War Without End

[fishman3811]

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

"We support the troops!" That's the excuse the Democrats have given for continuing to fund Bush's aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan. But, of course, war funding doesn't support the troops. War funding supports an evil machine that chews up and spits out the lives and well being of the troops, along with that of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan, men, women, and children. War funding supports Bush's aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and his continuing efforts to occupy both countries in order to turn them into puppet states.

Polls show that a majority of the troops and their families do not support Bush's aggression. The fact that Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination received the lion's share of contributions from military families also underlines the great divide between the troops and those who would "support" them by keeping them in Iraq and Afghanistan. What all those ribbon decals on the back of SUVs, which proclaim "support the troops," really mean is support Bush's wars of aggression against Muslims.

According to the Washington Post (Feb. 9, 2008), Bush's $3.1 trillion federal budget provides no funding for his proposal in his State of the Union address to permit military members to transfer their unused education benefits to family members. Bush got applause for his nationally televised words, but the troops and their families got no money in his budget.

Government analysts calculate the education benefits would cost in the range of $1-2 billion annually--the cost of funding the war for two days.

The only money that Bush and Congress want to give the troops is what is required to keep them at war. Everyone has read the horror stories of the lack of care for the physically and emotionally wounded troops who have made it back from Iraq.

In contrast, to fund Bush's war, Bush and Congress have already spent in out-of-pocket and future costs at least $1,000 billion. Every American can draw up lists of better uses of this immense fortune than blowing up a country's infrastructure and killing hundreds of thousands of its citizens.

Nothing good whatsoever has been accomplished by Bush's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was obvious to anyone with a lick of sense in 2002, six months prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq on March 18, 2003, that an invasion would be a strategic blunder. William S. Lind, myself and others made that prediction in October, 2002. Three years later, Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, vindicated us by declaring Bush's invasion of Iraq to be "the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history." If the head of the NSA doesn't know a "strategic disaster" when he sees one, who does?

Gen. Odom's assessment is certainly correct. Bush, Cheney, the neocons, and the sycophant media were completely wrong. Look at the situation today. Unable to defeat the Sunni insurgency, the US "superpower" has had to resort to paying tens of millions of dollars to insurgency leaders to bribe them not to attack US troops. In addition, Bush is supplying the insurgents with weapons "to fight al Qaeda." The Sunni leaders gladly accept the money and weapons, but how long can they survive being collaborators with the American enemy that has destroyed their country and the Sunni place in the sun?

It was obvious to everyone but Bush and the neocons that overthrowing Saddam Hussein in the name of democracy would put the majority Shi'ites, who are allied with Iran, in place as the new rulers of Iraq. So far the Iraqi Shi'ites have bided their time and have not joined in earnest the insurgency against the US occupation. Instead, they, like the Sunnis, have directed most of their attention to cleansing neighborhoods of one another. The reasons that violence--although still higher than Americans could live with--is down are that most of the neighborhoods are now segregated, al Sadr has ordered his militia to stand down, and the Sunni insurgents are being paid not to attack US troops.

Bush started a war, and now to avoid losing it Bush pays Iraqis not to attack US troops!

The Sunnis and Shi'ites are stronger than ever, while the US troops are worn down and demoralized from multiple lengthy combat tours that violate traditional US military policy.

It was also obvious that Bush's invasions would destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan. On February 8, seasoned foreign correspondent Warren Strobel reported for the McClatchy newspapers that "Pakistan is now the central front in America's war on terror." On February 9, the Washington Post reported: "Pakistan faces a growing threat from a new generation of radicalized, battle-hardened militants who embrace jihad and have become allied with local and international terrorists intent on toppling the pro-Western government [shorthand for paid US puppet], a senior U.S. intelligence official told reporters yesterday."

US officials have been pressing Pakistan, to no effect, to allow US troops to join the Pakistani army's fight against Pakistani tribes allied with the Taliban. US officials, "speaking on condition of anonymity," are trying to muster support for an expanded US military role in Pakistan by alleging that Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar are in Pakistan with their top commanders. Bush wants to bomb Pakistan in order to win the war in Afghanistan.

With all available US troops tied down in Iraq, the US is using NATO soldiers as mercenaries to try to counter a resurgent Taliban. Europeans are tiring of their role as an European proxy for America's legions, and the NATO commander speaks of a NATO defeat in Afghanistan.

NATO was an alliance created to resist a Soviet invasion of Europe. The US has kept an unnecessary NATO alive for 18 years as a source of troops for its foreign adventures. Europeans dislike being mercenaries for American Empire, especially one that slaughters civilians.

Desperate for troops, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is trying to scare Europeans with the threat of "international terrorism," but Europeans know that the best way to bring terrorism to Europe is to send troops to fight Muslims for the Americans. Whether Gates will get the German and French soldiers that he so desperately needs depends on whether the US can give the German and French leaders, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, enough billions of dollars to divide among their parties to embolden them to override public opinion and send their soldiers to die for US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

Gates told Europe that NATO's survival is at stake: "We must not--we cannot--become a two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those who are not." In a rare bit of honesty for an American government official, Gates admitted at the NATO conference in Munich last week that Europeans' anger at the US over Iraq is the reason Europe won't send enough troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, thus putting what Gates disingenuously called "the international mission in Afghanistan" at risk of failure.

The Afghanistan "mission," like the Iraq "mission," was a mission for US and Israel hegemony. The official reason for invading Afghanistan was 9/11 and the alleged refusal of the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Europe, NATO, or any "international mission." The official reason for invading Iraq was alleged, but nonexistent, weapons of mass destruction that allegedly threatened America--another, but more deadly, 9/11 in the making according to the Bush regime.

If the US now needs foreign troops to save its bacon in these two lost wars, it should demand them from Israel. Israel is why the US is at war in the Middle East. Let Israel supply the troops. The neocons who dominated the Bush regime and took America to illegal wars are allied with the extreme right-wing government of Israel. The goal of neoconservatism is to remove all obstacles to Israeli territorial expansion. The Zionist aim is to grab the entirely of the West Bank and southern Lebanon, with more to follow later.

Remember "mission accomplished"? Remember all the strutting neocons with their promises of a "cakewalk war"? Remember all the ignorant bragging about having "defeated the Taliban"? All of these lies were designed to tie American down in interminable wars in the Middle East for Israel's benefit. There is no other reason for Bush's invasions. We know for certain that Bush and his entire administration lied through their teeth about the Taliban and about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What a total crock of ignorance and deception the Bush regime represents. Bush, defeated in Iraq, defeated in Afghanistan, with Pakistan crumbling in front of his eyes, is now reduced to begging the French, whom it was such grand sport for his neocon officials to denigrate, to send soldiers to save his ass in Afghanistan.

What a laughing stock Bush has made of America. What ruination this utter idiot and his supporters have brought to America. What total traitors the neoconservatives are. Every last one of them should be immediately arrested for high treason. Neonconservatives are America's greatest enemies, and they control our government! All Americans have to show for six years of Bush's "war on terror" is an incipient police state.

Now standing in the wings is mad John "hundred year war" McCain. Will the American electorate wipe out the Republican Party before this insane party wipes out America?

fishman3811 Reviewed by fishman3811 on 02-13-2008. War Without End By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS "We support the troops!" That's the excuse the Democrats have given for continuing to fund Bush's aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan. But, of course, war funding doesn't support the troops. War funding supports an evil machine that chews up and spits out the lives and well being of the troops, along with that of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan, men, women, and children. War funding supports Bush's aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and his continuing Rating: 5

[Psycho4Bud]

"The US has kept an unnecessary NATO alive for 18 years as a source of troops for its foreign adventures. Europeans dislike being mercenaries for American Empire, especially one that slaughters civilians."

Sure thing.......another b.s. source has been discovered.

Have a good one!:s4:

[8182KSKUSH]

It would be intresting if you heard this from anyone other than Ron Paul and this turd!
This is the turd that made the insinuation that the World Trade Centers couldn't have possible come down the way the did right? Fire doesn't melt steal right? Yeah he is a genius. Then the liberal media ran with it, then to add even more credit to what this turd is spewing, Rosie became his spokesturd. This turd just washes his hands of everything claiming to be impartial, and backtracks on what he says about it after someone points out, (fire melts steal, that's how they make things out of steel, oh yeah!) Yeah this guy is a fucking genius! I can't find much that he has done in the last 5 years that wasn't exclusively bashing Bush or making fanatical claims that never came true. He is a fanatic, I don't care what he did, and what's on his resume.
You can use your own judgement every once in a while.
Heres another shiny turd this guy dropped last year in July!

Impeach Now Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy

Paul Craig Roberts
Counterpunch
Tuesday July 17, 2007

[align=left]Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.[/align]
.................................................. .............................
I won't post the article, as it is a waste of movement and breathing to do so since it is garbage. Point is, we obviously did not impeach Bush. It will be almost a year later here pretty quick. Let me know when all this is supposed to happen. I can't wait for Bush to leave office, so I can look around at all the Turds and ask them, what happened? We are all still here? Did superman come down and save earth from Bush?Sounds like this guy is just a schill that's taken prison style for RU Paul. JMO. :thumbsup:

[McLeodGanja]

I thought "democracy", as it is widely misconstrued by the "democractic" world anyway, was pretty much shattered 7 years ago when Bush came (usurped himself in)to power.

[CultureCherryPopper]

I love how foreigners have to chime in with their two cents bashing our country.... Democracy still stood when Bush took office the second term, and it'll still stand after he steps aside for the next awful president. In today's society it will take a nationwide natural or medical disaster of biblical proportions for democracy to be threatened when FEMA assumes emergency control over the government. Anyone who watches X-Files knows that....

Sarcasm aside, what you don't realize because you didn't follow the election closely (or at all), was that the past election was truly a crapshoot; the turdsandwich/douchebag analogy was quite true. Only difference was, at least Bush had a sense of direction for this country, and has acted to fulfill the goals of his Republican constituents as best he could. Kerry on the other hand probably couldn't decide on which tie to wear each day, let alone where to stand on the war. That indecisiveness would surely have hurt the country more than Bush's continued support. And before you go spouting off numbers about support for Bush, you have to remember no president has been popular in a non-global confrontation, ever.

Why is it so bad that this war could be about oil? It would mean that it's mutually self-serving for both the US and Iraq; we get oil in exchange for removing a genocidal dictator from power. Is that so wrong? I don't think it is, it's just simple service and payment. But then again, where's all this magical oil at?

So there were no WMDs, I'll concede that. But think, instead of just assuming they lied, why not consider that there was bad intel? The CIA and NSA don't get it right every time ya know, they sift through mountain ranges of data daily. And if they lied, then they did so in order to save a country slowly dying in the hands of Saddam. But no, you Bush-haters are so quick to cast your pessimistic eye onto him with your witty sayings and propaganda in ignorance at what you don't comprehend. International politics is an increasingly complex dynamic with many hidden secrets. Things happen usually for a reason beyond our scope of knowledge as mere tiny citizens. But go ahead, slap that bumper sticker on your car so you can be cool.

[McLeodGanja]

I love how foreigners have to chime in with their two cents bashing our country....

What, no-one from a foreign land is allowed to criticise the "democratic" process in America?

That's a bit of a double standard, seeing as the Bush regime are pretty good at criticising the rest of the world, and poking their nose into every other countries affairs.

[CultureCherryPopper]

I'm just stating that your idea that democracy is broken now because one man is in the Oval Office is just absurd, so why say it at all? It's one thing to be hyperbolic, but it's gotten old. Like seven years old. You all are damn broken record that will just find another tune to crow when the new president is elected.

[McLeodGanja]

I'm just stating that your idea that democracy is broken now because one man is in the Oval Office is just absurd, so why say it at all? It's one thing to be hyperbolic, but it's gotten old. Like seven years old. You all are damn broken record that will just find another tune to crow when the new president is elected.

No doubt the next one will be just as bad. Hopefully when the republicans lose this time they will just accept it and stand down.

[Psycho4Bud]

I love it when Canadians post about OUR war for oil.........

Kurds in refinery talks with Canadian oil firms
BAGHDAD: Iraq's self-governing northern Kurdish region is negotiating with two Canadian firms on a joint venture to construct an oil refinery and continue work on a second one to boost its fledgling oil industry, its spokesman said yesterday.

But Kurdish officials are facing opposition from the central government in Baghdad, and a group of about 145 Sunni and Shi'ite legislators in parliament expressed their deep concerns against "any individual act" in Iraq's natural resources.

The Kurdish spokesman, Jamal Abdullah, said the contracts are legal and that no one has the authority to annul them.

"We are going forward to develop this sector to serve our people, and anyone who has any complaint should file it to the federal court," he said.

Iraq, the holder of the world's third-largest crude oil reserves with an estimated 115 billion barrels, aims to boost production to three million barrels per day by the end of the year. Parliament is currently considering an oil law to divvy up the country's oil and gas among Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds - one of the benchmarks sought by the US to achieve national reconciliation.

Abdullah said the two 20,000-barrel-per-day refineries will be located in Sulaimaniyah, one of three provinces that make up the Kurdistan regional government and about 260km northeast of Baghdad.

The first refinery, in the Bazian area, is scheduled to be completed by 2010 in a joint venture with Canada's Heritage Oil. The second refinery, to be located at the Taq Taq oilfield, would be constructed by Genel and Canada's Addax Petroleum and completed by early next year.
</title> </head> <body topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" rightmargin="0" bottommargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"> <div align="left"> <table border="0" width="1000" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="table1"> <tr> <td valign=top> <div align="lef

Have a good one!:s4:

[CultureCherryPopper]

I agree. The future don't look too bright any way you scan it. Our government needs a shake up and an overhaul in my opinion. We place so much faith (and blame) on one man, but really it's the entire system that is failing. One man can't change the world politically anymore yet we look to these candidates searching for a savior to right this ship. The way I see it, the world needs to be united under one government. Only then can we come together as a race and begin to solve the world's problems and heal this planet's wounds. Cultures won't be lost as many would claim will happen; hell, look at the South and you'll see that heritage runs deep and is resistant to change from unification. The problem of creating a world government is certainly daunting, not to mention an electoral system (popular vote and we'll have a Chinese president til the world ends), but it needs to be done fast before we fall apart as a race.