John Pilger, perhaps one of the best independent journalists of our time, recently released this film that I would call a Must See for EVERY American.

Sit down and spend an hour watching this.

I haven't seen what you posted but I've been feeling a little sick after reading about this story a couple days ago. It looks like it is finally starting to get a little press. This is EXACTLY why we'll never truely "win" any war like this. You can't kill a bunch of kids collecting firewood and then expect to be considered the "good guys".

Imagine this happening here. And imagine how you'd feel if these were your kids. How far would you go for revenge? Probably all the way.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/03/afghanistan.isaf.civilians/

I'm with FP here. Not real shocked.

I'd like to see it but I'm pretty sure I already know the ending.

This doc should be mandatory viewing for those who still believe;

"we need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".

Forkin' nonsense.

Stinkingwaters, I'd urge you to watch the movie then weigh in with your observations.
I know you may feel you already understand the concepts here, but there is a lot of truth in this movie I wasn't aware of. It may teach you a few things too.

Oh I'll definately watch it.

Finding the time to is another story all together.

From what I've read about it, there are quite a few self indictments from some Rather familiar names

What I don't get is how it's all allowed to play itself over and over again. Ex: Our proposed military involvment in Libya.

Whilst there is some truth to the "movie".... a "movie" about propaganda from propagandists decrying propaganda is irony at it's best.

Daniel Pearle should've watched this...he may feel differently about those that cut his head off.

Wow. Not even sure what to say. I have no working knowledge of these things as I don't have a TV or read the paper either. My trust for anything other than what I see, think, and feel is pretty minimal. I thought the documentary was pretty well done and intelligently put together. I hope, for our sakes, that it isn't as bad as it seems.

Sadly, I think our country is screwed, and the rest of the world isn't far behind.

I agree Coley.

The first half of the documentary where the family is led out of their home by gunpoint and the little girl is terrified and in tears absolutely breaks my heart. At that point I just wanted to reach through the screen and rescue those children. Broke me up quite a bit.

I agree it's a Doc to see for those that care about themselves and their family. It's about each one of us, and the ramifications that deserves and demands our attention.

what is your point?

I got halfway through the program, and I'm not watching any more.

Saying this is an objective piece of war commentary makes as much sense as calling Fox News objective. It is a piece of crap narrated by some asshole with a British accent.

I have friends "over there", and I have a number of friends and neighbors who have been there and back a number of times. From what I'm seeing so far, this piece is just short of a back handed insinuation of improper conduct by all people involved in this, including the troops on the ground.

Folks, it is our leaders who are the assholes here. It is the corporations like Haliburton who are the assholes here. Time to stop being the world's police force (except for heading over to the Gulf of Aden and sinking every boat suspected of being pirates).

War is hell, and it needs to be horrorific and extremely violent. If it isn't, you have Vietnam. Sorry about the collateral damage, but the folks who lived there had a choice. Stay with the status quo, or rise up and overtake the assholes. Looks like most of Northern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula is figuring this out, finally.

Saddam needed to be killed. He was the reincarnation of a madman on the scale of Stalin and Hitler. Seriously bad actor.

Have a good night. I have some .40 S&W to reload.

Dogfish I respect your position but think feeling sorry about the collateral damage falls quite short when said damage is to such an extreme. That's one of the strongest points being made in this film...that Civilian Casualties are grossly undervalued in the way the US/NATO conducts their war campaign.
You are nearly making an argument that its acceptable collateral damage to "inadvertently" kill nearly 1 Million Iraqi citizens to remove one vicious dictator...who wasn't as vicious (WMD) as our government proclaimed... using a media which parroted every false word.

I have no issue with you Riley, just the piece of crap film. I like you a lot, but I never let others think for me, I don't align myself entirely to any one party, and I sort through all of the crap out there to find the kernels of truth. Unfortunately I have to do a lot of sorting.

The sad thing is that folks out there align themselves to the left or to the right, and then take everything their party and other like-thinkers spew as the gospel truth.

We are pretty much screwed for the next 5-10 years based on how things are going, and unless we demand real change, not the status quo that Obama has brought us, this same cycle of boom, bust, and war will continue.

Notice how Obama has started to rattle his sabre a bit about Libya? Depending on how things go against Ghadafi, we will likely see limited US military involvement there within the next 90 days. If he gets to bold, we'll bloody his nose.

The reason war needs to be so horrorific is to remind us of the cost, and keep us from doing it all the time. Fortunately, and unfortunately, the US has seen very limited casualties compared to our foes, so WE fail to learn the lesson that we are teaching others.

It is time we stop being the world's police force, which is something I think most of us agree on.

I just watched the first clip. Reminds me of Fahrenheit 911. I don't have anything but respect for our soldiers. I also believe we were justified going into Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. I don't believe Shock and Awe was justified. Bush II and his cronies squandered our economic surplus we had under Clinton and ran up our current deficits. I miss the days of $0.87/gallon gasoline and a balanced budget.

Now we are in a civil war Republicans vs Democrats. Republicans vs unions. Republicans and Democrats vs public workers. Right wing conservatives vs moderates. Non-union workers vs union workers. Politicians vs the middle class. The rich vs the lower class. This war is playing out in the capitol of Wisconsin right now. Its not the workers fault the economy is in the tank. The seeds of our economic depression were planted in waging a war against Iraq over WMD that was based on false intelligence. We are paying the price for Bush's and Blair's arrogance.

Yes, this.

I still worry that the radical Islamists will seize this, their golden opportunity to dominate these nations in turmoil.
There has never been anything like this.....it could be 1979 x 6 or 7 (I lost count)

The reason our economy is in the tank is because of debt spending. We put a two-front land war in Asia on a credit card. The only part of the plan that didn't work for BushCo was that the chickens came home to roost BEFORE the GOP stuffed what they cash could into some suitcases and fly home to their mansions. I think that was their plan. Empty the treasury directing all the dough into their own private companies, fly the coop, then blame the whole disaster on the next guy in office....which the GOP is STILL attempting to do.

Our economy will never fully recover until we end outsourcing & offshoring and shut down companies that hire illegals and stop war profiteers from dictating our entire foreign policy.

The deregulation the banks gained under Gingrich's Contract With America and the hemorrhage of domestic living wage jobs (union) caused by the GOP's Free Trade Agreements, later combined with BushCo's massive debt spending was far more than ANY economy could ever handle.

Unions are not our enemy. Unless you are a billionaire industrialist.
And no one on this board is. As long as working stiffs keep swallowing the line of Ayn Rand horseschit, they'll continue to allow the wealthy elite to turn our republic into an oligarchy that makes tsarist Russia look like a fair deal.

+ 30,000,000

+1

Dogfish we're a lot alike in the fact that we don't align to one party or the other. I wasn't attacking what you said in any way, just pointing out some issues the film raises that are factual and too often ignored by Americans.

Good journalism presents facts and data without bias, then allows the viewer draw their own conclusions. I think John does a great job of that here.

Every day, we see more and more independent media present more and more facts and data that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc are unjust and a failure of good American policy...with one of the main point's of my post and this film being, that the media and war machine hide the real facts.





http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/20113718714585594.html#


While we have been fixated on successive Arab breakthroughs and victories against tyranny and extremism, Washington is failing miserably but discreetly in Afghanistan.

The American media's one-obsession-at-a-time coverage of global affairs might have put the spotlight on President Obama's slow and poor reaction to the breathtaking developments starting in Tunisia and Egypt. But they spared him embarrassing questions about continued escalation and deaths in Afghanistan.

In spite of its international coalition, multiple strategies, hundreds of billions of dollars, and a surge of tens of thousands of troops, the US is unable to conclude its longest war yet or at least reverse its trend.

Recent "reports" from the war front have been of two kinds. Some official or analytical in nature and heavily circulated in Washington portray a war going terribly well. On the other hand, hard news from the ground tell a story of US fatigue, backtracking and tactical withdrawals or redeployments which do not bode well for defeating the Taliban or forcing them to the negotiations' table.

For example, while the US military's decision to withdraw from the Pech valley was justified on tactical need to redeploy troops for the task of "protecting the population", keen observers saw it as a humiliating retreat from what the Pentagon previously called a very strategic position and sacrificed some hundred soldiers defending it.

Likewise, strategic analysts close to the administration speak triumphantly of US surge and hi-tech firepower inflicting terrible cost on the Taliban, killing many insurgents and driving many more from their sanctuaries.

But news from the war front show the Taliban unrelenting, mounting counterattacks and escalating the war especially in areas where the US has "surged" its troops. And while the majority of the 400 Afghan districts are "calmer", they remain mostly out of Kabul's control.

What success?

Those with relatively long memories recall the then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's claims that most of Afghanistan was secure in early 2003 and that American forces had changed their strategy from major combat operations to stabilisation and reconstruction project.

But the Taliban continued to carry daily attacks on government buildings, US positions and international organisations. Two years later, the US was to suffer the worst and deadliest year since the war began.

Today's war pundits are in the same state of denial. For all practical purpose, Washington has given up on its counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy devised under McChrystal and Petreaus.

Instead, it is pursuing a heavy handed and terribly destructive crackdown that includes special operations, assassinations, mass demolitions, air and night raids etc that have led to anything but winning the country, let alone its hearts and minds.

The killing of nine Afghan children last week - all under the age of 12 - by US attack helicopters has once again put the spotlight on the US military's new aggressive methods.

The results are so devastating for the conduct of the war and to Washington's clients, that President Karzai not only distanced himself from the US methods, but also publicly rejected Washington's apology for the killings.

Nor is the recruitment and training of the Afghan forces going well. Indeed, many seem to give up on the idea that Afghan security forces could take matters into their hands if the US withdraws in the foreseeable future.

Worse, US strategic co-operation with Pakistan - the central pillar of Obama's PakAf strategy - has cooled after the arrest of a CIA contractor for the killing of two Pakistanis even though he presumably enjoys diplomatic immunity.

Reportedly, it has also led to a "breakdown" in co-ordination between the two countries intelligence agencies, the CIA and the ISI.

But the incident is merely a symptom of a bigger problem between the two countries. A reluctant partner, the Pakistani establishment and its military are unhappy with US strategy which they reckon could destabilise their country and strengthen Afghanistan and India at their expense.

That has not deterred Washington from offering ideas and money to repair the damage. However, it has become clear that unlike in recent years, future improvement in their bilateral relations will most probably come as a result of the US edging closer to Pakistan's position, not the opposite.

All of which makes one wonder why certain Washington circles are rushing to advance the "success story".

Running out of options

The Afghan government' incapability to take on the tasks of governing or securing the country beyond the capital, and the incapacity of the Obama administration to break the Taliban's momentum does not bode well for an early conclusion of the war.

To their credit some of Obama's war and surge supporters realise that there is no military solution for Afghanistan. Clearly, their claims of battlefield successes help justify the rush to talk to the Taliban.

But it is not yet clear whether the presumably ongoing exploratory secret negotiations with the Taliban are serious at all, or will lead to comprehensive negotiations and eventually a lasting deal. The last "Taliban commander" Washington dialogued with in the fall turned out to be an impostor - a shopkeeper from Quetta!

If the Taliban does eventually accept to sit down with Obama or Karzai envoys, the US needs to explain why it fought for 10 years only to help the group back to power.

Secretary of state Hillary Clinton has begun the humiliating backtracking last month: "Now, I know that reconciling with an adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even unimaginable. And diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends. But that is not how one makes peace."

Facing up to the reality

The mere fact that the world's mightiest superpower cannot win over the poorly armed Taliban after a long decade of fighting, means it has already failed strategically, regardless of the final outcome.

The escalation of violence and wasting billions more cannot change that. It is history. The quicker the Obama administration recognises its misfortunes, minimises its losses and convenes a regional conference over the future of Afghanistan under UN auspices, the easier it will be to evacuate without humiliation.

Whether the US eventually loses the war and declares victory; negotiates a settlement and withdraw its troops, remains to be seen. What is incontestable is that when you fight the week for too long, you also become weak.

All of which explains the rather blunt comments made in a speech at the end of February, by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates when he said "... any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it."

Amen.

This paragraph is pretty key IMO:

"The escalation of violence and wasting billions more cannot change that. It is history. The quicker the Obama administration recognises its misfortunes, minimises its losses and convenes a regional conference over the future of Afghanistan under UN auspices, the easier it will be to evacuate without humiliation."

Unfortunately I think this would cost him the election. Tea baggers, RWWJs, etc., would jump on him in an instant an accuse him of being weak, unpatriotic, America-hating, etc., etc. It would work and then Rudy Giuliani would become prez.

To most Americans the war in Afghanistan is going well because of biased reports. Additionally it is a far more *just* war than Iraq. It would be hard for any president to justify bailing when victory is in sight...





... or so we're told.

The reason we are struggling over there is we get worried about killing 9 childern. Listen to the brother of the killed man. He instantly says he has no choice but to kill americans. No, he could actually point out where the insurgents are living. The truth is, they are protecting the terrorists, the same one that did attack us on 911 and would be back here agian if they had the choice. Look at the population in the main parts of the county. Before our invasion, 5000 afghani girls were enrolled in school, now the number is 2.1 million and would be probably be higher if the Taliban did not inflict its will in many areas.

The worst thing we could do would be to leave. It will embolden those that hate us and leave those who embraced us at risk. People can try to say that they will hate us, but look at history. Do the Germans or Janpenese hate us. No. But the North Koreans still are a thorn in our side. We left Veitnam and watched the the killing of millions in bordering Cambodia.

My father was one of the children in Germany who watched many of his freinds and family die in WWII. He watched people starve to death in front of him. He also remembers when the Nazi party hung the mayor in his town for being Jewish. The price of war is exactly what is needed to keep people from embracing it. When we try to fight without a price, we fail. Do it fast and strongly, like the pulling off of a bandage. Trying to fight on terms that protect everyone protects noone. It is why we lost in Vietnam and why we are struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Liberals love to embrace the Wiki leak documents while still questioning why we went into Iraq. The truth of many actions are hidden from us to keep diplomatic peace. The wiki leaks indicate we went on the bidding of Saudi Arabia, but I think we can add Isreal and other middle Eastern Countries to into the mix. On the same note, if we had hit hard the first time and turned the capital of Iraq into dust, we would see a different mood in the country. Pussy footing around has cost millions of lives that could have been saved. People will always question the dropping of A bombs on Hirosaki, but in the end they saved many more lives then they cost. Until people realize that war is not pretty and not fair, we will continue to loose more than we actually save.

When I see a young man from our valley come home with a leg amputated at the hip, the other leg amputated above the knee and a hand blown off, I have to ask why? Is there a strategic value to either Afghanistan or Pakistan? Personally, I think I'd let India have at Pakistan. There's a lot more Indian's than there are Paki's. There is never going to be any semblance of normal for either Pakistan or Afghanistan. They've proven over centuries that they are incapable of what we would call normal behavior. Nothing's going to change.

Maybe we need one well placed bomb, and rename that part of the world Lake Afghanistan.....

So your solution is to kill more civilians? 90% of the deaths in these 2 wars are civilians. That's a higher rate of civilian casualties than any other war the U.S. has been in, including WW2. Almost 1 million civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a lot of people. Viet Nam was an even bigger catastrophe of civilian deaths because our soldiers and marines were intentionally targeting them at times.

Don't you understand this is why we can't win in Afghanistan? If China invaded the U.S., wiped out our military and infrastructure, dropped a bomb on my house and killed my family because they thought they were insurgents, you're god damn right I'd start blowing their heads of with reckless intention. I would not care if I lived or died.

Therein lies the problem.

game.. set.. match
Well put!

It's a sh!thole. Nobody is going to win, no matter what. Get out and let them kill each other.....

Someone remind me why it's not a good idea to cut the military budget in half again? I think it's in our national security interests to have a smaller military. Both economically, and internationally/politically because we won't be able/tempted to be in places like this.

Yet somehow military spending is "untouchable?"

WTF?

The problem with military spending is that it is THE biggest pork barrel in the entire US budget.

It's the opposite of NIMBY...everyone's for saving money, just don't close the base in my district, or reduce the billions spent on fighter jets in my district, or the billions spent on guidance systems in my district, or the billions spent on naval ships in my district...blah, blah, blah...

It's just like the current entitlement debate...everyone wants to reduce spending on entitlements, so long as it's not MY entitlement that gets cut.

"No Gubmint Takeover of Health Care! But Keep Your Hands Off My Medicare!!"

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,
A couple of things to consider.

First, my opinion is that the high rate of civilians is result of many reasons. One, the insurgents are using human shields. Two, the insurgents are also targeting civilian targets. And three, it is often hard to distinguish between civilian and military casualtyies. Often you will have the family claiming one thing while the military is claiming the other.

More importantly though, is that it is my opinion that the high civilian casualty rate is a dirrect result of the type of war we are killing. Rather than just going hard and letting the civilians know that a war is going on, we walk in slowly, poke around and then leave again. The local polutation sticks around providing cover for the insurgents, and the rate of civilians involved goes up. In a way, it gets back to your China question. What would I do. I would do what my fathers family did in WWII. They fled as far away from the fighting as possible. From what I can tell they were all over Europe fleeing the fighting. During the war my dad learned close to 5 languages they moved so much. At the same time, other members of his family were fighting.

So that is what I would do if China invaded us. I would send my family as far away from the fighting as possible, regardless of which side or where that was. Depending on how I felt about what was going on I would join the fighting on which ever side I felt was right, or leave with my family to where they are going. In no case would I sit there and expect that war could go on all around me and walk away unscathed. The way we are trying to this war hints of the belief that it is possible. In no way is it. Kind of reminds me of how Israel sent out warnings of targets only to see the target over run with civilians. I guaranty that they were not there because they believed the bombs were going to fall, they were there to prevent it.

I will say it again. Let people know you intend to hit hard. Hit hard, avoid civilians but don't put yourself or targets at risk and finish your objective. This baloney about sitting in the middle of a conflict and then crying about it has no standing with me. There is no reason what so ever for it.

One last point, I really am not arguing for the validity of why we went as much as for the fact that we are not fighting correctly and could take care of this much more effectively and humanely fighting under traditional rules of war then we are with limited conflict. Had we done this right we would have declared war, then after an initial waiting period to allow civilain removal, carpet bombed every inch of every military target. No applogies, no pussy footing. Go in efficeintly and devestating. The shock and awe with no stopping until every target is gone. Then immediate relief for the civilian casualties and immediate aid to those in need. We are fighting the war to look good for the media and public opinion. It can't be done.

You say this in the context of discussing how 9 kids were killed out on the open collecting firewood. Same thing with the killed journalists gunned down. How you can watch some of the footage and then say, "Well, the family says one thing and the military says another" and make it seem like a "who knows?" question is absurd. "Hey, the government says 9/11 was bad. OBL says it was good. So, who knows?"

Really?

It is a straight-up no-win situation. The only way to not lose as much is to get out as fast as possible.

Our "objective" was to "bring democracy", "remove the dictator", and to "win the hearts and minds of the populace".

We can argue all day about how much BS those "objectives" actually were, but you don't do any of our stated objectives by killing civilians...you directly 100% act counter to your stated objectives.

Period.

Gun barrel democracy has never worked, and never will work...

If we had been honest and said "this is about oil and money, here we come, get the fukk out of the way if you don't want to die", then your arguments would hold water.

The only honest objectives in war are to kill people, and take things...any other objective is unachievable, and shouldn't even be entertained as a realistic objective, no matter what the politicos are telling us.

Fish on...

Todd

Gun barrel democracy would indicate we are forcing democracy and that the populace does not want it. That is something that is being show to be untrue through out the middle east in the last few weeks. To say war is only to kill people is a farce. The short term objective of war is to neutralize those opposing you. Rarely killing people the true objective. Some are about land, some are about freedom to choose, some are about stopping killing, it all depends.

You keep talking about oil and money but ignore the question of stability. The wiki leak documents hint towards one of the main things that the liberals want to deny. If we are to believe them, then we would accept the fact that the Saudis precieved Sadaam as a threat to the area. That would to a degree also indicate that they felt he had the weapons to validate that threat.

So, did we achieve the objectives we set out to achieve. Well, first of all Sadaam is gone. Two, there is a resemblence of democracy in the area, and three, the seeing as how the rest of the arab world seems to be crying for our help in there ongoing revolutions, we did win the hearts of a percentage of the populace, something we did not have before entering the area.

There's nothing approaching Democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan...where we shoved it down their throats, complete with oil proceeds already divvied up, and millions of dead civilians.

Egypt, Tunisia, perhaps even Libya...doing it on their own, their people choosing a different government.

I suppose you're going to tell me next that their doing it because of the Bush Doctrine, right?

"Hey, look! The US blew the schit out of two countries, stole their resources, shot the hell out of their civilians, and are still there fighting today, making more terrorists than have ever existed on the planet...I think that they are doing such a great job that we should have a popular uprising! Viva Bush!"

Anyone who thinks that should have their heads examined.

Fish on...

Todd

Well I have been in Afghanistan for 4 months now and have 4 to go. I can tell you from my first hand experience in the area we operate that the Taliban/insurgents kill/injure Afghani civilians almost daily (not sure if your documentary talks about that but I doubt it). I have seen children badly injured by IEDs that were placed to target the Afghani people in that area (usually in brush piles since they tend to gather fire wood nonstop), usually done to deter them from working with the US forces. We have also had Afghani civilians that were employed doing various jobs that quit after being threatened with torture (seems cutting off ears or the nose is popular) and in a few cases some were ambushed and killed on the way home. I have also seen a farmer (looked like any of the

And how many of those IED's would be planted in the roads blowing up civilians if we weren't there right now?

We at least had a good reason to go into Afghanistan...I wish we wouldn't have taken our eye off the ball and fukked around in Iraq at all, and just finished the job in Afghanistan and got the hell out.

Royal fuckin screwup, that.

Fish on...

Todd

+1

Thanks for your service and get home SAFE!

"Hopefully my generation can accomplish this over time."

Your generation just started multiple wars with Facebook and Twitter in the ME is that the sort of accomplishment you were referencing? Do you read? If you do history is full of wars that accomplished a variety of goals. War is in the nature of man and you cannot hope and wish that nature away. You cannot back up any of your statements and I doubt I am off far if I said you are completely unqualified to pass any judgment on anything related to war and should not mistake your opinions for facts. Your generations music still sucks.

Pretty hard to compare what happened in Tunisia and Egypt with Iraq and Afghanistan, or to even call them "wars", even in the losest sense.

Libya might be a different story...but it wasn't the rebels who started shooting and strafing with gunships.

Fish on...

Todd

What if "the Bush doctrine" that tripped up Palins response to perkys question (you know the clip..the one that liberals still jerk off to) became the impetus for change in the Middle East?

Chiity phuckin' countries falling for the idea of Democracy....

As I said above...still applies.

Fish on...

Todd

No matter what your views on evolution vs. creation, you have to admit that fighting wars is pretty compelling evidence that we just might be spawned from chimps. Without question, our technology and weaponry put us on a different level, but the wars we wage are for no higher purpose than the territorial battles primates wage. Essentially it comes down to us wanting something, someone else having it, and us using brute force to take it. Either that, or it's a matter of someone taking too much from us and us getting tired of letting them take it. Sounds somewhat similar to the situation we find ourselves in today, yes?

Like them or not, wars have been a big part of what has made the US a dominant world power. At some point after WWII ended, however, we somehow lost sight of the fact that successfully waging a war requires a tangible, identifiable enemy and clear, attainable objectives. Our current wars are especially devoid of those characteristics, and that is why they are accomplishing nothing. Our War on Terror has succeeded only in exacerbating the effects of the recession and compromising our freedom and quality of life at home. On the other hand, it has made a lot of rich people a lot richer and begun to eliminate the bothersome middle class, so it hasn't been all bad.

Without question, many honorable men and women have given their lives over the years in the name of protecting our freedom (or making us richer as a nation, which isn't too bad either), and those people should be remembered with the utmost gratitude and honor. It's the ones telling them what to do that I don't respect as much.

The rise of US domination wasn't hurt by the fact that Japan, Britain, and Germany were blown to Hell in WWII...there was a lot of slack to be picked up, and we took the ball and ran.

Fish on...

Todd

SS,

"Standing or marching in the streets to demand a say in how you are governed is not an act of war. That's just dumb."

You see what you want to see, people are being killed in Yemen, Iran, Egypt and others by their government and or their own people. Talk to people that live in those countries they call it war and predict it will get much worse with so many competing interests. People with means have left.

Whoever thinks Afghanistan is/was a valid war is very mistaken. The people of Afghanistan never attacked us, no Taliban fighter has ever been found outside of Afghanistan or Pakistan with arms against American forces. We could have gone in an wiped out Al Qaeda and walked. What the Taliban does to its own people in its own country may be wrong but it is not our militaries concern. Attacking Afghanistan is equal to attacking Oklahoma because Tim McVeigh lived there before OK City.

We didn't go into Afghanistan because the Taliban attacked us...we went into Afghanistan because they were harboring Bin Laden, and knew what he was up to...we tried to negotiate with them to turn him over to us, they told us to pound sand, so we went and did our thing...

I still think it was stupid, but at least there was a reason, albeit a kind of lame one...we could have sent commandos in to find Bin Laden, and we probably would have killed him in a week or two.

Fish on...

Todd

>

"Demonstrating is not an act of war"

Americans view the world through our laws and customs that is not only arrogant but ignorant . Demonstating is treated an act of war agains the state in many countries specifically Iran and China and most dictatorships. Go see the world and your local library.

One of the best wars fought was the first gulf war. Violent, quick, decisive. If there is anything define as a good war, this was it. There was a specific objective, and it was achieved. 100 hours (ground war), essentially, and we were done.

Unfortunately, everything since then has been highly politicized, and therefore corrupted.

Quick, violent, horrorific. Anything less is a waste of life and effort.

To achieve a goal, you first need to have a goal.

And that, in a nutshell, is why what is going on in the ME is perceived as a failure...unfortunately (and perhaps this should be in the conspiracy thread), I believe a never ending, open ended "War on Terrah" was the goal all along...and it's being achieved famously.

Fish on...

Todd

Agreed.

Here's a Bahraini committing a senseless act of violence...he had the gall to stand in front of soldiers with his hands at his side and bow.

After he was shot in the torso, he then had the gall to be impolite enough to stand up, whereby he was shot in the face.

If you are sensitive, have children around, or anything like that...don't click on this video...it's pretty graphic and disturbing.



Fish on...

Todd

Just quoting for posterity.

Nice one Andy...

Here's my Submission for the day about the subsurface motivations behind the Libya "No Fly zone"...yet another war where the American people are being deceived...This was published on 3/9, over a week ago:



Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23548
The US and NATO are supporting an armed insurrection in Eastern Libya, with a view to justifying a "humanitarian intervention".

This is not a non-violent protest movement as in Egypt and Tunisia. Conditions in Libya are fundamentally different. The armed insurgency in Eastern Libya is directly supported by foreign powers. The insurrection in Benghazi immediately hoisted the red, black and green banner with the crescent and star: the flag of the monarchy of King Idris, which symbolized the rule of the former colonial powers. (See Manlio Dinucci, Libya-When historical memory is erased, Global Research, Febraury 28, 2011)

US and NATO military advisers and special forces are already on the ground. The operation was planned to coincide with the protest movement in neighbouring Arab countries. Public opinion was led to believe that the protest movement had spread spontaneously from Tunisia and Egypt to Libya.



The Obama administration in consultation with its allies is assisting an armed rebellion, namely an attempted coup d'Etat:

"The Obama administration stands ready to offer "any type of assistance" to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said [February 27] "we've been reaching out to many different Libyans who are attempting to organize in the east and as the revolution moves westward there as well," Clinton said. "I think it's way too soon to tell how this is going to play out, but we're going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance that anyone wishes to have from the United States." Efforts are under way to form a provisional government in the eastern part of the country where the rebellion began at midmonth.

The U.S., Clinton said, is threatening more measures against Gadhafi's government, but did not say what they were or when they might be announced.

The U.S. should "recognize some provisional government that they are trying to set already up..." [McCain]

Lieberman spoke in similar terms, urging "tangible support, (a) no-fly zone, recognition of the revolutionary government, the citizens' government and support for them with both humanitarian assistance and I would provide them with arms."

(Clinton: US ready to aid to Libyan opposition - Associated, Press, February 27, 2011, emphasis added)

The Planned Invasion

A military intervention is now contemplated by US NATO forces under a "humanitarian mandate".

--"The United States is moving naval and air forces in the region" to "prepare the full range of options" in the confrontation with Libya: Pentagon spokesperson Col. Dave Lapan of the Marines made this announcement [March 1]. He then said that "It was President Obama who asked the military to prepare for these options," because the situation in Libya is getting worse." ( Manlio Dinucci, Preparing for "Operation Libya": The Pentagon is "Repositioning" its Naval and Air Forces..., Global Research, March 3, 2011, emphasis added)

The real objective of "Operation Libya" is not to establish democracy but to take possession of Libya's oil reserves, destabilize the National Oil Corporation (NOC) and eventually privatize the country's oil industry, namely transfer the control and ownership of Libya's oil wealth into foreign hands. The National Oil Corporation (NOC) is ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies. (The Energy Intelligence ranks NOC 25 among the world’s Top 100 companies. - Libyaonline.com)

Libya is among the World's largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, more than twice those of the US. (for further details see Part II of this article, "Operation Libya" and the Battle for Oil)

The planned invasion of Libya, which is already underway is part of the broader "Battle for Oil". Close to 80 percent of Libya’s oil reserves are located in the Sirte Gulf basin of Eastern Libya. (See map below)

The strategic assumptions behind "Operation Libya" are reminiscent of previous US-NATO military undertakings in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

In Yugoslavia, US-NATO forces triggered a civil war. The objective was to create political and ethnic divisions, which eventually led to the break up of an entire country. This objective was achieved through the covert funding and training of armed paramilitary armies, first in Bosnia (Bosnian Muslim Army, 1991-95) and subsequently in Kosovo (Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), 1998-1999). In both Kosovo and Bosnia, media disinformation (including outright lies and fabrications) were used to support US-EU claims that the Belgrade government had committed atrocities, thereby justifying a military intervention on humanitarian grounds.

Ironically, "Operation Yugoslavia" is now on the lips of US foreign policy makers: Senator Lieberman has "likened the situation in Libya to the events in the Balkans in the 1990s when he said the U.S. "intervened to stop a genocide against Bosnians. And the first we did was to provide them the arms to defend themselves. That's what I think we ought to do in Libya." (Clinton: US ready to aid to Libyan opposition - Associated, Press, February 27, 2011, emphasis added

The strategic scenario would be to push towards the formation and recognition of an interim government of the secessionist province, with a view to eventually breaking up the country.

This option is already underway. The invasion of Libya has already commenced.

"Hundreds of US, British and French military advisers have arrived in Cyrenaica, Libya's eastern breakaway province,... The advisers, including intelligence officers, were dropped from warships and missile boats at the coastal towns of Benghazi and Tobruk" (DEBKAfile, US military advisers in Cyrenaica, February 25, 2011)

US and allied special forces are on the ground in Eastern Libya, providing covert support to the rebels This was recognized when British SAS Special Forces commandos were arrested in the Benghazi region. They were acting as military advisers to opposition forces:

" Eight British special forces commandos, on a secret mission to put British diplomats in touch with leading opponents of Col Muammar Gadaffi in Libya, ended in humiliation after they were held by rebel forces in eastern Libya, The Sunday Times reported today.

The men, armed but in plain clothes, claimed they were there to check the opposition's needs and offer help." (Top UK commandos captured by rebel forces in Libya: Report, Indian Express, March 6, 2011, emphasis added)

The SAS forces were arrested while escorting a British "diplomatic mission" which entered the country illegally (no doubt from a British warship) for discussions with leaders of the rebellion. The British foreign office has acknowledged that "a small British diplomatic team [had been] sent to eastern Libya to initiate contacts with the rebel-backed opposition". U.K. diplomatic team leaves Libya - World - CBC News, March 6, 2011).

Ironically, the reports not only confirm Western military intervention (including several hundred special forces), they also acknowledge that the rebellion was firmly opposed to the illegal presence of foreign troops on Libyan soil:

"The SAS's intervention angered Libyan opposition figures who ordered the soldiers to be locked up on a military base. Gadaffi's opponents fear he could use any evidence of western military interference to rally patriotic support for his regime." (Reuters, March 6, 2011)

The captured British "diplomat" with seven special forces soldiers was a member of British Intelligence, an MI6 agent on a "secret mission". (The Sun, March 7, 2011)

Confirmed by US NATO statements, weapons are being supplied to opposition forces. There are indications although no clear evidence so far that weapons were delivered to the insurgents prior to the onslaught of the rebellion. In all likelihood, US NATO military and intelligence advisers were also on the ground prior to the insurgency. This was the pattern applied in Kosovo: special forces supporting and training the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in the months prior to the 1999 bombing campaign and invasion of Yugoslavia.

As events unfold, however, Libyan government forces have regained control over rebel positions:

"The big offensive pro-Qaddafi forces launched [March 4] to wrest from rebel hands control of Libya's most important towns and oil centers resulted [March 5] in the recapture of the key town of Zawiya and most of the oil towns around the Gulf of Sirte. In Washington and London, talk of military intervention on the side of the Libyan opposition was muted by the realization that field intelligence on both sides of the Libyan conflict was too sketchy to serve as a basis for decision-making." (Debkafile, Qaddafi pushes rebels back. Obama names Libya intel panel, March 5, 2011, emphasis added)

The opposition movement is firmly divided regarding the issue of foreign intervention.

The division is between the grassroots movement on the one hand and the US supported "leaders" of the armed insurrection who favor foreign military intervention on "humanitarian grounds".

The majority of the Libyan population, both the supporters and opponents of the regime, are firmly opposed to any form of outside intervention.




Media Disinformation

The broad strategic objectives underlying the proposed invasion are not mentioned by the media. Following a deceitful media campaign, where news was literally fabricated without reporting on what was actually happening on the ground, a large sector of international public opinion has granted its unbending support to foreign intervention, on humanitarian grounds.

The invasion is on the Pentagon's drawing board. It is slated to be carried out irrespective of the demands of the people of Libya including the opponents of the regime, who have voiced their aversion to foreign military intervention in derogation of the nation's sovereignty.

Naval and Air Force Deployment

Were this military intervention to be carried out it would result in an all out war, a blitzkrieg, implying the bombing of military as well as civilian targets.

In this regard, General James Mattis, Commander of U.S. Central Command, (USCENTCOM), has intimated that the establishment of a "no fly zone" would de facto involve an all out bombing campaign, targeting inter alia Libya's air defense system:

‘It would be a military operation – it wouldn’t be just telling people not to fly airplanes. 'You would have to remove air defence capability in order to establish a no-fly zone, so no illusions here.' (U.S. general warns no-fly zone could lead to all-out war in Libya, Mail Online, March 5, 2011, emphasis added).

A massive US and allied naval power has been deployed along the Libyan coastline.

The Pentagon is moving its warships to the Mediterranean. Aircraft carrier USS Enterprise had transited through the Suez Canal within a few days following the insurrection. ( http://www.enterprise.navy.mil )

U.S. amphibious warships, USS Ponce and USS Kearsarge, have also been deployed in the Mediterranean.



USS Enterprise transits the Suez Canal in Egypt, February 15, 2011, handout photo, U.S. N



400 US Marines have been dispatched to the Greek Island of Crete "ahead of their deployment on warships off Libya" ( "Operation Libya": US Marines on Crete for Libyan deployment, times of Malta, March 3, 2011).

Meanwhile Germany, France, Britain, Canada and Italy are in the process of deploying war vessels along the Libyan coast.

Germany has deployed three war ships using the pretext of assisting in the evacuation of refugees on the Libya-Tunisia border. "France has decided to send the Mistral, its helicopter-carrier, which, according to the Defense Ministry will contribute to evacuation of thousands of Egyptians." (Towards the Coasts of Libya: US, French and British Warships Enter the Mediterranean, Agenzia Giornalistica Italia, March 3, 2011) Canada has dispatch (March 2) Navy Frigate HMCS Charlottetown.

Meanwhile, US 17th Air Force, named US Air Force Africa based at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany is assisting in evacuation of refugees. US-NATO air force facilities in Britain, Italy, France and the Middle East are on standby.


And further reading:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23605

The establishment of a no fly zone is on the drawing board of the Pentagon. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, supported by the Arab League and the Organization for African Unity (OUA) have labelled Libya as “An Unfriendly Nation”.

The scenario envisaged by Washington is to involve Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in aerial attacks directed against Libya.

They have also called on Saudi Arabia to supply opposition forces with weapons.

Reports confirm that NATO special forces and military advisers to the rebellion are on the ground in Eastern Libya.

The geopolitical and economic implications of a US-NATO led military intervention directed against Libya are far-reaching.

Libya is among the World’s largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, more than twice those of the US.

A war on Libya would have an immediate impact on the price of crude oil. The latter has risen by 18 percent since the beginning of the insurrection in Libya.

It currently stands at $104.42 a barrel for April delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange, its highest level since the financial crash of September 2008. Since August 2010, the price of crude oil has risen from 75.93 a barrel to 104.42 (March 2011), a hefty increase of 37.5 percent. (See Table below)

Crude Oil (petroleum) – Monthly Price – Commodity Prices
Month Value
Aug-10 75.93
Sep-10 76.14
Oct-10 81.72
Nov-10 84.56
Dec-10 90.1
Jan-11 92.66
March 2011 Price for April Delivery 104. 42

Source indexmundi.com. Crude Oil (petroleum) – Monthly Price – Commodity Prices

A war directed against Libya would push the price of crude oil up to abysmally high levels, potentially triggering a global inflationary spiral, which would result in the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

A sizeable increase in the price of oil over a prolonged period would wreck economic havoc: production and transportation costs would increase dramatically. Hikes in the costs of fuel and energy would trigger a renewed string of bankruptcies in major sectors of economic activity. They would also contribute to a sizeable increase in the external debt of developing countries.

These price hikes, which are already ongoing, would occur despite the abysmally low costs of Middle East oil.

What this means is that powerful institutional speculators on Wall Street with links to the US military and intelligence establishment will cash in on billions of dollars in speculative gains not only in the oil market but also in the commodity and foreign exchange markets.

This money is appropriated from households which must now pay a higher price for fuel.

A “humanitarian war” would be “good for business”. It serves the interests of the institutional speculators, it contributes to a further process of appropriation of money wealth.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (AD)

Financial institutions which had prior knowledge or intelligence of events in Egypt and Libya have already made billions of dollars in speculative gains in the futures and options markets for crude oil.

These global financial and banking institutions, which “placed their bets” several months ago, have “a vested interest in war”. The greater the turmoil and disruption of the crude oil market, the greater the speculative gains. Short term speculative gains due to market volatility are also part of this process. Foreknowledge of the sequence of political or military events and how they affect markets as well as control and/or manipulation of financial news pertaining to these events are an essential part of the betting process.

In this regard we are dealing the with workings of the World’s commodity exchanges, the most important of which is the powerful CME Group created following the merger of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).

Political Rumors and Fake Information

The spreading of rumors and fake information is also a profitable undertaking particularly in relation to short-term movements of commodity markets:

…a rumor that Libya’s long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi had been shot tore across the commodities market, sending U.S. crude oil futures down more than two percent. Other rumors have had similar immediate and sweeping effects, even without real changes in actual oil production or reserves. The cause is oil speculators, such as hedge funds, who buy and sell commodities, profiting by betting on short-term price changes.

These traders are making money on quick movement, wagering on rumors and market blips. They are buying and quickly re-selling commodities they have no intention of actually holding or using. Their opportunism is once again hitting working-class families across the country, increasing the burden on small business owners and farmers,…. (Rep. Joe Courtney: Market Speculators and the Real Cost of Oil, Huffington Post, March 16, 2011)

Read Chossudovsky’s analysis on War and the Economic Crisis

Economic Sanctions

Economic sanctions have been imposed by the US on Libya thereby creating havoc in the supply of Libyan oil to the European Union. These sanctions are indirectly targeted at the European Union. They contribute to weakening Italy and France, which are heavily dependent on Libyan oil.

Libyan oil trade has virtually been paralysed as banks decline to clear payments in dollars due to U.S. sanctions (Reuters, February 8, 2011) “The move follows a decision by major U.S. oil firms to halt trade with Libya and makes it almost impossible for European firms to buy Libyan oil and supply refineries in countries such as France and Italy.

Banks have been instructed [by Wall Street and Washington] to freeze financial transactions: “Banks don’t want to finance the system in Libya, so for the moment no one is getting money for oil. There are big problems for payments,” said a senior trader with a European oil company.

“It’s not a matter of choice, there is an embargo on U.S. dollars coming in and out of Libya,” said a trader with one of the firms, referring to banks’ resistance to clear payments in the U.S. currency.

“All U.S. dollar transactions are being blocked,” the trader said, adding it was not clear at this stage if payments were possible in other currencies and whether any Swiss or European banks were willing to conclude transactions. (Libyan oil trade paralysed, deals in dollars blocked | Energy & Oil | Reuters, 8 February 2011)

Economic Impacts of a US-NATO Military Operation

If this military operation is carried out, oil prices will spiral, contributing to further exacerbating the economic crisis with devastating social consequences, particularly in the Europe Union, which is heavily dependent on Libyan oil.

The hikes in oil prices contribute to increased poverty, they also contribute to a concurrent increase in global food prices (which are also the object of speculative activity on the commodity exchanges) and more generally in the cost of living Worldwide. i.e the consumer price index.

Wheat – Monthly Price – Commodity Prices
Month Value
Aug-10 246.25
Sep-10 271.69
Oct-10 270.29
Nov-10 274.37
Dec-10 306.99
Jan-11 326.54

US$ per metric ton

Maize (corn) – Monthly Price – Commodity Prices
Month Value
Aug-10 175.6
Sep-10 205.84
Oct-10 235.7
Nov-10 236.44
Dec-10 251.02
Jan-11 265.29


US$ per metric ton

Maize (corn), U.S. No. 2 Yellow, FOB Gulf of Mexico, U.S. price, US$ per metric ton
Wheat, No.1 Hard Red Winter, ordinary protein, FOB Gulf of Mexico, US$ per metric ton

Maize (corn) – Monthly Price – Commodity Prices

Wheat – Monthly Price – Commodity Prices

Source indexmundi.com.

The fuel price hikes will in turn have a significant impact on the costs of transportation, international freight and air travel. At the height of a global economic crisis, it will further undermine both domestic and international trade.

All this is known and understood by the major economic actors including the politicians and the speculators. The politicians follow the guidelines set by Wall Street, which largely call the shots on government financial policy.

Regulation of the price of food staples or the retail price of gasoline is considered to be an encroachment on the workings of the “free market”.

What we are dealing with is a corrupt economic system which feeds on war and destruction.

The average price of gasoline at the pump in the US is of the order of 3.80 a gallon, in excess of $4 a gallon in California.

The speculators applaud! The media casually blames the price hikes on Gaddafi… “Households are cutting back on travel, cinema visits and groceries in the UK, where prices jumped to 130.68 pence a liter ($8.06 a gallon) on March 3.

Wish I had been wrong on this. Still time to be wrong, and I'd be happy to be wrong.

Awesome video.