HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » grahamhgreen » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 42 Next »

grahamhgreen

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 30, 2004, 02:05 PM
Number of posts: 13,716

Journal Archives

Every President in the Past 25 Years has Announced 'We Are Bombing Iraq' in Prime Time.


“Just two hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait.”

—President George H. W. Bush
January 16, 1991

“Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.”

—President Bill Clinton
December 16, 1998

“My fellow citizens. At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.”

—President George W. Bush
March 19, 2003

“My fellow Americans. Tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.”

—President Barack Obama
September 10, 2014

Every American President in the past quarter century has now gone on television during prime time to tell the nation and the world that he has decided to bomb Iraq. Last night was Barack Obama’s turn, and it was a vexing performance. This is a President who has been stubbornly dedicated to extricating the United States as much as possible from its post-9/11 wars and resisting—in the absence of any good options for decisive action—being drawn into Syria’s catastrophic civil war. “The greatest responsibility I have as President is to keep the American people safe,” he said, two years ago. “That’s why I ended the war in Iraq.” And he repeated that boast last night, even as he told a very different story, effectively declaring a new war of staggering scope and complexity against forces of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, and other enemies, in Iraq and Syria—a war that he described as having no end in sight.

MORE: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/obama-didnt-say

Kohn: Obama can fight ISIS without bombs

MORE: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/opinion/kohn-isis-obama/

1. U.S. intervention is what destabilized Iraq in the first place -- and more bombing will likely make Iraq less stable.

Our invasion of Iraq and the installation of Nuri al-Malaki as prime minister reignited deep sectarian tensions and created a power vacuum into which ISIS stepped. You can't save a country by destroying it. A bombing campaign that is perceived as taking the side of Shia Muslims while undoubtedly decimating communities and killing civilians will only worsen Iraq's instability.

2. Airstrikes won't destroy radical ideology, they'll make it worse.

Most would-be terrorists don't wake up one morning and suddenly decide to hate America. Often, there's a reason. In 2006, the classified National Intelligence Estimate found that the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq helped create a new generation of terrorists and increased the overall terrorism threat against America. More American military action in the Middle East will just inflame more anti-American terrorists -- which perversely only strengthens the ideology that fuels ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Sen. Manchin (D): “We have proven.. that people we have armed.. have turned those arms against us"

Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) said he will not support a key part of President Obama’s strategy for taking on the Islamic State.

I have a problem with one part, and one part mainly, and that is paying for training and arming Syrian rebels that we’re not sure are our friends,” he said on MSNBC on Thursday. “Right now, I can’t do that — I cannot support arming the rebels who we have not been able to identify.”​

For example, it remains unclear if the rebels sent American journalist Steven Sotloff to his death by capturing him and selling him to the Islamic State, where he was beheaded earlier this month, Manchin explained.

....

“We have proven, for the last twelve years, that people we have trained, people we have clothed, people we have fed, people we have armed turn those arms against us,” he said.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/387739/manchin-i-will-not-be-voting-arm-syrian-rebels-andrew-johnson

Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S. (2004)

(CNN) -- The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy. Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript. He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said. He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/


Strangley, this is also the goal of capitalism described by John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hitman:

She goes on to inform Perkins that he was handpicked to be an Economic Hit Man. What that meant, essentially, was that Perkins was to make economic predictions for the prospect of a country that may be granted a huge loan from the World Bank. The linchpin being that Perkins was to always produce statistics that favored the loan being granted and showed increased economic prosperity for the country as a direct result of whatever the loan was to fund. Basically, on the long term if Perkins could be depended on to produce the desired reports and statistics the loan would be funded by the World Bank. The money from the loans went directly to international firms, like MAIN International, Bechtel, and Halliburton, amongst others. The contractors were paid off and the country to which the loan was granted would be left with a huge debt burden for many decades to come. The debt that was owed would be used by the United States government to spread the American global agenda. Because of the huge debt the leaders of such countries would submit to supporting US military ventures, and providing political support. Claudine goes onto explain the history of using economic power as a means of control and submission by the American government.


Another Question for War Hawks: Where is the money for Vets who will be affected by the New War?

EDIT: (more crickets!!! WTF)

Before we invaded: ZERO al-Qaeda in Iraq, now 20,000 to 31,000. Strong evidence that our war

strategy creates more terror than it destroys.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/index.html

Still waiting for an answer, war hawks: How We Gonna Pay For The New War?

EDIT: Guess we're gonna just have to keep posting this..... Preferably on a daily basis, if not hourly.

Philippine Bill Would Give Muslims Autonomy

The long-running conflict between the government and Muslim fighters in the south has killed thousands of people and displaced more than three million. It has also left Mindanao, the largest island in the southern Philippines, mired in poverty and lawlessness despite being rich in resources that include natural gas, gold and other valuable minerals.

The draft law that Mr. Aquino submitted to the Philippine Congress on Wednesday stems from an October 2012 peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the largest of the Muslim rebel groups. It would group Muslim-dominated southern areas into what would be called the Bangsamoro region, based on the traditional name of Filipino Muslims. To emphasize the importance of the law to his administration, Mr. Aquino personally presented the draft measure to leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives at a ceremony on Wednesday morning.

The Bangsamoro region would have local self-government, including locally recruited law enforcement officials — a critical demand by the rebels, given the allegations of human rights abuses in the region by the Philippine police and military, many of whom are Christians from the north. About four million people would live in the Bangsamoro region. Of the Philippines’ population of 107 million, about 5 percent are Muslim, most of them living in the south; about 80 percent are Roman Catholic.

The region would also retain most of the tax revenue generated from its natural resources. The central government would retain control over currency, foreign policy issues and national defense.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/asia/philippine-bill-would-set-up-autonomous-region-in-muslim-dominated-south.html?_r=2

OK, So ISIL is al-Quaeda, which means....

Last night, our President said, "ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq".

In my view this proves that all our years of force projection in Iraq has made us less safe, not more; which is directly contradictory to his statement, "Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer."

Since al-qaeda in Iraq did not exist prior to our invasion, and is now an actual fighting force with tanks and shit, I would say that our policy of more war has proven one thing: the more we bomb, the more terrorists we create.

How many ISIL members were iraqi children when we first invaded? How many saw their parents and homes destroyed by US bombs? What would make anyone think that more bombs will create fewer combatants?

In my view, ISIL, if 'destroyed', will morph into something else, perhaps not a mobile force, perhaps one that focuses on terror attacks in the US.

I implore all war hawks to listen to reason next time we are asked to resort to violence in 3, or 5, or 10 years as the endless 1400 year old war rages on.

We're all still waiting for you guys to give peace a chance. At minimum, lets use opportunities like these to force the Iranians, Israelis, Syrians, and Saudis to come together to defend themselves against a common enemy.

Obviously, our war has proven itself to be one big giant FAIL since our invasion. I believe this one will have the same result.

Thank you for your time. That is my view.



Obama got it wrong in his second sentence:

"My fellow Americans — tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL. As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people."


“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - Oath of Office.


His highest priority is the security of the Constitution, according to the Constitution. Bush used to pull this obfuscation all the time.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 42 Next »