Funny thing about drone warfare--when you blow up people's families,

[Jackpine Radical]

they have a dismaying tendency to get annoyed at you.

Even when none of those people could have found the US on a map, once you kill their kids, they start thinking of ways to get back at you. They tend to join organizations that promise that opportunity.

The war in Afghanistan was never about 9-11. Had that been the case, there would have been no war. There would have been a massive international police action. Has everyone forgotten how the rest of the world stood with us and offered to help?

But no. We needed a war in Afghanistan. Remember Bushco promising the Taliban a carpet of gold if they played nice, but a carpet of bombs if they obstructed us? That was in the summer of 2001, before 9-11. We told them we'd be in there by October if they didn't accede to the demands of the Empire.

We wanted to put pipelines across Afghanistan to transport oil & gas out of the the old Soviet 'stans, and we wanted to mine the rare earths. And we wanted to get all that stuff before the Chinese grabbed it.

So we went to war in Afghanistan for the convenience of the energy & electronics industries, just as we went to war with Iraq so we could divide up their oil fields among our oil companies like you divide up a side of beef.

[RKP5637]

1. And, it was good business for the MIC, all of the $$$$$ spent. Are we a nation of peace or a

nation of war for profit?

[Fumesucker]

7. The bidness of America is bidness

And there's nothing more businesslike than war.

[RKP5637]

10. It's surely our nations' biggest business investment. Everything else comes secondary to the MIC.n/t

[libtodeath]

2. K&R

[loudsue]

3. First we bombed Iraq, then terrorized their people (a la the buildup to the massacre at Fallujah)

stole their history and destroyed their homes. Then we made the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater EXTREMELY wealthy while we built the most atrocious "embassy".....what was it 20 acres worth?....to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. The Military Industrial Commercial complex took the lives of thousands of OUR young people on a war of the whim of a powerful political family mafia; and we killed hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis, (as well as a shit-load of NON innocent Iraqi and imported terrorists), then went on to do the same things in Afghanistan.

The PNAC crowd had every intention of draining EVERY PENNY out of the pockets of United States citizens (TAXPAYERS), and then blaming it on social security and medicare. There is a group of truly evil, extremely wealthy people that have been created by the Capitalist American system. They have been totally in control, and totally out of bounds, for way too many years.

It's the American people who have been hoodwinked into letting all this killing and looting go on in our name.

[kenny blankenship]

12. 104 acres worth

[loudsue]

36. Head slap.

Crap!!!!!

[annabanana]

24. +1, loudsue, +1

It sure as hell is obvious when you just lay out the facts.

on edit: I wonder if President Gore would have initiated the police action? I sure like to think so.

[salib]

27. President Gore would have needed a police action

Because there never would have been a 911

[lark]

40. Gore wasn't friends with Osama & family

He never would have changed the rules that Bush did to not check on any Saudi national who wanted to come to this country. He never would have stopped the program to capture Osama that was going on in the Clinton administration and stopped as soon as Bushco came in. He would not have ignored the intelligence that said Al Quaeda was going to use planes to kill Americans, would have investigated the weird plane training going on in FL to Saudi nationals some of whom were on the terrorist list and would have stopped the plot in it's tracks. Going to war with Iraq would not have been on his "to do" list when he came into office, as it was on Cheney's.

Yep, no bushco, no 9/11.

[RKP5637]

28. This is extremely well said. Too bad messages like yours don't reach the masses rather than lame

fake news AKA Fox News.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. "We"?

Not a chance.

[annabanana]

42. If, despite all efforts to the contrary, we were unable

to dissuade our government, we weren't operating our government, and hence, are responsible.

This is why we cannot quit.

[randome]

43. I agree.

Maybe, in fact, Internet discussion forums make it too easy for us to pretend we're doing something.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

47. Are "we" all to blame?

Isn't that similar to the reasoning used by Otter?

If such reasoning works for you, then good for you.

[The Link]

4. Some of us don't equate terrorists to ordinary Americans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318984#post50

[daleanime]

8. Yes we know....

may the Lord have pity on your soul.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. I truly dig Russ Feingold.

But sometimes he's just WRONG.

I recall being kinda pissed at him back when he supported our Afghan adventure in the first place. Although in that instance I sorta rationalized it by thinking he knew Bushco would never permit the international police action, and thought that we had to do SOMETHING. At least he was steadfast on Iraq.

[daleanime]

5. K&R....

[Arctic Dave]

6. The entire PNAC playbook was never about "freeing" people from "evildoers".

We don't give two turds about them. Look at our own country to see how the US feels towards people.

It was about forcing the Middle East and Saharan Africa by violence to become part of our empire.

[lark]

41. Disagree, respectfully

Bushco didn't give a damn about having Iraquis or Afghanis as part of our "empire", he just wanted to steal their oil and mineral resources and was willing to lie and cheat and murder our own to accomplish those ends. Cheney just wanted to get personally rich (his wealth increased 400% while VP) and Bush wanted to create more wealth for family and friends. That's why he pushed thru outdated unwanted weapons that were produced by Carlyle Group, aka Poppie and the binLadens.

[randome]

9. What is it about drones that have anything to do with your central point?

You could easily have said, "Funny thing about warfare--when you blow up people's families..."

Instead of debating about what kind of weapons systems to use, why not debate the reason we are in other countries in the first place?

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Yes, but ordinary warfare is so much messier for our side.

Having to actually send people in-country, or at least fly over it with bombers and all that.

Drones are so much more convenient, especially now that they'll be giving out medals for flying them and all.

[randome]

13. My point is that physically invading a country results in many more civilian deaths.

Plus the deaths of our soldiers.

You are not going to win any debates on the merits of drone warfare versus bombing runs. You're not. The numbers speak for themselves.

This focus on drones is ridiculous. Are you actually saying that jet aircraft bombers are a 'better' way to wage warfare? Is that the point you wish to make?

[Jackpine Radical]

15. I'm saying that the mutuality of the messiness of conventional warfare

makes it harder to sell to the public.

Or at least it used to, before the corporate propagandists got their electronic fingers wrapped so tightly around the collective public amygdala.

[RKP5637]

16. Good point, the core question is, "...why not debate the reason we are in other countries in the

first place?" To me, the US wants world domination. ... not that we are alone in that quest. ... but I've often thought many of these wars serve three purposes ... money for weapons, etc., very profitable for some ... business interests in new territories often for exploitation ... and national ego.

I know the theme song is all about altruism, but IMO many of those pushing for wars, continuing wars and maintaining an occupation or presence have very little interest in altruism. And frankly world peace is not wanted by many ... it would cut the profit chain significantly. War is a paradigm rut the US is stuck in IMO. Now, I could be totally wrong and F'ed up in saying all of this, but it's pretty much how I see it ...

[randome]

18. We already pretty much own the world. We need to admit that.

And using drones instead of ordinary munitions makes for a lot LESS money for the munitions makers.

Business interests are a problem, I agree. I think the ego factor often follows the 'needs' of the current President or Congress, whichever branch is ascendant. Obviously, more power has been given over to the Executive branch of late while Congress frets and whines and does as little as possible.

I don't think Obama has that need to inflate his ego.

Instability in general is often a factor. There are too damned many civil wars going on. Our 'interests' sometimes require that we put an end to them and, in the process, we sometimes perform some altruistic activities.

I'm not convinced we have that much of a terrorist challenge right now but it seems no one wants to debate that. They'd rather hem and haw about how 'evil' one weapons system is over another.

Both ways kill people. We should not be killing as many people as we do unless there are legitimate reasons for it.

[RKP5637]

20. Well said, and especially your last sentence!!! n/t

[KharmaTrain]

17. The Problem Of Starting A War...

...is finding a way to get out of it. And this was especially the case with Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure we have no disagreement that the Iraq invasion was a massive war crime and created more security problems for the U.S., not less. Afghanistan is another matter. It was and still is an international "police action" as no war has ever been declared. There still are British, German and other foreign troops as part of the ISAF force...obviously far smaller in size than the U.S. and most involved in non-combat support...but they are there and used as a justification for continued U.S. involvement.

That said...initially a majority of Americans saw Afghanistan as a just action. The Taliban had sheltered bin Laden who had claimed responsibility for the deaths of thousands of Americans. Our first actions were using special forces and assisting the local militias...which drove the Taliban from power and Al Queda out of the country. I felt at that point...2003...we should have made a hasty exit but the boooshies war machine got fascinated with Iraq and left Afghanistan to return to its previously scheduled civil war with our troops stuck in the middle.

This administration has moved too slowly on extracating our troops from that area...but that's the fate of empire. There's a strong possibility that the second we withdraw military protection over Karzai's corrupt regime (reminds me of Thieu in S. Vietnam) he'll fall and there's be the fall out of "who lost Afghanistan". It's that fallout that this administration fears...in the meantime the missiles will fly...

[Jackpine Radical]

21. Of COURSE Karzai will fall.

Whatever regime we leave in place, whether we leave now or a decade from now, will fall.

King Cyrus, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, the Russians, the British, the Russians again…

Khyber Pass. The Hindu Kush Mountains--Know what Hindu Kush means? Hindu-Killer. That's where the Afghans always destroyed invading Indian armies.

They all set out to conquer Afghanistan.

Nobody has ever succeeded.

[stupidicus]

19. wars are/historically have been almost always about resources of the non-human kind

and the most common denominator in the endless quest for control our wouldbe empire has embarked upon is of course, controlling the currency they are purchased with.

preserving the petrodollar http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system-part-3/

which of course is tethered to and part of the bigger picture -- watch this when you get the chance, and spread it around

It's a pretty good presentation of what most who've explored/study these issues, already knew or strongly suspected.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Yes, this makes perfect sense.

Wars are just the mechanism by which the international banks metastasize.

[RKP5637]

29. Thanks for posting this! I'll watch it all later. It looks quite good! n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. The ingrates don't realize that we're killing their families for their own good.

And, that benevolent, humanitarian, us could kill a lot more of them if we want to.

[grahamhgreen]

32. Right, they need to look forward not backward

[Octafish]

23. The USA should nationalize its Defense Industries.

Nationalization would disincentivize war by taking the profit out of the pockets of the warmongers, who also just happen to be the wealthiest part of the nation and the owners and operators of Washington DC.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Why stop there?

Nationalize the banks & the energy industry as well. They're all so interlocked that you would have to nail the whole bunch at once.

[Octafish]

34. Oustanding suggestion, yours.

In addition to reducing war, crime, and futher enriching the already monstrously rich, etc., nationalizing energy, banking and defense would also balance the federal, state and local budgets PDQ.

[Jackpine Radical]

39. Yes, and that is a concise list

of the objections the Oiligarchs have to my modest suggestion.

[grahamhgreen]

30. And it cost us 2 billion every week! While they propose starving grandma.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. "What you mean 'we,' Kemo Sabe?"

Most of us are not in a position to say "No" to the Bush agenda.

Those who are aren't doing so.

[truth2power]

35. More reasons to conclude..

that 9/11 was an inside job.

Just sayin'. I hope the hosts don't delete this post. <sigh>

[Jackpine Radical]

44. I didn't go anywhere near that area for a reason.

I'll just note that it was an interesting coincidence that we were in Afghanistan exactly when we said we would be.

[truth2power]

46. I understand.

[valerief]

37. All wars are industry wars. nt

[Oilwellian]

38. Glad to see this with its own thread

You make some very excellent points.

K&R

[Fire Walk With Me]

45. The MIC requires a permanent war budget. Also, Afghanistan has poppies

which IIRC the Taliban had actually been eliminating under religious doctrine.

I love that time Saint Reagan invited the Taliban to the White House and called them freedom fighters similar to the US's Founding Fathers.