Who are the top of the bureaucracy of 'the war on terrorism'? What are the principles of their work?
I think that there are some military fundamentals, which are important to understand.
The first thing is that it is quite impossible for American militarists to get any conventional military hegemony in the world.
It is true that American spending for weapons and for military in general is by far bigger than that by any other nation. But that does not make the United States of America superior in force in the conventional military sense compared to many other nations.
Already the war in Vietnam proved that only by using bigger amounts of conventional military technologies you cannot beat a smaller but determined army, if you don't either try to occupy the whole country or destroy the whole infrastructure of the country. The long and unsuccessful present war in Afghanistan is another proof of the same thing.
Furthermore nowadays concerning conventional military technologies, some nations notably Russia, China and India have got technologies, which are at least as powerful as those of America or powerful enough to destroy the whole infrastructure of the United States of America.
Even if America has got about 700 overseas military bases, they have got no way to get any military hegemony in the conventional sense, because exactly those overseas bases make the military structure of America very vulnerable.
The second thing is that in America they have already got such a law system, which gives to the military commander of the already started and declared war, the right to use any existing or later developed weapons, which they think are needed
There is no need to ask any permissions of the president to use for example nuclear weapons during the already started war.
--- --
The second thing means that after 'the war on terrorism' has been already started, the military leaders can use any kinds of weapons they want. And they can use those weapons against anybody.
Because the vague definition of 'the terrorist' means they can declare anybody to be 'a terrorist'.
The first thing means that the military commanders of 'the war on terrorism' are bound to use all kinds of indirect methods like spying technologies, arresting, torturing and in general terrorizing the people 'to win the war'.
Because they know that by the conventional means they probably cannot win.
--------
But who are the top bureaucracy of 'the war of terror'?
It is we. It is all of us. We have to stop that madness.
'The war on terrorism' is the war of terror against the freedom of the people.
The present president of the United States of America has told that 'the war on terrorism' is his top agenda. We need to get him to change his mind.
First all the information should be released about the things going on in the jails where people suspected to be 'terrorists' are being tortured and kept illegally.
Next we need the information about the spying methods the present administration is using against American citizens and against foreign nationals.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
libbyliberalnyc
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Jan Sand
old new lefty
Bill Michtom
markinjapan
Salon.com
Comments
Yes. I think that big corporations are in charge. Besides them the high officials of the main government offices. The leaders of CIA, the leaders of DoD.
The thing is that you cannot change the top of the big corporations by political election systems. Even if you change the person in the president's office the corporations remain the same.
Please note that they are the same corporations producing weapons, which are producers of civil technologies.
Something basic is available here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html
-----------
The main thing is this:
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag,
Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief,
from Gilbert, G.M. (1947). Nurenberg Diary, New York: Signet
------------
The above was take from the website:
http://www.hermes-press.com/militarismindex.htm
Military Dictatorship USA. By Dr. Norman D. Livergood
People have given up their rights and their freedom by selecting 'leaders', who have got rights to start wars in their name. And by that they are giving even more rights to their 'leaders'. To take the rights of the other people on the other side of the world, too.
In my opinion the whole system is faulty. So-called democratic state structure might work in the situations of low-level technologies and and low level concentration of people. But when we have got machineries, which can kill millions of people with a single command, we shouldn't give to anybody the rights for such a command.
We should get rid of the armies and destroy their weapons.
I agree with commenter ktm below that corporations are at the root of the problem. Although national governments control the national military institution, large corporations control the national governments with the money they have to buy the lawmakers and the executive branch officials.
Therefore national foreign policy questions like, to declare or not declare war and who to declare war on are determined by the people who run the corporations, not the people who run the government. Naturally, in this situation what the public and the voting share of the public want is totally irrelevant.
I think that it wouldn't need to be totally irrelevant. But nowadays "it is a simple matter to drag the people along. People are easily made scared that they are being attacked."
After 9/11 many common people believed that it was really Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and they were just happy to send troops to attack Afghanistan.
But if they would have thought that it was all arranged by Americans themselves (as I actually thought at once), would they have agreed to send the troops to Afghanistan and to Iraq?
Now, after most people have understood that the war in Iraq was based on plain lies, many have started to think that the war in Afghanistan was based on lies, too.
But the thing is that they have been dragged so far that they are scared to think what it would mean, if the war in Afghanistan... So most people are satisfied just to stop thinking? And it is just better to continue the war?
But what do you think, what would the people in Afghanistan think about this all? Are they happy to get killed, because American corporations want them to be killed?
Are you yourself satisfied with the situation? You were cheated to help killing innocent people.