Racist Military Recruiting, The Pearl Harbor Conspiracy, Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes, Greenspan Skewered America, and Barbara Streisand?
A completely ignorant and racist theory in recruiting Hispanics by the Military:
Racist Theories in Recruiting
An old article implicating Roosevelt knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and specifically concealed the information from the Hawaiian military commanders and the American people in order to overcome the non-interventionist movement:
Pearl Harbor Could Have Been Prevented
And a follow-up: Roosevelt wanted to provoke Japan to attack us.
8 Step Plan
"CONPLAN 8022 is a new strike plan that includes a pre-emptive nuclear strike against weapons of mass destruction facilities anywhere in the world":
Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes
How Alan Greenspan skewered America: "In just under 5 years the Fed-master has engineered a coup so vast and devastating that $1.3 trillion of borrowed revenue has been adroitly shifted from the beleaguered middle class to the privileged 1% that Greenspan represents."
Social Darwinism and Exclusionary Economics
I have a new found respect for Barbara Streisand:
Streisand Cancels Subscription to LA Times
And the link to the letter she wrote them:
Dear Mr. Martinez
Peace and Love,
The Rebellion Magazine
posted by The Rebellion Magazine @ 2:35 AM
8 Comments:
In response to Greenspan Skewered America:
I checked out the Article on Alan Greenspan, and I wouldn't take too much to heart from the piece. Seems to me the man missed the mark by quite a bit, attributing other economic and sociopolitical factors into a weak argument against the fed. Ever since I read that article in GQ (Alan Greenspan Takes a Bath by Wil S. Hylton) on Greenspan I became really interested in the Fed and its former chairman in particular. Greenspan has been speaking out for ages about how our country is borrowing far too much and is in serious need of reforming spending to lower our national debt. He's been actively promoting for Americans to save more, and for our government to get its spending under control. The fed can only do so much though, its only power is to change the federal interest rates; but then almost all financial institutions peg their values on what the fed dictates. Lowering the rates before the onset of war, and to boost the housing boom was necessary in order to keep our economy in a bullish state. It's the Fed's job to control inflation rates and promote a healthy economy. So far it has worked, but this is only a small factor in the total Bush economic plan. White house economic moves aim at keeping the economy strong and dealing with national debt later. Greenspan has argued and fought the White House the last six years. He has been saying that the national debt must be dealt with immediately before it become insurmountable- or leads to a monster depression, but he simply cannot sink the economy because he disagrees with the current administration's objectives. If anything you can say the guy has done amazing things with so little he's given to work with thanks to Bush. From what I've read, Bush and Co pretty much can't stand Greenspan. To say that the guy is engineering a coup to destroy the middle class is a little too left, and all that mumbo jumbo about the housing boom engineering a shift in wealth is also crap. I think a lot of the reason we aren't fucked right this very moment is because of Bushenomics. Bush's economic plan is to inject the economy with enough testosterone to last through his term, and then he'll sit back and watch from Crawford Ranch as the next sucker watches the empire crumble under a mountain of debt. Bush is in a good position to continue to loan out US bonds though- especially to China. They simply can't offload them because like the old saying goes...when you owe the bank 1000$, you're fucked, when you owe the bank a million, they're fucked. China has too much money to loose if we go bust, and they simply cannot afford to have a slow down in their economy now. So we have our dumping spot, and Bush is likely to increase the debt ever more. Things could get ugly though if something really throws the dollar for a loop- such as that Iranian Bourse, another major oil spike, or a giant fucking asteroid. Our economy depends on foreigners to keep it afloat, so it would seem prudent that we would keep a positive foreign policy. So far Bush, despite his pro big business policy, has trashed America's image overseas and now many international businesses are suffering. The one thing he was supposed to improve is now on the list of things he's fucked up.
-EG
In response to Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes:
I don't know what to think about CONPLAN 8022, so I read the article referred to in guerrillanews by William Arkin of the Washington Post HERE. I thought it was pretty good, and it fleshed out the deeper meaning of all the military jargon of "conplan 8022." Scary stuff, maybe the white house has realize that a free democratic state like ours is not good at long, involved, occupation type campaigns in countries that are vastly ideologically dissimilar from our own. So what to do? Resolve things politically? Sure, and if that doesn't work we scare the fuck out of them with the nuclear option. Not scared? Have a low yield tactical nuke delivered with a health portion of special opps on the side! Nothing like letting a radioactive cat out of the bag to boost the world's opinion of America. Seriously though, remember when we were talking about a possible conflict with Iran? We sort of ruled out something happening along the lines of Iraq with a large contingent of ground forces. We decided a much more viable option was a tactical strike, and it takes a lot of planning to get the Armed forces ready to act globally in such a manner. Ahhh, good old Rummy to get the ball rolling last year, now we can rest easy...for if the great state of Alabama (god no!) ever gets attacked by kim jong whatever we can strike back from the top of Mount Olympus with lightening fury. Hey, completely different subject, do you know anything about Rumsfeld Doctrine vs. Powell Doctrine? Anyway, I don't think we can just leave Iraq right now and I was wondering what you think would be the best way to end this. A lot of people have argued that the only way to break an insurgency is to cripple it with overwhelming force i.e. Powell doctrine. The way we have been fighting has been more along the lines of the Rumsfeld scenario, using our high tech forces to our advantage. They are proposing handing over control of Air force target picking to Iraqis and mobilizing small lightening quick American forces to respond to insurgents. I'm not sure what I think, but it seems like having a small level of troops (I know 200k seems big, but the first gulf war we had around 600k troops for the first war) just doesn't do shit and the insurgency keeps surviving and our guys keep getting fucked ever so slowly and steadily. I think we should have sent a lot more in as soon as major combat was done so as to MAKE SURE an insurgency didn't develop. Now it seems counterintuitive that we proceed to further enhance a battle doctrine that has consistently failed in Iraq. I really think Bush fucked up by not sending more troops in the beginning when he had support...its probably too late for that now. As much as I would hate to send more Americans over there, maybe it would be for the best if we sent them over now and got out of there in a year instead of hanging on for 10. It infuriates me to no end that the White House lied to us about WMDs (or more correctly, the immediacy of their threat), and then had the fucking gall to lead us in there with no back up plan if the Iraqis ended up not being thrilled about our grand arrival. With Al Queda sneaking into our own country with impunity pre-9/11 how the hell did they not expect something of an insurgency to develop in their own backyard? Morons- Dick, Don, Rover, and Bush. I hate them all.
-EG
"I don't think we can just leave Iraq right now and I was wondering what you think would be the best way to end this?" -EG
This question gets tossed around quite a bit with nobody having a good answer on either side of the table. Do we immediately leave? Do we stick around until Democracy is achieved (highly unlikely that this will happen during W's second term, at least not genuine Democracy) as Bush would like us to do? Like I said, no one has a good answer. Even those of us who have strongly opposed the war from the beginning question when we should pull out and whether it should be a full-scale withdrawal of our troops when it does happen. As we’ve seen with Hilary Clinton, many people choose to stay out of the argument fearing that whatever the outcome may be, it could be detrimental to their political future to answer these difficult questions. Unfortunately that leaves us with Bush and Co. and their strong opposition to a Withdrawal Plan. Bush has said numerous times that he will not give a specific date for withdrawal and that we will remain in Iraq until Democracy is achieved and not a day more (or less as it appears now). It is my opinion that when the parliamentary elections in Iraq are completed, the new government should publicly ask us to begin our withdrawal. This is exactly when we should begin withdrawing our troops because it gives legitimacy to the new government. Unfortunately there is still going to be violence, but it is time for the Iraqi people to take care of themselves. We have overstayed our welcome (if it ever was a welcome in the first place). With the absence of American presence, over time we can expect to see the insurgency dissipate. After all, it has become obvious that our presence is the main cause of the insurgency in the first place. Obviously none of this will be easy, and none of it will run perfectly. The Iraqi people will have the pressures of writing their constitution as well, this time without the watchful eye of big brother America, but this is most likely better for a budding Democracy. England didn’t hold our hand as we wrote ours, it seems absurd that we would expect Iraq to want our help writing theirs. After all, they do refer to us as the “occupation”.
-The Rebellion Magazine
In response to Barbara Streisand?:
Good for Streisand, I heard about the takeover of the LA times by Chicagoland on NPR awhile back. I guess the LA times has been concentrating on national and global stories for some time now, and consequently the local coverage is dwindling into non-existence. The further takeover by one of the BIG SIX is bound to further exacerbate things, even though they promised to increase local coverage. Sounds like they have already reneged on their promise. News is steadily being completely transformed into nothing more than a profit making venture. These big six companies act on stories that sell papers (which happen to have large profit margins.) They are becoming more and more tied to the stockholder's desire for increased revenue on shares. It facilitates the firing of excellent columnists and promotes field reporters and lackey pundits to hop the country up on profitable 24hr/day news feeds that simply feel like reactions to event after event after event. It's all back to that theory that in an ideal democratic economy, people produce what they want because the love to and are free to do so. Instead we run a beautiful culture and economy based on making money above all else. The eventual takeover of the most direct conduit into our daily lives was inevitable. All hail the mighty dollar, so that it may dictate how we live, think, and feel.
-EG
Nice site!
[url=http://qzjfyjcl.com/coqt/xeea.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://qvtackvt.com/bkwc/zsln.html]Cool site[/url]
Nice site!
[url=http://qzjfyjcl.com/coqt/xeea.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://qvtackvt.com/bkwc/zsln.html]Cool site[/url]
Well done!
My homepage | Please visit
Great work!
http://qzjfyjcl.com/coqt/xeea.html | http://qqofnhla.com/wpfh/evrq.html
Post a Comment
<< Home