| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: No to Senator John McCain |
| Subject: Re: No to Senator John McCain
To: "Anthony"
McCain and his admiral Father helped to cover-up the treacherous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty as well:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Hughes0712.htm
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
"Anthony" wrote:
McCain as a veteran of the Viet Nam War should indeed know better - God's curse and vengeance will be on America IF McCain - or Hillary or Rudy - is elected President.
Kristol - being the Zionist Jew supporter of Israel and TRAITOR to the US - does indeed see the destruction of Iraq as 'victory' for Israel - and it is!
A war fought against a country's population can NOT be won.
We did NOT 'win' the Viet Nam War - and - we lost our soul in the process.
As a veteran of the Viet Nam War myself - I served aboard the USS Oriskany in 1966, the year before McCain was shot down flying off the Mighty O - I agree with Lee and Sherman:
"War is all HELL" - Sherman
"It is good that war is so terrible less we grow too fond of it" - Lee
McCain indeed should know better!
NO to Senator McCain
http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-to-senator-mccain.html
This is the guy who wants to Bomb, Bomb and Bomb other nations, entangle our Armed forces for 100 years and all based on false information?
Our lies and our presence in Iraq has caused this much horror;
Number of Iraqis Slaughtered In U.S. War on Iraq 1,168,058
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed in U.S. War and Occupation 3,926
Cost of U.S. War and Occupation of Iraq $486,769,250,980
2 Million Iraqis have been chased out to seek a safe heaven
Half a Million Women are out on the streets with no jobs and no one to support and they may resort to flesh trade bringing immorality and carrying virususes.
John McCain has repeatedly said this for the last two weeks. It was not a mistake; he is repeating this in Nevada and South Carolina. “I’ll get Osama bin Laden. I’ll get him even if I have to follow him to the gates of hell”
Did he not betray America?
Senator, the why did you not get Osama?
Why did you have to wait to be elected to do that?
Isn’t that a betrayal to your party and to your President?
Isn’t that a betrayal to our nation?
Do we need another irresponsible person to run us amuck?
Rewarding this rhetoric is robbing America with another Trillion dollars; while 45 Million of Americans go without health care costing billions of dollars in loss of productivity, while those who have served in wars come home depressed and not live a full life besides killing another million of other humans and thousands of our own.
John McCain is good for defense industry investors and oil companies and he is no good for America. Think about the candidates who want to save lives, save the nation from deficit and spend their energy and put our name for peace making. It is cheaper and more productive to work for peace and Bomb, Bomb and Bomb.
Say no to any candidate who wants to ruin our country with recklessness.
http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Did-Senator-McCain-Betray-America.asp
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net.
So This Is Victory, Mr. Kristol?
By Joe Conason
This article appears in the January 21, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.
As America marks the first anniversary of the troop escalation in Iraq, at least one thing has become clear. Although the “surge” is failing as policy, it seems to be succeeding as propaganda. Even as George W. Bush continues to bump and scrape along the bottom of public approval, significantly more people now believe that we are “winning” the war.
What winning really means and whether that vague impression can be sustained are questions that the war’s proponents would prefer not to answer for the moment. Their objective during this election year is simply to reduce public pressure for withdrawal, which is still the choice of an overwhelming majority of voters.
So long as the surge appears to be working, political space is created for the Republican candidates who support the war—especially Senator John McCain, the hawk’s hawk, who said recently that he, might keep U.S. soldiers in Iraq for “a hundred years.” Although that remark was not well received in the Arab world, they may have taken comfort in the fact that no matter how determined the Arizona senator is to carry out that threat, he is unlikely to do so since he is already over 70 years old.
But the revival of Mr. McCain’s moribund candidacy over the past few weeks would have been impossible without the media’s endorsement of “progress” in Iraq. Indeed, war propaganda itself has surged lately on the strength of casualty statistics from December 2007. Consider the work of William Kristol, the indefatigable publicist who played an important role in selling the war as editor of The Weekly Standard and on the Fox News Channel. From his new perch on The New York Times’ Op-Ed page—which proves that being hideously wrong is no obstacle to scaling the heights of American punditry—he proclaims that “we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq” and achieved “real success.”
According to Mr. Kristol, who once mocked concerns about religious strife in Iraq as “pop sociology,” the drop in violence last month may have marked the lowest overall number of deaths for both civilians and military forces since the war began, in March 2003. Declining casualties for a month or two means progress, which in turn means that the war must continue, and that the president’s policy is correct.
What has fallen far more sharply than the casualty statistics in Iraq is the standard for success there, as defined by neoconservatives like Mr. Kristol. In the original promotional literature produced by them and their associates, and recited by the president, this war was supposed to remake the Middle East into a showcase for democracy, with ruinous consequences for our terrorist enemies, cheaper oil for us—and all for free because the Iraqi petroleum industry would cover all the costs.
When that happy future never arrived, to put it very mildly, the war’s proponents scrambled to reduce expectations. So when the president announced the surge, he set forth a series of benchmarks for progress in Iraq that were supposed to result from our increased troop presence. The objective was not a temporary reduction of sectarian killing but real movement toward reconciliation of the contending factions, including the passage of laws on sharing oil revenues and political power among the Sunni, Shia, Kurdish and other communities. President Bush declared that the escalation would create space for the Iraqis to act on behalf of their own country.
Even those minimized objectives have yet to be met. The oil-sharing statute is stalled in the Iraqi parliament while Kurdish regional authorities make their own separate deals with foreign oil companies. The Sunni militia organizations that we have armed to fight Al Qaeda have been rejected by the Shia central government. The statute passed by the Iraqi parliament last week to reduce sanctions against former members of the Ba’ath Party, which was supposed to mollify the Sunni leadership, appears only to have alienated them further because they consider it fraudulent.
Worst of all, despite the undoubted courage and commitment of our troops, the level of violence in Iraq has increased since the New Year began. Killings of civilians by car bombs and snipers averaged more than 50 per day during the first two weeks of January, and U.S. military deaths are averaging slightly more than one per day, or nearly 50 percent higher than last month.
At that level, if American troops stayed for another 10 years, let alone a century as Mr. McCain suggests, our casualties would double. What would winning mean then?
Joe Conason is national correspondent for the New York Observer, where he writes a weekly column distributed by Creators Syndicate. He is also a columnist for Salon.com, and the Director of the Nation Institute Investigative Fund. His latest book, It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush was released in February 2007. His writing and reporting have appeared in many publications, including Harpers, the Guardian, The Nation, and The New Republic.
This article can be viewed online at: http://www.observer.com/2008/so-victory-mr-kristol
In a message dated 1/19/2008 3:22:47 A.M. Central Standard Time, skeeter@ksc.th.com writes:
So This Is Victory, Mr. Kristol?
by Joe Conason
This article appears in the January 21, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.
As America marks the first anniversary of the troop escalation in Iraq, at least one thing has become clear. Although the “surge” is failing as policy, it seems to be succeeding as propaganda. Even as George W. Bush continues to bump and scrape along the bottom of public approval, significantly more people now believe that we are “winning” the war.
What winning really means and whether that vague impression can be sustained are questions that the war’s proponents would prefer not to answer for the moment. Their objective during this election year is simply to reduce public pressure for withdrawal, which is still the choice of an overwhelming majority of voters.
So long as the surge appears to be working, political space is created for the Republican candidates who support the war—especially Senator John McCain, the hawk’s hawk, who said recently that he might keep U.S. soldiers in Iraq for “a hundred years.” Although that remark was not well received in the Arab world, they may have taken comfort in the fact that no matter how determined the Arizona senator is to carry out that threat, he is unlikely to do so since he is already over 70 years old.
But the revival of Mr. McCain’s moribund candidacy over the past few weeks would have been impossible without the media’s endorsement of “progress” in Iraq. Indeed, war propaganda itself has surged lately on the strength of casualty statistics from December 2007. Consider the work of William Kristol, the indefatigable publicist who played an important role in selling the war as editor of The Weekly Standard and on the Fox News Channel. From his new perch on The New York Times’ Op-Ed page—which proves that being hideously wrong is no obstacle to scaling the heights of American punditry—he proclaims that “we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq” and achieved “real success.”
According to Mr. Kristol, who once mocked concerns about religious strife in Iraq as “pop sociology,” the drop in violence last month may have marked the lowest overall number of deaths for both civilians and military forces since the war began, in March 2003. Declining casualties for a month or two means progress, which in turn means that the war must continue, and that the president’s policy is correct.
What has fallen far more sharply than the casualty statistics in Iraq is the standard for success there, as defined by neoconservatives like Mr. Kristol. In the original promotional literature produced by them and their associates, and recited by the president, this war was supposed to remake the Middle East into a showcase for democracy, with ruinous consequences for our terrorist enemies, cheaper oil for us—and all for free because the Iraqi petroleum industry would cover all the costs.
When that happy future never arrived, to put it very mildly, the war’s proponents scrambled to reduce expectations. So when the president announced the surge, he set forth a series of benchmarks for progress in Iraq that were supposed to result from our increased troop presence. The objective was not a temporary reduction of sectarian killing but real movement toward reconciliation of the contending factions, including the passage of laws on sharing oil revenues and political power among the Sunni, Shia, Kurdish and other communities. President Bush declared that the escalation would create space for the Iraqis to act on behalf of their own country.
Even those minimized objectives have yet to be met. The oil-sharing statute is stalled in the Iraqi parliament while Kurdish regional authorities make their own separate deals with foreign oil companies. The Sunni militia organizations that we have armed to fight Al Qaeda have been rejected by the Shia central government. The statute passed by the Iraqi parliament last week to reduce sanctions against former members of the Ba’ath Party, which was supposed to mollify the Sunni leadership, appears only to have alienated them further because they consider it fraudulent.
Worst of all, despite the undoubted courage and commitment of our troops, the level of violence in Iraq has increased since the new year began. Killings of civilians by car bombs and snipers averaged more than 50 per day during the first two weeks of January, and U.S. military deaths are averaging slightly more than one per day, or nearly 50 percent higher than last month.
At that level, if American troops stayed for another 10 years, let alone a century as Mr. McCain suggests, our casualties would double. What would winning mean then?
Joe Conason is national correspondent for The New York Observer, where he writes a weekly column distributed by Creators Syndicate. He is also a columnist for Salon.com, and the Director of the Nation Institute Investigative Fund. His latest book, It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush, was released in February 2007. His writing and reporting have appeared in many publications, including Harpers, The Guardian, The Nation, and The New Republic.
This article can be viewed online at: http://www.observer.com/2008/so-victory-mr-kristol | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: |
| The Hundred-Year War
McCain wants us in Iraq permanently
by Justin Raimondo http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12204
If John McCain wins the Republican presidential nomination, it seems to me that the Democrats have only to show the American people this clip:
That alone would be enough to blow the USS McCain out of the water. What with polls showing [.pdf] that most voters want us out by the end of 2008, McCain has set the GOP up for a very big fall. Aside from the unpopularity of such a view, however, let's examine McCain's argument on its merits. After all, we're in Korea, Europe, and elsewhere, and have been since the end of World War II. What's wrong with establishing and maintaining a semi-permanent presence in our latest conquered province?
In short, what's wrong with having an empire?
The main objection is that such a ubiquitous global presence would have to mean constant warfare. Empires, once acquired, must be defended, and surely the current worldwide Islamic insurgency that has declared war on us would be provided with plenty of targets, lots of opportunities for mischief, and more than enough encouragement and support from nationalist elements whose resentment of American hegemony over their lands would swell the ranks of our enemies. Iraq didn't have a trace of al-Qaeda's presence prior to the U.S. invasion; today, it is ensconced in that unhappy land. Fifty, one hundred, a thousand years of American occupation will not eliminate that kind of resistance: it's as natural as the reaction of antibodies to the invasion of a foreign virus.
Second, the occupation of Iraq, by itself, is not sufficient to defend our newly acquired province, since the entire region opposes our presence and forces from neighboring countries pose a threat. Therefore, it's not surprising that we have targeted Syria and are currently engaged in a propaganda war and a low-level campaign of harassment aimed at the mullahs of Tehran. You can't just invade a country in the middle of Mesopotamia, plonk down some 150,000 American troops, and wait out the resistance for the next century or so: wars don't respect national boundaries, and the guerrillas we are fighting are not about to stay put. "Hot pursuit" of Iraq resistance fighters, of whichever faction, will necessarily involve crossing those boundaries and eliminating their "terrorist havens." This means expanding the war until the battlefield eventually encompasses a great deal of the region.
In addition to these strictly military problems, there are a host of political problems that come with the occupation. While the "surge" has supposedly calmed the waters sufficiently to give Iraqis the kind of breathing space required to bring about a political settlement and stave off an incipient Shi'ite-Sunni civil war, Iraqi's political leaders have not stepped up to the plate – nor is there any incentive for them to do so. As long as American troops remain on Iraqi soil as the guarantors of the present regime, the Shi'ites have no reason to reach any sort of accommodation with minority religious and ethnic groups. In spite of all our attempts to influence, pressure, and – when it comes down to it – bully the Iraqi government, the bottom line is that American troops aren't leaving any time soon, and the Iraqis know it. We have no leverage, and that means a static political situation with hardly any prospects of improvement.
Which brings us to our main point: when the U.S. invaded Iraq, smashed the Ba'athist state, and established itself as the de facto colonial ruler of the country, we exposed the underlying reality of a Seinfeldian "state" that was and is based on nothing. "Iraq" has no real historical existence or legitimacy, except as a province of first the Ottoman and then the British empire. Under Saddam Hussein, it was held together by state terror and the Ba'athist secret police: in the late Iraqi dictator's absence, the country has, unsurprisingly, fallen to pieces. Like Humpty Dumpty, it cannot be put back together again, and this is the real reason for the failure to reach a postwar political settlement.
The political turmoil unleashed by the invasion is not, unfortunately, limited to Iraq: as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the breakup of the Iraqi state has unleashed a virulent strain of Kurdish nationalism. This has impacted every other nation in the region, notably Turkey, which has sent its warplanes in answer. Worse, the implosion of the Iraqi state has given the Iranians the advantage in a regional game of "who's-the-hegemon," giving rise to what the policy wonks are calling the "Shi'ite crescent" and stoking the fires of religious sectarianism. Iraq's civil war could easily become a regional cataclysm.
These objections apply not just to Iraq, but to almost any country that we invade, occupy, and reign over. Aggression breeds resistance, and the resistance fighters have an inherent advantage in that we're on their turf. They will never stop fighting until and unless we leave. John McCain may be looking forward to the prospect of a new Hundred Years' War, but I find it hard to believe that anyone else in America is.
All of these objections to occupying and administering a foreign country are, by themselves, sufficient reason to oppose the imperial project so beloved by our governing elites. However, for libertarians – and for those liberals and conservatives who want to preserve our republican form of government – the internal consequences of a quest for empire are particularly heinous.
To begin with, the economic consequences of interventionism make such a policy prohibitive. The United States, which is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, simply cannot afford the luxury of imperialism. When all is said and done, the cost of our Iraq misadventure will approach some $2 trillion – to say nothing of what a century of occupation would cost us. It boggles the mind.
And that's just the direct cost. Indirectly, the price of global hegemony is a lot higher. For the creation of an American empire on which the sun never sets would necessitate a huge diversion of wealth and human resources away from productive use and toward military and other government expenditures. The distortion of the American economy that would result would put wealth in the hands of those with government contracts – and good government contacts – and political pull would replace entrepreneurial know-how as the coin of the realm.
Furthermore, the diversion of all these resources into essentially unproductive – i.e., governmental – uses would create a whole new class of tax-eaters whose claim to subsidies is founded on the maintenance and expansion of America's newfound imperial domain. Right now, the numbers of these colonial administrators and commercial outfits – geared to providing "services" such as policing the natives and pandering to the needs of troops and government officials stationed overseas – is limited, but it is growing by the day. It won't be long before they begin organizing politically, and acting like any other interest group that concerns itself chiefly with increasing its "fair share" of U.S. tax dollars.
In addition, this rising class of soldier-administrators will be constantly agitating for a more belligerent foreign policy in the name of "defending" the Empire – while always looking for new opportunities to expand the frontiers. Imagine an overseas version of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, but with a Washington lobbying operation much more active in the foreign policy field. I shudder to think of it.
The worst aspect of all this is that once the process of what might be called "imperialization" – for lack of a better word – is allowed to proceed unchecked and unchallenged, it builds political and social momentum until it is practically unstoppable. Calls for increasing the huge pool of resources available to the empire-builders become more frequent and more irresistible, and the transition from republic to empire is made all but inevitable as large sections of the population become economically dependent on military-related industries whose profitability rests on the defense of America's overseas protectorates.
The militarization of the American economy means we get socialism through the back door, as government planners, not entrepreneurs, increasingly determine the allocation of scarce resources. In this case, however, the real rulers of the coming American dystopia won't be ensconced in the Bureau of Economic Planning – instead, they'll be issuing edicts from their offices in the National Security Council, the State Department, and the Pentagon.
On top of it all, the growth of presidential power – epitomized in the openly authoritarian legal "theories" of the current administration, which give the White House something very close [.pdf] to absolute power in wartime – is greatly accelerated by imperialization. Indeed, this has been the main engine of the growing imbalance of power between the three branches of the federal government. They don't call it the "imperial presidency" for nothing. Every empire must have an emperor or empress. The rise of American imperialism parallels the growing importance of dynastic politics in America, among the more worrying signs that our old republic is on the way out.
A hundred-year occupation of Iraq: John McCain wants to know "What's wrong with that?" God willing, the American people will tell him. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: |
| His "One hundred years" war is going to cost him dearly. he won't even be able to back track from that ridiculous statement because everybody knows he really meant it.
It will be remembered. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
| Forwarded:
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:57:31 -0800 (PST)
From: "caroline"
Subject: RE: No to Senator John McCain
Did anyone notice how Guliani fell, and McCain started to rise in the polls? Lieberman's endorsement signaled the neo-cons that McCain is their man, and not Rudy. I guess they felt that Rudy has too much baggage, and his advisor's list reads like the neo-cons "Whose Who" list. So they learned that the US will not support a too obvious Likud agenda in the US, so now we will get Likud light, with Hillary and McCain. I agree with the author, either of these two will be like a curse.I wonder if McCain promised Lieberman another chance to be Vice President in exchange for the neo-con vote?
Anisa | | | | zionistneoconsux | | Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
| | Given the fact our government has been hijacked by Israel and Zionists, given the fact that he who controls the money calls the shots, (zionists Fed famalies), given the fact that our voting system is easy to "fix", I'd say that "we the people" are no longer driving the bus but simply terrified passengers wondering where we're going and "why us". This didn't happen overnight folks. Study history. There have been a long line of traitors who made our current state of affairs possible. We're in too deep. When a person can't even question the WTC7 demolition with engineering and indisputable facts without being called a "nut job" by all of the major media, we've lost. We may not know it but we're surrounded (by the enemy) and every time we try to raise our voice we'll be told to shut up and we'll be carried out of the crowd by security en route to a good ass kicking. My only concern is that enough people don't see these realities. Part of the "chess game" is now in play, ruination of our economy. It's hard to be worried about politics when you can't feed your family or hold on to your home. The masses will soon be poor, looking for a handout. (Coming depression) The solution we'll be offered this time will be a communist style of government controlled by the same types of Jews who ran Russia after that revolution. Study history. They don't like white people very much! Look what they've done to our culture under their watch: 1) Gotten white people to hate themselves and think of themselves as "racists" while all other races have organizations to promote their race (eg. NAACP) 2) Promoted a "hip hop" culture to get kids to subscribe to the ghetto mentality of sex, drugs, and violence. 3) Prevented the truth from being taught or debated in regards to the truth about the Russian revolution (financed by zionsts, carried out by jews), the USS liberty attack, (thanks McCain Sr), JFK assassination, Mossad-Israel 911 connection, HAARP coverup, Chemtrail coverup, UFO coverup, and not stop propaganda vis the major media on a daily basis. If there is a "God" and a "Devil", I'd say that the US is ripe for destruction. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
| 'god' was smart enough to appoint the 'devil' as his patsy.
Darn, I forgot, if I read any scripture, I'm a good dude. When I proclaim to have seen 'god' or worse, proclaim to be the next 'messiah' [Jesus was numero 9, if I'm not mistaken], I'll end up in the nearest nut-farm.
Funy thing, religion. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
