Yes I know, the title of this rant could be mistaken for a blast from the 60's. Well, I still enjoy much of the music from that long ago time, so..........
Yes, it is also a reference to today, 9/11 and the tenth "anniversary" of the "day that changed everything". Except it really didn't "change everything". What it did change was the covert wars came out of the shadows and morphed into "hot" or shooting wars. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the first US "responses" to that day. It has lead to bombings of Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen in addition to the first two victims of US anger at having been attacked by the "evil terrorists" who of course "hate us for our freedoms". Yeah, sure, that is why the US was attacked on 9/11.
September 11, 2001 was NOT the first 9/11 that the USA was involved with. The first 9/11 that "we" had anything to do with was September 11, 1973 in Chile. That was when "tricky" Dick Nixon and his sidekick/pal Henry the K unleashed the coup that ousted Allende from power and installed the military dictatorship that ruled that poor country for far too long. Funny how history seems to work. So, there are many "meanings" to 9/11 that many of us Americans don't know about or remember.
The 9/11 that is being commemorated today is the one that came about due to blowback from the foreign policies of the USA in particular, our policies toward the Palestine/Israel conflict/occupation/genocide/war crime/crime against humanity and many other terms that fit that ongoing disaster that has seen Palestinians evicted from long held family homes/homesteads and land. Those evictions that started in 1948 are ongoing even today. The"separation wall" is one of the most obvious and blatant examples of the apartheid rule of the zionist entity towards the Palestinian people. Old bin Laden, in his many video and audio statements to the world sited that ongoing conflict as one of the major reasons why his al-Qaeda was waging jihad against the USA and our allies.
I had decided that I would not do a blog entry about the tenth anniversary of 9/11, and I am trying to keep this post from going too far into that sort of post.
Yes, I do mourn the loss of life in our country on that day. Not on a daily basis as I had no family or friends killed by the attacks on the building in New York or Washington D.C. nor on the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania. I also mourn the loss of life in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen that go on day after bloody day including, no doubt, today as well as every day since the attacks of 9/11, 2001.
A question to ask is just how many "others" need to die before there is "parity" with the loss of life in New York, D.C., and Pennsylvania? How many must die to "make up" for our loss of life? Us and NATO troops have killed many times over the numbers of people killed on 9/11. It has been estimated that over 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq alone since we invaded that country in 2003. The killings continue still, and I need to ask, how many more "need" to die?
Gobomber has announced to the world that "we" have killed bin Laden. Great, OK, fine, so, how many more do "we" need to kill? Hey, our troops bumped off the "number one" bad guy, so when do we stop the killing?
I refuse to watch or listen to any of the "celebrations" of this tenth anniversary. If you want my opinion on these events, just check out Tomdispatch for the latest commentary by Mr. Engelhardt. The link is here on the right side of this page. He said it much better than I ever could. Basically, any remembrances have been hijacked. This day should be one of quiet reflection and remembrances. A highly personal day/time to look back and try to understand the "why" of it all, not some huge gala with loads of celebrities. Just check out what Tom has to say on this, you won't be sorry.
I keep coming back to my own central question; how many more people do "we" need to kill before we can finally put this date in its proper place? We did stop killing Japanese people in 1945. It only took us just a bit more than three and a half years to get past Pearl Harbor. How much longer do we need to kill to do the same for 9/11?
Maybe war has become too profitable for the "too big to fail" gangsters. Wars have always been money makers for the rich and the war industries and of course, the big banksters and their Wall Street pals. War now seems to be about the only thing that America still makes. It appears to be our biggest export now days. Wars and weapons and weapon systems are still American made. Most every other product that is for sale here is made elsewhere. Oh, sure, we assemble some things still, like cars, but many of the parts for them are made in some other country.
There seems to be no end to it all either. Just look at who is running to replace Gobomber. The entire gang of elephants who want that job aren't very inspiring if you want a peaceful world. So far, no member of the donkey gang has risen up to challenge him. Probably none will either. That is most unfortunate. Old Teddy Kennedy gave Jimmy Carter a run for it in 1980 and may have caused him to lose to "saint" Ronnie of Raygun. Is there no democrat to give Gobomber a small fright? We''l have to just wait and see I suppose.
OK, how about some third party challenge? I have not heard of any yet. Maybe it is still to early for them to even announce an intention. I think that a real, serious person to represent the working class of this country could give the two wings of the war party a real run at the job. But that is just me and I have not had much success at predicting elections. I'd like to see Ms. McKinney run again. Of course it is doubtful that AIPAC would allow her to win. No, she has a real respect for humanity and oppressed peoples to have any realistic chance at becoming president. If only..........yeah, I can still dream. Last I checked, it was still legal.
Our economy, or what passes for such these days still looks bad for the working people. Even Gobomber in his speech the other day didn't do much to instill any great confidence in his plans. Did I just say he had a plan? Sorry, my bad. His only real plan is to get re-elected and the rest of us can go take a flying jump at the moon. Ain't this a great country? And, of course do not look to the congress critters to help out either, they have their priorities. Yeah, same as Gobomber, get re-elected. America, what a country.
semper fi
11 comments:
'Maybe war has become too profitable for the "too big to fail" gangsters. Wars have always been money makers for the rich and the war industries and of course, the big banksters and their Wall Street pals.'
I was struck by Paul Craig Roberts' analysis : two powers struggling for control of "our" USA...
The S&P Downgrade
'
The struggle between the military/security complex and the financial sector comes down to a struggle over patronage.
The military/security complex’s patronage network is built upon armaments factories and workforces, military bases and military families, military contractors, private security firms, intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, federalized state and local police, and journalists who cover the defense sector.
Wall Street’s network includes investors, speculators, people with mortgages, car, student, and business loans, credit cards, real estate, insurance companies, pension funds, money managers and their clients, and financial journalists.
'
... the interests of "we the people" are nowhere to be seen.
I don't think the 'left' has it in 'em to field a candidate to challenge Obama. I could support McKinney, or another Green. Maybe a Green could catch fire... or I could support Ron Paul, as long as Ron Paul will end the wars.
ITS THE WARs, STUPID!
But I don't hear so much about ending the wars from Ron Paul anymore... not it's the Constitution... which needs attention, of course, but first things first. One libertarian candidate listed the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which calls for the election rather than the appointment of Senators(!), as a top priority recently. So maybe even Ron Paul is all smoke, a dupe of the Koch Bros. at this point.
John,
Great link. I read Counterpunch every day. Paul Roberts is one author I really respect. I don't always agree with everything he says, but he does tell it as he sees things. One does respect that. I trust his experience and his economics seems sound.
Yes, there is way too much money to be made from wars. Maybe all profits from wars should be confiscated and set aside to pay medical expenses of those wounded in war. Yeah, I did say confiscate. At least those who profit from war should pay for the medical care of the wounded.
As to Ron Paul, I lost some respect for him back in late 2007. At the time I was emailing a guy who was writing for "OpEd news" site. He told me to ask Ron's stand on a certain issue, I forget exactly which one, his reply, from some staffer was not what either of us would have guessed. I am not so sure of Ron Paul now days. I have not been following him this time. Maybe as things get closer to January I might start to look more closely at him again. We have one year plus just now.
I'd vote for Ms. McKinney again, but doubt she has much chance of getting elected. If AIPAC does not endorse you forget winning. Well, I'd still vote for her. When I lived in California I voted for the "Peace and Freedom" party most elections. After voting for their candidates for three election cycles I found out they were a socialist group. I continued to vote for most of the candidates they ran. I figured that my time in the Marines and Vietnam I earned the right to vote for any who were on the ballot. Yes, I upset many stereotypes about former Marines. Too bad, I refuse to fit the mold some want to stuff me into.
Like you can't tell by what I rant about.
Howard Zinn described himself as a democratic socialist. Sounds good to me. The democratic part is the essential part. The people... the demos... we will take of ourselves, and we are society, so the socialist part, while true, is inessential. And the word 'socialist' has been tainted... the NAZIs were 'socialists', Ne Winn in Burma was a 'socialist', don't forget the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... if that's what you 'know' about 'socialists' you don't like 'em.
I like John Bellamy Foster.
But he and others are theoreticians not politicians... in the sense of those who end up 'in power'.
And that's the problem, of course.
Here's a quote I saw from Ella Baker...
“strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
And that's the truth we all need to embrace and realize, as in make real.
A Voter's Manifesto has been up for awhile, but nothing has changed, so it is still on target, in my opinion. We are dealt out of the system as it stands. Check out Duverger's Law as it's described. We have to stop dealing ourselves lose-lose hands in order to win... right?
9-11 has been used to erase 200 years of history and tradition.
Now, everything is broken down into pre-9-11 or post 9-11 thinking. That's a convenient way to quash civil liberties, rule of law, rules of war, and limits on presidential power.
Obama's been as bad as Bush in this regard, Bush was just more clumsy in his approach.
I guess we have to adjust to the idea that these guys won't stop until the country is derailed through force of arms. We seem to have lost the ability to reflect on what we do and make the necessary course-correction.
It's just "all ahead full" and damn the torpedoes.
I don't think this is gonna end well.
"..I can still dream. Last I checked, it was still legal."
Charlie, I say dream big. Life is limiting enough.
I have had meals that I swore were so delicious if they were any more delicious they would be illegal!
It is hard to get out of my mind, that 50,000 people worked in the WTC in NY and 3,000 were killed. 47,000 people were miraculously saved that day!!
John,
Good comments again.
I don't go out looking for leaders. I have read more than a few web sites that say we need a new Gandhi or a new Martin Luther King Jr. I disagree. I think e need to be our own leaders. We have to figure out what we need and then articulate those needs. If we sit around waiting for some new leader to come by and "show us the way" we will never get anywhere.
I don't agree 100% with much and may never have done so. I read and study various opinions and view points. Much like my own philosophy, I get things from various sources and make up my own opinion.
It takes time of course, but to me it makes my views mine and not just parroting some "guru" or other.
The people who comment here seem to me to do much the same thing. I don't even try to convince anybody that my ideas are correct ones, just express my opinions and see what shakes out. An exchange of ideas and so far I am very happy with how this has worked out. We have stayed civilized and that is very important. So many seem to degenerate into name calling and other petty squabbles.
Mike,
I have to agree with you on this not ending well. So many people will get hurt by the way this shakes out.
I don't see how the gangsters of Wall Street can keep the scam going for much longer.
America is on a path to unknown territory. I wonder if the old republic will come through this in any recognizable form.
Grace,
Ah yes good food IS like that at times. I have had a few meals that rate that description. How lucky we are to have had such.
I agree on your look at the World Trade center casualties. A good many did manage to survive. Just shows that we can view the same incident from a different angle and get a whole new perspective. Great comments.
I never see myself as arguing with you, Charlie. I always feel like I am elaborating points you've made above me in your 'rants'. I'll have to review my writing 'style', as it seems I've not come across that way to you.
John,
No your style is fine. I am at fault here it seems. My replies do not always just address a particular comment . I generalize much of my reply comments here. I was not just addressing your comment in my reply, but was giving a generalized comment. I have never felt that you were being argumentative in any way. If you felt that I was saying that I apologize as it was not my intent. IF I ever did think that, I would say so directly and not make some "beat around the bush" comment.
Actually I enjoy the comments that I have received here. I also get some private email comments to this blog and I sometimes include my take on them in my comments to the blog.
I have never thought that you were looking to start an argument or finish one that I may have started.
John, you have NO need to change anything in your comments here. If you felt that, then I have failed, as I want people to give me their honest thoughts on anything I post here. Again, it is my fault if I made you think you were being negative. Hey, sometimes I might be in need of getting negative comments. I am not perfect and hope I never claimed to be. I apologize for any misunderstandings, past, present, and future.
Post a Comment