The Third Iraq War, Terrorism, and Common Sense

Let's set aside the U.S. Constitution for the time being.  Instead, let us view the current war situation from the standpoint of common sense...simple logic.  Query:  why would anyone believe any of the following to be true???

1.  The U.S. Gov't has been training and advising the Iraqi Army and security forces for about TEN years; therefore, we now need to train and advise the Iraqi Army and security forces.  [Ditto Afghanistan.]

2.  One way to defeat terrorism is to invade Muslim countries and bomb the hell out of them, thus further inflaming Muslim fanatics.  That is to our advantage.

3.  Another way to defeat terrorism is to launch weaponized drones into countries not at war with us and kill SUSPECTS.  Any collateral damage sustained will not further inflame either terrorists or non-terrorists.  They simply will accept it as, "oh well, that's war".  There will be no repercussions or Blowback.

4.  When we attack a faction [ISIS, for example] in a civil war [for which our destabilization of Iraq was partly responsible] BEFORE they attack or even threaten the U.S., we should not expect any retaliation on their part.  After all, they are "terrorists"...we are not.

5.  When we utilize inhumane practices such as "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation", we should not expect that Muslim fanatics will retaliate in any way...or that any innocent people caught up in those abominations will become extremists.

6.  Because criminal extremists ignore borders, we can as well.  That's perfectly reasonable.

7.  "There will be no American combat ground troops in Iraq."  [He's giving us his word on that... and given the man's history with keeping his word, we should believe him.  Even if Obama is sincere & telling what he believes to be the truth, there is no way on Earth that he can know what may be required for that war in the future.]

8.  Another way to defeat terrorism is to intervene in civil wars.

9.  Another way to defeat terrorism is to kill the Head Honcho (Osama) of the extremists and then dump his body at sea.  There should be no Blowback from that.

10.  Another way to defeat terrorism is to maintain Army, Navy, and/or Air Force bases in Muslim countries... the very thing that Osama said was his reason for launching a terrorist campaign.

11.  Moving the U.S. Headquarters for the Third Iraq War from the Pentagon to the State Department shows that we are interested in more than just a military solution.

12.  ISIS was not responsible for 9-11; nevertheless, they are so similar to Al Qaida that we are justified in attacking them... and we can use the same "authorization" that we used about TEN+ years ago.  [There are no separate wars anymore...it's all one big, continuous war.]

13.  After we "defeat" ISIS, they won't simply fade back into the woodwork... to reappear later.  The military option really is the best primary method to crush Muslim terrorists.

14.  We can do it with no American combat troops on the ground.  Airstrikes and supporting the "moderate" rebels in Syria will suffice.  [These are the same "moderates" who recently beheaded six of their captives, and previous to that, sold a now-murdered journalist to ISIS for about $50,000.  No worries that they will be our allies.]

15.  All of this has absolutely nothing to do with access to oil or the estimated one trillion dollars worth of mineral resources (some of which are becoming very scarce in the world) beneath the ground in Afghanistan.  Nothing at all to do with any of that.  Your Gov't doesn't lie about such things.

Again, why would anyone believe any of that to be true?

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

The U.S. Gov't and the Middle East

Again, below is an email I sent to a "Conservative" (nowadays that means Neoconservative, a horse of a different color) friend of mine.

HERE IS THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM RE: the U.S. Gov't and the Middle East---

From the article you sent, toward the end of it:

"But only a fool would believe weapons of mass destruction were the only reason for the war. The U.S.-led invasion, or liberation, was in fact part of a vision to remake the Middle East..."

Show me ANY portion of the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land) which delegates authority from We the People to the Fed Gov't to undertake any such task anywhere in the world.  Seriously.

That quote has the footprint of an unelected Oligarchy all over it.  Who appointed the U.S. Gov't to "remake the Middle East"?  No country has the legitimate right to remake any region.

Think about that; I don't see how any person could disagree, especially one who considers himself a Conservative.

The very concept of remaking a region such as the Middle East fits right in with Bush's apparent belief in some sort of Divine Right to "spread democracy" by force.  I'm sorry, but that's totally un-American.  It's blatant hegemony.  We have no such Right.  No government does.  Our motto should be Zero Aggression; self-defense only.

Be Well