Posts in "War in Iraq"

By Zach Foster at 8:26PM

Feb 3, 2012

What It Means to Be Pro-Life (Part 2)

Continued from Part I: How the Left Justifies Killing

Part II: How the Right Justifies Killing

Rightists love to award themselves the moral high ground for opposing abortion while simultaneously supporting wars of aggression with high civilian casualties. Indeed, on the economic front, conservatives who ironically subscribe to Keynesian economic theory are convinced that America’s entry into World War II is what restored economic prosperity -- that war is a good cure for economic depression. What a pro-life sentiment: War is good for the economy! Who cares about the loss of innocent life war always entails -- any time the country falls into economic recession, all Americans need to do is go to war and all will be well! </sarcasm>

Currently many Republicans are incredibly nervous about Iran developing nuclear weapons. Many of these unrepentant warhawks are crying out for the U.S. to “stop Iran from getting the bomb!” Yet they fail to think through what this means in practice.

How does one country stop a hostile country from doing something? Should the United States throw sanctions on Iran? That has already been done! Should the U.S. throw more sanctions at the rogue republic? Such an effort would be useless! Sanctions are a waste of time and also an agent of death when used against third world dictatorships. After all, cutting off food, trade, and other needed commodities will not change the plans of the Ahmadinejad regime; the regime is not representative of the Iranian people and no matter what, both Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah will still eat gourmet meals while the poorest of the poor in Iran will die of starvation from the sanctions.

Read more here

Posted in:

By Zach Foster at 10:17AM

Jan 30, 2012

What It Means to Be Pro-Life (Part 1)

Many Americans with some political consciousness tend to group themselves in one or two political categories: the left and the right, the former are usually associated with the Democrat Party and the latter with the Republican Party. Whenever people assign themselves to one of these two positions, they usually subscribe to the majority of that position’s pre-set policies and beliefs.

Both the left and the right have their own views on the sanctity of life, yet their contradictory views -- the left being against war and the death penalty but all for the choice of abortion and the right being against abortion but for the death penalty and war -- become a paradox. Wherever they stand on the issue of life, both the left and the right are in full favor of death to some extent, and any stance they take on preserving life -- whether in the fetal stage or in the electric chair -- is based on fallacious logic and dishonest euphemisms. Both sides are willing to kill in order to bring about their ideal conditions in society.

Part I: How the Left Justifies Killing

Leftists love to attack war but most of them are hypocrites for doing so, since they also often favor war but simply for different reasons than the right. Socialists favor labor violence and outright civil wars which they refer to as “wars of liberation.” If they subscribe to Lenin’s teachings, violence and outright terror in the name of proletarian revolution are justified (see The Black Book of Communism, Chapter 4: The Red Terror). More moderate leftists, from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama, campaign on peace but instead lead the country into wars for various political and economic purposes. With Wilson it was the First World War and with Obama it was continuation of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as intervention in the Libyan Civil War as well as those in Somalia, South Sudan, and Central Africa. Both social democrats enjoyed wide support from their allegedly pacific Democrat Party.

Read more here

Posted in:

By Bonnie Kristian at 6:38PM

Dec 21, 2011

A short and incomplete summary of why our foreign policy cannot continue as it has for the last decade.

As is now (hopefully) increasingly common knowledge, our numerous occupations in the Middle East and Africa were not sparked by those countries attacking us. Rather, with the possible exception of the War in Afghanistan — which has lasted an outrageously long time with huge costs of both blood and treasure, our 5+ wars are unwarranted wars of aggression rendered unconstitutional by their lack of official declaration by the Congress and unaffordable by our $15 trillion national debt.

The CIA estimates there are fewer than 100 members of al Qaeda left in Afghanistan, and yet we linger with tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars spent. Recall also that many of the people we’re fighting there we were training just a few decades years ago, possibly including even bin Laden himself.

We’re finally pulling out of Iraq, left unstable and arguably more dangerous than we found it — not to mention the hundreds of thousands of excess civilian deaths our intervention has caused there.

In Libya, we’re not really sure who we supported or if the new government will even be friendly to us. Many of the rebels we helped are backed by al Qaeda, our enemies just a few countries away.

In Pakistan, our drone operations are permitted to kill 50 civilians — including women and children — for every one terrorist they get, and no one is required to report to the public who is killed.

In Somalia, we’re engaging in covert operations in a dangerous and morally dubious situation which is none of our business and stretches our military — already posted in 900 bases in more than 130 nations around the world — almost thinner than it can stand.

Now, one might argue that it’s somehow OK for the U.S. to engage in this kind of global military expansion, because we’re the good guys, right? But, as I’ve shown, in many cases we haven’t the foggiest clue who the good guys are, and often end up doing more harm than good to our own defense in the long term. Perhaps more importantly, how would we like it if we were on the other end of our clumsy, bloody, and expensive foreign policy? A little consideration of the golden rule might go a long way.

Originally published on my blog here.

Posted in:

2 comments

By Jayel Aheram at 12:34PM

Dec 14, 2011

Once Again, What 'Post-War' Period?

When it was announced that the United States will be withdrawing from Iraq by the end of Dec. 31, commentators began propagating the disgusting meme that this is the beginning of a “post-war” period for both Americans and Iraqis.

In response, I asked “What ‘post-war’ period?”

This “post-war period” is a disgusting meme that will gain traction after Dec. 31 when the United States will withdraw its combat troops from Iraq (and leave behind thousands of private military thugs to continue the violence there). It must be noted that these departing American troops will not enjoy a “post-war period.” They will be redeployed into new theaters of combat to die in any one of our dozens of senseless wars in Afghanistan, Uganda, or the Philippines.
Not to mention Iraq itself, which will experience years of violence regardless of American presence. The bombings, the checkpoints, the sectarian strife, all of these will continue after “withdrawal.” There will be no “post-war period” for Iraqis.
That the end of Iraq War will bring about a “post-war period” is a nice fantasy, but it is an outright lie.

And about it gaining traction? A quick scan of headlines after the withdrawal announcement reveal that this meme is now the standard corporate media narrative.

Read more here

Posted in:

By Jayel Aheram at 5:09PM

Dec 12, 2011

Redditor: "My Taxes Killed 1.88 People"

American tax dollars at work:

Approximately 20% of the US budget goes to “defense.”
130,000 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I do well for myself, and have paid about $500,000 in federal taxes since the War in Afghanistan began 10 years ago.
[…]
With the federal budget at about 3.4 trillion, I pay approximately 0.0000144 of the total budget. Thus, I assume that I have paid for 0.0000144 of all deaths in America’s wars.
0.00144% of 130,000 deaths is 1.88 people.

Big government kills. Anytime people demand more government or more taxation, all they are asking for is more funding for the insatiable military war machine. And even more death and ruin courtesy of you, the American taxpayer.

Posted in:

Add new comment

By Jayel Aheram at 9:23AM

Oct 24, 2011

What 'post-war period'?

Bernie Quigley, in an op-ed piece for The Hill about the current crop of GOP candidates, said this:

Three of the Republican candidates for president, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman, are of the highest caliber, on a level we have barely seen in the post-war period.

What struck me as odd was not his analysis of these candidates (he is repeating the same tired line that the frontrunners are the only serious candidates), but the fact he referred to a “post-war period.”

I really hope he was referring to the period after World War II, because if not, I must ask: what "post-war period"?

This “post-war period” is a disgusting meme that will gain traction after Dec. 31 when the United States will withdraw its combat troops from Iraq (and leave behind thousands of private military thugs to continue the violence there). It must be noted that these departing American troops will not enjoy a “post-war period.” They will be redeployed into new theaters of combat to die in any one of our dozens of senseless wars in Afghanistan, Uganda, or the Philippines.

And that's not to mention Iraq itself, which will experience years of violence regardless of American presence. The bombings, the checkpoints, the sectarian strife, all of these will continue after “withdrawal.” There will be no “post-war period” for Iraqis.

That the end of Iraq War will bring about a “post-war period” is a nice fantasy, but it is an outright lie.

Posted in:

51 comments

By Jayel Aheram at 3:17PM

Sep 15, 2011

Lee introduces bill to repeal 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'

Rep. Barbara Lee has introduced a bill to repeal the odious “Authorization for Use of Military Force” that Congress passed a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks:

Dear Colleague:
Please join me as an original cosponsor of the ‘Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act of 2011.’ This legislation repeals the joint resolution providing overly-broad authorization to the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those involved in attacking our nation and to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.
This broad authorization of force has had far-reaching implications which shake the very foundations of our great nation and democracy. It has been used to justify warrantless surveillance and wiretapping activities, indefinite detention practices that fly in the face of our constitutional values, extrajudicial targeted-killing operations, and an ever-growing and indefinite pursuit of an ill-defined enemy abroad.

Read more here

Posted in:

By Jayel Aheram at 8:53AM

Sep 12, 2011

Some Facts about the Second 'End of War' in Iraq

It is too early to celebrate this newest Iraq "withdrawal," the second in little over a year. Here are some facts:

Although Iraq has not publicly requested American troops remain in the country after 2011, the White House and U.S. lawmakers are open about their preferences for post-withdrawal Iraq. U.S. officials said that the Obama administration would like to see between 3,000 and 5,000 troops remain behind. Some members of the U.S. Congress, however, believe that at least 10,000 Americans would have to stay behind to maintain security. These numbers do not include private contractors and the "private army" that the U.S. State Department is building for its own security.

It is interesting that no one in the corporate media marked the one-year anniversary of the End of War in Iraq, even as they gushed over it the first time.

Posted in:

7 comments

By Brian Beyer at 4:21PM

Aug 31, 2011

Libya's Future: Much Less Certain than Death and Taxes

Moammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader desperate to maintain the little power he has left, was said to have arrived in Algeria in a convoy of Mercedes. He must have done so after finding the personal jet of Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe to not be luxurious enough for his flamboyant self. Or he’s in the Sahara desert with his adopted daughter who arose from the dead 25 years after her death. Or he’s floating around in space.

All of this confusion, chaos, and senseless chatter about Gaddafi’s whereabouts mimics much of Libya’s big picture: the future is constantly changing, subject to the ever blowing Saharan winds, and will most likely be far from a democratic dreamland.

Fareed Zakaria, a member of the foreign policy elite, has heralded the Libyan intervention (not a war, of course) as “a new era in U.S. foreign policy.” Most of his praise was directed at the multilateral effort of the UN and the legitimacy that nearby Arab countries provided. He ended his propaganda piece with a self addressed question and answer:

The question before Libya was: Could such interventions be successful while keeping costs under control – both human and financial. Today’s answer is: Yes.

This same short sighted nonsense was said about Iraq as well.

Read more here

Posted in:

By Jayel Aheram at 11:44AM

Aug 30, 2011

Mixed Messages in America's Foreign Policy

Mixed Messages by Jayel Aheram

Even as a private in the United States Marine Corps, I began to question the reasons that compel my country to send its young men, including myself, to risk life and limb in a needless conflict.

In October 3, 2007, I asked of these mixed messages:

Why do we expect trained killers, like myself, to enforce peace with the barrel of a gun pointed at those we claim to be fighting for?

The monster that is Saddam Hussein, the product of our interventionist policies, has been toppled and captured. Yet we insist in “staying the course.” How much longer?

It is troubling: that nearly four years later I find myself still asking these questions of not only Iraq, but Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Libya as well (not to mention our covert wars in over 120 countries);

That I am asking these questions under a Nobel Peace Prize-winning president who promised to end the war in Iraq;

That we are extending our presence in a “pacified Iraq” nearly a year after the war “ended” there;

That we are “withdrawing” from Afghanistan with an increase in troops;

That we are liberating Libya with bombs and leading the deposal of its dictator without ever being at war with them;

That our interventionist actions in Libya, which so mirrors that of our actions in Iran half a century ago, is being touted as a success and a new era of foreign policy;

And that we are providing material support to the very same Islamists we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When confronted with these contradictions, it would be a mistake to conclude (as I did) that the message had been rendered obscure. That the lofty rhetoric of peace and liberty were merely lost in war’s misguidance. It is now clear that the message was never mixed, but had always been a travesty of the bloodstained truth: we must suffer perpetual war.

Posted in: