9-11 & military spending

Obama, War Crimes, and the Holy Right to Punish

There should be a strategy already mapped out for this - we see it everyday.  Those who are doing bad things either say that "I'm just following orders" [from whom?], or  "the Devil made me do it," or in the case of national politics, "the Party (or AIPAC, ALEC, etc.) made me do it."   

What is Obama's excuse?   That Harvard (or Pepperdine) made me do it?   But Kerry went to Yale (maybe Harvard law afterwards?)  Why is he saying the same bad things - total non-sequiturs, total petitio princippi's?  

They just assume that because they say they have "evidence" that Assad is "killing his own people" - that favorite line of GW Bush, that's a good reason to launch another "pre-emptive strike" on a country that is both  civilized and rational, as its leader proved in his recent interview on Charlie Rose (a truly courageous act, backed by  both CBS and PBS, to their credit).  We don't have to see the evidence.  It's a children's game of "hide the button" or "Truth or Dare."   Just say it.  If you  don't believe them, you can be locked up or assassinated.  If you're not with them, you're against them.  We heard it  all  from Bush, and the press laughed, and said "We'll get a Democrat next  time."  And so they did.  And he is going to do everything that  Bush did, and more.  It's all about ego and "not backing down."  We keep hearing that.  

All the evidence indicates that Syria's only interest in "weapons of mass destruction" is to have a deterrent against Israeli-Saudi aggression.  As Assad pointed out, Israel already occupies Syrian territory, and has  done so illegally since 1967. Since Israel refuses to acknowledge it has nuclear weapons (illegally), Syria should have the same rights to keep its arsenals secret.  

And Israel has launched several unprovoked attacks on Syria in recent years, allegedly as part of the "war on terror" or against the Muslim fundamentalists (Jihadists) who are actively attacking both Israel and the secular government of Syria (Assad).  Because of a really "unholy" secret alliance between (nuclear-armed) Israel and Saudis (and of course the Bush family and various NeoCons like Richard Perle), all fueled by oil and the "merchants of death," the "Assad regime" has been targeted for destruction - not because it  is "anti-western" or "backward," but precisely  because  it is a progressive, secular society unlike the rest of the Middle East.  

The weapons merchants (of which  Israel is now a leading player) need a war every year or two in order to promote sales and the necessity for "upgrades" and "improvements" - "more bang for the buck," along with "new missions" (like anti-genocide, protecting women and other human rights),  mostly just to keep "the war on terror" simmering.  These, it is thought, will be more palatable to the voters.  

Well, guess what?  The voters are sick and tired of it, and the Zionist  puppet, Obama, can no longer get away with it.  He is sealing his own doom with this fanatical insistence that it is his "right" to attack anyone anytime he pleases, no matter what Congress says.  If you're not outraged by that, what more can I say?

The sarin gas precursors have been documented to have been sold to Syria by British firms - they did it openly and legally, so the burden is now on the Foreign Office or whatever for approving it.  That's no doubt one big reason why Britain bailed out of the attack plans.  Do Obama and Kerry know this?  If so, they are certainly keeping quiet about it. 

 http://www.popularresistance.org/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-10-months-after-war-began/

(For references and sources, see a 3-part article in Counterpunch which deconstructs and refutes every step of the Obama-Kerry case for war.) 

<http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/09/flooding-the-zone-with-bullshit-on-syria/>

<http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/11/syria-immodest-proposals-naked-emperors/>

We don't know if any sarin was produced by the Syrian government.  It is easy to produce anywhere.  And we certainly don't know if  it was the official Syrian government or military authorities who used it.  All the evidence seems to indicate it was brought in from elsewhere - by Israeli- or Saudi-financed elements, including Al Qaeda-like groups.  Gadaffi said  the same thing in Libya - it was Al Qaeda allies which NATO was supporting in overthrowing his government - after he had paid reparations for the Pan Am bombing  and other things which weren't his fault. Instead, he was being punished for his Marxism and support of African revolutions.  

We have a real test here of AIPAC,  ALEC, and the other big war and weapons lobbies.  Can they actually force our leaders to engage in a war which is no different from the original Gulf War, Afghanistan, and the subsequent "War on Terror"?   All were "manufactured" for the benefit of the multinational oil companies and the "defense" industry whose only mission, these days, is to expend as much ordinance as possible in some whitewashed way like "stopping genocide" or "defending human rights."   

It was the women's vote that got us into a war against the Taliban (religious teachers) in Afghanistan - the same people who were our allies in fighting the Russians, and whom we abandoned to Osama bin Laden when the Cold War ended.  Now, they are joined by the Black vote, the Veteran's vote, the Blue Dogs, and everyone else who thinks that "war is good for business" and "the economy".  

Here in Great Falls,  we  are told over and over, again, that Malmstrom (perhaps  including  the National Guard and pensions, Vet's health care, etc., but  they don't say that) constitutes "46% of the local economy."   Even if all those things are included (and many of them would continue if Malmstrom were closed), it's  probably not even 20% of the "local economy" - whether considered as Cascade County, where most of the money is spent, or the whole of Montana, most of which gets no military spending whatsoever (beyond pensions and Vet's programs).  The federal  budget is about 25% of GDP (the national  economy).   The military is about a third of that, including  pensions. interest on the debt, Vet's benefits, etc.  So, nationally, we spend about 8% of GDP (this is higher than the figure usually given)  on the military.  

Why is Great Falls any different?  I suspect that  Peter Johnson's $200 million figure (see below) would be about 8% of "the local economy" (Cascade County).  There are 4500 military people (active and reserve) getting checks in Cascade County, and another 3-400 civilians.  The active duty soldiers are counted as "jobs" - clearly a mis-representation.  And there are those  whose jobs in bars, car dealers, construction, etc. are dependent on military customers (estimated to be 5% of local business in these areas).   Do we count students, prisoners, or other institutional clients as "jobs"?  No.  If  we had  a draft and a real "service" instead of mercenary army, we wouldn't even think of calling them "jobs."  

How far do we take this?  The so-called "multiplier" effect counts such spending several times over.  They never mention that the same jobs and income would be doing something else if the base weren't  here.  The important thing is whether or not we are actually benefitting from this spending, which in most cases is clearly not the case.  It's called "the marginal efficiency of capital."  Does an investment bear a return, or does it merely entail more taxes, more remedial expenditures, and more destruction?  Clearly, the MEC of a nuclear arsenal is profoundly negative.  Indeed, it might cause the very end of human civilization, never mind the local economy.  

Peter Johnson, the veteran Trib reporter who covered military affairs for 20+ years, puts the direct economic impact figure at $200 million.  That sounds about right.  We know what the Minuteman program has cost the taxpayers over the past 50 years (at least $80 billion), and how much of that was spent in Montana.  Very little, and no mention is ever made of "opportunity costs"  - there are thousands of ways the same money could be spent with much better returns, whether public or private. 

Congress guarantees that every state will have a major military facility.  Ours is Malmstrom.   And it would continue as large or larger without the Minuteman nuclear strategic missile mission.  

We have open air space for training.  We  have vast landscapes in which any kind of troops could train.  About the only thing we don't have is an ocean.  So, there's no reason that we can't have just as many troops and federal dollars here doing something else.  Except that it's the nukes that people here actually want (or fear or are addicted to).  They're power-mad.  They actually enjoy having the capacity to destroy human civilization.   And one of these days, they'll do it, if the ability to do so is not removed from here (and everywhere).  

That's the simple answer to 9-11.  It's our own  fault.  It's the chickens coming home to roost, just like Ward Churchill and a number of others clearly said.  It's a whole part of the world which has suffered and died at the hands of oil imperialists and the war profiteers.  If we didn't trade them weapons, we couldn't get any Middle Eastern oil.  We don't  have the money.  So we  basically force them into wars by arming both sides, and then provoking them to attack each other.  

A few, who were once our friends and allies (like Osama bin Laden) finally had enough.  With the CIA's help, they trained and carried out 9-11, hoping it would bring us to our senses.  But no.  We're still blaming the wrong people for the wrong reasons. 



Note:  See my essay from last year, in which I made Churchill  a general in the Royal Waldegren Navy.
http://paul-stephens.blogspot.com/2012/06/waldegren-ward-churchill-and-julian.html