blinking.
I am aware we must maintain some, but over 700? Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan, the list is endless...who is kidding who here?
Most of these have nothing to do with the defense of the United States. Nothing. And people wonder why trust of our government is around 15%? Hah!
"... what I don't understand is why those countries allow that."
The USA installed what are called compradore governments--satraps: "The word satrap is also often used in modern literature to refer to world leaders or governors who are heavily influenced by larger world superpowers or hegemonies and act as their surrogates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satrap
This linked article explains how Obama is the product of a Satrapy and would have provoked lots of commentary if CD had published it, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29234.htm
As mentioned, Imperial Stormtroopers stationed overseas provide lots of income to "host" countries, with many good studies explaining how Japan benefitted greatly from both the Korean and Vietnam Wars and thus didn't require a Marshall Plan for its economic recovery.
I think that people should not be too fast in toasting Obama because he is following the Bush script in Iraq because his neocon foreign policy team could well be doing this in preparation for their next big war somewhere else. Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and the many pro-war zionists among the democratic party elite are probably not satisfied with the expanding drone wars and killing American citizens and want to do much more damage.
We disagree at times, but here we are in full agreement. I wouldn't trust this midget of morality less than I did Bush. Especially after Libya.
Though I don't believe we will be involved directly in the coming war, I don't doubt for a moment this little fellow would hesitate to do a little attack on the side like Libya to get votes and prove he is "tough"
Or some place in Africa. There are plenty of countries there that -*ahem*- "need our help."
Thank you kindly for the reminder. Some day's its hard to keep up with all the "Hope and Change" attacks and help spewing forth from the "Little Fellow"
Libya was only the beginning.
___________________________________
"On 14 October, President Barack Obama announced he was sending United States special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops will be sent to South Sudan, Congo and Central African Republic. They will only "engage" for "self-defence", says Obama, satirically. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent is under way." [...]
For more than a decade the US has tried to establish a command on the continent of Africa, AFRICOM, but has been rebuffed by governments, fearful of the regional tensions this would cause. Libya, and now Uganda, South Sudan and Congo, provide the main chance. As WikiLeaks cables and the US National Strategy for Counter-terrorism reveal, American plans for Africa are part of a global design in which 60,000 special forces, including death squads, already operate in 75 countries, soon to be 120. As Dick Cheney pointed out in his 1990s "defence strategy" plan, America simply wishes to rule the world."
The Son of Africa claims a continent’s crown jewels
By: John Pilger
October 20, 2011
http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-son-of-africa-claims-a-continents-crown-jewels
Buy My Crap.
Or This Crap.
Buy Any Crap.
Then Buy More.
The Obama administration did everything in their power to keep the American troops in Iraq; to extend the deadline for immunity; but with all their cajoling, arm twisting, and threats of withdrawal of funds, it did not work, so here is the point: BO was forced to pull out the troops and is guilty of another of his evil lies that it was his decision to voluntarily pull the troops out of Iraq. More BS from BO the White House Negro. That is what what Malcolm X would call him if he were alive today.
I am excited to get my hands on Greenwald's latest. But I will not purchase it through Amazon, thank you very much. There happens to be a boycott against Amazon for their role in shutting down Wikileaks. I'd try Powell's, the union supporting booksellers.
Ha ha ha! So, Obama promises to have our troops out of Iraq and re-uinited at home with their families for the holidays--at the end of 2011! Let's see if he keeps that promise!
We can't leave the Middle East until AIPAC says we can - which will be never.
The only way out of the Middle East is the dissolution of Israel and reparations paid by Zionists for the damage they have done world-wide.
This:
"The only way out of the Middle East is the dissolution of Israel and reparations paid by Zionists for the damage they have done world-wide."
is a bunch of bulls**t, GoingGreen! The United States can and should do it of their own accord. AIPAC, as despicable as they are, has nothing what. so. ever to do with it.