Indefensible Nation

Fieldy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
South Africa.
More anti-Americanism buy the Ex-Treasury Secretary from the Reagan administration. Enjoy! :)

US Hypocrisy Astonishes the World
Indefensible Nation

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Americans have lost their ability for introspection, thereby revealing their astounding hypocrisy to the world.

US War Secretary Robert Gates has condemned the Associated Press and a reporter, Julie Jacobson, embedded with US troops in Afghanistan, for taking and releasing a photo of a US Marine who was wounded in action and died from his injury.

The photographer was on patrol with the Marines when they came under fire. She found the courage and presence of mind to do her job. Her reward is to be condemned by the warmonger Gates as “insensitive.” Gates says her employer, the Associated Press, lacks “judgment and common decency.”

The American Legion jumped in and denounced the Associated Press for a “stunning lack of compassion and common decency.”

To stem opposition to its wars, the War Department hides signs of American casualties from the public. Angry that evidence escaped the censor, the War Secretary and the American Legion attacked with politically correct jargon: “insensitive,” “offended,” and the “anguish,” “pain and suffering” inflicted upon the Marine’s family. The War Department sounds like it is preparing a harassment tort.

Isn’t this passing the buck? The Marine lost his life not because of the Associated Press and a photographer, but because of the war criminals--Gates, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and the US Congress that supports wars of naked aggression that serve no American purpose, but which keeps campaign coffers filled with contributions from the armaments companies.

Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard is dead because the US government and a significant percentage of the US population believe that the US has the right to invade, bomb, and occupy other peoples who have raised no hand against us but are demonized with lies and propaganda.

For the American War Secretary it is a photo that is insensitive, not America’s assertion of the right to determine the fate of Afghanistan with bombs and soldiers.

The exceptional “virtuous nation” does not think it is insensitive for America’s bombs to blow innocent villagers to pieces. On September 4, the day before Gates’ outburst over the “insensitive” photo, Agence France Presse reported from Afghanistan that a US/Nato air strike had killed large numbers of villagers who had come to get fuel from two tankers that had been hijacked from negligent and inattentive occupation forces:

“‘Nobody was in one piece. Hands, legs and body parts were scattered everywhere. Those who were away from the fuel tanker were badly burnt,’ said 32-year-old Mohammad Daud, depicting a scene from hell. The burned-out shells of the tankers, still smoking in marooned wrecks on the riverbank, were surrounded by the charred-meat remains of villagers from Chahar Dara district in Kunduz province, near the Tajik border. Dr. Farid Rahid, a spokesperson in Kabul for the ministry of health, said up to 250 villagers had been near the tankers when the air strike was called in.”

What does the world think of the United States? The American War Secretary and a US military veterans association think a photo of an injured and dying American soldier is insensitive, but not the wipeout of an Afghan village that came to get needed fuel.

The US government is like a criminal who accuses the police of his crime when he is arrested or a sociopathic abuser who blames the victim. It is a known fact that the CIA has violated US law and international law with its assassinations, kidnappings and torture. But it is not this criminal agency that will be held accountable. Instead, those who will be punished will be those moral beings who, appalled at the illegality and inhumanity of the CIA, leaked the evidence of the agency’s crimes. The CIA has asked the US Justice (sic) Department to investigate what the CIA alleges is the “criminal disclosure” of its secret program to murder suspected foreign terrorist leaders abroad. As we learned from Gitmo, those suspected by America are overwhelmingly innocent.

The CIA program is so indefensible that when CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it six months after being in office, he cancelled the program (assuming those running the program obeyed) and informed Congress.

Yet, the CIA wants the person who revealed its crime to be punished for revealing secret information. A secret agency this unmoored from moral and legal standards is a greater threat to our country than are terrorists. Who knows what false flag operation it will pull off in order to provide justification and support for its agenda. An agency that is more liability than benefit should be abolished.

The agency’s program of assassinating terrorist leaders is itself fraught with contradictions and dangers. The hatred created by the US and Israel is independent of any leader. If one is killed, others take his place. The most likely outcome of the CIA assassination program is that the agency will be manipulated by rivals, just as the FBI was used by one mafia family to eliminate another. In order to establish credibility with groups that they are attempting to penetrate, CIA agents will be drawn into participating in violent acts against the US and its allies.

Accusing the truth-teller instead of the evil-doer is the position that the neoconservatives took against the New York Times when after one year’s delay, which gave George W. Bush time to get reelected, the Times published the NSA leak that revealed that the Bush administration was committing felonies by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The neocons, especially those associated with Commentary magazine, wanted the New York Times indicted for treason. To the evil neocon mind, anything that interferes with their diabolical agenda is treason.

This is the way many Americans think. America uber alles! No one counts but us (and Israel). The deaths we inflict and the pain and suffering we bring to others are merely collateral damage on the bloody path to American hegemony.

The attitude of the “freedom and democracy” US government is that anyone who complains of illegality or immorality or inhumanity is a traitor. The Republican Senator Christopher S. Bond is a recent example. Bond got on his high horse about “irreparable damage” to the CIA from the disclosures of its criminal activities. Bond wants those “back stabbers” who revealed the CIA’s wrongdoings to be held accountable. Bond is unable to grasp that it is the criminal activities, not their disclosure, that is the source of the problem. Obviously, the whistleblower protection act has no support from Senator Bond, who sees it as just another law to plough under.

This is where the US government stands today: Ignoring and covering up government crimes is the patriotic thing to do. To reveal the government’s crimes is an act of treason. Many Americans on both sides of the aisle agree.

Yet, they still think that they are The Virtuous Nation, the exceptional nation, the salt of the earth.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
 
Definately the bombing of civilians is wrong, whether in Iraq or in Serbia or in Aghanistan. The US military should investigate each incident and try their best to prevent this 'collateral damage'. This happened a lot in Serbia too and then in Iraq. Of course we don't really know if these were really villagers or Taliban.

However showing a soldier die to sell papers is wrong too. If the intentions were honourable I may have said that it would maybe be a good thing but we all know that press outfits are commercial enterprises.
 
Civilians at home are not supposed to see the destruction of war.

What good is it showing your own people dying in a war to the people at home? Did they expect anything else from war? Of course people are going to die. You don't have to show it for that reality to be apparent.

If your intention as a journalist is to sway public opinion about a specific war, then good for you, but focus on the justifications or lack thereof. If a nation becomes weary of war simply by the sight of their own dead they are weak and as sure as all hell lack conviction. Rather stop the war, go home and plant some flowers because you don't belong there in the first place.

War is a human necessity but should never EVER be taken lightly or rushed into without the complete and utter conviction of annihilation of your enemy and the occupation of his territories.

If you want to fight and then return home when you're done, rather leave the fight for somebody else.

Just my opinion. In short, America, as much as I love you, you should have stayed home. You clearly want to **** around.
 
If you want to fight and then return home when you're done, rather leave the fight for somebody else.

Just my opinion. In short, America, as much as I love you, you should have stayed home. You clearly want to **** around.

Why would you not return home once you're 'done'? :confused: The problem is these weren't wars of necessity so they're harder to justify.
 
Cockburn's Counterpunch Runs a Syrian Mouthpiece

Joining the other insects and virtual varmints who turn out anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda for Alexander Cockburn's Counterpunch cyber-rag is now one Ramzy Baroud. Baroud's contribution to web thought is to argue that the US is simply being manipulated by dem Joos in Israel into confrontation with Syria. In Baroud's "mind":
 
I think this thread defines juxtaposition. I don't see any real substance in either cases here.
 
LOL Frankie!!

from Jihadiwatch

Welcome, Counterpunch readers!

We're getting a lot of referrals from Shahid Alam's sleazy Counterpunch piece in which he slanders Jihad Watch, LGF and other sites as "hate sites."
and the other link
Jihad Watch, LGF slimed by Shahid Alam

Northeastern University professor Shahid Alam, who has aroused controversy by likening the 9/11 killers to the Founding Fathers, strikes back at his critics in a Counterpunch piece, "The Waves of Hate: Testing Free Speech in America."

And you talk about posting credible sites, maybe you should read your own linked sites before you brainlessly link them here.

Anyway, good for a laugh, Thanks.
 
French Indo-China

If the intentions were honourable I may have said that it would maybe be a good thing but we all know that press outfits are commercial enterprises.

Who -- some claim -- were instumental in causing the Americans to lose the Vietnam War.

Something the War profiteers are determined is NOT going to happen again.

NO more wounded and blown up American soldiers on "Prime-Time"
NO more body bags for public viewing.
NO more "peaceniks" and antiwar demonstrations.

I wonder if they have realised that no-one at home actually gives a damn anymore.

They are all too busy watching the creeping socialism eating away at the constitution and trying to keep head above water.


MW
 
Frankie..

Being anti-war doesn't mean you support the taliban or any other force.
I am against the violation of another sovereign nation's right to freedom and right to choose.

The Taliban originally started out as a force for good, and created security in Afghanistan where there was none, with Brutal Warlards warring among one another and various thugs and gangs running a racket and extorting the local community.

form wikipedia
The Taliban initially enjoyed enormous good will from Afghans weary of the corruption, brutality, and the incessant fighting of Mujahideen warlords. Two contrasting narratives explain the beginnings of the Taliban.[17] One is that the rape and murder of boys and girls from a family traveling to Kandahar or a similar outrage by Mujahideen bandits sparked Mullah Omar and his students to vow to rid Afghanistan of these criminals.[18] The other is that the Pakistan-based truck shipping mafia known as the "Afghanistan Transit Trade" and their allies in the Pakistan government, trained, armed, and financed the Taliban to clear the southern road across Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics of extortionate bandit gangs.

You have such a bias towards the US that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy in their actions and fail to realise that Afghanistan is not a war they can win. It is simply another Vietnam with the poor disadvanted people of America suffering the most since they are the ones providing the soldiers.

Nobody has ever conquered Afghanistan and that is not about to change for any empire, especially an empire that is in decline.

The Stock Market is on the verge of another catastrophic episode which will force Washington to come to its senses.

I think AP is right for showing the US public what is happening to their soldiers in this brutal war.

Pat Oliphant
 
Last edited:
Who -- some claim -- were instumental in causing the Americans to lose the Vietnam War.

Something the War profiteers are determined is NOT going to happen again.

NO more wounded and blown up American soldiers on "Prime-Time"
NO more body bags for public viewing.
NO more "peaceniks" and antiwar demonstrations.

I wonder if they have realised that no-one at home actually gives a damn anymore.

They are all too busy watching the creeping socialism eating away at the constitution and trying to keep head above water.


MW

Maybe if the Soviet Union hadn't been backing the VC and North Viets in their desire to spread imperial Soviet ideology (Communism) the Vietnam war would never have occurred or would have ended sooner.

Ne?

No-one from the left mentions that. Why not?
 
Frankie..

Being anti-war doesn't mean you support the taliban or any other force.
I am against the violation of another sovereign nation's right to freedom and right to choose.

The Taliban originally started out as a force for good, and created security in Afghanistan where there was none, with Brutal Warlards warring among one another and various thugs and gangs running a racket and extorting the local community.

form wikipedia


You have such a bias towards the US that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy in their actions and fail to realise that Afghanistan is not a war they can win. It is simply another Vietnam with the poor disadvanted people of America suffering the most since they are the ones providing the soldiers.

Nobody has ever conquered Afghanistan and that is not about to change for any empire, especially an empire that is in decline.

The Stock Market is on the verge of another catastrophic episode which will force Washington to come to its senses.

I think AP is right for showing the US public what is happening to their soldiers in this brutal war.

Pat Oliphant

I agree that Afganistan is unwinnable. Pulling out is the best option BUT also is containment - cutting Saudi funding to terrorist groups and preventing the spread of heroin from Aghanistan to places like Kosovo and then onward. Cut funding and terrorism dies.

The same in the ME. When the oil finally runs out OR the world uses something else the terrorism will end too.
 
Who -- some claim -- were instumental in causing the Americans to lose the Vietnam War.

A top NV general claimed they were.


No-one from the left mentions that. Why not?

Bedfellows don't speak ill of each other :erm:

I see another 'journalist' has been rescued by soldiers. One dying in the process. The sick irony is these soldiers protect(costing them their life sometimes) the very same people who lie and demonise them while deliberately undermining the war.


I agree that Afganistan is unwinnable.

It's completely winnable. It's question of commitment. If the U.S went into a full scale war effort they'd win in months. But that won't happen because of you know who.....
 
It's completely winnable. It's question of commitment. If the U.S went into a full scale war effort they'd win in months. But that won't happen because of you know who.....

I don't agree. Of course any war is winnable - the point is how far do you go and how much do you spend. If the US sent in 20 million soldiers and had outposts next to every village and on top of every mountain - they'd win - but the moment they pulled out - it would revert to anarchy.

You see to win such a war, the locals must be behind you - in Afghanistan they're not. They have their old ways of doing things - tribal - and a war can't socially engineer that OUT, yes you could kill 90% of the population but then the other 10% would hate you for that. In reasonable terms that war is costly and unnecessary. It is better to contain and cut off funding, if you do that the problems wither away - and the same will happen in the ME, once the oil runs out - the jihadists won't have the $ to buy guns, ammo and explosives. They'll revert to their nomadic, shepherd ways of life.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X