As all the alarm bells ring continuously that the Russian Federation is the cause for the latest cold war, the actual risk for a hot conflict or an intentional brinkmanship of worldwide proportions should focus on the real enemy of humanity. The Brexit campaign was about more than just leaving the European Union. Likewise, the Trump movement is about a great deal more than just keeping Hillary Clinton from the oval office. Formerly the nation-state was the organizational format for government. Europe emerged from the dark ages to carve out kingships and spend centuries of warring with mostly bloodline relatives. When the bonds of feudalism loosened and economic advancement expanded the enlightenment of human thinking altered the political landscape. Notions of democratic principles germinated into ushering aside Kaisers, Czars and Kings. The popular vote in a strange ritual came to be known as an election, was culturally adopted as registering the popular will of the people.
Every day the world moves closer to a nuclear winter. The finger on the trigger presses upon the button and only a slight movement will launch unthinkable destruction. The point that it is so unthinkable yet so close to happening is caused by the overwhelming denial that Americans have towards the real nature of international brinksmanship. The United State foreign policy for global dominance cannot be defended as a righteous imperative. Those who naively believe that NATO occupies the high moral ground are just as confused as the dupes that cheer the dough boys or the GI’s in the previous two world wars.
The media yesterday, in wake of the Islamist attacks in New York, quoted Hillary Clinton as promising “resolve” (1) in the fight against Islamism. She did not promise U.S. victory, annihilation of the foe, an end to war-causing interventionism, an effective and reliable domestic defense, or an end to the waste of American military and civilian lives. “Resolve”, you may have noticed, is what America has had as a policy for the Islam war from the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. America has been led with “resolve” in this war since 1996, and it is leading the republic to calamity.
Thank God, another election cycle is over. Some celebrate that elections demonstrate that the country prides itself on a peaceful transition of power. Others rejoice that elections reflect the will of the people. And you hear the familiar pronouncement, that democracy brings legitimacy to the rule of government. If all this was true, why is the nation always in trouble? After every election, the system continues to grind citizens into the ground. The privileged few continue to accrue their vast sums of booty, as the debt soars to heights that only a super computer can calculate.
Well, Barak Obama got his wish on the second try. With the confirmation of John Owen Brennan by the Senate, the CIA has a new director from their own ranks. “Brennan’s 25 years with the CIA included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst, as station chief in Saudi Arabia, and as director of the National Counterterrorism Center.” He proudly attests, “I’m neither Republican nor Democrat. I’ve worked for the past five administrations.” Imagine a non-partisan spook as D/CIA. If this development is intended to restore confidence in the agency, just what kind of organization will emerge from a careerist covert agent at the helm?
American should surely keep praising U.S. Marines and soldiers for defending the republic, even if they are risking their lives in unnecessary wars their presidents never intend to win. It is, however, long past time to begin damning — and perhaps god-damning — almost every general officer who wears a uniform or pontificates as a retired military expert in the media. All media outlets have these retirees and they are all treated with effusive praise, as if they were honest, able, and winning generals, like America’s great 18th and 19th century generals Washington, Greene, Jackson, Scott, Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Lee, Longstreet, and Johnston. All of these men obeyed civilian leaders who ordered them to win wars, and they fought to win and did whatever it took to do so. Most, too, had the honor and humanity to be either fair-minded and non-vindictive winners or gentlemanly and reconciliation-seeking losers.
With the constant drumbeat that Armageddon is imminent, it is easy to dismiss the geopolitical threats that pose a realpolitik danger. The prospects that definite weapons of mass destruction will engulf the planet in a nuclear winter are upon us once again. After the collapse of the Soviet evil empire, the Reagan – Gorbachev détente provided the world with one of its last hopes for restoring rational international relations. Regretfully, the last superpower used the defeat of the Marxist model of tyranny to impose their Pax American version of a global New World Order. The military machine of NATO, furnished with DARPA technology, would implement the NeoCon policy based upon the interest of the true masters behind the kosher approved empire.
“If you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate.”
So said Rand Paul, looking directly at Gov. Chris Christie, who had just responded to a question from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer as to whether he would shoot down a Russian plane that violated his no-fly zone in Syria.
“Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it,” blurted Christie: “I would talk to Vladimir Putin … I’d say to him, ‘Listen, Mr. President, there’s a no-fly zone in Syria; you fly in, it applies to you.’
“Yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling … we have in the Oval Office … right now.”
Ex-Gov. George Pataki and ex-Sen. Rick Santorum would also impose a no-fly zone and shoot down Russian planes that violated it. Said Gov. John Kasich, “It’s time we punched the Russians in the nose.”
Carly Fiorina would impose a no-fly zone and not even talk to Putin until we’ve conducted “military exercises in the Baltic States” on Russia’s border. Jeb Bush, too, would impose a no-fly zone.
William Jefferson Clinton was called the first black president. Now it can be said that Barry Soetoro is the first female president. What justifies such a label? Clearly, Barack Hussein Obama has no cojones. The Ipanema vacationer practices his African samba carnival dance while carnage rains from tomahawk missiles. Humanitarian altruism acts as cover for a remote controlled marionette doing the bidding in the Soros world of his sorcerer mentors. This commander in chief runs from his own shadow.
“Could a U.S. response to Russia’s action in Ukraine provoke a confrontation that leads to a U.S.-Russia War?”
This jolting question is raised by Graham Allison and Dimitri Simes in the cover article of The National Interest.
The answer the authors give, in “Countdown to War: The Coming U.S. Russia Conflict,” is that the odds are shortening on a military collision between the world’s largest nuclear powers.
The cockpit of the conflict, should it come, will be Ukraine.
What makes the article timely is the report that Canada will be sending 200 soldiers to western Ukraine to join 800 Americans and 75 Brits on a yearlong assignment to train the Ukrainian army.
U.S. wars initiated at the behest of a global financial elite killed more than 2,000,000 people, according to a report published by Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The investigation produced results seriously at odds with what the government and its corporate media have reported.
This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million. Not included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major NGOs. And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.
The wars begun in 2001 have been tremendously painful for millions of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, and the United States, and economically costly as well. Each additional month and year of war adds to that toll. Moreover, the human costs of these conflicts will reverberate for years to come in each of those four countries. There is no turning the page on the wars with the end of hostilities, and there is even more need as a result to understand what those wars’ consequences are and will be.
The goal of the Costs of War Project has been to outline a broad understanding of the domestic and international costs and consequences of those wars. A team of 30 economists, anthropologists, political scientists, legal experts, and physicians were assembled to do this analysis. Their research papers are posted and summarized on this website.
What have been the wars’ costs in human and economic terms?
How have these wars changed the social and political landscape of the United States and the countries where the wars have been waged?
What have been the public health consequences of the wars?
What will be the long term legacy of these conflicts for veterans?
What is the long term economic effect of these wars likely to be?
Were and are there alternative less costly and more effective ways to prevent further terror attacks?