Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy
This topic is about The Orphan Conspiracies
330 views
FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS > The U.S. Military Industrial Complex VERSUS the American People

Comments Showing 1-50 of 94 (94 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by James, Group Founder (last edited May 13, 2017 07:23AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments I honestly feel the Military Industrial Complex has taken the US in the exact opposite direction to the original vision for America the nation's Founding Fathers laid out...It's an out of control entity that is single handedly destroying the US (economically and morally) in my view.

This is beyond dated ideas of Left or Right politics, and honestly there are as many Republicans/Patriots that no longer have any faith in the military's ethics.

Vietnam veteran and Oscar-winning filmmaker Oliver Stone says the Military Industrial Complex is essentially a separate country to the US with virtually no interests that align with America's interests and I've gotta agree with him there.

Many other insiders and whistleblowers have expressed the same opinion. For example, Underground Knowledge member Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI employee turned whistleblower, is one of numerous ex-intelligence agency employees who say these post 9/11 wars are being engineered by warmongers who are bankrupting the US in the process.

By causing all these wars or foreign invasions, the Military Industrial Complex is surely an entity that must be a thousand times bigger threat to the West's freedom than any little outside threat such as Islamic desert nomads or cave dwellers are...Muslim extremists (a tiny percentage of the Islamic world) ain't ever going to threaten the might of the American empire any more than the Domino Theory even got close to occurring when Vietnam fell and became entirely Communist (a long-held prediction by warmongers like MacArthur that proved to be woefully inaccurate). The US empire is arguably the most dominant in history and believing Islamic terrorists could ever be a threat would be equivalent to saying the small Jewish community at the time of Christ could overthrow Rome...

And I'm not ignoring terrorism or romanticizing the religion of Islam, but people need to get real about it.

Even if 9/11 was solely caused by terrorists with no assistance from rogue elements in the US Govt, which is a very big IF in my opinion, it still doesn't amount to much overall. Especially as there's been no other terrorist strikes of that magnitude since on US soil or anywhere else in the West.

I'm not some foreigner criticizing America for the sake of it by the way, but rather I'm someone who actually feels American in spirit and have also lived in the US and believe the foundations of America and the Constitution are by far the greatest construction of any nation in history. So I feel sad by what's happened in recent decades. America can be, like it used to be, the light for the world that every other nation can aspire to be like in terms of civil liberties and equality for all citizens.

It's also a shame that many foreigners when they now think of America now only think of a big, ugly fascist bully dominating and invading weaker nations. And that again is very sad as America once solely stood for freedom and the Founding Fathers also spoke of liberty for all other nations, not just America's freedom. That Good Samaritan reputation has long since faded.

Whenever I come across people hating on America when I travel, I always try to explain to these people that there's a massive difference between recent warmongering US administrations and the American people. I've been the recipient of a lot of goodwill from Americans, especially in my main career as a filmmaker, and I realize it's not just foreign countries that have been screwed by the military but it's also the American taxpayers as well.


message 2: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Obviously this was an emotional rant, but honestly I just remain mad as hell about all these unnecessary wars that are occurring.

It appears we learnt nothing from Vietnam and Iraq.

Dead babies fill morgues in foreign lands the West are invading, injured Muslim women and children fill hospital beds and more and more of our young soldiers fill body bags. Not to mention the fact that taxpayers wonder why there is not enough left in government budgets for basic social services.


Remy Benoit | 16 comments Ah, James, where to start? I too believe the US Constitution set the groundwork for integrity and decency among people. It was, and it still is, a vision to be preciously, and constantly, protected, perhaps now more than ever.The Founding Fathers agreed to it only with the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and rightly so.Yet even with that vision, women did not have rights, let alone voting rights; people were still held as slaves; genocide was waged against Native Americans. Political evolution, all through history, is slow, painful, cruel, moving forward at the proverbial snail's pace wading through the obscenities we impose on each other.
We speak of Total War as if it were something new. If the Mongol hordes attacked your village, leveled it, murdering and making pyramids of skulls, I do think you could call that total war. Populations give obeisance to rulers, follow them into hell, in the name of survival as they are told. There is always "the enemy du jour." We think of the two world wars as wars that had to be; they did not have to be; war was, as it always is, chosen. Nicholas looked up to Wilhelm; Wilhelm sent him Lenin.Leaders of peoples held in countries as imperial colonies came to Versailles, asked for liberation, were turned away from China, from Indochina laying the groundwork for what came. Hitler spelled out in his miserably long twisted missive of "My Struggle" Mein Kampf exactly what his goal was. We choose war, over and over and over again. Old men send young men, and now young women too and then give them care where and how they choose when they come home, if at all.
All these endless wars, all these endless deaths, destruction, horrible injuries go on and on. I wonder how many here know where Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran are on the map; how many know how long and what the culture of Iran is? How many are aware that the Brits,the Soviets both failed horribly and at such a price when they were in Afghanistan. You spoke of movies. If we recall, Dr. Watson was telling Sherlock about his time in Afghanistan.
There are too many people too caught up in power over rather than power with; the bottom line always more power, more money whatever form it takes in whatever war.We glorify war.
Every day I write of war myself,work with veterans writing of war; work with veterans dying of cancers,Parkinsons, you name it from Agent Orange...all of them were lied to about it, and yes, we have learned nothing from Viet Nam,which as a friend of mine points out, is a country, not a war.
It has always astonished me that men who knew trenches in WWI would not move heaven and hell before they sent their sons to yet another war to end all wars...or begin more. We have made war too easy, too impersonal as with drones.
I watch Joyeux Noel and I cry and think of these words:

Diary entry of

Alfred Joubaire,
a French Officer,
before he fell in battle

" Humanity is mad!
It must be mad to do what it is doing.
What a massacre!
What scenes of horror and bloodshed!
Hell cannot be so terrible.
Men are mad!"
August 25. 1917

What if we taught in school what I call the 3 C's:
cooperation,creativity,compassion instead of competition? I wonder if that would help us choose better.

War starts out as a failure of diplomacy and yes, clashing egos! This current idea of drop bombs for a few days is,well, something a bull leaves behind. And war isn't over even when it is "over" for those who have been there.
Let's really give peace a chance.
Enuf war!


message 4: by James, Group Founder (last edited Apr 12, 2015 02:16AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Remy wrote: "Ah, James, where to start? I too believe the US Constitution set the groundwork for integrity and decency among people. It was, and it still is, a vision to be preciously, and constantly, protected..."

A very astute summary of unnecessary wars from a woman who has worked with war veterans for many years.
Thanks for sharing all that you've seen and know about war, Remy.


message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

Remy wrote: "Alfred Joubaire,
a French Officer,
before he fell in battle

" Humanity is mad!
It must be mad to do what it is doing.
What a massacre!
What scenes of horror and bloodshed!
Hell cannot be so terrible.
Men are mad!"
August 25. 1917
..."


That's heartbreaking, Remy!
And yes, I agree war is very big business and until we cull the bastards at the top who are intent on manufacturing these endless wars, we will continue to get more of the same.


message 6: by James, Group Founder (last edited Apr 12, 2015 04:03AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments If you haven't already read the book War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier written by US Major General Smedley D. Butler I recommend it.

Have posted the first five in the group for anyone to read: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...


Remy Benoit | 16 comments War is never over when it is over; there is the destruction of lives, of homes, of the planet herself.
Siegfriend Sassoon was a WWI poet; his sentiments still alive in the veterans with whom I work. Veterans who wait months, years for proper care, while heart disease, Parkinsons, diabetes, etc., actively devour them. Siegfried raised a question in this poem,
Does It Matter:

Does it matter? -losing your legs?
For people will always be kind,
And you need not show that you mind
When others come in after hunting
To gobble their muffins and eggs.
Does it matter? -losing you sight?
There’s such splendid work for the blind;
And people will always be kind,
As you sit on the terrace remembering
And turning your face to the light.
Do they matter-those dreams in the pit?
You can drink and forget and be glad,
And people won't say that you’re mad;
For they know that you've fought for your country,
And no one will worry a bit.


Remy Benoit | 16 comments Suggestions for reading.
Aftermath: The Remnants of War http://www.amazon.com/Aftermath-Remna...

On Killing http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Lt-Col-...

These books speak clearly on the costs of war media ignores.


message 9: by James, Group Founder (last edited Apr 15, 2015 12:46PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Remy wrote: "Suggestions for reading.
Aftermath: The Remnants of War http://www.amazon.com/Aftermath-Remna...

On Killing http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Lt-Col-Dav..."


Thanks Remy, Will check out those books - I've not read either.

Aftermath The Remnants of War by Donovan Webster

On Killing The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman


message 10: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Kevin Costner's monologue in JFK (1991) written & directed by Oliver Stone reflect many of my ideas about how powerful and destructive the Military Industrial Complex is: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/7407...


message 11: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History

Smedley Butler's life and career epitomize the contradictory nature of American military policy through the first part of this century. Butler won renown as a Marine battlefield hero, campaigning in most of America's foreign military expeditions from 1898 to the late 1920s. He became the leading national advocate for paramilitary police reform. Upon his retirement, however, he renounced war and imperialism and devoted his energy and prestige to various dissident and leftist political causes.

Maverick Marine General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History by Hans Schmidt


message 12: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments I plan to read A Global Security System: An Alternative to War by Kent Shifferd.

The synopsis sounds very promising:

Resting on a convincing body of evidence that violence is not a necessary component of conflict among states and between states and non-state actors, World Beyond War asserts that war itself can be ended. We humans have lived without war for most of our existence and most people live without war most of the time. Warfare arose about 6,000 years ago (less than 5% of our existence as Homo sapiens) and spawned a vicious cycle of warfare as peoples, fearing attack by militarized states found it necessary to imitate them and so began the cycle of violence that has culminated in the last 100 years in a condition of permawar. War now threatens to destroy civilization as weapons have become ever more destructive. However, in the last 150 years, revolutionary new knowledge and methods of nonviolent conflict management have been developing that lead us to assert that it is time to end warfare and that we can do so by mobilizing millions around a global effort.

A Global Security System An Alternative to War by Kent Shifferd


message 13: by David (new)

David Elkin | 452 comments James, I fervently hope it is so, but the skeptic in me suggests it is a pipe dream for the time being. Humans are not advanced enough. The positive is that the human society has become less violent in the last 30 years.


message 14: by David (new)

David Elkin | 452 comments James Morcan wrote: "Kevin Costner's monologue in JFK (1991) written & directed by Oliver Stone reflect many of my ideas about how powerful and destructive the Military Industrial Complex is: https://www.goodreads.com/..."

Great monologue, however, much of the MI complex is more myth than reality. However, it has been destructive and the biggest issue is the secret 3 letter organizations.


message 15: by Lance, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lance Morcan | 1952 comments President Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" Warning Speech VIDEO: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8563...


Here's some excerpts from an article about the Military Industrial Complex references in Eisenhower's farewell speech: http://www.stufftheydontwantyoutoknow...


President Eisenhower and the Military-industrial Complex: Unheeded Warning or Unnecessary Paranoia?

To say that a U.S. President’s farewell address is important is, at the very least, an understatement. During their last opportunity to address the nation as its top elected official, outgoing presidents often recount the milestones of their time in office, offer guidance for the future of the nation and attempt to build a memorable foundation for their legacy. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s speech contained another, less routine message: A warning, clear and explicit, about what he saw as the growing power of the military-industrial complex. (This is an umbrella term, and it describes a broad range of private contractors, institutions and individuals working on military hardware and weaponry.) In his farewell address, Eisenhower urged the public to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Coming from a decorated veteran and war hero, this warning seemed counterintuitive. Yet Eisenhower’s message has survived, and over the years it has been cited by scholars, antiwar activists and — of course — conspiracy theorists. For decades people wondered how this unusual warning found its way into President Eisenhower’s speech. Did the wily speechwriter Malcolm Moos manage to slip it into the text? Did Eisenhower decide to issue this warning on a last-minute whim?

Absolutely not. According to new documents discovered by the National Archives and Records Administration, Eisenhower had planned this speech for at least two years.

It’s strange to think that such a powerful man would find himself appealing directly to the public for assistance and, fifty years later, we have to wonder: Was his warning legitimate? Did the public listen? Here’s a snapshot of the business: According the Federation of American Scientists, the U.S. exported more than 142 billion dollars worth of arms across the globe from 1992-2000. The debate over the necessity of arms manufacturing continues today. Some see the arms industry as a crucial component of global peacekeeping, essential for the protection of civilians across the planet. Yet others believe this industry causes more harm than it prevents, and some conspiracy theorists argue that the military-industrial complex actually works to create conflicts as a means of generating profit.

What do you think? Were Eisenhower’s claims justified, or was his concern overblown?


message 16: by David (new)

David Elkin | 452 comments I do think Ike's warning was legit. The money part of the MI complex is the biggest issue. Lot's of money spent by folks without a lot of brain power. That is the biggest drain. Look at the money thrown away in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and what is our return?


message 17: by Lance, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lance Morcan | 1952 comments David wrote: "I do think Ike's warning was legit. The money part of the MI complex is the biggest issue. Lot's of money spent by folks without a lot of brain power. That is the biggest drain. Look at the money t..."

Spot on David. If proof is needed for that claim, just follow the money trail.


message 18: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds (aka 'The Most Classified Woman in U.S. History') Explains Who Is At The Top Of The Pyramid https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8644...


message 19: by James, Group Founder (last edited Aug 03, 2015 04:03AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments David wrote: "I do think Ike's warning was legit. The money part of the MI complex is the biggest issue. Lot's of money spent by folks without a lot of brain power. That is the biggest drain. Look at the money thrown away in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and what is our return? ..."

A HUGE return for the Military Industrial Complex and a big fat debt and a world of pain for the American people not too mention the world's people. But that pain is none of the MIC's concern as war is basically just a cold, hard business these days. Sadly, war has never been more profitable and as far as I can ascertain Afghanistan and Iraq were much more profitable for the elite than Vietnam was.

So expect more of the same until we The People do something about it.


message 20: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Scary statistic: There are 195 countries in the world. 130 of those nations currently have US military bases in them and another 20 have US Special Forces Operations in them.

I hope the American taxpayers realize this is their tax dollars from their income that is bankrolling this insane global war machine.


message 21: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Check out the % of US annual budget spent on military expenditure: https://www.goodreads.com/photo/group...

How much the US Military spends annually compared to other nations:
https://www.goodreads.com/photo/group...


message 22: by Lance, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lance Morcan | 1952 comments Military-Industrial Complex Pockets Tens Of Billions From Trump’s Saudi Weapons Deal http://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-si...


message 23: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Washington Post
Military leaders consolidate power in Trump administration

High-ranking military officials have become an increasingly ubiquitous presence in American political life during Donald Trump’s presidency, repeatedly winning arguments inside the West Wing, publicly contradicting the president and even balking at implementing one of his most controversial policies.

Connected by their faith in order and global norms, these military leaders are rapidly consolidating power throughout the executive branch as they counsel a volatile president. Some establishment figures in both political parties view them as safeguards for the nation in a time of turbulence.

Trump’s elevation of a cadre of current and retired generals marks a striking departure for a country that for generations has positioned civilian leaders above and apart from the military.

“This is the only time in modern presidential history when we’ve had a small number of people from the uniformed world hold this much influence over the chief executive,” said John E. McLaughlin, a former acting director of the CIA who served in seven administrations. “They are right now playing an extraordinary role.”

In the wake of the deadly racial violence in Charlottesville this month, five of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were hailed as moral authorities for condemning hate in less equivocal terms than the commander in chief did.

On social policy, military leaders have been voices for moderation. The Pentagon declined to immediately act upon Trump’s Twitter announcement that he would ban transgender people from the armed forces, instead awaiting a more formal directive that has yet to arrive.

Inside the White House, meanwhile, generals manage Trump’s hour-by-hour interactions and whisper in his ear — and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy.

At the core of Trump’s circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated personal relationships with the president and gained his trust.
Critics of the president welcome their ascendancy, seeing them as a calming force amid the daily chaos of the White House.

“They are standouts of dependability in the face of rash and impulsive conduct,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “There certainly has been a feeling among many of my colleagues that they are a steadying hand on the rudder and provide a sense of consistency and rationality in an otherwise zigzagging White House.”

William S. Cohen, who served as defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, said that Trump “came in with virtually no experience in governance, and there’s no coherent strategic philosophy that he holds. There has been a war within the administration, and that has yet to be resolved. . . . The military has tried to impose some coherency and discipline.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), an Army veteran who served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, praised Trump’s circle of generals and recommended McMaster and Kelly for their posts. He said the impression in some quarters that military leaders are hawks by definition is misguided.

“What many people in Washington don’t understand is that generals are usually the most reluctant to commit to troops to combat because they are the ones who have to write letters home to parents when they have fallen,” Cotton said.

Among some on the right, however, the view is more suspicious. Some Trump supporters, for example, worry about blurring the line between military and civilian leadership, as exemplified by recent headlines at Breitbart News, the conservative website run by Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s former chief White House strategist, who clashed with several military leaders over policy.

Trump’s announcement Monday that he would escalate troop levels in Afghanistan was covered on Breitbart with alarm. Headlines warned of “unlimited war” and “nation-building” led by military leaders without links to Trump’s base.

Commentator and Trump ally Ann Coulter tweeted Monday, “The military-industrial complex wins.”

The concerns extend to the political left as well. At ThinkProgress, a liberal website, recent articles have rapped Trump for having a government that benefits “military insiders.” One headline this month declared: “Military figures are taking over Trump’s administration.”

Trump has revered military brass since his youth, when he attended a New York military academy. He holds up generals as exemplars of American leadership and views them as kindred spirits — fellow political outsiders.

“To some degree, Trump is playing president, and I think the whole idea of being able to command a group of warriors is deeply satisfying to him,” McLaughlin said.

Robert M. Hathaway, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center, said: “It should not surprise us. Candidate Trump suggested he would defer to the people he called ‘my generals’ on a whole host of issues, and they are doing just that.”

Trump idolizes swaggering commanders, such as the cinematic portrayal of George S. Patton Jr., the World War II general. But R. James Woolsey Jr., a former CIA director and undersecretary of the Navy who advised Trump during last year’s campaign, said a better comparison to Kelly, Mattis and McMaster would be George C. Marshall Jr., the Army chief of staff during World War II who went on to serve in President Harry Truman’s Cabinet.

“I think these guys are more Marshall-like than Patton-like,” Woolsey said. “They have distinguished combat records, but they’re the sort of career military men who have the intellectual capability and propensity to deal with civilian matters.”

Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Together with other allies in the administration, Kelly, Mattis and McMaster see their roles not merely as executing Trump’s directives but also as guiding him away from moves that they fear could have catastrophic consequences, according to officials familiar with the dynamic.

But if a narrative takes hold that these generals are manipulating the president, Trump could rebel. He chafes at any suggestion that he is a puppet and at the idea of his advisers receiving credit for his decisions. He reacted angrily in February when Time magazine put Bannon on its cover with the headline “The Great Manipulator.”

In his first month as chief of staff, Kelly has kept a low profile, sitting for no major interviews and discouraging aides from self-promotion.

Democratic lawmakers are quick to criticize Trump on just about every issue, but they hold back when it comes to the preponderance of military figures in traditionally civilian positions.

“There might be a temptation to be critical of the president in this context, but I for one am glad they’re there — because they’re thoughtful . . . because they’re lawful and because they’re rational,” Sen. Brian Schatz ­(D-Hawaii) said in an interview. “I feel like the concern about the need to maintain civilian oversight of the military is a totally legitimate one, but that concern should be addressed at a later time. In the meantime, we should be reassured that there are competent professionals there who want to make smart choices.”

That position is shared by many figures in the Republican establishment who worry about Trump’s ideas and temperament.

“The only chance we have of trying to keep this thing from blowing apart is some military discipline,” said Peter Wehner, who served in the three Republican administrations prior to this one and who opposes Trump. “It’s not military rule or a military coup.”

Although Trump mostly has been following the military’s guidance, he easily could turn away from his generals if new problems emerge, according to people close to the president. They described Trump as with the military in spirit but guided more by his transactional instincts. They pointed out that it took weeks for him to go along with a watered-down version of the initial proposal from Mattis and McMaster on additional troops in Afghanistan.

Trump has also had a strained relationship with McMaster for months, in part because of stylistic differences between the two men. The president has little patience for the methodical and consensus-oriented policy process that McMaster employs at the National Security Council, which counts two other generals on the senior staff.

“When you look at the president’s tensions with McMaster, you can see how he could move away from them if things don’t improve in Afghanistan over the next six months,” said a senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “He’s not giving them some sort of blank check.”

One example is retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who lasted a mere 24 days in his job as national security adviser. Trump fired him in February after Flynn was allegedly not truthful with Vice President Pence about communications with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

“Individuals can be corrupt or incompetent, and that extends at times to people in the military,” Wehner said. “Things can go wrong with anyone.”


message 24: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 456 comments I rather fancy it depends on what foreign policy is being considered. If you re going for military intervention, I would sooner have Kelly et al. there than people like Rumsfeld, whose amateurism and failure to understand the bigger picture was an unmitigated disaster. Similarly, Eisenhower was probably the military man with the most power, and he was probably one of the biggest impediments to growth of the military-industrial complex.

My personal view is that Flynn got the rough end of the stick from Trump - and that Trump was merely showing he was exercising power. I see Trump as more of a loose cannon, firing shots anywhere, and Kelly might be the one person who can restrain him and moderate the disaster.


message 25: by John (new)

John Wilson | 154 comments As an outsider, I am glad to see America can still produce informed and insightful journalism in the form of the Washington Post - a newspaper that historically can make or break presidents.

Am I the only one who sees some moderation is some of Trumps recent behaviour? Trump must certainly be learning that one cannot bluster ones way through everything. He might even be learning to reflect before opening his mouth. Ian's mentioning of the loose cannon is very apt. One cannot fix everything with "You're fired!" And the issue of one who “came in with virtually no experience in governance, and there’s no coherent strategic philosophy that he holds" creates a strange impression of leaderlessness that everyone in power must be feeling.

Strange how simple a man can elicit so much complexity in government.


message 26: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Ian wrote: "I rather fancy it depends on what foreign policy is being considered. If you re going for military intervention..."

"military intervention" = cute term thought up by military PR firms...To avoid saying more awkward, less-patriotic, terms like illegal invasions and unprovoked attacks on vulnerable, mineral-rich foreign nations...

War is supposed to be the last option, never the first. For example, under President Roosevelt, the US finally joined the war after much debate about putting American lives on the line.

Since WW2, it's mostly been the reverse where ambiguous and highly-questionable "threats to national security" (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc, etc) have meant war is all too often the first option.


message 27: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 456 comments James, I never meant to imply that such intervention was desirable, but merely that if you are going to descend to that, at least have someone in charge who is not going to make things worse.

The example of Roosevelt is also misleading. He knew Hitler was evil, but he also knew America could make a lot more money bankrupting Britain. For example, he sold them a whole raft of barely serviceable destroyers and got foreign bases, knowing Britain could not refuse. I don't think there was anything noble about staying out - it was a sheer money-based decision. Which also made the Japanese intervention so stupid.


message 28: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Okay Ian, I understand where you are coming from.
At least with Roosevelt, the Japanese, and it could be argued the Nazis, were genuine threats to national security.


message 29: by John (new)

John Wilson | 154 comments "military intervention", yes, a bit like "quantitative easing" or, at work, "we may have to let them go" !


message 30: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments John wrote: "Strange how simple a man can elicit so much complexity in government. ..."

Well maybe the higher up you go in "official power", the simpler they become...George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were equally as stupid and caveman-like as Trump is, I feel....Bill Clinton perhaps could be thrown in that list too...The last thing the powers-that-be, those above official power in the global elite, would want to allow is a thinking man in office who questions the validity of the next military act of aggression.


message 31: by John (new)

John Wilson | 154 comments Well maybe the higher up you go in "official power", the simpler they become."

Maybe, yes. But how does it work? (apart from the puppet theory). There is something about that syndrome that totally bewilders me. I dont know what to say next.


message 32: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments “How many wars do you want to have in your lifetime? How many bombs are you going to drop? I just think it looks like we’ve become a warrior nation ... We are dropping bombs on crowded cities at night where old people and children are sleeping, and we’re watching it on CNN ... What are we doing with all these wars? How are we safer? ... You can’t use an anti-war platform to get elected. So maybe that explains why it’s so easy for us to go to war. Norman Solomon has written a book War Made Easy. Essentially he says, if the president of the United States wants a war, he can have one. I believe that totally. It’s very, very hard to dissent.” –Phil Donahue, interview on Piers Morgan Tonight that aired on CNN January 7, 2012


message 33: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 456 comments If you had universal peace, how would you sell arms?


message 34: by Lance, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lance Morcan | 1952 comments Ian wrote: "If you had universal peace, how would you sell arms?"

Easy. You'd initiate a false flag op.


message 35: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 456 comments In which case, Lance, you never had Universal peace because you were not peaceful 😀


message 36: by Lance, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lance Morcan | 1952 comments Ian wrote: "In which case, Lance, you never had Universal peace because you were not peaceful 😀"

You got me!


message 37: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11 and the Deep Politics of War

Peter Dale Scott examines the many ways in which war policy has been driven by “accidents” and other events in the field, in some cases despite moves toward peace that were directed by presidents. This book explores the “deep politics” that exerts a profound but too-little-understood effect on national policy outside the control of traditional democratic processes.
An important analysis into the causes of war and the long-lasting effects that major events in American history can have on foreign and military policies, The War Conspiracy is a must-read book for students of American history and foreign policy, and anyone interested in the ways that domestic tragedies can be used to manipulate the country’s direction.
First published in 1972, this edition of The War Conspiracy is fully updated for the twenty-first century and includes two lengthy additional essays, one on the transition in Vietnam policy in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, and the other discussing the many parallels between that 1963 event and the attacks of 9/11.

The War Conspiracy JFK, 9/11 and the Deep Politics of War by Peter Dale Scott


message 38: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments If President "Ike" Eisenhower were alive today, would he be warning against a Security Industrial Complex instead of the Military Industrial Complex? Or is the former simply yet another extension of the military juggernaut of the U.S. Empire (not to be confused with America)?


The Emergence of a 'Security Industrial Complex: https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2...

William Keller Ph.D. worked as a security analyst for the US Congress for ten years and has held the highest security clearances. In the first half of Thursday's show , he spoke about the creation of the "Security Industrial Complex," an "internal security state-within-the-state" fueled by tech companies, private security firms, and the intelligence community, and how it's intruding on civil liberties to an unprecedented extent. This complex has really expanded post 9-11, he pointed out, and includes lesser known organizations such as the Bureau of Intelligence at the State Dept. and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, as well as commercial companies like Google, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon, who've been very complicit in conducting surveillance on American citizens.

"The sheer size and the magnitude of the surveillance security state is really unprecedented," he continued, noting that some 1.5 million Americans have top security clearances. Given the small number of terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11, he believes the country is overspending and overreacting to such threats, and citizens' privacy and freedom have taken a hit because of it, as security is prioritized over liberty. To preserve our democracy, Keller suggested that the Security Industrial Complex should be ramped down to 2001 levels. "We're a lot smarter than we were (before 9-11)," he remarked, "but we don't need to be organizing large parts of our government around this. We don't need to be engaging in endless foreign wars to track down the last terrorist."

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2...


message 39: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 456 comments I am wondering whether the issue is not so much surveillance, but who has access to such data and what is done with it subsequently? If someone is planning or committing crime, I don't see they have the right to privacy. I see a bigger problem through corporations who offer credit cards, cell phones, etc, and you have to agree to several pages of tiny printed legal jargon that effectively gives the corporation the right to do whatever they like with what data they collect.


message 40: by John (last edited Nov 08, 2017 09:11PM) (new)

John Wilson | 154 comments It looks as though the military are seriously running short of esprit de corps. And pushing their doped-up men to the limits.
https://hightimes.com/culture/drugged...

Any thoughts on this?


message 41: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 456 comments Not very encouraging, John. The problem is that when these guys come home, they are most likely to be wrecked for the rest of their life, and a hazard to family, if they have any.


message 42: by John (new)

John Wilson | 154 comments Not very encouraging, John. The problem is that when these guys come home, they are most likely to be wrecked for the rest of their life, and a hazard to family, if they have any.

One of the things that bothers me - constantly - is that we Westerners have mostly not experienced destructive military interventions. I am always wondering what governments will do with their armies when dissent (say, against Trump) really gets moving on a big scale. (Kent State? Ireland?)


message 43: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments How many people are aware the entire Vietnam War was based on a 100% fictional attack made up by the U.S. military? That now-declassified lie (fully admitted to by the likes of the NSA as per this thread https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... ), the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, cost millions of Vietnamese/American lives...

Conspiracy FACT #8: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzkGI...

----------------------------

Additionally, what percentage of the public would be aware that U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior US Govt officials once officially planned carrying out multiple 9/11-style terrorist incidents on U.S. soil against American civilians? https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Conspiracy FACT #2: Operation Northwoods https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SvAC...

-----------------------

I would argue less than 5% of the public know of the above examples. 10% max to set a conservative estimate.

When the above examples of "underground knowledge" become mainstream knowledge, the public will FINALLY need to ask one of the most crucial questions facing our global society:

Is the Military Industrial Complex all about "national security" and protecting innocent civilians as per their official statements?
Or...Was President Eisenhower's warning of the military industrial complex being an enemy of sorts to the free world, correct?

Here's Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex Speech in his 1961 farewell statement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06N...


message 44: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments This thread could also be headed the Western Military Industrial Complex as well, which would include Britain as a leading partner to the US...

War is BIG business as per this mainstream media article in the UK newspaper The Independent reveals...

UK sales of bombs and missiles to Saudi Arabia increase by almost 500% since start of Yemen war http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...

Exclusive: Campaigners say ‘mountain of evidence’ shows British-made weapons being used to commit war crimes


message 45: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 456 comments The weapons used for war crimes have to be made somewhere. When they start exporting weapons, they lose all control over what they will be used for. I notice Australia has announced the intention of becoming one of the ten biggest arms exporters.


message 46: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments Ian wrote: "The weapons used for war crimes have to be made somewhere. When they start exporting weapons, they lose all control over what they will be used for. I notice Australia has announced the intention o..."

Oh, you're smarter than that, Ian...
Arms is a huge business...So you have to consider there's a history of wars being engineered since WW2 at least (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin fabrication in Vietnam). And that there's a massive financial incentive in not only starting wars that wouldn't have organically developed, or in some cases doing nothing to prevent them, but also in keeping them going to for years and years and years.

Selling weapons is of course just one arm of the military industrial complex juggernaut that we have on our hands here (probably the biggest business on Earth, or about even with banking perhaps...)


message 47: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 456 comments James, my comment was aimed at stopping blaming JUST Britain for assisting war crimes - any guns are suitable, and arms exporters can protest all they like, but they don't take any action to prevent their use if it means stopping sales.

As for keeping wars going, i see the US is now bombing those Assad troops fighting al Nusra. Got to keep the war going.


message 48: by James, Group Founder (new) - rated it 5 stars

James Morcan | 7197 comments I think it's more listing all the suspects, rather than blaming any one group...America is never solely to blame, nor is the UK...nor are religious extremists either, however...So yeah, I agree it is complex and multi-faceted of course...

But dammit, I'm sick of war usually being the first option our leaders choose. It should always be the last option. But the incentives are high to enter into wars...not for nations, but for groups within and associated with the Military Industrial Complex for sure (e.g. Lockheed Martin and other military private contract firms).


message 49: by Tony (new)

Tony Sunderland | 215 comments Maybe it all starts with the sleazy and secretive 'arms dealers' who negotiate the sales of weapons and also encourage military conflict. They receive millions in commission but the price paid is billions in arms, misallocation of resources and possibly millions of dead people.


message 50: by [deleted user] (new)

Officially no comment, unofficially well, maybe we all just had our day, but what a day it was. All things end in final judgement! And judged we shall all be.


« previous 1
back to top