|
--LBJ. The result was upwards of two million Vietnamese and Southeast Asians slaughtered, and over 50,000 dead U.S. soldiers.
While I would never be against sending flowers to US serviceman, especially the wounded--it is a beautiful gesture--to blindly support Murtha's proposal, just because it appears to be anti-Bush, is a big mistake. And you are doing US soldiers no favor by not thinking it through, and considering all of its implications.
Murtha's plan to withdraw from Iraq but to keep a huge U.S. military presence in the Middle East, poised like a tiger to strike new targets, could be a set-up for a new, phony "Gulf of Tonkin"-type incident--as an excuse to invade Syria or Iran. It furthermore leaves the Shias and Kurds, whom the Bushites gave control of the oil to, to wipe out the Sunnis on their own, with just a little bombing help from the US stationed in Kuwait or Qatar--and with as much world attention as was given to the US bombing of the "no-fly" zones prior to our invasion. The more educated and business savvy Sunnis refused to knuckle under to a US-written constitution and US-written oil contracts. They are targeted for extermination. Beware!
US death squads are running around Iraq, assassinating Sunni leaders, preparatory to US withdrawal, to be replaced by US-trained Iraqi death squads who will be doing the same, and the US was bombing villages on the Syrian border throughout Katrina--under the radar--and is already over the border, killing Syrian soldiers.
Consider this: Murtha's proposal is intended to HELP Bush and all pro-war candidates in the '06 election, and most especially, to kill the campaigns of antiwar Democrats, such as that of Colleen Rowley in Minnesota. The War Democrats DO NOT WANT an antiwar movement within the party. They are hogtied to huge military contractors and continued huge military spending--Murtha has ALWAYS supported this. The official position of the Kerry/Edwards campaign--and I have seen no change in this among the Dem Party leadership--was NOT that the war was wrong and unconstitutional--not to mention immoral; it was that Dems can do a BETTER, more efficient, more successful war.
Back up for a moment. It was Eisenhower who nixed the UN-sponsored elections in Vietnam in the mid-1950s, in which Ho Chi Minh, the highly popular leader of the Vietnamese revolution against French colonialists, would have been elected president. He was the first to send US military "advisers" and the CIA to Vietnam, to start setting up a phony and highly corrupt US-supported government in the south. Then, in the early 1960s, shortly before JFK was assassinated, JFK signed executive orders to rescind those operations, because Ho Chi Minh, although he was a communist, was clearly the choice of the people of Vietnam, and had further made overtures to the US government. He wanted to be a US ally. He quoted Thomas Jefferson. He compared the Vietnamese revolution against the French to the American revolution against the British. Kennedy was undoubtedly wary of the CIA of that era, which had set up an invasion of Cuba, for early in his term, and tried to force him into it. He refused to go along with it, and declined to provide air support to the CIA-backed invasion of Cuba. And he was clearly suspicious of--and refused to back--the CIA's war in Vietnam.
The moment LBJ became president, he reversed JFK's executive orders, and began the escalation of the Vietnam war. Whoever killed JFK, the military-industrial war profiteers greatly benefited from his death, and made billions off the unjustified slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and tens of thousands of drafted soldiers--the most shameful and criminal act that the US has ever committed. And before it was over, Nixon had escalated it into Laos and Cambodia (meanwhile talking "peace" to the American people), causing even more horrendous slaughter. Three countries--the entire region--was aflame by the end of it.
The key to that escalation--as to LBJ convincing and bludgeoning a Democratic Congress into supporting it--was the entirely phony "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, a purported North Vietnamese attack on US forces (which should not have been there anyway).
Now look at our current situation. The president of one party gets the thing all set up--invades and occupies Iraq, without justification, after a 100% pack of lies about the threat of Iraq as a haven for Islamic terrorists. (Read: the threat of communism; Vietnam as one "domino" that will cause other "dominoes" to "fall" to communism--an economic system that puts workers, small farmers and the poor first.) Then the other party--which has been complicit in the set-up--is given the presidency in order to finish the job off, and its campaign "talking point" (a la LBJ) is that they are the party of peace and will withdraw US forces from Iraq, a war that that bad old Bush started.
But they don't withdraw from the region. They have their sights on TWO OTHER countries--Iran and Syria (read Laos and Cambodia). And the trick will be how to FOOL the American people into thinking that a massive US military presence in the Middle East will bring "peace" to the region.
I think we are looking smack dab in the face of another Vietnam War.
The War Democrat who will be installed as president (this time via Diebold and ES&S electronic voting machines, with their "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code), will be able to achieve a military Draft (which Bush cannot do), and revamp the US military (which Bush had to drag kicking and screaming into Iraq--the wiser brass know too well the lesson of Vietnam--and had to overextend, calling up National Guard and mandating virtual slavery with "extended tours of duty" for 'volunteer' soldiers).
I have said that I think the Bush Cartel's primary purpose, in every instance--including Iraq--is looting, and that PNAC (the Neo-cons plan for world domination) is just window dressing. And I still think that is true. The Bushites are looters and pillagers. They have no interest in governing, or in creating anything (not even a fascist state). But they have set the situation up--by stomping the American people into submission with induced poverty, and by taking all our wealth and, a) pouring half it it into the Iraq war, and b) stuffing the other half of it into their own pockets--thus making it possible for the Democrats to look like "saviors," and to come in and COMPLETE the war, under the guise of restoring order and making "peace."
They've done it before. And I think they're doing it again. And THAT is why our Democratic leadership raise NOT ONE WORD OF OBJECTION to rightwing Bushite corporations gaining control of our election system. It is not a system designed to elect Republicans. It is a system designed to elect the War Party.
------------------
So, yeah, send flowers to the maimed and the wounded. It's a nice thing to do, truly. But I wouldn't thank Murtha just yet--not until it's all over.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
