The CURRENT WARS of Obama's Fed Government

The USA's Fed Gov't is involved in the following wars.  They are wars because Obama is having the U.S. Military (not Law Enforcement personnel) shoot at people and kill them.  That's war.  These all belong to Obama now.

1.  The Third Iraq War, the one launched just recently.

2.  The ongoing War in Pakistan, the one where the highest levels of our Gov't order Hellfire missiles to be shot (from drones) at SUSPECTS.

3.  Ditto the War in Yemen.

4.  Ditto the War in Somalia.

5.  The War in Afghanistan, our longest war, and the one nobody is quite sure anymore why it is that we're still there.  Obviously, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Raytheon, CACI, GE, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, and several other transnational mega corporations are enjoying tremendous benefits from that never-ending war, but surely that's not a good enough reason to STILL be there.  Is it?  Well, yes, if you are a member of the Plutocracy in a soft Fascist State such as the USA---where the public constantly is being bombarded with Edward Bernays style propaganda---then it is a good enough reason.  Follow the money; war is Big Business...very big.

Those are the wars of which I am aware and/or can remember at the moment.  Perhaps there are others as well.  Some may attempt to argue that those five wars really are all one war--- the War on Terrorism.  It's a tempting argument, and we certainly have been propagandized enough to believe it.  If, however, we engage in some critical thinking, that argument quickly falls apart.  Consider the following.
1.  The fanatics we're fighting are all in separate entities; there is no "central command".  There is no group with the title, "Terrorism".  So, for example, the Taliban (whose leaders we hosted here in 1997 in order to negotiate a pipeline in Afghanistan) have completely different objectives as compared to ISIS.  They only want to run Afghanistan, as they were doing in 1997 when we invited them here for a business deal.  [Query:  did our Gov't consider them nasty brutes then?  If so, why were we treating them as potential business partners?]
2.  The propaganda is this (especially amongst so-called "Conservatives"):  there is one group we're fighting; it's "the Muslims", in particular, the fanatical element of the Muslims.  Really?  So, are they Sunnis or Shiites?  The fanatics, the extremists in Islam (not the mainstream) are at each other's throats.  They are not one group.  They appear to be worried more about each other than about us.  Plus, from what I can see, the Taliban don't give a damn about anything except Afghanistan.  Us still being in that country is complete nonsense.  To think of "the Muslims" as a monolithic, homogeneous entity also is nonsense.
3.  Specifically, whose military are we fighting in this supposed "War on Terrorism"?  The people we're fighting are not in an Army; they are a bunch of heterogeneous criminal gangs (of a sort).  They each have their own agenda.  Should any of them ever attack the USA again, it is a matter for Law Enforcement, not our Military.  Most all of the plots against our country have been thwarted by LAW ENFORCEMENT Agencies, not our Armed Forces.  Soldiers are not cops, and shouldn't be expected to fulfill that function.

Finally, the five wars listed above are all illegal, unconstitutional wars.  Three uses of the military are permitted by the Constitution:  to repel invasions (of this country); to quell insurrections (in this country); and to enforce the laws of the land (in this country) when minor rebellions make that necessary---for example, the Whisky Rebellion of the late 1700s, or the refusal to integrate schools in the South in the mid-sixties.  No law trumps the Constitution, so the War Powers Act cannot be used legally to justify going to war for some reason other than the three scenarios listed above.

That leaves only TREATIES to justify wars outside the USA (if we haven't been attacked at home).  Treaties do trump the Constitution.  IF that's what's being used to justify the five wars above, I'd like to see those Treaties...especially the one with Somalia or any of its neighbors.  [As to Afghanistan, it wasn't the Taliban who attacked us on 9-11-01.  Their refusal to turn over Osama supposedly justified us going to war with Afghanistan.  The truth is:  the Taliban replied to our Fed Govt's request by saying essentially this:  show us some proof of his guilt and we'll turn him over to you.  Our Gov't refused.  Being a guest of an Afghan tribal society is a really big deal in their culture.  I think the Taliban's request for proof was reasonable.]  The funny thing is, I've never heard the DC Plutocrats use any Treaty to justify the wars in question.  Usually they claim the right to go to war based on the War Powers Act and/or the duties of Commander-in-Chief.  They certainly couldn't use a Treaty to justify invading Iraq in 2003; Saddam hadn't attacked any other country then, whether our ally or not.  The Bush Administration's justification was that Saddam was guilty of PRE-Crime.  [Explained in a previous post on this Blog.]  As Bush put it, "If we wait for the smoking gun, it will be too late."...sounds good, but that's a completely illegal reason to attack and invade another country.

Any way you examine supposed justifications for the above-listed wars, they turn out to be illegal, unconstitutional, unethical, and even immoral.  Welcome to the Soft Fascist States of America, a land I love, but sincerely regret the fact that we no longer have a representative government...and that's been true for decades.  Carroll Quigley was right in 1966.

It's a genuine shame.

Be Well

Obama's Trial Balloon, RE: Syria

Brand Obama recently sent up a trial balloon regarding bombing inside Syria... to see the reaction of the U.S. public.  This type of thing is done often by sitting politicians.  Even in dictatorships, but especially in a soft Fascist State such as the USA (where we still have considerable freedoms), public opinion does matter.  The DC Cronies, mostly via the Corporate Media, put forth an idea that is illegal and unconstitutional to see if the "meddlesome outsiders", the "bewildered herd", the "ignorant masses" (that's you and me) will raise any sort of objection or protest.

There appears to be little or no doubt that ISIS members are vicious, brutal fanatics.  But that's not the issue regarding attacking inside Syria.  The issue is this:  what are the permitted and Constitutional uses of the U.S. military?  So-called Conservatives (which now means NeoCons) and so-called "Liberals" (which now means Moderate Republicans) in our Fed Gov't apparently believe that the phrase "Commander-in-Chief" means that the President can do whatever he pleases with our Armed Forces.  They also appear to believe that the War Powers Act trumps the Constitution.  None of that is true.

What is being proposed relative to Syria is somewhat similar to Nixon's illegal and secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam Conflict.  [It was first called a "Conflict" by the DC Cronies because they knew that the Constitution required a Declaration of War...which they hadn't bothered with, just as with the Korean "Conflict".]  The primary difference with Obama's Syrian proposal (trial balloon) is that it's not SECRET.  Oligarchs don't much feel the need for a lot of secrecy anymore [there are many exceptions to that] because they figure that the "bewildered herd" (that's us) is so thoroughly propagandized and distracted that secrecy mostly is no longer needed...in some subject areas.

Let's be clear:  bombing, attacking, shooting missiles into another country without a Declaration of War by the Congress is illegal and unconstitutional.  Anyone who can read and has an IQ of at least 100 knows that... unless they are so propagandized by the Oligarchy that they no longer can think critically.  It doesn't matter how vicious the enemy is, it doesn't matter that the President is Commander-in-Chief.  What matters is:  what are the requirements and limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution?  They are stated CLEARLY in the document.  Parts of it are long-winded, but it's written with clarity.

It appears that both Liberals AND NeoCons have adopted the belief that the Constitution must be adapted to modern times...without the use of Amendments.  We'll just read into it what we must in order to conform to modern-day life.  That belief is not only tragic, but downright comical as well.  There is no such provision in the Constitution.  To change it, it must be formally amended or completely re-written.  No other ways are permitted.  It also appears that both Liberals AND NeoCons do not understand that our Gov't is one of Enumerated Powers (Google it).

I, of course, am convinced that all the DC Cronies (the Gang of 535) know better.  They understand the limitations imposed by the Supreme Law of the Land on the Fed Gov't perfectly well.  They simply ignore those limitations... and get away with it.  Because of that, the U.S. Fed Gov't (at the highest levels) has become the largest terrorist operation in the world.  You don't think so?  Perhaps you should ask Pakistan, a country which is not at war with the USA but one where Hellfire missiles are fired from U.S. drones at SUSPECTS.  Or perhaps you should ask the Gazans, civilians who were bombed by U.S. equipment (stamped "Israel" on the side, or something similar).  Your tax dollars helped kill about 500 children just recently.  Perhaps you should ask Sunni civilians in Iraq?  Perhaps you should ask the democratically elected governments around the world that were overthrown by covert U.S. help.  [Just prior to Allende being overthrown on 9-11-73, Kissinger told Nixon (two crazy people in a conference) that Chile---because it had elected Allende---was "a virus that could spread throughout Latin America".  The coup was then engineered.]  Perhaps you should ask the countries that were placed under "sanction" by the U.S. Gov't, in some cases resulting in the deaths of children.  Madeline Albright once essentially stated that "it [punishing Iraq with sanctions] was worth the price" [the death of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq].  Killing children, either directly or indirectly, is terrorism in my book.

ISIS was founded as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the years-long occupation by the U.S., and the so-called "collateral damage" inflicted upon Iraqis.  Whenever we do such things, it's not terrorism...but when they do it, it is terrorism.  Hypocrisy.  According to all our Presidents, other countries must abide by International Law; but our Gov't has exempted itself time and again from any prosecution by the International Criminal Court.  Finally, ISIS is a threat primarily to other Muslims, especially Shiites; the only reason it threatened the USA is because we attacked them FIRST (with the start of America's Third Iraq War a short while ago).

It would be great if Americans would deflate Obama's Syrian trial balloon.

Be Well