PROTEST IN THE STREETS THE DAY AFTER AN ANNOUNCEMENT IS MADE TO SEND MORE TROOPS INTO AFGHANISTAN

We in the anti-war movement have been tirelessly and endlessly calling upon the government to end the occupations. We want our troops out of the middle east, and an end to the drone bombings that are killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Letters have been written, petitions signed, arrests made but the wars drone on. And now we are grimly awaiting the announcement by the Obama Administration of an escalation of troop levels once again in Afghanistan.

It is impossible to predict when this announcement will come, but it will, and we must be ready. Everyone of conscience who can’t stand one more day or one more minute witnessing the death and destruction being wreaked upon countries and its people, under the guise of “bringing democracy” or “helping women” or “ending the poppy production” or “protecting civilians”, or the best yet, “fight the war on terror”, must join together, show unity, and strength against this scourge.

We must stop flying our own banners announcing our “affiliations” and fight our common enemy, those who chose to continue wars of aggression in our names, and we must fight cohesively and with one message, and in one voice: END THE WARS, ALL TROOPS HOME NOW!

Soon the announcement will be made to send more young men and women to die and to kill. We don’t want it, we have told those who have taken power that it must end. But slowly we have come to realize that our cries fall on deaf ears, and it is in our hands and our hands only to enter the belly of the beast and show them what the people can do united.

We must have a national day of resistance against these occupations, and when the announcement is made to send more troops to Afghanistan, it is time for ALL of us to get into the streets and stop business as usual.

It may mean going out in your community during the week! It may mean expressing our anger in the form of non-violent civil disobedience.

But if hundreds of people around the country picked a location where they live and formed alliances to make sure this happened, our message would be heard, loud and clear. We owe it to the troops and to the people of other countries who are looking to us for their salvation.

If Obama makes his announcement on a weekend, then we as a collective group of anti-war activists, with a plan in place, go to a pre-determined location the next business day at 5 PM and shut down the streets in the name of PEACE.

If we are truly determined to face our enemy then we must do it with resolve. We must be relentless, unafraid and staunch in our demands and demeanor.

It is way past time to join together and move forward to a more peaceful world. But without hundreds if not thousands out there around the country being arrested in the name of peace at the same time and on the same day, we will not move one inch from where we are now. It is a step forward, a small brave step, but if we do it in unison we will find strength in our numbers. The world is counting on us!

But the issue that drew the most attention and anger is the U.S. use of unmanned drone airplanes to kill people in Pakistan, a program guided offshore by civilians from as far away as western United States. Some Pakistanis told Clinton that the program amounted to “execution without trial”. Others asked Clinton if she viewed these drone attacks as terrorism. “No, I do not”, she replied, but refused to comment further.

This CIA program is aimed at terrorism suspects around the world including countries where U.S. troops are not based. The program was initiated in the Bush administration, continued by Obama, and is now one of the fastest-growing programs of the U.S. military. After September 11, Bush signed a secret memorandum of notification giving the CIA the right to kill members of Al Qaeda and confederates virtually anywhere in the world.

Targeted killing has become official U.S. policy although the U.S. has a law forbidding assassination. The CIA furnishes the intelligence and selection of victims. It depends on the quality of the intelligence and whether cash bounties to informers and personal revenge influence the execution decisions. Errors in targeting have led to civilian deaths of innocents especially members of families of the targeted.

The CIA keeps broadening categories of the condemned, from Al Qaeda to Taliban to insurgents. Opponents of the program say that it is more effective `to arrest suspects than to kill-in order to obtain intelligence from them. Dead men tell no tales.

The CIA has farmed out the killing to commercial contractors who hire and train civilians to make the life and death decisions under pressure, a system that makes many uneasy. Other critics point out that the drone is not a decisive weapon but its use is likely to inspire hatred of America and even create more enemies seeking revenge. And as Clinton found out in Pakistan, a longtime U.S. ally, the drone program could cause America to lose the moral high ground, from time immemorial an important asset in rallying the nation, attracting allies, and deterring rivals.

A recent article in the New York Times reported that the military has become frustrated with President Barack Obama because he hasn’t quickly decided to risk more of their lives in an Afghan war that is likely to be unwinnable. In a post-World War II world that has featured a non-traditional militarized foreign policy of profligate interventions into the affairs of other nations, the U.S. military and its opinion have acquired great prestige and are accorded hushed reverence in American society. The military and flag are worshiped as never before. But is this really patriotism?

The nation’s founders would roll over in their graves at what patriotism has become. After their bad experience with British colonial military abuses and seeing European citizens paying with blood and treasure for the frequent wars of their monarchs, the founders feared standing armies for undermining liberty. The U.S. Constitution rejected European militarism in favor of tight congressional controls over the employment, organization, and funding of the U.S. armed forces. Since World War II, those controls—such as congressional declarations of war—have been severely eroded.

And the American public, still feeling guilty over the admittedly terrible treatment of returning draftees from the Vietnam War, has retained its awe of the now voluntary military as an institution, even as it has soured on the Iraq and Afghan Wars. Even while fighting two unpopular wars, the public has supported huge defense budgets all out of proportion to what is needed to defend the country. Is this healthy for a republic?

The politically incorrect answer to this question is a resounding “no!” Being genuinely patriotic means supporting the country’s society and culture. Excessive reverence for the U.S. government, military, and flag is merely nationalism and is similar to episodes in Russia, Germany, and Japan in the last century. And slathering the military with too many resources tempts politicos, such as George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright, to dream up unneeded military adventures overseas, which many times end in disaster.

True American patriotism, following in the tradition of the founding, rejects militarism without rejecting an appropriate role for the military. According to the Constitution, the active military should “provide for the common defense” and nothing more. This limited role should rule out the military being used to invade other nations for ostensibly lofty purposes.

To be even more politically incorrect, on 9/11, the U.S. military failed in this primary mission. No one was fired over this tragic fiasco. Since then, the military has been used to make things worse and actually undermine U.S. security. Armchair quasi-patriots—unfortunately, most of the country—don’t like to acknowledge what triggers al-Qaeda’s heinous attacks in the first place: U.S. interventions in Islamic countries. In both the counterproductive Afghan and Iraq invasions and occupations, the military made huge mistakes before having to relearn counterinsurgency warfare tactics purposefully forgotten in the wake of its debacle in Vietnam. Does repeated incompetence deserve veneration?

One might then say so much for the military organization and its leaders, but shouldn’t we still have reverence for the frontline soldier who risks his or her life for our freedom? Unfortunately, military personnel—like the general public from which they come—are under the same aforementioned delusion about what “patriotism” should be. One could argue that war is sometimes necessary for defense—although the current U.S. offensive-defensive strategy is unneeded, unconstitutional, and counterproductive—but war rarely leads to increased freedom, as the founders knew. The civil liberties erosion under the “war on terror” is illustrative. Also, military personnel should know, or take the time to learn if they don’t, that the U.S. has been the most aggressive country on the planet during the Cold War and since in terms of the number of foreign military interventions.

Therefore, a new patriotism is needed. As a start, let’s stop worshiping the military and flag and bring back the founders’ old-fashioned respect for liberty and the Constitution.

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.

Eric Margolis is contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada. He is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World. See his website.

Copyright © 2009 Eric Margolis

Voltaire made that observation after he had been exiled to a penal colony Island by the King of France who didn’t take more harsh action because Voltaire was loved by the public who agreed with his writings that the King was a despot.

When we consider our Government, it follows that we need an accurate explanation of what is meant by “ when the Government is wrong”. And that explanation might be best described by using illustrations or examples.

Of course the most disruptive and harmful conflict is one of immoral or unnecessary conflicts of choice – armies conducting invasions, killing and destroying – for profits to war Industries or for Empire building. However there are many kinds of war – war between nations, religious wars, class wars, wars against drugs, wars against terrorism, even wars between political Parties. And certainly we shouldn’t forget Husband/Wife or Parent/Child conflicts.

But the sobering realization should be that all wars could be avoided. And as you raise your voice to condemn such an absurd statement, all I ask is that you hear me out since it has been proven that the human brain does not work well when it is inundated with facts that it does not want to hear. So lets see if we can agree on something:

War must have something to initiate it. And that thing must emanate from one or both of the potential combatants. Are you with me so far? When conflict arises there is always the opportunity for one or both sides to seek common ground. If either side fails to seek that common ground, physical conflict is likely to arise. The only scenario where armed aggression arises, when one side is seeking peace, is when the other side doesn’t want peace.

The question then becomes, does one side or either side really want peace? If one side doesn’t want peace, then there will be none. But even with this scenario, there doesn’t have to be war – it starts simply because one side chooses to start one. The other side then is forced to defend itself.

Has our Government sought peace in any one of the more than fifty incursions that we have been involved in since World War II? Or were we that side that refused a chance at peace simply because we had the might to assert our will? If you think we started wars only for peace, could you give a good reason why we didn’t invade Russia in the last half of the last century? Why didn’t we invade China? Why did we invade Iraq? Why does our Government want to invade Iran? Could it be that our Government has become a warrior Nation bent on building Empire? Can an honest American claim that all these fifty plus conflicts we have entered into since WWII have been “Wars for Peace”?

Would our Government be wrong if it is correct, that we have not sought peace? Would it be dangerous to oppose such a Government? Even for the citizen of the Government? How badly things can go wrong in a war is best illustrated by the Iraqi War. Remember, the Iraqis were predicted to greet us with flowers as our invading army marched in.

Our Government un-leased a war on Iraq for no reason other than to provide a profit stream for the War Industry and to provide fertile grounds for immoral Corporations to rape the Iraqi resources. While achieving this they used Depleted Uranium (DU) tipped munitions, a volatile radioactive weapon that is spread by wind currents and causes cancers, leukemia, and grotesque birth defects, and will continue to do so for up to 4.5 Billion years. Iraq today is staggered by the high rate of simply hideous birth defects that is causing Iraqi potential mothers to have to make a choice about chance.

Historians could very likely judge this atrocity to be the most heinous crime ever committed against human beings in the history of mankind. Dave Lindorff just recently wrote about this tragedy done to mankind. I hope you read it. What are we going to do about the criminals who are even today enjoying their Blood Profits? Smart money says we will never even scold them.

And to think, this war was wanted by no one except the War Industry, the Neo-Cons of the Republican Party, and the Energy Corporations. Could this historic massacre have been avoided? Absolutely! Should we let it go unpunished? Absolutely not! If we do, what does it say about us as a people? For thousands of years after History no longer remembers George Bush and Dick Cheney, the people of a land that was once Iraq, the cradle of civilization, will still be dying and grotesque births will still be occurring because of what we allowed to transpire in Iraq in the early twenty-First Century. And it may even spread far and wide, even to the United States, a once Great Nation, now just dust in History’s past, once hailed as the Ideal of moral and ethical people, who could even then lie in still radioactive graves, the detritus of an un-necessary war.

In the past year there was serious consideration given to enacting legislation that would approve the prosecution of “Thought Crimes”, with penalties including every thing from torture to imprisonment without trial and all the atrocities done in the name of this War on Terror, but this time the legislation was for prosecution of American Citizens as well as “Terrorists” – can you think “ For Thought Crimes against the State”?

And in spite of all the evidence of the evils of DU, the United States military still uses DU all over the World, and even in the United States.

Think long and hard before you answer those questions I have posed.

But why did the author, like so many others, choose to turn what should have been a constructive argument, into a diatribe? Was it necessary to charge Western discourses, resorting to the ever predictable classification of “us and them”, instead of trying to find a common cause?

The same point can be made regarding other discussions, whether pertaining to human rights (women’s rights in particular), the environment, labor rights, and many others.

In her defense, Amirah Sulaiman was simply following an existing pattern, commonly used to delineate one’s cultural or religious progression, at the expense of another.

But it’s more than that, it’s also a defense mechanism, a haunting reminder that the alleged civilizational clash, although more imagined and politicized, than real, pervades many aspects of our perception of ourselves and of others.

Among Muslim intellectuals, as in societies, this paradigm is omnipresent.

Cultural animosity, collective defensiveness, racism (and Orientalism), among other overriding cultural trends existed long before distained US foreign policy in the Middle East became the defining norm, before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. But these events emboldened existing arguments on both sides, with Muslims solidifying as a collective victim, and the US, from a Muslim point of view, seen as a vulgar, but true representation of the West.

Of course, Muslims and Islam had their own ominous representations in the US, thus ‘Western’ media, culture and psyche – the dagger wielding bearded man, who abuses women, whenever he takes time away from blowing up infidels. As comical as I intended this to sound, as disturbingly true such a depiction is in the minds of many.

It would be utterly unfair and largely inaccurate to equate the ‘Western’ misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims, with the latter’s misrepresentation of the West. The former approaches its caricatured depiction from a chest thumping, Fox News mentality of militarily powerful and economically stable countries. Its view of the other is largely hegemonic and its standard solution to bringing wars to an end is with military surges and the increasing of military assistance (with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan being the current cases in point.)

Collective Muslim identity however is largely fragmented, between governments that only represent themselves, and peoples facing many forms of oppression: political tyranny at home, external repression (war, foreign interventions, etc), economic uncertainty (fuelled by inequality and compounded by unfiltered globalization), and extremism.

The so-called war on terror, for obvious reasons, cemented that fragmentation. On one hand, it reinforced many Muslims’ growing sense of victimization; a notion that itself resulted in both submissiveness and extremism. On the other it inspired a re-think, positive at times, self-negating at others: it kindled a affirmative sense of identity and pride among a generation desperate to identify itself according to its own priorities and on its own turf, while, on the other hand, it led to a (minor) movement of intellectual migration, which sought in the ‘West’ an escape from the oppressive reality, of which, of course the ‘West’ is equally responsible.

But it was not war alone (and in itself) that shaped Muslim perceptions of the ‘West’; it was rather the US’ and (to lesser extent Britain’s) insistence that their war championed an essentially Western discourse on democracy and human rights. Such arguments took place in an already hostile atmosphere: incessant media and academic mutterings about Islam’s shortcomings, and a growing right wing, racist tendencies in various Western countries targeting immigrants and minorities, many of whom are Muslims.

When such political, military and intellectual encroachment is backed by such statements as that made by US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Lieutenant General William G. Boykin (now retired), then the plot thickens, and the collective polarization of both societies grows. Boykin, author of “Never Surrender: A Soldier’s Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom,” became famous for his infamous quote, several years ago, in reference to a Muslim militant in Mogadishu: “I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”

This was a lone quotation, of course, in a sea of bigoted references that defined many officials and media pundits during the Bush Administration. Such voices are now, somewhat mute, although, its hard to believe that the advent of President Barack Obama has altered a culture in its entirety.

It takes generations for genuine trust to take hold, and the countdown cannot possibly start as long as one US solider is stationed in a Muslim country for the purpose of conducting war and occupation.

Yet again, there is more to all of this. Reversing intellectual dogmas and collective realizations is too convoluted a process; it requires time, action and good will.

In the meantime, Muslims, who insist on living in the shadow of the ‘West’ as unreserved aficionados or obsessed detractors must redefine their own discourses. As for the latter, they must not allow war alone, MTV consumer media culture, hegemonic globalization and racist remarks by a politician or a born again evangelical to taint their entire view of what are essentially unique, diverse and in many ways impressive civilizations that have done much good. Indeed, there is the like of Boykin, but there are millions of others who are peace-loving, ordinary people, some of whom are ardent advocates of human rights, anti-war campaigners, including the thousands who have repeatedly broken the siege on Gaza, and previous to that Iraq. Muslims too must quit caricaturing them, reducing them to enemies, juxtaposing Muslims’ essential righteousness with ‘Western’ essential depravity. Not only are such reductions inaccurate and self-defeating, they also break down possible alliances between the forces of good in this world, in a time when they are of essence.

This is appeasement not peace. Yet, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to US President Barrack Obama for reasons which are baffling. Recipients of the same prize, namely the Dalai Lama and Barrack Hussein Obama, ironically cannot meet as it might discombobulate a delicate international order.

Perhaps the Norwegian Nobel Prize committee was rewarding Obama for not launching a war under false pretexts the way his predecessor George W. Bush did just nine months into office. Otherwise, Obama has achieved nothing except for an exaggerated engagement with the Islamic world.

According to the Daily Telegraph, an “Obamameter” run by the political accountability organization PolitiFact lists “seven broken promises, a dozen stalled initiatives and 117 pet projects still ‘in the works.’”

The Nobel award is symptomatic of all that is wrong with our system.

Our standards are literally being shortened. There is a duality of metrics that separates the rulers from the ruled. When the ruler fails to deliver, a prestigious award provides the fix.

One class sports a long list of titles, awards, “achievements” and those meaningless two-, three-lettered acronyms on ponderous coattails while the other class desperately cling on to the hems for their daily crumbs.

We live in an SMS world defined by abbreviated value-added jargons (VAJ) like ROIs, ERPs, KPIs and thousands of other acronyms that favour paper credentials over knowledge, Ponzi schemes over gold and venality over industry.

One class throws out such jargons, titles and acronyms as yardsticks that others should live by. When ruination knocks at the door, it is the agenda setters and the main culprits who walk away with the fat bonus.

It is not easy to shake off the power of acronyms. If they were alive today, Sigmund Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays may have used them in case studies of population control.

There is power in stilted vocabularies. In a corporate meeting, jargons are routinely resorted by one clueless group to beat the senses of another. Statistics and glossy power points are shoved down your throat. Few seek clarity. No one wants to be seen as a hick. Resolutions are finally passed. Over time, it leads to pseudo-sciences within the once respectable socio-economic fields of study.

Abbreviated terms of reference (TOR) are great trinkets for a self-delusional professional rabble. They revel in the mass-manufactured credentials available at schools, universities and e-bay.

In the end, we have an acute global talent shortage in a world brimming with paper qualifications.

Ever heard of the search consultant who slogged more than a year to find a suitable vice president for an international bank? Standards were high; the two-, three-lettered credentials required would fill up a page, including the never advertised GF – Good Family. (If you applied these standards to the military, a field medic is not allowed to man the 20-mm gun at a crucial point in battle).

Six months later, the bank collapsed! Few four-flushers at this bank knew what was going on. Their tasks were neatly delineated. Yet, armed with their vaunted acronyms, they are free to peddle their rattlesnake oil elsewhere. They are in demand as, like Obama, they can promise the world and con the common man into parting with their future.

Welcome to the real world. Like the financial world, “notional” and “fiat” flips into “real.”

War becomes peace! Fiction becomes fact. The worrying signs are there. Astartling number of Britons actually consider Winston Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi to be fictional characters while they vouch for the authenticity of Baker Street’s Sherlock Homes!

The Daily Mail hypothesizes that such ignorance “could well have something to do with the TV insurance adverts inviting viewers to ‘challenge Churchill’ and featuring a lugubrious talking dog.”

That’s the power to sell. The power of fictional imagery! According to a Wall Street Journal report, an astonishing 61% of sub-prime loans were palmed off to those who actually qualified for a conventional loan. The problem lies not with greed per se, but with Key Performance Indexes (KPIs) governing the Job Descriptions (JDs) of bank executives. To meet such metrics, they have to inveigle large quantities of loans in the shortest possible time to achieve maximum profit.

A computerized database of such performances sifts out the “high achievers” from the “underperformers,” the conmen from the common men and, in some instances, the barely literate from the educated. Your worth is spelt out in stats and acronyms. Every trick is employed under the veneer of letters to cheat the uninitiated.

These charlatans set the universal discourse for civilized behaviour, educational standards and career achievements.

The most pressing task for the CEO of America Inc is a financial one. How will he deal with a one quadrillion dollar plus (more than 1,000 trillion) derivatives market that is waiting to explode? It is largely an American creation. The Chinese are threatening to default on a fraction of them and a few trillion in defaults is enough to sink the Western Economy.

Nobel Economics laureates will tell you it is all business as usual, and the bulls are being warmed up for the mother of all matador markets (MOAMM). It is only matter of time…

Time, however, is revealing a disturbing reality.

The Obama Record

Has Obama brought peace to Afghanistan or is he building up troops there? Read the news. The Taliban writ runs throughout half of Afghanistan and slowly, across the western half of Pakistan. Has Muqtada Al-Sadr kissed the cheeks of his Sunni and Kurdish brethren in Iraq with a salam? Isn’t Pakistan’s Jihad Inc. run with US-supplied weaponry?

Why are the entities known as Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda still free to thread the terror mill? Why hasn’t the United States sued for peace and diplomatic ties with neighbouring, little Cuba when it can tolerate every gross human rights violation in China?

If Obama is afraid of Turkish sensitivities over a century-old Armenian genocide, can he be expected to stand up for international justice today?

Has Obama brought universal healthcare to millions of Americans who can’t afford it? How are the deteriorating manufacturing and employment sectors measuring up to reality? Do the marginalized need another sound bite or another lying statistic to reassure them that things are shaping up?

Will the deteriorating value of the US dollar prompt Washington to embark on another Persian Gulf adventure? Every major war in history was fuelled by the re-liquidation needs of an empty treasury. Like the psychology of acronyms, the casus belli is buried under jargons, lies and patriotic grunts.

ROI, ERP, KPI, T-Bill …CIC, Rah, Rah Rah!¹ Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil!

The historical progression is time-tested. When financial systems collapse under the weight of fraudulent practice, it is time for a Fuhrer to step in with catchphrases. They will be earthy and populist and will be addressed to a horde of the disenchanted.

And the clueless!

Let’s face it. This is the first modern generation not to have produced a Nikola Tesla, an Albert Einstein, or a financial whiz who can match the genius of Nikolai Kondratieff. Or how about a Mahatma Gandhi who was rejected five times for the Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe things were not rigid then. Einstein could not fix his hair right, Gandhi wore a loincloth. People could think!

Obama sets Gandhi as his standard. It is a clichéd fashion statement. The contrast cannot be depicted with sufficient brevity. One was born to privilege but “came down” to his true roots. The other was fast-tracked out of a ghetto possibility to the presidency of the United States. It was something unreal and remains so, much like Obama’s tinsel-tinged predecessors.

Mahatma Gandhi eschewed violence. He brought down the greatest empire ever through non-cooperation, by boycotting the financial foundations of Imperial rule. His actions triggered self-rule and independence for many nations. He fought for the poor and wanted them to live in dignity.

Obama the Nobel Peace laureate may turn out to be the anti-Gandhi. Out of the crumbling foundations of our financial system, he and his cohorts must do something. The metrics of today leave him little choice. There is no thinking outside the box.

Instead of fortifying the nation-state, Obama may dissolve them for a borderless commune. Force will be met by force, violence will increase and the foundations of a New World Order will be built on the ashes of the faceless poor.

The Norwegians must have given that award to prevent this spectre.

Iraqi soldier, body carbonized by depleted uranium shell

And I should note that it’s not just remote places like Iraq and Kuwait and Afghanistan that are being contaminated with super toxic and radioactive uranium dust–nor am I just talking about the stuff that gets picked up in the wind and carried around the globe, or the stuff that gets inhaled by our troops and carried home internally, bad enough as that is.

The truth is that depleted uranium weapons are being exploded and burned right here in the USA in training operations. Who needs terrorists with dirty bombs! The center of Hawaii’s Big Island, for example, which is a military zone, is heavily contaminated by DU ammunition fired by tanks there. Our tanks! The same is true of Vieques Island, long a favored target for the US Navy, which for years has fired shells, including DU-tipped shells, from its ships at the populated island, and also launched DU-tipped missiles at and dropped DU-loaded “bunker-buster” bombs on the place.

While I don’t have direct knowledge, I’d say it’s a safe bet that there are a number of sites on the Mainland US where DU munitions have also been widely used–maybe White Sands Proving Ground, the Marine training area near Joshua Tree National Monument in Southern California, or other such training and testing areas.

The simple truth is that our own government, besides committing an ongoing atrocity in the Middle East, is also doing Osama Bin Laden’s job for him, poisoning our own country with uranium oxide.

Our Nobel Peace Prize president should take note. President John F. Kennedy, whatever his faults, reportedly moved to halt open air testing of nuclear weapons after looking at the rain falling outside the window of the Oval Office and asking a science advisor whether it was delivering nuclear fallout to the rose garden where his two kids played (he was told that it was). Maybe President Obama should consider that the rain today is delivering uranium dust to his wife’s and daughters’ garden in the back yard of the White House. At least he should take a look at pictures of the horribly deformed babies being born to mothers in Iraq (and of the lucky babies that are stillborn), thanks to the radioactive warfare that the US military has been employing against both that country and Afghanistan–his “necessary” war.

There is another irony here too. The US is expressing concern about Iran enriching uranium, and possibly creating a nuclear bomb, which in the unlikely event that it were ever used, might spread some radioactivity around parts of the Middle east, yet it is the US which already has spread close to 2000 tons of uranium dust all over Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 18 years–far more radioactive material than any small Iranian bomb could release.

The recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Barack Obama has drawn criticism from many commentators, including those who claim that the award is premature — that President Obama has yet to “make his mark” on US foreign policy.

Some have argued that Obama lacks the concrete political achievements of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter, all of whom have previously been awarded the prize. Others go much further, condemning President Obama for his foreign policy and his continuation and expansion of military operations and related war policies.

Whatever the specific positions of the various commentators, debate over Obama’s credentials as a champion of peace have been focused almost exclusively on his foreign policy and military operations. To the extent that domestic policies are mentioned at all, they are policies such as domestic surveillance, wiretapping, and other matters associated with the prosecution of war abroad.

This may seem natural to many, since we are used to thinking of peace merely as the absence of full-scale military conflict. But this is a very narrow notion of peace. Real peace is the absence of aggression, whether on an international scale or localized within a small area. Real peace requires not merely the absence of large-scale military conflicts, but also the absence of aggression in domestic affairs concerning individual citizens.

While foreign affairs and military operations are no doubt an important aspect of world peace, fixation solely on these issues concedes a fundamentally statist premise: that peace concerns only those conflicts occurring between governments and other large and militarily powerful entities (such as terrorist groups). Under this view, to use force against a government or paramilitary organization is “war,” but to aggress against an unarmed citizen is mere “public policy.”

This view is extremely shortsighted and cannot be expected to yield any genuine or lasting peace. The reason is simple: peace is not a concept which should be restricted — or even primarily directed — towards conflicts between governments and other military entities. It applies just as much to domestic conflicts between governments and their own citizens as to conflicts between military powers.

Peace should also not be restricted solely to the prevention of killing. It applies just as much to conflicts involving tax collectors and the appropriation of private property as to conflicts involving helicopter gunships and the killing of people.

Not only is the absence of military conflict insufficient to obtain genuine peace, once one accepts the ideology of statism, military conflict becomes inevitable. As Ludwig von Mises has explained,

Modern civilization is a product of the philosophy of laissez faire. It cannot be preserved under the ideology of government omnipotence.… To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.

Thus, to be a genuine and effective advocate for peace, one must oppose the initiation of force in principle and in all its manifestations. One must oppose the initiation of force whether it is undertaken on a small or a large scale, and whether it is directed towards the killing of people, other trespasses against their bodies, or the appropriation of their property. In short, one must accept the nonaggression principle and all that it implies in both domestic and foreign policy.

“Peace Activists” and the “Peace Prize”

Since peace is obtained only in the absence of the initiation of force, any principled advocacy of peace must be built on a fully developed foundation of moral and political philosophy that eschews aggression in all its forms. As Ayn Rand explains,

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.…

The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history. Trade does not flourish on battlefields, factories do not produce under bombardments, profits do not grow on rubble. Capitalism is a society of traders — for which it has been denounced by every would-be gunman who regards trade as “selfish” and conquest as “noble.”

Unfortunately, many of the so-called “peace activists” celebrated for their opposition to wars are hostile to the very social system that would ensure a genuine and lasting peace. In fact, these “peace activists” are not in favor of peace at all. They are merely opposed to certain large-scale military operations.

Such activists are often quite happy to lend their support to the initiation of force against domestic citizens, to plunder them of their property for the purposes of redistribution, or to enslave them under the watchful eye of government bureaucracies. In these smaller-scale conflicts, many allegedly “peace-loving” people routinely support statism and aggression as the means to achieve their domestic policy goals.

In the case of many of the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, the apparent requirements for the accolade could not be more topsy-turvy if they were penned by Orwell himself. Our newest laureate routinely advocates statist programs that initiate violence against massive numbers of people to rob them of their property and submit them to forcible government control in more and more aspects of their lives.

Some have argued that it is incongruous to award a peace prize to a president currently locked in two wars. But even this is a rosy view of the situation; for one needn’t look as far as foreign policy to find a host of other issues on which this “champion of peace” favors violence as the means of obtaining his desired goals. As president of the United States, he presides over a coercive apparatus larger and more powerful than any in human history, and like his predecessors, he wields his political power against both domestic citizens and foreigners to routinely deny them their property rights, their liberties, and even their lives.

In drug policy, the president is locked in a “War on Drugs” in which he commands government agencies as they violently assault, rob, and imprison people who attempt to trade or ingest substances prohibited by their political masters. In social policy, he is fighting a “War on Poverty” in which millions of people are robbed of their rightful property in order to fatten the wallets of social-service bureaucrats and associated lobbyists, with the residual left over for poorer people. In economic policy, he fights a “War on Greed,” in which people are forcibly prevented from trading their own property as they see fit, and entire industries are nationalized to the inept hands of government masters.

The Principle of Nonaggression

These smaller-scale assaults and robberies are no different in their moral principles from larger-scale conflicts involving armed military forces. The same moral rules apply to both situations. In either context, the initiation of violence is morally wrong, and incompatible with a peaceful society.

If we look to the root of the problem, to the aggression lying behind these “public policies,” then we see that supposedly serene nations like the United States are far from peaceful — notwithstanding the absence of tanks in the streets.

In commenting on the moral principles pertaining to wars, philosopher Jeff McMahan argues that

common sense beliefs about the morality of killing in war are deeply mistaken. The prevailing view is that in a state of war, the practice of killing is governed by different moral principles from those that govern acts of killing in other contexts. This presupposes that it can make a difference to the moral permissibility of killing another person whether one’s political leaders have declared a state of war with that person’s country. According to the prevailing view, therefore, political leaders can sometimes cause other people’s moral rights to disappear simply by commanding their armies to attack them. When stated in this way, the received view seems obviously absurd.

But one can go further than merely looking at acts of killing, and apply this same universality requirement to the use of force in general. As with killing, the initiation of force against the property of domestic citizens does not become any more morally legitimate or “peaceful” when it is done under the direction of political leaders. Notwithstanding their alleged “representation” of the people, it is just as absurd to assume that political leaders can remove the rights of their own domestic citizens as of foreigners.

The apparent serenity of neighborhoods with white picket fences and lush lawns can be deceiving, and it leads many residents of developed countries to believe that peace has been achieved in their own backyard. Indeed, some believe that statist policies such as taxation, regulation, and other property-right violations are still “peaceful,” notwithstanding the threat of force involved, since the enforcement of these rules generally does not involve the use of actual physical violence against the body of any person.

After all, in most “peaceful” nations we are not used to seeing people shot in the streets or hauled off to the gulag. Even under fairly repressive domestic conditions, things can still be “peaceful” in the sense that there is not much overt violence or rebellion.

But this simply means that people have been brought to a state where they routinely comply with the edicts of their political masters, and avoid the incarceration or violence that would result from their refusal to do so. This is clearly not genuine peace, any more than a slave house is peaceful if the will of the slaves for resistance has been broken and overt violence has become unnecessary.

Military Conflict and Domestic Repression

The foregoing analysis is not intended to imply that there is no difference between overseas military adventures and instances of statist domestic policies. Nor is it intended to imply that the analysis of military conflicts is in any way less important than the analysis of domestic policies. The point is that only a principled stand for peace, including consistent opposition to statist policies, can be expected to yield a more peaceful society over time.

There are, of course, many differences between military conflicts and domestic public policies. Military struggles are likely to be far more destructive than domestic ones, but they are also far more complex. While particular war crimes may be morally clear cut, moral arguments over the legitimacy of the wars themselves are often complicated by long histories of retaliation and escalation, involving many different groups, often fighting for generations. On the other hand, taxation, regulation, and the suppression of legitimate civil liberties are quite clearly acts of aggression, in which there is no question of the victim having previously aggressed against the attacker.

For this reason, it is all the more imperative for genuine advocates of peace to take a stand against unambiguous cases of domestic aggression embodied in the statist policies that abound in their own homelands. For if one cannot even recognize the immorality of clear-cut instances of government violence at home, what hope can there possibly be to understand the moral imperatives applying to convoluted, foreign, military struggles with histories tracing back over generations?

Peace versus Statism

While specific conflicts are often complicated, the fundamental principles underlying a peaceful society are relatively simple. If the members of a society accept the nonaggression principle and repudiate the initiation of force, then there will be peace; if instead they support statism, there will be violence, repression, and war.

Once a person knowingly countenances a single act of aggression against property rights, any moral objection to violence they may have had is breached. Regardless of whether the issue in question is drug prohibition, estate taxes, zoning regulations, or government welfare schemes, support for the violation of property rights establishes the principle that the initiation of force is a legitimate means for achieving one’s ends — that it is morally proper.

The transition to supporting larger-scale acts of aggression is then just a matter of degree, with the extent of support differing from person to person. Such a person may certainly oppose large-scale military conflicts out of concern for the scale of the destruction. But theirs is not an objection to the use of aggression itself; it is merely a concern that this much violence goes too far!

Without a principle against aggression per se, there is no logical basis for any agreement on the level of violence that is legitimate. There is no logical basis to say that this much violence is okay, but that much is too much. And so, inevitably, once the principle of nonaggression is tossed aside, people are led on a path to statism and destruction, upping the ante until full-scale war is the result.

The Nobel Peace Prize for Barack Obama makes perfect sense. It is an award routinely bestowed on those who do their utmost to aggrandize government and agitate for increased statism in pursuit of their goals. As philosopher Hans Hermann-Hoppe once noted, “If you want to win the [Nobel Peace Prize], it is good that you are a mass murderer; at least that helps.” Although President Obama is by no means the most oppressive recipient of this infamous prize, his penchant for statist policies at home and abroad makes him an ideal candidate for the award.

Since some have charged that awarding the prize to President Obama is premature, I will save them the suspense: Obama will continue to work to expand US government power both abroad and over its domestic citizens. He will continue to push forward a statist agenda and he will routinely use violence to plunder people of their rightfully owned property, suppress their civil liberties, and deprive them of their lives. As such, he will become, if he is not already, a perfectly fitting recipient for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The answer to that question is up to us.

We were attacked on 9/11. We reacted. Eight years later, with over a million dead, many more millions displaced, infrastructures destroyed, Billionaires made, our economy shattered, Torture accepted, Mercenary Corporate Armies empowered, a World aroused against us, and a Future threatening wars and more wars, who do we blame – those who attacked us, or should we blame ourselves for the reaction ( The War on Terror) and the carnage that has followed?

Although millions of foreign innocents have suffered, we have suffered mightily also – so who are the victims? Are we the victims, or is it those others that have suffered so much?

Did those foreign innocents do something to us to bring this carnage on themselves or are we to blame for allowing those that would profit from war to seize on an opportunity to instigate a war for profit?

Was there an avoidable event that happened prior to 9/11 that brought on that tragic morning in September and the consequences that followed? If there was such an avoidable incident what could it have been? If it could have been avoided, and we didn’t make any effort to avoid it, why did we allow it to happen? If that were true would that make us victims or perpetrators?

Wouldn’t it be beneficial to review the past and see if there was or were events that we should have paid heed to, and if we could identify those points, shouldn’t we make sure we remember what they were and examine how we addressed those impending problems in order that we might head off another 9/11?

What were the warning signs in those years before that morning, that we should have noticed, and when noticed, what should have been done? Well for one, Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, at the advent of Desert Storm, promised a declaration of war if the United States placed a Military base on Saudi soil. But at the time Bin Laden was a friend of the United States and was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan working with the United States to expel the Soviet invaders, and his transition from friend to foe could have been avoided. Unfortunately the Military wing of our Government wanted a base in Saudi Arabia and using Desert Storm, a conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, as its basis, pressured the Saudi Government into allowing a United States Military base to be placed on Saudi soil. Ben Laden then declared war on the United States.

Another warning sign was Desert Storm itself. For those who have forgotten, that war was to be between Iraq and Kuwait because of oil piracy committed by Kuwait against Iraq. But before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he asked the United States if they would intervene for Kuwait after he gave Kuwait an ultimatum to stop the piracy. The well-documented reply by the United States delivered to Saddam by U S Envoy April Glaspie was “The United States considers the argument between Iraq and Kuwait a local issue between the two and the United States would remain out of the conflict”. Saddam gave the ultimatum, Kuwait ignored it, Iraq invaded, and the United States went ballistic. And as they say, the rest is history. We should never forget that history plays itself out over many years and this episode most likely isn’t over yet, which brings me to some more happenings we shouldn’t forget – if we want to learn from history.

The Project For a New American Century outlined its proposal to promote the United States to Sole World Power in the early 90’s. One of the items of interest should be the word “Sole”. That word would indicate Empire building – The Worlds Policeman and the Worlds subjugation. Little countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East shouldn’t be a problem, we can run over any one of them easily or any two or three, but there are some other strong Military powers on this earth, and embarking on subjugating them might be quite risky. One thing for sure is that “There will be blood” when the attempt starts. And blood is the fertilizer for the War Industry Profit garden.

Our Foreign Policy of conquest and domination of the Worlds resources can take us to the goal of Empire, but it can also take us to defeat and our own eventual demise. It is risky business for you and me, but is it risky for those who would initiate wars of conquest? The most dominant of the World’s organizations is the Financial sector. Wars don’t start without their funding and like several of the Nazi Financial and Industrial Corporations, they survived WWII and their Upper Management just moved into the winning Country, the United States, absorbed by U S Companies who were in partners with those Nazi Corporations before and during the War.

Every time you buy medicine or aspirins just remember Bayer is a name now identifying the German Industrial War Giant I. G. Farben, who’s business management were allowed to skip Nuremberg and go directly to work in the U. S. That’s what happened to the elite.
For regular people like you and me, somewhat over a hundred million died. But some U S Companies like say Ford, continued to supply German war needs, even after the war was ongoing. We didn’t do anything to them and they found that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or should I say the World’s financial and War Industry Corporations came out of it better than they went in. That’s called profit.

So whether we know it or not, what we do, or don’t do, will affect the future and the future inhabitants of the world.

What we can do, and what we must do, is always punish criminals even if they are our leaders. Today’s Political Parties work our populace into a frenzy opposing the other Party. They keep us divided so that we are easy prey for their criminal activities.

Any party that advocates fear of the future instead of a mutual solution to problems is not worthy of our votes. How we use those votes will determine the shape of the future.