Thursday, August 20, 2009

Of Sacrificial Offerings and Blind Loyalty

Before W. Bush invaded Iraq he was told by intelligence agencies that invading Iraq would likely create more terrorists. A nuclear bomb exploded by terrorists in the U.S. is a real possibility and that threat is not lessened by our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite the threat of a terrorist attack in one form or another against U.S. civilians Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and despite claims of leaving Iraq there are still 130,000 troops stationed there. If a terrorist group manages to explode a nuclear bomb in a city as a result of securing the oil fields hundreds of thousands will perish but this is part of the calculated risk that is being run in the name of global hegemony for the control of oil. In other words, you don’t count. If you die in a nuclear or biological attack it is within acceptable parameters as seen by our warlords, a small price to pay in the quest for world domination.

When you think about it this calculated risk is identical to that which is used on the victims of our military adventures otherwise known as collateral damage. The only time the U.S. government worries about civilian casualties is when it might affect their plans. So in a sense we are all victims of government though of course those residing in foreign lands bear the brunt yet in both cases the real enemy is the government for it is the government’s rushing into war with total abandonment that is fermenting future terrorism with very little thought as to the consequences. And those that implement our wars are not the people who pay the price for the rapacious invasions and occupations, indeed far from it, for they will profit from war along with the driving powers that are behind them pulling strings with the liberal application of campaign contributions and lobbies including the Israeli lobby. This is why we are not represented by our government or those who we “elect” to office.

Looking at Iraq today we see further undeniable proof that civilians are of little consequence to government. Despite the rosy promises of good things to come for the people of Iraq their infrastructure remains in ruins, over one million dead, and millions more scattered to the four corners of the globe and saddled with perhaps the most corrupt government in existence. The promise of stability brought by democracy remains elusive as violence continues unabated. And as more innocent victims leave this plane of existence the most “officials” can say is that it is unfortunate.

Link

WASHINGTON — US plans to withdraw forces from Iraq over the next two years remain in place despite a wave of "tragic" bombings in Baghdad, a Pentagon spokesman told AFP on Wednesday.

"The bombings are unfortunate and tragic," said spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Ryder. "We certainly express our condolences to those who lost family and friends.

"But in terms of affecting our drawdown plans, there's no effect," Ryder said.



This is a sham on two distinct levels. First, the Pentagon can mutter meaningless platitudes all they want for words are cheap though the victims are just as dead and secondly, the so-called drawdown is never going to happen. They cannot stop lying; they are congenital liars who upon waking in the morning ponder what whoppers they can come up with for the coming day. Though people refer to W. Bush as stupid he understood something that we all should and that is if you want to occupy a nation long term all you need do is get the troops there and once that occurs there inevitably pop up all manner of reasons for not leaving or as it stands today. However all that may be the death of so many have, in our leaders own words, “no effect”. In this one instance they are not lying for I doubt they feel anything, monsters that they are.

During the W. Bush years the liberal blogosphere was vehemently opposed to the Iraq War yet today under Democratic leadership some of those same liberals have no problem with a war in Afghanistan. Apparently all that matters is who is in charge of the war not the war itself or as Obama once said, and I am paraphrasing, “I’m not against all wars just stupid wars.” Later the “stupid” war in Iraq was heralded by Obama as a success due to the famous surge so if enough time passes stupid becomes a success. Indeed, it was so much of a success that Obama used another surge in Afghanistan only this surge is the surge that keeps on surging.

Justin Raimondo observes…

Link

York, a conservative who writes regularly for National Review, is mystified: he thinks these "progressives" are dedicated to anti-interventionism in principle. If only it were so. The answer to his bafflement is that it’s their war now, and they’ll fight it, defend it, and support it because their man is in the White House. It’s as simple as that.


York probably realizes this, but since it doesn’t fit in with the typical neoconservative view of the left he can’t come right out and say what is glaringly apparent to all: that the ostensible "left" is no different than the neoconservative "right" when it comes to foreign policy. Politics really does stop at the water’s edge, where both wings of the War Party unite to fight the foreign "enemy."


"Many observers," avers York, "have remarked that Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and also to escalate the campaign of targeted assassinations using drone aircraft, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will cause him trouble on the political left. … But if the Netroots Nation results are any indication, Obama may have more room than previously thought on the war. Not too long ago, with a different president in the White House, the left was obsessed with America’s wars. Now, they’re not even watching."



Of course they’re not even watching for after all, the “good war” in Afghanistan is in competent hands with the Democratic leadership. And for all too many liberals this is all that matters. Though the high and mighty of the liberal blogosphere feel they are more intelligent and better informed than the average person it would seem that the average have a better handle on reality than the bloggers as was shown in a recent poll where a majority of those polled are against escalating the Afghan War. Sadly with the powers of corporate America and the influence of the Israeli lobby arrayed against people with more sense than they are given credit for there is little chance that popular opinion can prevail. In the meantime the liberal bloggers have managed to make the common person even more irrelevant with their idiotic support of the Democratic Party being the being-all of everything. There are things that are more important than blind loyalty which in the end is a sad excuse for lazy thinking.

2 Comments:

At August 21, 2009 4:58 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

"They cannot stop lying; they are congenital liars who upon waking in the morning ponder what whoppers they can come up with for the coming day."
But why, why, why are they believed by so many? Shouldn't we teach children in school always to question, examine, and challenge? Why are we such sheep?
(Sigh...)

 
At August 21, 2009 4:29 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Hi Mimi,

Good questions and in fact I did have one teacher in sixth grade who told us to not just read the news but that we needed to question it. I don't know what they teach these days, probably how to dress in a uniform or something useful like that.

I also think just lazy thinking is a big part of why these people are believed.

Hey, I hope Pat is doing better and thanks for stopping by.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home