Hannu Virtanen

Hannu Virtanen
Location
-, -
Bio
I do not support the advertiser who might show up on my blog. I have not chosen that ad, nor do I benefit any way from their infringement on this space. I do not support the big company, which has made the arrangements of those ads. I'm using 'Firefox' browser (with Debian GNU/linux operating system) and have installed 'Adblock Plus' extension with it, so I don't see those ads myself. You can install 'Adblock', too. You don't need to use linux, you can use 'Adblock Plus' with 'Firefox' with other operating systems, too.

MY RECENT POSTS

Hannu Virtanen's Links

MY LINKS
No links in this category.
JUNE 20, 2009 7:13AM

Who is the top commander of the war of terror?

Rate: 6 Flag

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.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
My opinion about your first two questions is that corporations are really in charge... because they profit.
Thank you for your comment.

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
You should pay attention to Goering's statement. The 'people' are not a factor in determining the start or conduct of any war, never have been, never will be. We had a chance to elect several candidates that would have stopped the war, Kucinich, Paul, Gravel, Nader. Did we? Of course not. The people are blockheads, collectively and for the most part individually. This idea is contrary to everything we have been told by the purveyors of the 'democracy' hoax. And it's a little hard to swallow, so to speak. But, if you test it against reality, I think it is true. Goering was 100% correct. Do not expect anything from the 'people', as you will not get it.
Narcissus: Yes, Goering was correct.

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 just saw your blog for the first time. I agree with much of what you say. At least you are asking probing questions.
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.
"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.
Your post is on point. America should jettison the entire "War on Terror" in both terminology and mind-set. It is time to truly understand the forces at work geo-politically and construct strategies--both intelligence and diplomatic--to deal with it effectively. Military force, especially blunt force military such as an invasion, is almost never the best option against these small groups. I agree with ktm that the entire futile operation is perpetuated to fund the corporations: Blackwater (who astoundingly was awarded a new contract recently), KBR and all the defense contractors are the beneficiaries. I'm not sure how President Obama can or will unring the bell and unwind the entire crazed enterprise. He seems far too willing to keep to the current course. He has not, I remind everyone, closed Gitmo. He has not ended all rendition. And he still blocks prosecution of war crimes against the previous administration even while they brag about them publically. Yes, he's far better than Bush but I had hoped for a changed course, as promised. Time will tell but for now I remain disappointed.
Events in foriegn policy sometimes seem to have a mind of their own. Certainly the US has not been very successful in channeling the Arab Spring, even though G.W. Bush envisioned such a move towards democracy in the Middle East when he invaded Iraq. Similarly, I believe that events in the USA will move the Congress towards eventually taking reforms of the current system of surveillance, no matter how pitifully small they may be.

There are the glimmerings of a left-right coalition beginning to form politically in the US, although it is at an embryonic stage. My observation is that once established political constellations are disturbed they will tend to remain in motion.

The bottom line is that the future of American hegemony is more uncertain and unpredictable than ever. The only thing I have to say is that I and others can hopefully nudge our atoms in the correct vector -- eventually pushing bigger molecules in the direction we want them to go.
Thank you for your comments, old new lefty and Kathryn O'Hehir.

These things have been coming already a long time. Obama told it quite openly already in his inauguration speech that his administration will enhance spying methods and technologies. 

I think that Snowden's revelations are just tips of icebergs.

I think that Arab Spring was almost completely arranged by cia operations . But now these new style wars are going astray and it really difficult to predict what will be the next move of Obama's administration in Syria for example.