Merry ChristWar


“Abby Martin interviews retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former national security advisor to the Reagan administration, who spent years as an assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell during both Bush administrations. Today, he is honest about the unfixable corruption inside the establishment and the corporate interests driving foreign policy.” [Source]

“In France Marine Le Pen’s National Front Party could bring political change. In the UK Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party or Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party could bring political change. But in the US there is no prospect of change from elections. Change can only come from collapse or from bloody revolution. The American Establishment will not accept change.”
-Paul Craig Roberts, former head of policy at the Department of Treasury under Reagan, and the editor of the Wall Street Journal. [Source]

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized
47 comments on “Merry ChristWar
  1. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Oh, my Blurkel. I have been concentrating on feminism to the exclusion of all else. I don’t think that America is too popular for pursuing this.To add to it, it’s expensive and we can’t afford it.

    Like

  2. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Blurkel,
    I think Cill and his clan are all over the previous post. Please don’t be disappointed if this one is quiet as a result. They are a good bunch.

    Like

  3. blurkel says:

    @ Fuzzie

    I don’t think that America is too popular for pursuing this.To add to it, it’s expensive and we can’t afford it.

    Nations not liking other nations in modern terms goes back to the Crusades at the very least.

    Modern issues have to do with global colonialism. In the case of Afghanistan, as addressed by Col. Wilkerson, what escapes the notice of far too many is that both the UN and the US Dept. Of “Defense” ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia-jan-june10-afghanistan_06-14/ ) picked up on the results of Russian explorations of Afghan mineral wealth, which is the ONLY reason US forces are there now and will remain indefinitely. Even a cursory reading of this report ( http://www.uvm.edu/ieds/sites/default/files/IEDSAfghanistan2011.pdf ) shows just how much money there is to be made by private sources, which will of course be funded and protected by We the People with our blood and treasure. (See more about the rationales to be offered here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-is-worth-waging-afghanistan-s-vast-reserves-of-minerals-and-natural-gas/19769 )

    Private Profits and Public Expenditures to realize them: the only form of Socialism that corporatism will allow.

    I think Cill and his clan are all over the previous post. Please don’t be disappointed if this one is quiet as a result. They are a good bunch.

    Not too worried. People prefer their holiday traditions over global corporatist Realpolitik. It’s about the only real peace people can expect to have anymore. The world again intrudes all too quickly.

    Like

  4. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    So, we’re going to occupy Afganistan indefinirely to protect mineral resources?
    Fron a historical point, all the lapus lazuli woued into ancient Egytian jewelry cane from Afganistan. At that time, that was a long way.

    Like

  5. blurkel says:

    So, we’re going to occupy Afganistan indefinirely to protect mineral resources?

    Indeed. This is also why conservatives berate Obama for “abandoning” Iraq’s oil to ISIL even though the existing government of that nation refused to extend the agreement made with Bush 43 to allow immunity to American forces against war crime accusations ( http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/15/republicans-blame-obama-iraq-bush-signed-agreement-leave.html ). To do anything else would have made the US look just like the foreign invader we really are.

    Vietnam was about rumored oil resources in the Spratly Islands and not fighting communist expansion. Nike seems to be just one of the victors of that war, getting $200 shoes and paying but $1 per day. FYI: these are the islands being contested today among the US, the Philippines, Japan, and China as the primary antagonists.

    Panama was essentially about regaining control over the Panama Canal, now being expanded and modernized so that larger ships can use it. Panama might as well be seen as a state of the US.

    Iraq was about the oil. Iran would have been about the oil. Libya is about the oil. Somalia was about protecting oil tankers from attack. No one gives a damn about Egypt.

    Syria is a bit more complicated. Israel would love to have the pipeline from Iraq to Haifa reopened, and it would also block a Qatari gas pipeline through Turkey to the EU which the Saudis oppose. After all, we cannot go against our Saudi masters, can we? They might use FOX to chastise our leaders for doing so!

    It goes on. And on. And on.

    In January, John Perkins is releasing a new Economic Hit Man book in January. There is much to be learned there as to why the US is not the nation it expects the world to see. I recommend you get a copy once it’s out.

    Like

  6. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Blurkel,
    Americans are not cut out to be imperialists. It’s not in out national character. Another thought. Does it seem that most ot of these mechanations seem to backfire big time?

    Like

  7. SFC Ton says:

    american foreign policy would be rational if the OP was true

    Like

  8. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    While Egypt has no mineral resources, they have agriculture. Compared to the time immediately following WWII, ancient Egypt could produce a surplus of grain with four times the population to feed. That’s what made it so attractive to the Romans. Everytime I think of it, I have to conclude that we may have gotten more stupid since then.

    The Civil War in Ukraine is ongoing and there are recent discoveries of oil and natural gas yet untapped.

    Like

  9. Spawny Get says:

    I wasn’t sure whether to mention this, but it is very relevant to the post, that I’m about to read.

    Just watched a war film that, I think, outshines ‘American Sniper’. And I did like that film. I just am not sure it did the guy justice as a man.

    Not sure that I’d recommend it to anyone who lost friends to mines. There’s no sugar coating that I can see.

    ‘Kajaki’ – based on real events…really. In Helmand 2006
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3622120/

    It’s on Netflix UK at the moment. I’d guess that it’s out there

    Like

  10. SFC Ton says:

    lol I have been to the Helmand a few times. Was supposed to a British/ USMC AO but…. they needed some extra help. I’ll watch though, fo sho.

    Also know a few things about dry river beds, but in my case it saved our ass until more firepower could show up. It was a good day in the end.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Spawny Get says:

    I’ll be interested to hear what you think of it. It got a lot of good write ups. I hadn’t heard of it before.

    Like

  12. SFC Ton says:

    Remind me in a few days and I’ll watch it

    there are a number of good B type films and a few out right documentaries that I think do a good job of conveying reality Or best a film can

    I did not see american sniper; not a fan of seals or hollywood thought that should not be taken as a statement on the man the movie was about, or any dude with a budweiser badge in general. Most of my professional experiences with them are not of the positive sort and at one point in my life we considered going seal hunting vs the official bad guys

    Liked by 1 person

  13. SFC Ton says:

    Cill, I had to teach city boys how to split wood today. Can you imagine grown men who don’t know about splitting axes, splitting wedges/ awls or when using a small hatchet on well aged hardwood you use the like a wedge and drive it through the wood with a hammer of some sorts?

    Like

  14. Cill says:

    “The Ship is Sinking”.

    Yes it is. As I see it, democracy puts the wrong people into positions of power. People can’t be successful in politics unless they are convincing liars.

    I’ve visited every continent including Antarctica, and worked in many countries and dealt with bureaucracies and governments there. I’m not convinced that democracy is the best system. Not only does it put corrupt people into power (as all types of governments do) it’s also a sitting duck to be hijacked by special interest groups that can outdo politicians in lying and deceit. They are most destructive when they combine forces, as Western Governments and leftist-feminism have done. They thrive in democracies because enough of the people can be fooled all of the time. The percentage of voters who can be fooled all the time is steadily growing, thanks to feminism having taken over education.

    Singapore under Lee was an example of a system superior to democracy. The disadvantage of such systems is that they tend to last not much longer than the man.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Cill says:

    I’ve taught young men so useless, they had no idea a hammer can be used to drive in nails rather than peoples heads, or nails could be driven into wood and not just eyes. Put a bunch of those types of guys together and anything can happen. It’s important I teach them to respect me physically early on. I don’t think a wimp or mangina could teach such men.

    Like

  16. Yoda says:

    I don’t think a wimp or mangina could teach such men

    Example here it is,

    Like

  17. BuenaVista says:

    The idea that all wars are a racket, like some set of infinite variations on using the Marines to defend United Fruit in Central America, is sophomoric.

    The CIA went into Afghanistan with duffel bags full of cash and a few hundred operators with one objective: OBL’s head on a pike. The Afghan govt fell in two months. Our guys were on horses.

    Then the politicians took over. It’s important to note that our mainstream government doesn’t believe in killing anything that impairs the national interest.

    Accordingly, the notion of war is absurd. We shouldn’t start shit we don’t want to finish properly. At this point the men in the Levant and afpak are just tools for political talking points.

    Like

  18. BuenaVista says:

    Sharp steel (or not sharp,as one needs to split wood) frighten s the postmoderns.

    Anytime around livestock introduces reality. I’m working a 7000 unit hog operation. When a pig dies unexpectedly, you eviscerate him on the spot, looking for disease. Then throw him on the pile for the coyotes to pick over after dark. They only go after the healthy ones.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Spawny Get says:

    From Yoda’s twatter

    Like

  20. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    That’s twice for Pajama Boy. There is a thread at Chateau Heartiste about hima and I didn’t feel like commenting. I will here. Pajama Boy is the net result of disincentivizing men. A cup of hot chocalate is a lot easier to make and much more satisfying.
    Here’s something for the ladies to take teir minds off Pajama Boy.

    Like

  21. Spawny Get says:

    Fuzzie,

    please, please do not imply that Pajamaboy is any kind of MGTOW…it is just an absolute cuck-pussy devoid of testosterone or any manly trait.

    (I have just registered cuck-pussy(tm) )

    Bad bear! Bad!

    Liked by 1 person

  22. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Spawny Get,
    Pajama Boy had to give up before puberty. I see as another casualty of this society. He’s completely sexually unmotivated. Gee, how did that happen?

    Like

  23. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    There is something else. This is one of the results of the endless man bashing. Masculinity is derided and men are percieved to be evil. There has to be some sort of reaction.
    Most of us don’t go this way.

    Like

  24. Spawny Get says:

    “Pajama Boy had to give up before puberty”

    of which puberty do you speak?

    That isn’t a post-pubescent anything AFAICS

    😉

    Like

  25. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Spawny Get,
    It’s that everyone wants to stand in line to bash Pajama Boy. I wonder if it stems from the attitude of women that if he has no value to the Female Imperative, hae should be tossed on the midden heap.
    My own point of view leads me to conclude that a lot of thruble we are in is because we made ourselves useful to the FI. That is the wrong way to go to pass a shit test, which is what women are putting society through.

    Like

  26. Yoda says:

    It’s that everyone wants to stand in line to bash Pajama Boy

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Yoda says:

    It’s that everyone wants to stand in line to bash Pajama Boy.

    Invites it he does.
    Epitome of a worthless SJW he is

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Yoda says:

    of which puberty do you speak?

    Multiple ones he does have?
    Perhaps secretly more of man than us he is?
    Probably not this would be

    Liked by 1 person

  29. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Yoda,
    I did think of linking that scene but, I thought it might make it a little frivilous. PB is not a SJW, he tried to promote health insurance. I don’t know what happened to him but, all traces of masculinity were beat out of him. I don’t think that he is gay. If anything, he’s asexxual.

    Like

  30. Yoda says:

    PB is not a SJW

    A duck looks it does.
    A duck quacks it does.
    A duck it is

    Liked by 2 people

  31. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Yoda,
    For some reason, I don’t see any malice or self rightous priggery in him. He’s not at all like Laughing Witch and her crew. He may not be a duck.

    Like

  32. Cill says:

    “My own point of view leads me to conclude that a lot of thruble we are in is because we made ourselves useful to the FI. That is the wrong way to go to pass a shit test, which is what women are putting society through.”

    Interesting observation there, Fuzzy. Feminism is the ultimate shit test.

    Well… Western man is failing the shit test big time. He should have kicked the Feminist arse into oblivion long ago, then held her spoiled-brat stupidity up for all the world to see.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Cill,
    The concept of feminism being a society wide shit test is not mine. The question is, how do we pass it? The whole nature of these tests is to put men in a lose-lose situation where no answer is satisfactory.
    Another thing about these tests is that it makes men’s natural instinct to love and protect women and turns that around to use it as a weapon against men.
    Wjhat a mess!

    Like

  34. Cill says:

    “it makes men’s natural instinct to love and protect women and turns that around to use it as a weapon against men.”

    In the past I have risked my neck to protect female strangers without hesitation. Some don’t like to hear me say this, but feminist hate has all but buried my natural instinct to love and protect women. In the case of women I know and respect, I’d protect them with everything I’ve got. Otherwise I’d no longer risk my neck for a woman.

    Liked by 3 people

  35. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Spawny Get,
    I hate being reminded of him. His image is almost as upstting as SheWhoWillNotBeNamed.
    There is one difference, we all knew that the unmentionable one hated all men passionately. I don’t think Pajama Boy hates anybody.

    Cill,
    With your last comment, feminists have no idea what they have weought. In embracing the “strong and independent” lifestyle, they need unfamiliar men to protect them.

    Like

  36. Yoda says:

    If anything, he’s asexxual.

    A relief this is

    Like

  37. Cill says:

    “I hate being reminded of him.”

    Spawny me old mate, I know you are well-intended, but I have to agree with Fuzzy on that one. The picture of that weak pansy puts me in a misasnthropic mood of un-merry ill cheer.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. SFC Ton says:

    I want to bash pj boy because he is a fag and will get you killed when the shit has hit

    Cull him before his type gets good men killed

    basically I want to bash him because he isnt a woman and he isnt a man

    Liked by 1 person

  39. SFC Ton says:

    Promoting obamacare is being a sjw

    Liked by 2 people

  40. Yoda says:

    A new post there is.

    Like

  41. SFC Ton says:

    I for one would be a lot happier with the US govt if they were warring over mineral wealth. Reality is you are over there and you cannot shot a guy digging in an IED but you can shoot a guy for tooling up his wife

    it is a sjw

    BV, Id imagine you are right. One pig is cute like the ones in the movies, a pen full of them…. not so much. I would never want to run hogs or large scale birds, but my dentist got out of the teeth bidness and into hogs because of the money

    Like

  42. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Cill,
    As a bear, I don’t know what makes for a good looking hippo but, that may be one.

    Like

  43. Liz says:

    We’ve been out of town for a few days.
    It will take me a while to catch up, but this topic caught my eye first, of course.
    🙂

    Re: oil and Iraq, it is true to an extent that we If we were in Iraq for the oil. If they’d only had bananas and high quality rugs we wouldn’t have been there. But it wasn’t about securing Iraq oil profits for the US government or private industry since no US company won a single Iraq oil contract in the bid. Of course, indirectly it was about securing a major source of the world supply (this started with Carter), but it wasn’t so the US could own the oil. (more in last paragraph)

    Per war profits, this topic could cover an entire encyclopedia.
    We could talk about stupid buying decisions or any manner of things.
    I’ll be brief(ish)
    I think it’s helpful for people to understand the “military budget”, large as it looks as one figure, doesn’t just encompass whatever the Pentagon wishes to buy or do.
    There are pools of money and each is allocated for certain things.
    For example, the base here had a contract to renovate the gym for four million dollars.
    So they closed the gym for two whole years (which was inconvenient in the extreme for people who need to use the gym regularly) and when they reopened it, it was very similar to before. It would have been better to have kept it the same and never closed it. The soldiers would have prefered that and it would have saved the taxpayers 4 million. But the Congressman got a four million dollar contract for businesses in the area so it was a political score for them.
    Meanwhile the jets didn’t have fuel so they couldn’t train and some people lost currency. Then they couldn’t come up with the 100,000 dollars necessary to keep people on orders when they needed them. That’s a tiny microcosm example of the problem at large.

    Lots of very insightful and well intentioned people have tried to come up with solutions to chip away at the overall problem. I’ve heard suggestions there should be some form of legislation that limits corporate profits that can be made during a time of war, when dealing with government contracts.
    However, I do not personally think regulating corporate profits is the correct approach. If a corporation undertakes higher risk, it should be entitled to higher reward. The issue for government contracts is not necessarily the strike price, but the limited accountability for failure to produce as agreed. This is the same problem that permeates many defense contracts, and I suspect a large number of other types of government contracts as well.

    I’ve heard suggestions legislation should prohibit senior military officers from taking jobs with firms that do business with the military. I also don’t think this is a good idea. There is a high level of expertise and experience that could be lost that way.
    For rough example (in an area I am familiar with), lots of test pilots are combat veterans. Here is what a very seasoned aerospace engineer aquaintance who has worked on 3+ decades worth of projects has to say about hiring experienced military people:

    “I can tell you they were all, without exception one tough group to satisfy. Part of it was that they were putting their behinds on the line when they strapped on an airplane for testing, but mostly it was because they knew someday one of their friends was going to strap on that airplane and go to war in it – and they knew what that entailed. Their advice, their criticism and their swearing outs (frequent at times) were invaluable to those of us working to develop the best weapons system possible. To prevent them from bringing their experience into the area of weapons system development would be completely insane.”

    I would suggest to allow senior military officers to work for defense contractors, but they should not interact with the active military. For example, a retired officer could consult a contractor concerning a product he thinks would be useful, but he should not be allowed to attempt to sell the product to the services. In this way, everyone could benefit from the officer’s experience without the downside influence of “networking”.

    Per the big picture, consider that one way to eliminate the war profit business would be to nationalize all war industry. But then, countries that have done so in the past were hardly pacifist and “non-empire-seeking” (Soviets, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany). The fact is, US interests are often tied to big business interests because wars are often fought for underlying economic reasons, so it’s hard to say where one stops and the other begins.
    Corporate “oil greed”, no matter how corrupt or persuasive, wouldn’t be able to keep our forces in the Middle East if we didn’t depend on oil.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Liz,
    Good to see you back. It’s the cronyism that is objectionable. While you have pointed out benefits, there are downsides.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: