Bookmark and Share Subscribe

Saturday, August 15, 2009

WOODSTOCK NOTIONS

.
BY THE TIME WE GOT HOME FROM WOODSTOCK
THERE WAS A DRAFT NOTICE IN THE MAILBOX


HOW THE BOOMERS STOPPED THE VIETNAM WAR OR DIED TRYING

In Answer To An Ignorant Late-Boomer And His Whining, Do-Nothing, Over-Privileged Gen-X&Y-er Descendants

It really gets old hearing punk kids who've never done anything with their lives but skateboard, whose idea of self-expression is picking a tattoo out of a catalog, and whose music is the product of a lame TV show, a plastic producer or a guy who plays other people's records, whining about the "Boomers." All I can say is kids, the best part of you ran down your hippie-chick mother's hairy leg.

That goes double for our "video artist," whatever the f**k that is, below. Is he a dork who points a camera at art? Or a dweeb who makes unwatchable videos that look as if they were exposed to a magnetism by accident? Dunno. But I do know that this guy doesn't have a clue about a time period he actually drifted through, much less his debt to the people who REALLY LIVED and fought their way through it.

It never ceases to amaze us how some people can just drift through life without ever realizing what is happening around them. It's astonishing to hear the absurd notions of birthers and deathers, but they are not the first nor will they be the last to attempt to cobble together their own reality, with no factual input whatsoever. We usually associate this sort of ideation and behavior with the lunatic fringe of the American right wing. But here we have an example of similar historical distortion and delusional thinking from a supposed Leftist. His "rant" is relatively fact-free, and we have corrected his historical distortions, below:

SUZIE-Q
"The “Woodstock Generation” 40 Years on"
He often wonders, but he never thinks, or researches.
' I often wonder what Lady Emma might have thought about the so-called “sixties revolution”. There certainly was a lot to dance to, that’s for sure. But in the final analysis, I imagine she might have been just a bit disappointed with the Woodstock Generation. To be honest with you, I have always been a bit cynical on the subject of the Baby Boomers. The dirty little secret that no one (as far as I know) has yet dared to write about is that the youth revolt of the 1960s was born of out of the fact that the sons-of-privilege believed that the Vietnam War should have been fought by everyone and anyone but themselves '


What an asinine and ignorant rant! Although he is a "boomer" himself, he was obviously too young and stupid to know what was going on. But thanks to him anyway for sharing his prejudices and ridiculous notions. Very informative. Nice job of smearing an entire generation to whom he owes everything, including the fringed shirt off his tattooed back. All he's really said is that he is a bitter and clueless little person, who missed all the action and misunderstood all the significant changes brought about by his older brothers and sisters back in the day.

First of all, the initial motivation for the "youth revolt" or "The Movement," as we called ourselves, was not the Vietnam War but concern for others and for the planet itself: Banning the A-bomb, Civil Rights and conservation/ anti-pollution/ healthy foods, all going back to the 1940's & '50's. The Vietnam War did not become a huge issue until well after the first large contingent of Marines landed there in August of 1965. U.S. casualties did not hit shocking levels until 1967, and they were not exactly trumpeted by the Johnson Administration at the time. The two great images from the war that shocked us all were not seen until 1968 and 1972. The fact is, most people of every age group in the 1960's were simply unaware of what was going on in Vietnam, or even where it was, up until the disastrous Tet Offensive of 1969: You can blame the corporate media for that. They simply weren't giving the war much play up until then. And most people tuned it out because, up until then, not that many people had family or friends that went to Vietnam. That began to change by 1969, after the third full year of full-scale war for large American ground combat units. That was the point also when the American public's realization of the devastation the United States was wreaking upon the Vietnamese people themselves became the issue, not saving our own "privileged" asses, as the "video artist" puts it, above.

Most people I knew in the Movement were lower middle class and working class, blacks, whites, Asians, Latino's, men, women, kids and old people all shocked by what their government was doing in their name, and determined to do something about it. There were no "privileged" people involved that I knew, and most of us were actually quite vulnerable both financially and legally in doing what we did against a brutal and repressive government that could and did in fact use the criminal justice system, the Selective Service System and even the IRS against dissenters. The Administrations of both Johnson and Nixon used the police, the prisons, the draft and the full weight of all departments of the vast apparatus of the Federal government in all its' forms as defense against and punishment for lawful actions against the war in Vietnam. We were all very much at risk for any action we took to stop the genocidal war in Southeast Asia.

As to the draft, it didn't really mean much to anybody until it was almost over. LBJ did NOT end college draft deferments: Nixon limited them in 1972, but then stopped drafting men in 1973, hoping to undercut the already massive anti-war movement. Under Johnson and Nixon, there were so many deferments and exemptions available (for all females, overage males, underage males, conscientious objectors, clerics, high school & college students, technical school students, defense workers, Reserve & Guardsmen, prior service military, those with family members already in the service, married people with kids, sole support of the family, and almost any physical or mental problem) that you had to be REALLY naive, desperate for a paycheck, or "gung-ho" to end up in the military. Even then, most of our forces were someplace other than Vietnam.

ANYBODY could join the Guard & Reserve, they were hardly "elite" units. Most units were never called up, or didn't see ground combat in Vietnam if they were called up. (Bush's crime was going AWOL, not just signing up in the first place. Somebody else went to Vietnam in his place while he hid out FROM the Guard.) The Navy had very few people there who were actually in combat and at risk within South Vietnam, and the Air Force lost very few of the people it did have there, by comparison with losses in the Army & Marines. Even in the Army, most MOS's were non-combat. Those in "combat arms" in the Army & Marine Corps, infantry, tanks & artillery, were the main personnel at risk on a daily basis, usually for one twelve or eighteen month tour, unless they volunteered for more. There was no "stop-loss." Most enlistments were two or three years, or less, and many more enlisted than were drafted.

Repeat: Most who served in Vietnam were VOLUNTEERS, not draftees. And the total number who did serve was just a fraction of the entire Baby Boom generation. So, no, we did not fight to stop the war just to keep from going ourselves.

So, no; opposition to the war was not based entirely or even partly on selfish and cowardly motives, for most of us. In fact, it took more guts to stand up to the Fascistic bullsh*t that was going on than it did to hide out in the Guard, keep your mouth shut and hope your unit didn't get called up. Many good people, kids, really, had their lives ruined by actively standing up to the government and speaking out against the war. And most who did speak out were motivated as much or more by strongly held moral and political concerns for the lives of others and opposition to the betrayal of our American principles of self-determination and anti-Imperialism than by any concern for their own safety. Many of us went to jail, lost our homes & families, had to leave the country or go underground for years, foregoing all the blessings of American middle class existence. Some were ruthlessly hunted down and a few were killed. It was not a good career move. For every Jerry Rubin, there were ten thousand Abbie Hoffman's.

Let's not forget those who did go to war, who were overwhelmingly working class and disproportionately black & Hispanic. They were all the hated "Boomers" too. Unemployment and unawareness of the alternatives, ignorance about the war and lack of other options led many of these guys into the military, as in every generation. They learned pretty quick, though. Some of the strongest opposition to the war came from returning Vet's. They helped initiate outreach to other Vet's and guys in the Guard, Reserve and on active duty in the regulars, and to working class kids who were at risk for going over there. "Boomers" all. It was the old rich Republicans who loudly supported the War but refused to go there. They are the ones who thought the Army was beneath them, and disrespected our returning troops by limiting their benefits and medical treatment. Most Democrats of that age in Congress after the war, rich or poor, served in the military during the Vietnam era, like Medal of Honor winner Bob Kerrey. Most Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, did not, just as conservative "patriots" like Ronald Reagan had not fought in combat, even in the dark days of WWII.

It was the older generation that supported the war up until the end. It was the WWII & Korean War people who went for Nixon and Humphrey and war and repression. It was that generation that strong-armed the rising progressive majority out of the Democratic Party, effectively keeping most of us out of government until well into the 90's. Even then, all we had to vote for were Blue Dogs, mostly, like Clinton. Many Movement figures were kept out of electoral politics by bogus criminal convictions for protesting against the Vietnam War and for Civil Rights, and by the general corporatist drift of a Party purged of "Leftists," i.e., the progressive majority. The rich, the old, the entrenched and the conservative tend to dominate in politics and in the economy, despite the cultural advances of the young, then and now.

Anybody who knows anything about the Presidential election of 1980 knows it was a very tight 3-way race, which Carter lost only because Anderson siphoned off liberal votes. Turnout was historically low, especially among young people. Reagan lost the youth vote, i.e. the “Boomers,” but there weren’t enough of them voting for Carter to win. There wouldn’t be a “Boomer” candidate until Clinton, who won because of the “Boomer” voters, as everyone who follows actual developments in politics and not their own wild-assed notions would know. Again, the older generation tended to go for the more conservative candidate, despite their own dependency upon government.

But I won't tar that entire generation the way our whiner did his own. There were many heroic figures from the WWII generation in the Movement, and they helped lead the opposition to the bomb, the war, racism, sexism, homophobia, nativism, sectarianism, fundamentalism, right-wing extremism & violence, poverty and social injustice. Did the WWII & Boomer generations succeed on every front? No, not yet, not 100%. But unlike the whiners, we fought on, and we will never stop fighting. We did change the world, as anyone old enough and smart enough can tell you. The "Counter-Culture" is now mainstream, although it has been co-opted and corporatized beyond recognition. It's the Gen-X&Y-ers that have reduced it all to fashions and slogans, artifacts and labels, without understanding or adopting much that was good about the spirit that created that culture. They're the ones who grew up Republican and "libertarian," in opposition to their liberal and progressive parents, the Boomers.

The Counter-Culture was created by genuinely brave and outrageous people beginning in the oppressive 1950's. It exploded as my own cohort became vocal and politically active at a very young age in the 1960's. It continued on into the Seventies as the exuberance and curiosity, the openness and joy, the revolutionary and adventurous spirit carried over into our personal lives. I mean, among those of us who were capable of those things; always a minority, if a highly visible one.

This was a mass movement without a leader or a hierarchy, but most people did not have the courage or the vision to join it, though all were famously welcomed, and everyone ultimately benefited. Most people just plodded on like old plow horses in the same old strangulating harness. They're the ones that voted Republican and DINO. They're the ones that devoted their lives to the willfully blind pursuit of money and things. Mostly, they were never cool, and mostly, those who were cool never fell in with them. They certainly were not the "Woodstock Generation," whatever their age. The "hippies" or freaks who fought against the war and created the Counter-Culture never went over to the enemy in large numbers. Those who did were never truly one of us. We're the ones who are struggling to survive now as joyful anti-materialists in an increasingly joyless materialist's world, where the younger generations have failed to embody much of any spirit, and dedicate themselves only to accumulating useless junk, from iPhones to retro-hippie paraphernalia. Sad. It's like they were never young, but they never grew up, either.

Yes, we "Boomers" did grow up, and we did have to make some accommodations to survive in a world dominated by greedy, evil people, a tiny minority of whom seem to have always controlled everything, no matter what we did. But we never gave in to them, we never stopped fighting them, and in the long run, we will win, despite bitter hopeless little people who were too young to have experienced the real revolution of the 60's, but too old to have grown up enjoying the emotional, spiritual and intellectual benefits of that revolution. You're caught in between generations, whiners, so all you can do is p*ss and moan about things that are just objects to you: Books and records, posters and clothing. Sorry, man. That wasn't it. What it was is what you missed: The spirit.

(cross-posted at SUZIE-Q by cosanostradamus)
.
.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.



IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
Digg!
Add to Google




SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!



HOME
NEWEST POST


Bookmark and Share Subscribe

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOCIALISTS & COMMUNISTS?

.
STALIN

THE MAN WHO DESTROYED RUSSIAN COMMUNISM SPLIT SOCIALISM OFF FOREVER

After The Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact Became Public Knowledge, The Left Was Cleft

It's the 70th anniversary of the Nazi-Soviet Pact that divided up Eastern Europe between Hitler and Stalin. This week, the Poles are not celebrating. The Russians are still trying to pin the blame on anybody and everybody else. And the Germans will never finish apologizing and atoning for what the faux-socialist Nazi's did. (No wonder people are still confused as to the difference between socialism and Fascism. Their very name was a deliberate subterfuge by the "National Socialist Workers Party," or Nazi's. And by today's corporatists.)

Conservatards like to make up their own history. Who can blame them? The facts place them in the outer edges of the Hitler camp. Some of them are not so outer; more inner. If you can stomach reading Hitler's "Mein Kampf," you'll find it remarkably similar in parts to the more extreme stuff that is written and spoken and done by some on the Right in America today. And by some I mean most of them, even those in or formerly in government.

Not all of the current eruption of hate in the Red States is strictly Hitlerian. Some of it is more like Goebbels or Goering or Himmler or Röhm and his Brownshirts. And then there's the original corporatist himself, Benito Mussolini. Some of them started out as Leftists, but quickly swung to the far Right in preference for violence and authoritarianism driven by racism, sectarianism, nativism, sexism and homophobia. They were all conservatives, by their own description; ultra-conservatives with more in common with Newt Gingrich and David Duke than with any liberals, progressives or socialists. They hated socialism more than anything in the world, except maybe Jews. Or Gypsies. Or Homosexuals. Or any minority, any foreigner, anyone who was different, or "degenerate." Jazz was degenerate, according to them. Benny Goodman and Cab Calloway, the pop music of your mother, grandmother or great-grandmother: All degenerates.

The Nazi's were great ones for ridiculous and obviously false characterizations. They even named themselves "Socialists," knowing that their sworn enemies were more popular than the Fascists could ever hope to be, honestly anyway. The real socialists were on the center Left, not on the far Right. They were the only ones with real solutions, and the average working people all over Europe knew that. So the Nazi's lied. In fact, they invented the Big Lie. And their ideological descendants are still telling it, every night on Fox News.

They can't fool everyone, though. The Poles, for example. They know who sold them out, who partitioned Poland, and who slaughtered them. It was an unholy alliance between the extreme right-wing Nazi's and the extreme left-wing Stalinists. It allowed Germany a free hand in Western, Central and Southern Europe. The Russians got the East, and peace; until Hitler betrayed them and opened up a suicidal Second Front in the war. That was pretty much the end of him. Hitler should have learned from Napoleon: You can't beat the Russian Winter. And so went Fascism. Until today, in the new Republican Party here in America.

In Europe, the local communists and socialists were the main groups who stood up to the Fascists. After the war, there was a split. The communists were forever tainted by their connections to Stalin, who had gotten into bed with Hitler, and wiped out tens of millions of his own people, decimating the old Bolsheviks and Trotskyites as well as much of the Russian peasantry, the Kulaks. The communists in the West resisted participation in government, preferring not to stand for elections at first, only entering coalitions with the socialists in the days before WWII broke out. The socialists swallowed their scruples early on and entered the mainstream political fray in almost every country in Western Europe before the war. After the war, now in the mainstream, men like Mitterand and Brandt had to deal with real-life everyday issues like taxes and road maintenance, unemployment and job-creation, national defense and criminal justice. To the surprise of some and the disillusionment of others, they managed fairly well, making few radical breaks with the bourgeois past, even making the trains run on time, and opposing communism all over the world.

In many areas, socialist policy even cribbed from the right: Social security and national healthcare were originally right-wing sops to the rising leftist movement in Germany under the Kaiser. The fact is, those programs just made good common sense. Ultimately, everyone would have to adopt them. Even the United States. Some day. But crypto-Fascists in America will fight common sense to the last drop of somebody else's blood. Like the Nazi's, they will let us all die in the name of some fuzzy-minded notion of racial or ideological purity, sitting in the waiting room of a bankrupt hospital's emergency room here in America.

Remember that, the next time some Republican rube starts screaming about SOCIALISM!!! SOCIALISM!!! SOCIALISM!!! It's really National Socialism, Nazism, he's afraid of, with good reason. But for him, it's too late: They've already gained control of his mind. Any "Polock" would know better.


THE LONDON TELEGRAPH
"Russia and Poland trade insults on 70th anniversary of World War Two"
Tovarich! Can't we all just get alongski?
' The dignity of ceremonies to mark the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War in Poland is being marred by furious spats between Russia and Eastern European states over their respective wartime roles. Many Poles claim to detect the hand of the Kremlin in the recent Russian media broadside, and see it as an attempt to absolve Russia of guilt over the contentious Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, signed between Stalin and Hitler in August 1939. A pact of mutual non-aggression that lasted until 1941, it allowed Russia to invade and annexe Eastern Poland. While Poland and other Eastern European states have now made their peace with a repentant Germany, there is long-standing frustration in the region that Russia has never really recognised, or apologised for, crimes committed by the Soviet state between 1939 and 1945, or the subsequent brutalities of communist rule. '

REUTERS
"Russia's Putin rejects WW2 criticism in Poland"
The "Appeasers," by the way, were Conservative British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who coined the term "appeasement;" and right-leaning "centrist" French Premier Édouard Daladier. They were encouraged to give way to Hitler at Munich in part by the US Republicans' "Neutrality Acts" in the 1930's, a boon to Fascism everywhere, which grew unchecked by any concerns over American aid or intervention, forbidden by those Acts.
' Russia and former satellites such as Poland are at loggerheads over the actions of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in 1939, when he clinched a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany that opened the way for the invasion of Poland and world war. Russians are deeply proud of their country's victory over Hitler in 1945, but Poles, Balts and others say Stalin also bears direct responsibility for the outbreak of war, for carving up Poland with Hitler and also annexing the Baltic states. Putin cited efforts by Britain and France to appease Hitler in 1938, resulting in their acceptance of the destruction of Czechoslovakia, as well as Poland's own seizure of a strip of Czech territory shortly before it too faced German invasion. [Putin's] comments will not satisfy the Poles and Balts, who regard Stalin's actions as a stab in the back and also recall the mass deportations and executions of their countrymen that followed the Soviets' arrival. Poland wants Russia to apologise for Stalin's decision to have 20,000 Polish officers shot at Katyn. For decades, Moscow blamed the deaths on the Nazis, but after the fall of the Soviet Union it acknowledged they had been shot on Stalin's orders. Poland lost about a fifth of its population, including the vast majority of its three million Jewish citizens, as well as a fifth of its territory during World War Two. After the war, it remained under Soviet domination until 1989. Some 27 million Soviet citizens perished in the war after Hitler reneged on his pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. "I commemorate the 60 million people who lost their lives because of this war unleashed by Germany," Merkel said. '

INFOPEDIA
"Encyclopedia—Socialist parties—General History"
Some ACTUAL history of socialism vs. communism.
' All European Socialist parties were marked by schisms; the main issue dividing them was whether party members should cooperate with bourgeois-dominated governments to work for gradual reforms or should organize extralegally to hasten what Marxists viewed as inevitable, proletarian revolution. Eduard Bernstein, in Germany, was one of the first to deny (1898) some of Marx's doctrines and to argue for “revisionism.” During World War II, socialists were prominent in the resistance movement in the countries occupied by Germany. In the postwar period the cold war widened the gulf between the Socialist and Communist parties, and most Socialist parties moved even further away from Marxism. Substantial periods of power have, however, enabled some to promote their goals of a planned economy and a welfare state in many European countries; their position has been especially strong in the Scandinavian countries. In the 1990s a number of Socialist parties moderated their commit to a planned economy and the welfare state, most especially the British Labour party, which went so far as to abandon formally its traditional Socialist positions. '

NEW WORLD ENCYCLOPEDIA
"Social Democracy vs. Communism"
The final schism on the Left was all about the Russians. They made communism illegitimate, and socialism, legitimate.
' In the U.S., the Socialist Labor Party was founded in 1877. This party, small as it was, became fragmented in the 1890s. In 1901, a moderate faction of the party joined with Eugene V. Debs to form the Socialist Party of America. The influence of the party gradually declined, and socialism never became a major political force in the United States. Communism also failed to gain a large following in the U.S. and Canada. The party fell into significant disfavor in the aftermath of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, which resulted in the Communist Party USA opposing any U.S. involvement in the war effort against Nazi Germany until the surprise act on the Soviet Union by Hitler in 1940. The distinction between socialists and communists became more pronounced during and after World War I. When the First World War began in 1914, many European socialist leaders supported their respective governments and Lenin was very outspoken in his opposition to this. Lenin denounced the war as an imperialist conflict and urged workers worldwide to use the war as an occasion for socialist revolution. During the war, socialist parties in France and Germany supported the state wartime military and economic planning, despite their ideological commitments to internationalism and solidarity. This ideological conflict resulted in the collapse of the Second International. Throughout much of the interwar period, socialist and communist parties were in continuous conflict. Socialists condemned communists as agents of the Soviet Union, while communists condemned socialists as betrayers of the working class. However, with the rise of fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s, socialists and communists made attempts in some countries to form a united front of all working-class organizations opposed to fascism. The "popular front" movement had limited success, even in France and Spain, where it did well in the 1936 elections. The failure of the German communists and socialists to form a "popular front" helped the Nazis gain power in 1933. The "popular front" period ended in 1939 with the conclusion of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. Socialists condemned this act as an act of betrayal by the Stalinist Soviet Union. '

.
.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,



TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.



IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
Digg!
Add to Google




SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!



HOME
NEWEST POST


Bookmark and Share Subscribe

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

HAPPY BIRTHDAY & FTS


BORN IN A TAVERN,
USMC TURNS 229


Jarheads "Celebrate" In Fallujah


From the halls of Montezuma, to the alleys of Fallujah. Guess they'll have to amend that song. Snappy little tune, though. Good marching song. Marching is like dancing, for white guys. A Marine battalion on the parade deck makes the Rockettes look like a bunch of girls.


Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, as we prefer to be known, have often been paraded into bad situations by incompetent politicians. Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die. Manila, Managua, Khe San. We're not always welcomed by cheering civilians, and kissed by hot foreign ladies. In fact, hardly ever. When they send the Marines in, it's way past that.


Still there's the mission, above all things, to be accomplished. No excuses, no bullshitting around. Don't come back until you accomplish your mission. It gets a little confusing when the civilians at the top of the Sacred Chain of Command don't seem to know what the mission is, and have no overall plan to carry it out. Then, the US miltary is like a chainsaw in the hands of a blind man. The tool is bound to be misused. And then misplaced.


That's what'll happen here, again. Deserter In Chief Dubya will enjoy a few photo-ops with crippled troops, and then cut benefits for troops and veterans. There are no special accomodations for men coming back from the war. In fact, DOD and IRS have been known to try to screw money out of guys who can no longer serve, or work a civilian job, or wipe their own asses. And screw their impoverished families, too.


Nothing new there. From Shays' Rebellion to the Bonus Army to Gulf War Syndrome, returning soldiers have always gotten screwed. Even Revolutionary War vets got screwed; like vets of the War of 1812, the Mexican- American War, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, the Spanish- American War, WWI, the Banana Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, the First Gulf War, pretty much every war, except WWII.

That's because, instead of just a bunch of poor white, black, red and brown "trash" getting sucked up and spit out by the US military, EVERYBODY went to WWII. And when they came home, they took over Congress, and took damned good care of themselves: Houses, health care, educations, the works.


The GI Bill was the only measure that ever really took care of the veterans, because it was written and administered by the Vets themselves. But these same Vets turned right around and screwed the Korean War Vets, and the Vietnam Vets, whom the WWII Vets deliberately deprived of many of the same benefits they themselves had enjoyed, and prospered on. Because Korea and Vietnam weren't "real" wars. Because they weren't "The Big One." Because they weren't fought by the same guys.

Because so many more of the Vets were black and brown and red and poor whites, not represented in Congress: Even though they fought for their country, doing dangerous duty without question, and coming home to pay the same taxes that covered the WWII vets bennies. "Hippies" didn't spit at those Vets in the airports. WWII Vets spat at them in Congress, and that REALLY hurt. Still does.


It remains to be seen what will happen to veterans of this war. So far, it doesn't look good. But we're used to that, right, Gyrines? Semper Fi, and all that happy horseshit. Suck it up. Happy Fuckin' Birthday, and get home in as few pieces as possible. We might have to privatize the VA hospitals, so Bush's cronies can make money off of them. OOO-rah!




"Marine Corpse Birthday"


"Injured Iraq Vets Come Home to Poverty"


"Veterans Benefit History"


"Sea stories"



Send comments to cosanostradamus AT excite DOT com.



Links:




Site Feed





Search Popdex:



DAYPOP







Technorati
Profile






Popdex Citations



TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.



IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
Digg!
Add to Google




SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!



HOME
NEWEST POST


Bookmark and Share Subscribe

Friday, November 19, 2004

WAR IS HELL


WHAT PART OF THAT DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?


How Can We Really Be Shocked By Anything That Happens In Iraq?


It's insane to send young kids, or old farts, for that matter, into a situation of utter chaos, where it's kill or be killed, and still expect perfectly civilized behavior from all parties at all times. These Marines did not create this situation. They did not start this war. But it's their asses that are in it now. If you don't like this sort of thing, don't make war. Don't allow your country, or your kids to go to war, without true,
direst reasons. Ever.


The Hague and Geneva conventions are bullshit. Like declaring Marquis of Queensbury Rules in a street-fight. They're bullshit because of the vicious pretense that one large group of men, and women now, can ever go out to war, with the expressed intention of killing and maiming as many members of another large group as possible, and carry on like civilized people. War is the opposite of civilization. Either you stop it, and never do it again, or you go on as we always have, slaughtering each other. No way to make it any nicer. Hell is Hell.


Modern warfare is, in fact, far worse than Henry V's kind. Civilians are targets, intended or not. Total destruction is the goal. And we have the technology to make it so complete, so devastating, that everyone might actually be killed, on both sides. Hell on Earth. Get it?


The blame goes to those on top. Especially in this war. It was unprovoked; against a vanquished enemy we duped into attacking an ally in the first place. It was excused with blatant and indefensible lies about WMDs, which never existed. It was primed by ruthless exploitation of the tragedy of 9/11, with which we always knew Iraq had no connection. It was carried out in the sloppiest and most irresponsible manner, with no regard for the consequences. And this murder in Falluja is an inevitable consequence of all that.


The Marines responsible, the shooters, may well be shot, themselves. Perhaps they should be, if they did it, without lawful reason. And some lowly sergeant or lieutenant may see his career end. But no Generals, no Under-Secretaries of Defense, no one in the White House will lose a minute's sleep, an hour's pay, or a day's liberty. Certainly not that great moral leader, and professed Christian, George W. Bush.


In this war, the Hague and Geneva Conventions will be enforced only against low-ranking troops. Those giving the orders, making the policies, sitting at the top of the chain of command, will get away scot-free. Reichsmarschall Goering waddles away free, and Feldwebel Schultz goes to the hangman, at Nuremburg. Our "leaders" have declared themselves to be above the laws of war. They have refused to recognize the jurisdiction of any international war crimes tribunal. Now you know why. The Law will have to be content with lowly lance corporals, and a sergeant or two, in this war's atrocities. And THAT is a crime.


THAT is propping open the gates of Hell. That is giving the strongest nations' leaders complete immunity for all of their crimes, no matter how heinous; carte blanche to do whatever they like, and to kill as they will. Any nation. Not just us. We could be the target, some day. And we just threw out the rule book. Civilization is over, my friends. Mark your calendar. The rule of law died today. Unless you are a lowly soldier.


So, yeah. There's no need to worry. These Marines, like those soldiers at Abu Graibh, will be punished. And they deserve it, if they did it. But our laws say that the military commanders, and even the political leaders, are responsible, too. But nothing will ever happen to any of them. And, as we used to say during Vietnam, "The whole world is watching."


"The whole world is watching." It may be time to start chanting that in the streets again. Lest we all become complicit in these crimes. This is a democracy, you know; or it used to be. And that makes each and every one of us responsible for this war, and those atrocities. Whether we like it, or voted for it, or not. Because, like those good Germans in the 1930s and 40s, we just didn't do enough to stop it. We let it go on. And on. And on. So, think, before you condemn these Marines. You may be guilty, too. In the eyes of the world. And in the eyes of history.


reposted from
Ratboy's Anvil


"Amnesty Calls for ‘Unequivocal Orders’ to Prevent War Crimes in Iraq"



Send comments to cosanostradamus AT excite DOT com.



GINNY'S ARTWORK


Links:


Site Feed




Search Popdex:



DAYPOP






Technorati
Profile





Popdex Citations



The Progressive Blog Alliance






TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.



IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
Digg!
Add to Google




SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!



HOME
NEWEST POST


Bookmark and Share Subscribe

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

APOCALYPSE NOW, PLEASE!

.
MILLENNIAL CONSERVATIVES PRAY FOR WAR. AGAIN.

MEDIA MATTERS
"Kristol says "it may be worth doing some targeted air strikes" in North Korea, Hume agrees"
The Idiot Speaks.


WHY WAIT FOR THE END-TIMES WHEN WE CAN START 'EM RIGHT NOW???!!!

The Violent, Cowardly Nut-Jobs Who Sent Your Kids Off To Iraq For No Reason Now Want War With North Korea For No Reason

The fact that we cannot win such a war, in any sane definition of "winning," does not deter the Nazi-wannabees. Their entire worldview is based on their masturbatory fantasies of holocausts and post-apocalyptic horrors. It's what they tell their inbred home-skewld kiddies when they put them to bed every night. They look forward to a Hell on Earth. They think it will only apply to their enemies, 'cuz Gawd'll whisk them away to that big Disneyland in the sky that justifies all their evil deeds.

The latest cheerleader for global thermonuclear war is that f**king moron Bill Kristol, aka "Dan Quayle's Brain," and the media's biggest pom-pom boy for starting the Iraq War, based on the presence of those WMDs that never existed. He said the Iraqi's would welcome us like French women in WWII, and we'd be out of there in a few months, with minimal casualties. One can only wonder what Nazi *ssh*le is putting him up to this new Korean war-provocation. Puppet journalism at it's worst, we'd say. But with a purpose: Why, if millions die in an over-escalated incident in Korea, that'll make "The Messiah," "The Chosen One," "The Golden Child," Barack the "Magic Negro" look bad. So it's worth it. Even if it means major casualties among our 38,000 troops in South Korea. Hell, ESPECIALLY if it means major casualties! Neo-Cons always say, "What good is an Army if there's no blood spilled?" Of course, it won't be pundits' blood, or politicians'.

The North Koreans have one of the largest concentrations of conventional artillery in the world amassed and entrenched deep in the mountains just thirty miles North of the South Korean capitol, Seoul, home to half that country's population of 48 million people. With the pull of a few thousand strings, hundreds of thousands of shells could come down on the peninsula's largest city in seconds, carrying high explosives, hot steel shrapnel, white phosphorous, mini-mines, thousands of tiny barbed steel arrows called flechettes, poison gas, canisters of deadly germs and even nuclear bombs.The North Korean Army's artillery has been standing by for almost sixty years, locked & cocked, waiting for the order to obliterate their cousins to the South. Now our "American" conservatives want to goad them into pulling those strings.

The whole thing centers on an internal political succession struggle within North Korea's hermetically sealed ruling elite. Kim Jung Il, of the whack haircut, has had a stroke, and needs replacement soon. North Korean succession struggles generally feature saber-rattling and wild but empty threats to the South Koreans and the U.S. and Japan. They jump up and down and yell and scream but nothing much happens. But now, after eight years of diplomatic stupidity by Bushco & the Neocons, the N. Koreans have managed to acquire both nuclear weapons and the long & medium range rockets & missiles to deliver those nukes. If they could actually hit anything, which so far they can't, they could hit Seoul, Tokyo, Honolulu, Hawaii or Adak, Alaska.

The Bushies let them develop and export these capabilities just in the last eight years, because another Cold War is their idea of economic stimulus. Pakistan, Syria, Iran and Gawd knows who else all received North Korean nuke/missile-tech. To the Neocons, that's a good thing: They want us in a state of permanent war, as we were from 1941 through 1991, when the Berlin Wall & the Soviet Union finally came down, when peace caught the Con's with their thermal-nukuler pants down. They need a boogie man like Russia or China to justify unlimited budgets for defense and espionage, and unlimited powers for the White House. They need lots of fear, hate, anger and paranoia to help them control their own people. There's nothing like a war to do that.

The current crisis already shows signs of blowing over. Maybe that's why the Neo-Cons, who've had nothing to say about Korea for eight years, since they know nothing and have nothing intelligent to say, are suddenly spouting all kinds of stupid things. If they don't start a war now, there may never be another opportunity that is so golden. But Kim Jung Il has already done his war dance, and used it to attract support for his twenty-something son as successor to the communist dictator's throne. So maybe our own bad-haircut nutjob mob are just posturing, posing for political position. They want to be able to say that Obama lost Korea, which, of course was done by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower 56 years ago. But, hey, those who ignore history are ignorant Republicans, right? Too Right.


WASHINGTON MONTHLY
"KRISTOL'S PLAN FOR KOREA"
"Plan"? More like a nightmare.
' In light of North Korea's recent nuclear and missile tests, international leaders are pondering how best to proceed, weighing a series of unsatisfying options. On Fox News yesterday, Bill Kristol presented the same idea he always presents when faced with a national security challenge. Kristol explained, "I don't rule out the possibility of us deciding -- and I think it might be wise for us to decide -- to knock out a few. They're apparently rolling a long-term missile to a base to test another one, long-range missile to test another one. You know, it might be worth doing some targeted air strikes to show the North Koreans, instead of always talking about, 'Gee, there could be consequences,' to show that they can't simply keep going down this path." '

THE BOSTON GLOBE
"North Korean guns, clear and present danger to South"
Here's why the "plan" won't work. It's called "reality," Bill. Get to know it.
' The capital Seoul, only 60 km (37 miles) south of the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone that has divided the peninsula since the end of the Korean War in 1953, has long been within range of one of the world's most powerful artillery batteries. South Korea's Defense Ministry said the North had amassed more than 13,000 pieces of artillery and multiple rocket launchers, much of it aimed at Seoul. Jane's International Defense Review estimates that if North Korea launched an all-out barrage, it could achieve an initial fire rate of 300,000 to 500,000 shells per hour into the Seoul area -- home to about half the country's 48.5 million people. The biggest are 170-mm self-propelled artillery guns and 240-mm multiple rocket launchers. It also has hundreds of Scud missiles that could hit any part of South Korea. '

LA TIMES VIA UCLA
"Seoul's Vulnerability Is Key to War Scenarios"
Why we DON'T fight.
' Seoul's location so close to the potential front line is a result of post-World War II partitioning, when U.S. officials picked the 38th parallel to divide the peninsula in half while barely keeping Seoul out of the communist-controlled sector. In the rapid postwar development of South Korea, nearly half the country's population ended up within a three-minute flight of the DMZ. Estimates of the damage that could be inflicted by a North Korean attack range from bad to apocalyptic. Lee Yang Ho, defense minister during a similar nuclear crisis in 1994, said one computer simulation conducted during his term projected 1 million dead, including thousands of Americans. The arsenal includes 13,000 artillery pieces, along with rockets, multiple-rocket launchers and more than 650 ballistic missiles. Warheads on the missiles can be armed with nerve gas and blistering and choking agents. The North Koreans continue to develop biological weapons such as anthrax, plague, cholera and even smallpox, according to U.S. intelligence. "I don't think North Korea would attack first, but if they were backed into a corner, they could do anything," said a former lieutenant in the North Korean army who defected to the South. Another problem to be considered before any U.S. airstrikes: It would be difficult to take out North Korean artillery, which is well protected in the mountains along the DMZ. '

REUTERS
"North Korea's Kim moves to anoint youngest son as heir"
Out with the old Kim, in with the new?
' North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has signaled the anointment of his youngest son as heir to the ruling family dynasty, South Korean media said on Tuesday as the rival Koreas built up their forces along a disputed sea border. North Korea, whose military posturing after last week's nuclear test prompted U.S. and South Korean forces to raise the alert level, is readying mid-range missiles for test launches, the South's Yonhap news agency reported a lawmaker as saying after a defense briefing. But in Washington, a senior U.S. official said North Korea would probably ease tensions now that the succession issue appeared to have been settled and said Pyongyang would likely return to six-party talks. Analysts believe that Kim Jong-il, whose power base stems from his support for the military, may be using the growing tension to give him greater leverage over power elites at home to nominate his own successor. It has raised alarm in the region over how far Kim, 67 and thought to have suffered a stroke last year, may be prepared to take his latest military grandstanding. North Korea has asked the country's main bodies and its overseas missions to pledge loyalty to Kim's youngest son Kim Jong-un, various South Korean media outlets quoted informed sources as saying. '

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
"Kim Jong Un: North Korea's next leader?"
There's a new Kim in town.
' South Korean intelligence sources are spreading the word that North Korea's ailing leader, Kim Jong Il, has settled on his third son, 26-year-old Kim Jong Un, as his successor. Kim Jong Il seems to be moving quickly to pick a successor as questions swirl about how much time he has left to rule the country, while recovering from a stroke that he reportedly suffered last August and struggling with other illness. North Korea is giving no hints about succession, but the rapid-fire moves to show off the North's military strength, notably the underground test of a nuclear device on May 25, are believed to be timed to demonstrate Kim Jong Il's power despite his physical weakness. North Korea this week is reported to be moving a long-range missile to a site on the west coast for a test similar to the one conducted from the east coast on April 25. "The background to the nuclear and missile thing is, you have a dying monarch who doesn't have an established successor," says Nicholas Eberstadt, a political economist at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. He adds, "you'd think he would want all his succession ducks lined up in a row." '
.
.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,



TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.



IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
Digg!
Add to Google




SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!



HOME
NEWEST POST


Bookmark and Share Subscribe

Friday, June 13, 2008

SUPREMES PLAY GITMO

.
SCOTUS QUINTET MAY CLOSE THE SHOW TRIALS

INNOCENT MEN HELD FOR YEARS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS APPLAUD DECISION

Or They Would If They Could Move Their Hands

National Public Radio News Hour
"Justices Rule Terror Suspects Can Appeal Detentions"

Houston Chronicle
"Many detainees' ties to terrorism doubted"

The Australian
"David Hicks set to be Guantanamo's only convict"

Washington Post
"Habeas Ruling Lays Bare the Divide Among Justices"

LA Times
"Scalia's fear factor"

Fox News
"McCain: Guantanamo Ruling One of the ‘Worst Decisions’ in History"

NY Times
"Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This President"

The corporate media that sold us the phony "War On Terror" are in a dither over the recent US Supreme Court decision that rejects Bushco arguments against due process for "unlawful combatants," ie, those poor bastards down in Gitmo, and elsewhere. Given the fact that dozens of them have been discovered to have been mistakenly arrested, and then held without trial for years, and tortured, it's about time the Supremes got off their asses.

It's tough for them to do, even now. Four of the nine Justices have played their role as Republican Party apparatchiks diligently over the years, ceding unprecedented powers to the corrupt, incompetent, Constitution-shredding Bush Junta. The usual excuses were dragged out: National security, executive privilege, there's a war on sorta, all that fucking bullshit. But when the other five justices finally found their balls, or ovaries, or consciences, or sense of Constitutional responsibility again, the bullshit broke.

Head hatchet-man, election-stealer and shooting buddy of the crypto-nazi Vice President, Antonin "I Love Dick" Scalia accidently spilled the beans: He hasn't been working as an impartial judge fighting "judicial activism," he's been engaged in blatant political activism from the bench.

It was all just a power grab. Few if any convictions on real terror charges have been won by the government. Most of the Gitmo detainees have been found harmless and let go, after years in unlawful detention. The real reason for the whole kangaroo court system is now obvious: Bushco couldn't stand public scrutiny in their failed war on terror.

The Bushco position on these cases was based on Johnson v. Eisentrager , from WWII.

Johnson v. Eisentrager is not a valid precedent in this case, if only because the Bush prisoners were held on U.S. soil. Their combatant status, if any, and the crimes that they were charged with, if any, are also not covered by Johnson. Bush cannot simply waive the U.S. Constitution when he finds it inconvenient. If he wants to cite Johnson, he should hold his prisoners on somebody else's territory. (Oops, I've said too much.) But then he'd be subject to their jurisdiction, and they might be found complicit. There are other problems with using Johnson v. Eisentrager as precedent:

1. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the prisoners had never been on US sovereign territory. They were in a German prison, administered by the US Army, but on German soil. U.S. Embassies and most military bases abroad are U.S. sovereign territory*; all are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, our law applies there. Some of the Bush prisoners were held on U.S. soil. The Constitution applies on U.S. soil. Gitmo is U.S. soil. Just ask Castro. Johnson doesn't apply on U.S. soil, under US jurisdiction.
2. "We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States." No prisoners in these terror trials and non-trials is or has been accused of being in the service of a government at war with the US. We are not at war. War has never been declared, by us or any other government. There is no enemy government. These prisoners are not soldiers in service of an enemy government in time of war. So Johnson v. Eisentrager doesn't apply.
3. Ironically, the plaintiffs in Johnson had been accused by the U.S. Army of violating the Geneva Conventions. I don't believe any of the accused in the Bush cases has been charged with violations of the Geneva Conventions. If anything, they may be victims of violations of the Geneva Conventions, by the U.S.
4. Some of the plaintiffs in the Bush cases are American citizens. The Constitution always applies to American citizens, wherever they may be, if they can find U.S. jurisdiction. Johnson simply does not apply here. Using it as precedent was a stretch at best. "But even by the most magnanimous view, our law does not abolish inherent distinctions recognized throughout the civilized world between citizens and aliens". The civilized world, as in, America before Bush.

The Bushies wanted to have it every which way: We're at war, but we're not at war. They're enemy soldiers, but they're not enemy soldiers. They're common civilian criminals, but we'll try them in military courts. We'll keep them out of the Homeland and away from judges, but we'll hold them on U.S. territory overseas. We'll give them trials, but we won't allow them due process. We'll cite U.S. law and the Geneva Convention, but we're not following them ourselves. U.S. Courts don't have jurisdiction, but we'll go to them for a rubber-stamp. We're defending the Constitution, but it doesn't apply to us. Legalistical horsesh*t, and very bad lawyering.

.
Actually, the issue is one of jurisdiction: The US Courts had no jurisdiction on German soil, in a German facility on German property not owned, leased, or controlled, or under US jurisdiction, specifically, by treaty with any legitimate German government.

*Not all US military bases abroad are sovereign US territory. That depends upon the "Status of Forces Agreement" for each base in each country. But every US military facility in the world is under US Courts' jurisdiction. The only question might be, is it a US military base, owned, leased or controlled by the US by treaty with a legitimate local government?

The German prison was not a US military base. Guantanamo is a US military base. A perpetual lease (requiring no action for renewal) on the land was given to the US by the Cuban government after the Spanish-American War. The Cubans retain sovereignty over the Bay, but the US has "control and jurisdiction." Subsequently, the US has been been making payments to every Cuban government since 1898 for Guantanamo. Castro has never set foot on the base. We might arrest him.

Actions of US military personnel on US military bases, or in the field in times of war, are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Actions of US military personnel off the base and in peacetime are subject to the UCMJ and/ or the local civilian Courts, according to the Status of Forces Agreement, and the discretion of the military authorities.

Actions of soldiers in the service of an enemy government in time of war are subject to the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Enemy soldiers are entitled to due process under the Conventions.

Actions of civilians or "unlawful combatants" are subject to the Conventions, and the laws of their native country, or the country where the actions took place. They are NOT under military jurisdiction under the UCMJ. They are NOT under US civilian Courts' jurisdiction if they never set foot on US soil, or US-controlled soil, such as a US military base. If they EVER set foot on such soil, they are under US civilian Courts' jurisdiction.

Once under US civilian Courts' jurisdiction, they can claim all the rights of a US citizen under the US Constitution to due process, including habeas corpus, and a speedy trial. If Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are not happy about this, they should move to a country not covered by the Constitution, such as Iraq or Afghanistan.

They should also blame the arrogance and stupidity of Bushco, and their crooked compliant lawyers, who should have known that, even in time of war, the President can sometimes get away with bending the Constitution, but not breaking it. Ultimately, he is answerable for his actions, to Congress and to the Courts. That's what it says in the Constitution. The Wingers should read it, next time, before they wipe their asses with it.

The Constitution is what preserves and protects our liberties, the democracy and freedom and rule of law Bushco is pretending to export to the Middle East, while violating it here. The Constitution IS America. By violating it, Bush has betrayed us all. He has violated his oath of office, committed high crimes and misdemeaners, and should be impeached, convicted and removed from office. No time for that now. But he MUST be indicted for these and all his other unlawful acts, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, after we take back our country. I hope Obama has the balls to do that. It needs to be done. Otherwise, they will be back, just as Nixon's and Reagan's old gangs came back.

[Cross-posted at THEAMERICANSTREET.]
.
.

Labels: , , , , , ,



TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.



IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
Digg!
Add to Google




SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!



HOME
NEWEST POST


Bookmark and Share Subscribe

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

NEW AFGHAN COMMANDER SPECIALIZES IN LIES

.
ALSO COVER-UPS, ASSASSINATIONS, TORTURE & BACK-STABBING

YOUTUBE: CSPAN
"Mary Tillman - No More Smokescreen"
McChrystal's Biggest Lie. That we know of. So far.



DISLOYAL GENERAL MCCHRYSTAL RECOMMENDED
HIMSELF FOR THE JOB


More Of A Spook Than A Soldier, McChrystal Goes Along To Get Along

Rambo? Jack Bauer? Miles Gloriosus? Haven't we heard this all someplace before? Oh, yeah, Iraq: Commanding General gets sh*t-canned for being honest and saying right up front that the job will take a lot more manpower. That's what US Army four-star General Eric Shinseki told Dumbya about Iraq way back in 2003. Dumbya dumped him. Turned out Shinseki was right. Dumbya then took credit for finally following Shinseki's advice four years later by staging a "surge" of tens of thousands of additional troops in Iraq. Of course, this was not until years of brutal fighting had taken many lives, many more than it would have, if only Dumbya had listened to an honest commander in the field.

Curiously, the new guy in Afghanistan claims he won the war in Iraq all by himself, and not by surging, but by counter-insurgency: Special Ops, not massive manpower: Assassinations, torture and psychological warfare against friend and foe alike. So, which was it that "won" the war in Iraq? The surge, or the spooks? Can we trust this guy McChrystal to tell us anything honestly?

After all, he's the lying fool that tried to cover up the friendly-fire death of NFL star Pat Tillman by awarding him a posthumous silver star, which he plainly knew the man did not deserve, dishonoring all those who had died heroically to win that medal, the third-highest honor in the US military. What kinda guy is this new guy?

Dishonest? Dishonorable? Overweeningly ambitious? Treacherous and self-serving? Unscrupulous and barbaric? Or just an buddy-f**ker? He recently got tasked to evaluate the job another General was doing in Afghanistan. Somehow, his recommendations included replacing that guy with himself. Back-stabber? Power-hungry careeerist? Not the right man for any job?

Well, Gates & Obama think he's OK, so we know he's really good at ass-kissing and bull-sh*tting, two important skills for a politician, if not a General. And now he's in charge of our brand spanking new war in Pakistan, as well as our tired old war on Afghanistan. This is the guy that got Iraq's most wanted, Al Zarqawi, of Al Qaeda. (Or maybe it was the CIA that tracked him down. Or Jordan. Or Israel. Anyway, McSpook took the credit. Shows intitiative!) Is he the man to get Osama Bin Laden? By any means necessary, as in Iraq? And would that include trampling on the locals like he did in Iraq, further destabilizing Pakistan, and turning it into the first nuclear-missile-armed fundamentalist State, already in jihad with its' Hindu neighbor, nuclear-missile armed India? And then there's those oppressed Uigur Muslim brothers just across the border in nuclear-missile armed anti-Muslim communist China. Russia's in range, too.

Sure you wanna do this, Barack? Seems like lighting up a cigarette by the gas pumps. Are you 100% SURE this is the right man for this rather delicate job? Can you really trust him not to screw up like he did in Somalia? Think about it. Ooops. Too late. It's a done deal. And Barack is already covering up for McTorture, reversing his own decision to release torture fotos. Wouldn't look good before a Senate hearing confirming the new guy in Afghanistan, now, would it?


More on McChrystal tomorrow.

"MORE POSTS ON THE PASHTUN WAR"

"TORTURE MOVES TO AFGHANISTAN"

"THE SECRET WAR"

"THE SURGE, PART DEUX"

"POLLING THE VICTIMS OF GAZ WARFARE"


STARS & STRIPES
"McKiernan out of Afghanistan command "
We can't win a war in Afghanistan, so let's just do a TV show there. 24? The Rumsfeld Comedy Hour? "Back To The Future"?
' Gen. David McKiernan was forced out as head of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, a move Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was needed to find new ways to end conflict there. "From a military perspective, we can and must do better," Gates said at a news conference Monday. "Our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders." Time Magazine recently highlighted McKiernan in their annual "World’s 100 most influential people" issue. In February he predicted a "tough year" of fighting for U.S. forces in the country, and warned the deployment of 30,000 new troops into Afghanistan might not be enough to continue progress past the end of this year. Daniel Markey, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the move shocking. "I was under the impression that McKiernan’s role was pretty firm here." "His strategy has been consistent with what they want to do in Afghanistan," he said. "He’s been one of the main proponents of moving away from targeted counter-terror activities to a broader approach. There were no tensions that I knew of. So this really is a surprise." Both Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen highlighted the new nominees’ experience in Afghanistan as a key reason for their appointments. "Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Rodriguez bring a unique skill set in counterinsurgency to these issues," Gates said. "They will provide the kind of leadership we’ve been talking about." McChrystal lead Joint Special Operations Command for nearly five years prior to assuming his current post. He will receive a fourth star upon taking over the Afghanistan role. For the last month, he headed a task force focused on improving the effectiveness of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. In 2007, McChrystal was the highest-ranking officer chastised by Army Criminal Investigative Command in their investigation of Pat Tillman’s death, calling him "accountable for the inaccurate and misleading assertions" in the documentation for his Silver Star. However, investigators said they did not see evidence of a cover-up in that friendly fire incident. '

YAHOO NEWS
"Reboot in Afghanistan: Gates replaces top general"
"Resources or no" Freudian slip, or statement of policy?
' Despite seven years of effort by the U.S. and allies, Afghanistan remains a battleground with an unstable government, a flourishing opium trade and suicide attacks by supporters of al-Qaida. Obama approved 17,000 additional combat forces for Afghanistan this year, plus 4,000 trainers and other noncombat troops. By year's end, the United States will have more than 68,000 troops in the sprawling country — about double the total at the end of George W. Bush's presidency but still far fewer than the 130,000 still in Iraq. McKiernan and other U.S. commanders have said resources they need in Afghanistan are tied up in Iraq. On Tuesday, Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for Afghanistan's defense ministry, praised McKiernan's role in improving relations between international and Afghan forces while also "doing his best to conduct the military operations in a better way." Azimi listed three priorities that McChrystal should focus on when taking over the command: "Prevent civilian casualties, strengthen the quality and quantity of Afghan forces, and focus more on coordinating the military operations with Afghan forces." Monday's announcement came a week after Afghan civilians were killed during a battle between militants and U.S. forces. Gates visited Afghanistan last week to see firsthand what preparations and plans were under way to set the president's counterinsurgency strategy in motion. "As I have said many times before, very few of these problems can be solved by military means alone," Gates said Monday. "And yet, from the military perspective, we can and must do better." He indicated that the Afghan campaign had long lacked the people and money needed due to the Bush administration's focus since 2003 on the Iraq war. "But I believe, resources or no, that our mission there requires new thinking and new approaches from our military leaders," Gates said. '

TIME MAGAZINE
"Why the Pentagon Axed Its Afghan Warlord"
"New thinking" in Afghanistan ordered by same old guys in charge all along at the Pentagon. It sounds more like OLD thinking: No more troops for the Afghan War.
' The move was yet another dose of accountability from Gates, who has previously cashiered officers for failing to tend to hospitalized troops or to secure nuclear weapons. But Monday's action was more momentous: It marked the first time a civilian has fired a wartime commander since President Harry Truman ousted General Douglas MacArthur in 1951 for questioning Truman's Korean War strategy. (See pictures of U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan.) The Obama Administration has made Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror over the past month, it had concluded that McKiernan's tenure there had involved too much wheel-spinning even as the Taliban extended its reach. There was not enough of the "new thinking" demanded by Gates. "It's time for new leadership and fresh eyes," Gates said, refusing to elaborate. He noted that Joints Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, and General David Petraeus, who as chief of U.S. Central Command oversees the Afghan war, had endorsed the move. Officers have typically served about 24 months in the slot, meaning McKiernan had served less than half his expected tour. Military experts anticipate that U.S. policy in Afghanistan more militarily pointed as well as politically deft, once McChrystal and Rodrigues, his 1976 West Point classmate and fellow Afghan vet, are confirmed by the Senate. "McKiernan did his best - he was just the wrong guy," says retired Army officer and military analyst Ralph Peters. "McChrystal will ask for more authority, not more troops." By the end of this year, the U.S. expects to have close to 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, including 21,000 ordered there by Obama. While that's just half the 130,000 troops the U.S. maintains in Iraq, Gates has been leery of sending further reinforcements. Not everyone welcomed the change, however. Some viewed McKiernan's firing as unfair, noting that he had inherited command of an under-resourced Afghan theater that had been a secondary priority to Iraq. "In Afghanistan, we do what we can," Mullen himself had said in December 2007. "In Iraq, we do what we must." And while McKiernan was given his Afghan command during the Bush Administration, it had been Gates who had appointed him - at Mullen's recommendation. '

BBC
"Profile: Gen Stanley McChrystal "
The Rumsfeld Doctrine redux?
' Gen McChrystal, with his background in special forces, represents the future of warfare as envisaged by Mr Gates and President Barack Obama - away from conventional military planning, towards modern, asymmetric war fighting. The man he is replacing - Gen David McKiernan - rose to prominence in 2003 as the leader of all coalition and US conventional ground forces during the invasion of Iraq. Following the invasion, he clashed with Washington over the troop levels needed in the country - he wanted more troops than civilian commanders were prepared to provide. Time magazine's Joe Klein described Gen McKiernan as "one of our finest generals, especially when it comes to conventional warfare." "If you need to get a force from the Kuwait border to Baghdad in three weeks, he's the guy to do it." But his removal from command in Afghanistan suggests President Obama does not believe Gen McKiernan is "the guy" to turn around the coalition's deteriorating military position in central Asia. He clearly believes that Gen McChrystal's special ops tactics are more likely to get the job done. '

NOVOSTI
"New commander for same Afghan force"
Even the Russians seem to have a better handle on the Afghan War than the Pentagon does.
' General McKiernan succeeded in increasing the number of U.S. troops almost twofold - from 25,000 to 40,000, but failed to achieve a breakthrough in the war against Taliban. The General requested additional 10,000 troops, but the request was refused by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who simultaneously had to deal with rebels in Iraq. Secretary Gates did not share the General's approach to securing a victory in Afghanistan through significantly increasing the U.S. troops in the country. According to Secretary Gates, other means are necessary. '

THE WASHINGTON POST
"Sympathy for McKiernan Among Officers"
The knives were out, the man is gone, his fellows honor him too late.
' News of the abrupt removal yesterday of Gen. David D. McKiernan from his command in Afghanistan generated some dismay in Army circles, although U.S. military officers and analysts voiced strong support for his likely replacement. Sympathy ran high for McKiernan among Army officers because, they said, the relative shortage of U.S. troops in Afghanistan had tied his hands in combating a deepening insurgency. McKiernan "was running a very under-resourced theater and doing as well as anyone could expect," said one senior officer. This officer and others would discuss their views only on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the record. Moreover, officers said, McKiernan, who was admired as a solid commander and one with integrity, did not deserve to have his career ended by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates requesting his resignation. "I am disappointed for General McKiernan to go out this way," the officer said. "I don't think that this sort of an ending to his career is fair." '

SLATE
"It's Obama's War Now"
Obama becoming Dubya? Gates becoming Rummy? Afghanistan 2009 becoming Iraq 2003?
' McKiernan's ouster signals a dramatic shift in U.S. strategy for the war in Afghanistan. And it means that the war is now, unequivocally, "Obama's war." The president has decided to set a new course, not merely to muddle through the next six months or so. First, let's clarify a few things. When a Cabinet officer asks for a subordinate's resignation, it means that he's firing the guy. This doesn't happen very often in the U.S. military. McKiernan had another year to go as commander. (When Gen. George Casey's strategy clearly wasn't working in Iraq, President George W. Bush let him serve out his term, then promoted him to Army chief of staff.) Gates also made it clear he wasn't acting on a personal whim. He said that he took the step after consulting with Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and President Barack Obama. According to one senior official, Gates went over to Afghanistan last week for the sole purpose of giving McKiernan the news face-to-face. '

GUARDIAN ONLINE
"Obama's rosy Afghanistan plan"
Still sacrificing Afghanistan to Iraq.
' Time and again, General David Petraeus, the architect of the surge and the current US central command (Centcom) chief, has warned that the recent gains in Iraq are "fragile and reversible". Should those warnings materialise as the US loosens its grip on Iraq, they could dramatically impede Obama's promise to build up in Afghanistan, which he has called the "central front" in fighting terror. With an all-voluntary US military force stretched across two major conflicts in recent years, any troop increase in Afghanistan necessarily requires an accompanying drawdown in Iraq. Obama's plan calls for up to 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq through 2011 after all combat troops return home next August. Those "transitional forces" have prompted criticism even from Obama's allies on the left, but it remains unclear whether they or the US civilian presence in the country can solve challenges that have become almost endemic to Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. '

VANCOUVER FREE PRESS
"Changing wartime generals in Afghanistan"
Changing commanders is much, much, much easier than changing Afghanistan.
' What's need is "fresh thinking, fresh eyes on the problem," said Secretary Gates, explaining why he was appointing General Stanley McChrystal to the job instead. So what should General McChrystal's fresh eyes see? He could start by understanding that the United States is not fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is fighting the entire Pashtun nation, some 30 million people, two-thirds of whom live across the border in Pakistan. That border has never really existed for the Pashtuns, who move freely across it in peace and in war. The Taliban are entirely Pashtun in membership, and always were. When they ruled southern and central Afghanistan in 1996-2001, they were hated by the other ethnic groups (who never lost control of the north), and even by many Pashtuns. But the U.S. invasion effectively drove not just the Taliban but the Pashtuns in general from power, in a country that Pashtuns have dominated for several centuries. To minimize U.S. casualties, the United States made an alliance with all the non-Pashtun ethnic groups of Afganistan (the "Northern Alliance") in 2001. There really was no American land invasion; it was the Northern Alliance that defeated the Taliban, with considerable assistance from American B-52 bombers. It was a clever strategy, but it perpetuated what was effectively an Afghan civil war between the Pashtuns (40 percent of the population) and all the other ethnic groups, Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek. It is warlords from those other groups who have controlled the Afghan government ever since. "The political, religious and economic mafia are all Northern Alliance people," says Daoud Sultanzoy, a member of parliament from Ghazni province, exaggerating only slightly. "Nobody outside the Northern Alliance is in the government." Except, of course, President Hamid Karzai, the token Pashtun, who is mockingly known as "the mayor of Kabul". This is not a war about ideology, even if all the American and Taliban commanders insist that it is. The Pashtuns are fighting to regain at least a major share of power in Afghanistan, while the U.S. and other foreign troops are for all practical purposes allied to the other ethnic groups. That is why ALL the fighting is in the Pashtun-majority provinces. There is no point in trying to win over Pashtun "hearts and minds". The war will only end when the Pashtuns regain a big share of the power at the centre (and the loot that comes with it). And no matter how fresh General McChrystal's eyes are, it's unlikely that he can deliver that. '

THE WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT
"Did McChrystal’s Command Recommendations Herald His New Afghanistan Job?"
The back-stabbing little ass-kisser recommended himself for the job.
' One more thing really quickly about Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s ascension to commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. On Friday, I blogged about changes in the command structure in Afghanistan emanating from, among other places, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s review of Afghanistan strategy. What I should have noted, in retrospect, is that McChrystal chaired that review. I don’t know this for certain by any stretch, but chances are that was an audition for the job. '

NAVY TIMES
"Tillmans: Senate should scrutinize McChrystal"
The dead come back to haunt the General who dishonored them.
' The parents of slain Army Ranger and NFL star Pat Tillman voiced concerns Tuesday that the general who played a role in mischaracterizing his death could be put in charge of military operations in Afghanistan. In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Pat Tillman Sr. accused Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal of covering up the circumstances of the 2004 slaying. "I do believe that guy participated in a falsified homicide investigation," Pat Tillman Sr. said. In April 2004, McChrystal approved paperwork awarding Tillman a Silver Star after he was killed by enemy fire — even though he suspected the Ranger had died by fratricide, according to Pentagon testimony later obtained by the AP. The testimony showed that McChrystal sent a memo to top generals imploring "our nation's leaders," specifically the president, to avoid cribbing the "devastating enemy fire" explanation from the award citation for their speeches. In 2007, the Army overruled a Pentagon recommendation that McChrystal be held accountable for his "misleading" actions. In a book published last year, Mary Tillman accused McChrystal of helping create the false story line that she said "diminished Pat's true actions." Her one-sentence e-mail to the AP on Tuesday said: "It is imperative that Lt. General McChrystal be scrutinized carefully during the Senate hearings." '

REGISTAN.COM
"A Double-Edged Sword"
Torturing, lying, covering up required skills in Afghanistan?
' General McChrsytal carries with him a dark side as well. One unit under his command, the now-notorious Task Force 6-26, which was assigned to find HVTs, or High Value Targets in Iraq, is credited with the ultimate death of Zarqawi. The problem is, along the way they faced accusations of running a secret camp that tortured prisoners, and they were implicated in at least two detainee deaths during torture sessions. Their camp, called Camp Nama, became something of a lightning rod after a “computer malfunction” destroyed upwards of 70% of their records and an investigation into their conduct stalled out. More relevant to Afghanistan is GEN McChrystal’s involvement in the shameful coverup of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death. While he was named among the list of high-ranking military personnel believed to have covered up the circumstances of Tillman’s death, GEN McChrystal was “spared because he had apparently drafted a memo urging other officials to stop spreading the lie that Tillman died fighting the Taliban. He drafted that memo, however, after signing the award for Tillman’s posthumously-awarded Silver Star, the commendation for which claims, in part, that he was leading the charge against a Taliban assault. GEN McChrystal has never clarified why he signed an award for Tillman dying under enemy fire right before begging his colleagues and superiors to stop lying about Tillman dying under enemy fire. '

THE ATLANTIC
"Cheney's Man For Obama's War"
Cheney is still in charge?
' But what the blogs have been talking about at length and what the mainstreamers seem to be afraid to acknowledge, is that McChrystal can be placed at the very center of the controversy the Obama Administration is now wrestling with and Cheney seeks to defend: the torture and abuse — sanctioned and delegated from the top — of battlefield detainees throughout the GWOT theater under President Bush. It doesn’t take long to click through and read in-depth accounts of the goings-on under McChrystal’s special operations command in The Atlantic (May 2007) and Esquire (August 2006) '

THE ATLANTIC
"Obama Reverses Course On Torture Photos"
And so it begins...
' In what can only be seen as a stunning reversal, the president is now refusing to release photographs that would help prove that the abuse and torture techniques revealed at Abu Ghraib were endemic in the Bush military. I can't help but wonder if this is related to his decision to appoint Stanley McChrystal as the commander of his Afghanistan war and occupation. There is solid evidence that McChrystal played an active part in enabling torture in Iraq, and his activities in charge of many secret special operations almost certainly involved condoning acts that might be illustrated by these photos. The MSM has, of course, failed to mention this in their fawning profiles of McChrystal. '

FREE REPUBLIC.COM
"The Hidden General Stan McChrystal runs 'black ops.' Don't pass it on "
"Jedi knight"? Alas, journalism!
' JSOC is part of what Vice President Dick Cheney was referring to when he said America would have to "work the dark side" after 9/11. To many critics, the veep's remark back in 2001 fostered his rep as the Darth Vader of the war on terror and presaged bad things to come, like the interrogation abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. But America also has its share of Jedi Knights who are fighting in what Cheney calls "the shadows." And McChrystal, an affable but tough Army Ranger, and the Delta Force and other elite teams he commands are among them. '

THE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW
"McChrystal Clear"
Obama adopting right-wing death squad approach that didn't work in Afghanistan?
' JSOC has considerably more success fending off the press than, say, the NSA. But in March, it made another of its rare appearances in the news. First, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had, in February, temporarily halted some of JSOC’s raids in Afghanistan, “reflecting a growing concern that civilian deaths caused by American firepower are jeopardizing broader goals there.” Seymour Hersh was giving a talk at the University of Minnesota around the same time and, citing reporting from a book he’s working on, described JSOC thus: "It’s an executive assassination ring, essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on… Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us." Hersh later had to backpedal. (“I must drive my editors crazy when I say things that are loaded,” he said.) But he stuck to his guns, so to speak. “JSOC… has been given executive authority by the president in as many as 12 countries to go in and kill, we’re talking about high value targets” without congressional oversight, he told Wolf Blitzer, who rejoined, “Is there anything wrong with that?” Hersh thinks so. But counterinsurgency scholar Andrew Exum of the blog Abu Muquwama was dismissive. It’s not like JSOC is some partisan task force that went away when Obama got elected… I don’t think any of us would dispute the need for highly-trained, highly-specialized commandos capable of carrying out ‘capture or kill’ or hostage-rescue missions of some high degree of strategic importance. '

PAKISTAN DAILY TIMES
"Afghan war rules set to change"
Mark the official beginning of the Pakistan War.
' The new US commander in Afghanistan, Lt-Gen Stanley McChrystal, is likely to be willing – unlike his predecessors – to fight on both sides of the border with Pakistan, the New York Times has announced. McChrystal, it says, is a counterinsurgency expert who for years has viewed the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single problem. Senior US officials told the paper that Gen McChrystal would have no “explicit mandate” to carry out military strikes in Pakistan. At the same time, current and former officials said he was ideally suited to carry out a White House strategy that regards Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single problem. “For him to be successful, he’s going to have to fight the war on both sides of the border,” said Robert Richer, a retired CIA officer who has worked with McChrystal. Two officials said McKiernan had resisted the creation of a new operational command in Afghanistan that Gates announced on Monday. McChrystal not only supported the plan, but has also pressed for the creation of a new cadre of American officers who would specialise in Afghanistan and serve repeated tours there. '

THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
"Biography of Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal "
Well, the Illuminati seem to like him. Hm. I thought Obama was against them?
' Assignment: Aug 99 - Jun 00 Military Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York '


More on McChrystal tomorrow.
.
.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.



IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
Digg!
Add to Google




SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!



HOME
NEWEST POST



POST COMMENTS above, or send them to cosanostradamus AT excite DOT com.

View blog top tags

LOCAL LINKS

HONOLULU, HAWAII: MEDIA: NEWSPAPERS & MAGAZINES

| HONOLULU ADVERTISER | HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN | HONOLULU WEEKLY | PACIFIC BUSINESS NEWS | HAWAII MAGAZINE | HONOLULU MAGAZINE | MIDWEEK | PENNYSAVER | SPOTLITE HAWAII |


HONOLULU, HAWAII: MEDIA: TELEVISION STATIONS

| ABC KITV4 (oc6) | CBS KGMB9 (oc7) | FOX KHON2 (oc3) | MYNETWORKTV KFVE5 (oc5) | NBC KHNL13 (oc8) | PBS KHET11 (oc10) |


HONOLULU, HAWAII: RADIO STATIONS

| NPR KHPR 88.1 FM | NPR KIPO 89.3 FM | UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII KTUH 90.3 FM | LOCAL KSSK 92.3 FM/ 590 AM | HAWAIIAN MUSIC KINE 105.1 FM | "JAWAIIAN" KCCN 100 FM | SPORTS KKEA 1420 AM | TALK KHNR 690 AM | TALK KHVH 830 AM | TALK KUMU 1500 AM |


HONOLULU, HAWAII: GOVERNMENT & MILITARY

| CITY & COUNTY OF HONOLULU | STATE OF HAWAII | HAWAII MILITARY | HAWAII VISITORS & CONVENTIONS |


HONOLULU, HAWAII: INFO & SERVICES

| CAREER-BUILDER JOBS | HONOLULU CRAIGSLIST JOBS & HOUSING | HONOLULU WEATHER | UH SPORTS | HONOLULU MAPS | HONOLULU TRAFFIC | OAHU WEBCAMS | DA BUS | HAWAII.COM-tourists |


HONOLULU, HAWAII: HOTELS, SHOPPING, RESTAURANTS, NIGHTLIFE, CULTURE

| WAIKIKI HOTELS | OAHU RESTAURANTS | OAHU SHOPPING | OAHU NIGHTCLUBS | MELE.COM-Hawaiian Music | HAWAIIAN MUSIC STORE | DANCING CAT RECORDS | HAWAIIAN BOOKS | HAWAII ART | HAWAIIAN FLOWER LEIS |


HONOLULU, HAWAII: MUSEUMS & HISTORICAL SITES

| HAWAII HISTORY | U.S.S. ARIZONA MEMORIAL | BATTLESHIP MISSOURI MEMORIAL | HAWAII CULTURE | HONOLULU ACADEMY OF ARTS | THE CONTEMPORARY MUSEUM | BISHOP MUSEUM |




GINNY'S ARTWORK

LOOK! Shiny NEW Links:

HELP! I'M TRAPPED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE!! PLEASE CALL HTML OR MY MOM!!!