Paul Craig Roberts - "Why War is Inevitible"...

[truth2power]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38612.htm

Certainly the countries ravaged by Bush and Obama in the 21st century–Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen posed no military threat to the US. Indeed, these were wars used by a tyrannical executive branch to establish the basis of the Stasi State that now exists in the US.

snip>

Neither the US nor Israel is embarrassed by their worldwide reputations as the two countries that pose the greatest threat. In fact, both countries are proud to be recognized as the greatest threats. The foreign policy of both countries is devoid of any diplomacy. US and Israeli foreign policy rests on violence alone. Washington tells countries to do as Washington says or be “bombed into the stone age.” Israel declares all Palestinians, even women and children, to be “terrorists,” and proceeds to shoot them down in the streets, claiming that Israel is merely protecting itself against terrorists. Israel, which does not recognize the existence of Palestine as a country, covers up its crimes with the claim that Palestinians do not accept the existence of Israel. (Added emphasis.)

snip>

Western civilization is a skeleton. It still stands, barely, but there is no life in it. The blood of liberty has departed. Western peoples look at their governments and see nothing but enemies. Why else has Washington militarized local police forces, equipping them as if they were occupying armies? Why else has Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, and even the Postal Service and Social Security Administration ordered billions of rounds of ammunition and even submachine guns? What is this taxpayer-paid-for arsenal for if not to suppress US citizens?

One of PCR's best articles, yet.

[L0oniX]

1. PCR is not welcomed here. You may get your op hidden.

Not because of me but I've seen it happen.

[truth2power]

4. L0oniX - First of all, if what you say is true, thanks for not alerting on this until

I had time to get back here. I was not home most of yesterday (Memorial Day).

So, if PCR is not acceptable here then I would appreciate a PM from one of the hosts and I'll delete it.

That said, here is my take on it...

I regret that I am unable to determine accurately who is the person du jourwhose views are unacceptable on DU. I went thru that article and, aside from the issue about the govt. stocking up on ammunition etc. , didn't find much that has not been said, in other ways, possibly, by Hedges, Robt Parry and numerous other progressive writers. To wit:

American wars do not protect our liberty. The Empire is dying. Our wars are not against massed armies, but against women, children etc. Washing created, and continues to create, terrorists by its attacks on Muslims and others around the world. Gaddafi would not roll over for Washington (see: Goldman Sachs debacle, pan-African bank for starters), "We came, we saw, he died", as Hillary says *cackle*.

The neo-con ideology is one of "full spectrum dominance". The US stomps around the world DEMANDING that everyone do what we say or be "bombed back into the stone age".

Local police forces have been militarized. US AND Israeli foreign policy rests on violence. And so on and on. What is PCR saying that is, in the main, so reprehensible?

And here's another question that I'd like to throw out there...I am not a fan of Alex Jones, but if our worthless and supine media are only interested in reporting the pap that is spewed by our Ministry of Truth, just where is one to go to have their voice heard, when he is the only one to give them a venue?

[iemitsu]

2. Rather depressing but clearly well-informed analysis of

current events and the context in which those events unfold.
I would like to think that this scenario was not inevitable but thats like belief in miracles, foolish.

[defacto7]

3. I can agree on several points

But news it is not, and that is how it is headlined above the article, "news you won't find.... etc." It's Personal commentary.

Hubris is the only word for it. It's packed with assumption and simple fallacies that are not supported.

I do think war is very possible and probably likely but his points are extrapolated from highly controversial positions and subjective innuendo. It's over enunciated in a tabloid fashion to create emotion and angst for the sake of emotion and angst.

If he toned down the exhausting hubris to a level where facts could be measured for what they really are instead of using the tactics of Glenn Beck or Limbaugh we might be able to see something that could be useful... but then it wouldn't be quite as entertaining, would it?

To me he is wasting facts that could be important by presenting them in a way that can be cajoled by the RW much too easily, or even used by the RW to make their point for them. He's not helping at all.

Filing this article under: angry, controlling, subjective, hubris, entertainment commentary