U.S. to Completely Withdraw from Iraq by January

[Nickdfresh]

I was talking more on a global scale. So sorry for the confusion.

I still don't a agree. But to be fair you're a lot younger than I am and while Vietnam was well before my time, the 1980's obsession with it and the Veterans of the conflict--and the Vietnamese Civil War in general--were not. I appreciate the fact that you don't really have much point of comparison though. But one must say that the fallout form the clusterfuck war we fought in Southeast Asia caused an enormous ripple-effect in the U.S. culture, politics, and the economy. It also had a very appreciable effect internationally with the perception of an America run by a bunch of ruthless bastards not only willing to incinerate Vietnamese "to save a village," but willing to let American soldiers and draftees be sent to their deaths knowing we couldn't really win and our side in South Vietnam was run by a bunch of corrupt fuckwit cowards (whether that's really a fair perception or not, as many of the Vietnamese on both sides were complete bastards with no predilection against incinerating each other and the Russians and Chinese who supported them were as well).

I think if you did a little research, you'd find the fallout was rather massive and the perception of the U.S.A. as the pristine, virginal Paladin selflessly fighting for good and justice was gone forever, not that we ever really were that Paladin to begin with. We have always been ruthless when it served our ends, and the Iraq War may have actually been a much lessor example of the savagery we're capable of. Just Google about the American occupation of the Philippines and the 'counterinsurgency' war fought there around 1903...

[Kristy]

It also had a very appreciable effect internationally with the perception of an America run by a bunch of ruthless bastards not only willing to incinerate Vietnamese "to save a village," but willing to let American soldiers and draftees be sent to their deaths knowing we couldn't really win and our side in South Vietnam was run by a bunch of corrupt fuckwit cowards (whether that's really a fair perception or not, as many of the Vietnamese on both sides were complete bastards with no predilection against incinerating each other and the Russians and Chinese who supported them were as well).

It's not surprise that any war the US have been involved has been corporate-funded in in way or another. The difference between Iraq and Viet Nam is that one was fought over unfounded paranoia and the other for oil.

I think if you did a little research, you'd find the fallout was rather massive and the perception of the U.S.A. as the pristine, virginal Paladin selflessly fighting for good and justice was gone forever, not that we ever really were that Paladin to begin with. We have always been ruthless when it served our ends, and the Iraq War may have actually been a much lessor example of the savagery we're capable of. Just Google about the American occupation of the Philippines and the 'counterinsurgency' war fought there around 1903...

Another difference here is Viet Nam was more of a localized conflict - mainly the US against Soviet-sponsored Communism where we pretty much less knew who the enemy was and what their ideologies were no matter if the US kept the war machine going by distorting those ideologies. To me, Viet Nam was a set stage for international war if the US wanted to push a invasion into the heart of Moscow to rid the world of all that anti-American pie "pinko fascism." If you take into account that Korea was more or less a stalemate by the US military, you knew that under the likes of Papa Bush, Kissinger, Nixon et al who saw Communism as a global threat weren't about to make the same mistake.

I used to work for a wizened Viet Nam vet who repeatably told me that "we were kicking their asses - and we would have kicked them all the way back to Moscow if the politicians have let us" made be a bold statement but it does prove your point that the US is not the Yanky Doodle Dandy fighting for good as so many of us were duped to believe. The Hanoi bombing campaign whether you agree with it or not was largely successful bringing the North Vietnamese to the peace talks table. The only downside being it was shown on the evening news with all those innocent women and children being blown to bits by B-52 raids.

This is why Iraq is a different animal in the for one it was a media-controlled war. There was no known uniformed enemy so anyone could be considered a potential target. Who knows how many women and children were killed in Baghdad alone with the likes of Fox and CNN foregoing showing any carnage instead spoon-feeding us horseshit that this was bringing "democracy" and "liberation' to one of the world's worst shitholes. The only shit we did see is when the Marines but the smackdown on a insurgency in Falujah and the brutal reality of doing so. Once again, the politicians intervened and stopped it thus prolonging our stay there. Plus, there was more at stake than Communist paranoia - there was oil and any western country that wanted their share had to play by Bush & Co rules. That meant "coalition forces" which is what I mean by Iraq having a larger global impact in a future 50 year history lesson. The lingering effects of Iraq haven't begun to show up yet

[Nitro Express]

The US basically transformed itself from a consumer products economy to a war economy. We need wars to keep it going and we need to control the oil so the world has to buy US Dollars to finance the wars. It's that simple. As soon as that circle breaks the US is no longer a super power unless it becomes a consumer product exporter again.

[Nitro Express]

Iraq=1.5 million dead people, radiation pollution, and someone made a lot of money off of it all. End of story.

It's safe to think the fake patriotism has worn thin. Toby Keith doesn't even seem so gung ho anymore.

Communism was a product of the west. I sometimes think the people who promoted communism were the same people behind fighting it. Talk about a money maker there and oh how you could use paranoia to steer the public treasury towards your war industries. I think the whole war on communism was a bit derived as this war on terror is.

[Kristy]

Oh, and I apologize for my word typos - I don't have my glasses with me.*


*yeah, let's just go with that.

[Nitro Express]

What's interesting is when you go outside of Europe and North America the world economy grew 7%. My sister is back living in South America and it's just booming down there in places. It's the fucking central banks in the west that fucked the economies in Europe and North America and now they want to saddle the tax payers with centuries of debt just to keep the whole broken shit thing going. The Euro has turned out to be a joke. It's not going to last. The only card the bankers have is to flame some more wars. It's all they can do so the public needs to be wary of this.

[Seshmeister]

What's even funnier is that the country in Europe with the highest growth at the moment is Belgium.

15 months ago at their election the vote was split among a few different parties and they haven't been able to come to an agreement to form a coalition.

In other words since then Belgium has had no government. I'm sure you'll be hearing about this a lot from libertarians in the US as soon as one of them notices.

[Nitro Express]

A German told me the Euro was like having a joint banking account with a cousin who doesn't work very hard and spends too much. I mean it's just not sustainable. All I know is someone is going to get burned. We can't pay off all this debt so I guess the battle is over who gets burned.

[Satan]

Communism was a product of the west. I sometimes think the people who promoted communism were the same people behind fighting it. Talk about a money maker there and oh how you could use paranoia to steer the public treasury towards your war industries. I think the whole war on communism was a bit derived as this war on terror is.

There is at least a little bit of truth to that....

Samuel P. Bush (father of Prescott the Nazi) took his profits from the Rockefeller railroad swindles and bought into the Remington Rifle company. Great Grandaddy Bush then sold guns all over Europe, effectively arming both sides of World War I and the Soviet Bolsheviks at the same time. Thus you could say the BCE had a role in creating the USSR, though obviously not as direct as their role in creating the Nazis or Al Qaeda..

Meanwhile Fred Koch (father of the idiots trying to control this country right now) made his fortune by selling oil equipment to Joe Stalin, then taking part of those profits to fund the fascist John Birch Society and claiming to hate the commies who made him rich.

[Nitro Express]

You mean the Harrimans. They were into the railroads more than the Rockefellers were. Basically when you get into high level finance it's beyond any country's borders. To the layman international finance was a very new concept in the 1970's. To the upper tier it was nothing new. David Rockefeller was doing business with the Chinese way before Nixon went over and the 1980 open up. Armand Hammer was doing business in the Soviet Union before the wall ever came down. Upper tier finance people have access to areas where even our highest politicians don't.

[Nitro Express]

Meanwhile Fred Koch (father of the idiots trying to control this country right now) made his fortune by selling oil equipment to Joe Stalin, then taking part of those profits to fund the fascist John Birch Society and claiming to hate the commies who made him rich.

They play both extremes off each other. Watch. The corporate media (MSNBC and FOX) will to the same with The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. That's the new John Birch vs. Commie distraction. The thing is with the internet and alternative media, it's harder to do than when all you had was some newspapers and a couple TV and radio stations. Plus, it's pretty obvious by now the whole war on terror thing is contrived. Oh there are a few real terrorists out there but not enough to justify huge war movement and NATO just backed a bunch of terrorists in Libya. So the war on terror is another bill of goods we got sold.

[Little Texan]

Armand Hammer was doing business in the Soviet Union before the wall ever came down.

I always thought their logo was a bit communist looking.

[Seshmeister]

Iraq=1.5 million dead people, radiation pollution, and someone made a lot of money off of it all. End of story.

It's safe to think the fake patriotism has worn thin. Toby Keith doesn't even seem so gung ho anymore.

Communism was a product of the west. I sometimes think the people who promoted communism were the same people behind fighting it. Talk about a money maker there and oh how you could use paranoia to steer the public treasury towards your war industries. I think the whole war on communism was a bit derived as this war on terror is.

Definitely.

You actually had 'advisers' saying that the Russian weapons technology was so super advanced and awesomely powerful that we couldn't see it.

Of course it turned out we couldn't see it because it didn't exist.

You saw how powerful a couple of thousand Russian tanks were verses superior technology in the first Gulf War. There has been a ridiculous overspend on 'defense' the West particularly by the US.

[Nitro Express]

I always thought their logo was a bit communist looking.

Armand the oil tycoon. Ever notice the arm on the baking soda logo is backwards?

[Seshmeister]

I think if you did a little research, you'd find the fallout was rather massive and the perception of the U.S.A. as the pristine, virginal Paladin selflessly fighting for good and justice was gone forever, not that we ever really were that Paladin to begin with. We have always been ruthless when it served our ends, and the Iraq War may have actually been a much lessor example of the savagery we're capable of. Just Google about the American occupation of the Philippines and the 'counterinsurgency' war fought there around 1903...

Some of that was horrific.

Mark Twain's account of one action impressed me and shows how spin and media bullshit in war are nothing new. And sarcasm.

Comments on the Moro Massacre

by

Mark Twain (March 12, 1906)

This incident burst upon the world last Friday in an official cablegram from the commander of our forces in the Philippines to our Government at Washington. The substance of it was as follows: A tribe of Moros, dark-skinned savages, had fortified themselves in the bowl of an extinct crater not many miles from Jolo; and as they were hostiles, and bitter against us because we have been trying for eight years to take their liberties away from them, their presence in that position was a menace. Our commander, Gen. Leonard Wood, ordered a reconnaissance. It was found that the Moros numbered six hundred, counting women and children; that their crater bowl was in the summit of a peak or mountain twenty-two hundred feet above sea level, and very difficult of access for Christian troops and artillery. Then General Wood ordered a surprise, and went along himself to see the order carried out. Our troops climbed the heights by devious and difficult trails, and even took some artillery with them. The kind of artillery is not specified, but in one place it was hoisted up a sharp acclivity by tackle a distance of some three hundred feet. Arrived at the rim of the crater, the battle began. Our soldiers numbered five hundred and forty. They were assisted by auxiliaries consisting of a detachment of native constabulary in our pay -- their numbers not given -- and by a naval detachment, whose numbers are not stated. But apparently the contending parties were about equal as to number -- six hundred men on our side, on the edge of the bowl; six hundred men, women and children in the bottom of the bowl. Depth of the bowl, 50 feet.

Gen. Wood's order was, "Kill or capture the six hundred."

The battle began-it is officially called by that name-our forces firing down into the crater with their artillery and their deadly small arms of precision; the savages furiously returning the fire, probably with brickbats-though this is merely a surmise of mine, as the weapons used by the savages are not nominated in the cablegram. Heretofore the Moros have used knives and clubs mainly; also ineffectual trade-muskets when they had any.

The official report stated that the battle was fought with prodigious energy on both sides during a day and a half, and that it ended with a complete victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory is established by this fact: that of the six hundred Moros not one was left alive. The brilliancy of the victory is established by this other fact, to wit: that of our six hundred heroes only fifteen lost their lives.

General Wood was present and looking on. His order had been. "Kill or capture those savages." Apparently our little army considered that the "or" left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it has been for eight years, in our army out there - the taste of Christian butchers.

The official report quite properly extolled and magnified the "heroism" and "gallantry" of our troops; lamented the loss of the fifteen who perished, and elaborated the wounds of thirty-two of our men who suffered injury, and even minutely and faithfully described the nature of the wounds, in the interest of future historians of the United States. It mentioned that a private had one of his elbows scraped by a missile, and the private's name was mentioned. Another private had the end of his nose scraped by a missile. His name was also mentioned - by cable, at one dollar and fifty cents a word.

Next day's news confirmed the previous day's report and named our fifteen killed and thirty-two wounded again, and once more described the wounds and gilded them with the right adjectives.

Let us now consider two or three details of our military history. In one of the great battles of the Civil War ten per cent. Of the forces engaged on the two sides were killed and wounded. At Waterloo, where four hundred thousand men were present on the two sides, fifty thousand fell, killed and wounded, in five hours, leaving three hundred and fifty thousand sound and all right for further adventures. Eight years ago, when the pathetic comedy called the Cuban War was played, we summoned two hundred and fifty thousand men. We fought a number of showy battles, and when the war was over we had lost two hundred and sixty-eight men out of our two hundred and fifty thousand, in killed and wounded in the field, and just fourteen times as many by the gallantry of the army doctors in the hospitals and camps. We did not exterminate the Spaniards -- far from it. In each engagement we left an average of two per cent. of the enemy killed or crippled on the field.

Contrast these things with the great statistics which have arrived from
[page 172]
that Moro crater! There, with six hundred engaged on each side, we lost fifteen men killed outright, and we had thirty-two wounded-counting that nose and that elbow. The enemy numbered six hundred -- including women and children -- and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States.

Now then, how has it been received? The splendid news appeared with splendid display-heads in every newspaper in this city of four million and thirteen thousand inhabitants, on Friday morning. But there was not a single reference to it in the editorial columns of any one of those newspapers. The news appeared again in all the evening papers of Friday, and again those papers were editorially silent upon our vast achievement. Next day's additional statistics and particulars appeared in all the morning papers, and still without a line of editorial rejoicing or a mention of the matter in any way. These additions appeared in the evening papers of that same day (Saturday) and again without a word of comment. In the columns devoted to correspondence, in the morning and evening papers of Friday and Saturday, nobody said a word about the "battle." Ordinarily those columns are teeming with the passions of the citizen; he lets no incident go by, whether it be large or small, without pouring out his praise or blame, his joy or his indignation about the matter in the correspondence column. But, as I have said, during those two days he was as silent as the editors themselves. So far as I can find out, there was only one person among our eighty millions who allowed himself the privilege of a public remark on this great occasion -- that was the President of the United States. All day Friday he was as studiously silent as the rest. But on Saturday he recognized that his duty required him to say something, and he took his pen and performed that duty. If I know President Roosevelt -- and I am sure I do -- this utterance cost him more pain and shame than any other that ever issued from his pen or his mouth. I am far from blaming him. If I had been in his place my official duty would have compelled me to say what he said. It was a convention, an old tradition, and he had to be loyal to it. There was no help for it. This is what he said:

Washington, March 10. Wood, Manila:- I congratulate you and the officers and men of your command upon the
[page 173]
brilliant feat of arms wherein you and they so well upheld the honor of the American flag. (Signed) Theodore Roosevelt.

His whole utterance is merely a convention. Not a word of what he said came out of his heart. He knew perfectly well that to pen six hundred helpless and weaponless savages in a hole like rats in a trap and massacre them in detail during a stretch of a day and a half, from a safe position on the heights above, was no brilliant feat of arms - and would not have been a brilliant feat of arms even if Christian America, represented by its salaried soldiers, had shot them down with Bibles and the Golden Rule instead of bullets. He knew perfectly well that our uniformed assassins had not upheld the honor of the American flag, but had done as they have been doing continuously for eight years in the Philippines - that is to say, they had dishonored it.

The next day, Sunday, -- which was yesterday -- the cable brought us additional news - still more splendid news -- still more honor for the flag. The first display-head shouts this information at us in the stentorian capitals: "WOMEN SLAIN MORO SLAUGHTER."

"Slaughter" is a good word. Certainly there is not a better one in the Unabridged Dictionary for this occasion

The next display line says:

"With Children They Mixed in Mob in Crater, and All Died Together."

They were mere naked savages, and yet there is a sort of pathos about it when that word children falls under your eye, for it always brings before us our perfectest symbol of innocence and helplessness; and by help of its deathless eloquence color, creed and nationality vanish away and we see only that they are children -- merely children. And if they are frightened and crying and in trouble, our pity goes out to them by natural impulse. We see a picture. We see the small forms. We see the terrified faces. We see the tears. We see the small hands clinging in supplication to the mother; but we do not see those children that we are speaking about. We see in their places the little creatures whom we know and love.

The next heading blazes with American and Christian glory like to the sun in the zenith:

"Death List is Now 900."

I was never so enthusiastically proud of the flag till now!