Scene from "The Humanitarian War in Libya" by Julien Teil
George Washington has written a great post – Why Do Progressive Liberals Fall for Humanitarian War? – on Zero Hedge. It’s quite an an interesting site dedicated to “widening the scope of information available to the investing public.” All posts are submitted under fictitious names. In general the perspective offered contrasts drastically with the mainstream business press.
George Washington makes some great points, starting with reminders of warnings from US founding fathers regarding the tyranny of standing armies and from liberal economists (like Galbraith and Stiglitz) that large military budgets destroy our economy and help the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Among others:
- Suicide bombings have never been uniquely Islamic and more than 95% occur in response to foreign occupation.
- Regime change (in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc) is a very old strategy pursued by the neoconservatives who wrote The Project for a New American Century.
- In Syria we are fighting on the same side as the al Qaeda terrorists who comprise the majority of the Syrian opposition.
He finishes off with a discussion of the role of the mainstream media – which starts back in 1917 with Edward Bernays, Woodrow Wilson and the birth of the public relations industry – in hoodwinking liberals into taking a position on foreign military intervention that is contrary to their basic value system.
The article is well researched and has extensive links to supporting documentation.
Read more here
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
IceRune
sagemerlin
Marilyn Sands
Tommi Avicolli Mecca
Heidi Banerjee
Kate Flannery
Salon.com
Comments
All the underlying human flaws that lead to this kind of blind idol worship (it's ok when the golden donkey does it, but not the golden elephant? really?) were warned of in these texts, but just because a few assholes have co-opted the religions surrounding the books, most people who don't subscribe to these religions dismiss them as useless.
It's too bad. It's also hilariously ironic and symptomatic of the greater issue at hand - Atheists almost universally consider themselves "Men of Science" (men being a generic term for people).
And yet, these great followers of the scientific method are always willing to give a book review on a book, or several of them, that they have never personally read.
Something tells me Einstein wouldn't approve.
No one thinks, and society has no collective memory, so we (well, ya know...not including me) can be duped...over and over and over and over.
We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania.
How many warnings about this shit do you have to get from how many sources before you open your eyes?
Apparently more than we've received thus far.
Those that tell all these lies may often get so used to telling lies that they start believing many of them and everything goes insane from there.
You're right that was a great article.