Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: the permanent war economy, is this what you want?

Posted 8 years ago on April 9, 2012, 6:03 p.m. EST by jph (2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

U.S. Blocks Entry for Pakistani Lawyer, Outspoken Critic of Drone Attacks

"While Akbar has traveled to the United States in the past, he has not been granted permission to return since becoming an outspoken critic of drone attacks in Pakistan that have killed hundreds of civilians. He was previously invited to speak about drone strikes at Columbia University in New York, but he never received a response to the visa application he filed in May 2011. One year later, he is still waiting for a response, and he has been unable to get an answer from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad as to why his application is being held up.

“Denying a visa to people like me is denying Americans their right to know what the U.S. government and its intelligence community are doing to children, women and other civilians in this part of the world,” Akbar said. “The CIA, which operates the drones in Pakistan, does not want anyone challenging their killing spree. But the American people should have the right to know.”

The CIA’s secret drone program has killed hundreds of people in Pakistan with no due process and no accountability. Akbar represents families whose innocent loved ones have been killed and maimed in these drone attacks."

from; http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/09-2

Is this what liberty and freedom look like? why has america been at war for my whole life? is there money to be made from war?



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 8 years ago

War is about taking the peoples money and giving it to the ones making the guns and bandages.... usually the same people who advocated war in the first place... not to mention seizing the resources of the conquered and selling those back to the people at a profit.... despite the fact that it was the peoples money that was used to fight the war and secure those resources in the first place... Then again... the entire idea of just starting wars whenever and wherever is illegal by international law... except that since we make the laws... they don't apply to us...

[-] 2 points by JadedGem (895) 8 years ago

Wow! Billions, maybe even trillions, of dollars are made making and selling drones, bombs etc. Not to mention the contracts to feed soldiers. If you invested in the war machine when Bush was elected you could retire in style! Also they don't want to bring a lot troops home because they don't have jobs for them. The talk of funding infrastructure is a way to give them jobs when they come home. Plus The .001% wants to control even more of the worlds resources so they aren't done pissing on people and blowing them up so they can order more bombs from their buddies. Besides they own stock in the companies that keep the war machine running. War is big money for politician investors in the war machine. By stock in a bomb company, go around blowing people up, ch-ching.

[-] 1 points by Anti385 (58) 8 years ago

If there really was money to be made from wars, America wouldn't have experienced the economic regressions.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

lol,. are you really that dense?
The 0.1% are making out like bandits!! Well, they are actually worse than bandits, they don't just rob us, they manipulate out social structures to keep taking more for themselves and therefore less for everyone else. Just follow the money it is not very hidden.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Its not what I want. And its quite disturbing how many here are more concerned about income inequality for themselves versus people getting blown up that have it much much worse than we do.

The fact that we are bombing six nations and no one is protesting is all the proof you need that this country is full of selfish, ignorant consumers who only care about new shoes and ipads.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 8 years ago

Yep and ask those same people which is a better form of protest, a serious massive boycott or a protest. The protesters feel we couldn't even get enough people to stay out of a store or avoid a product long enough to send a message. God forbid you suggest a person buy something used, try Ubuntu. Worse you suggest that they should not have took out a student loan to cover that jacked tuition price because the return on their investment in an education won't be apparent until they are about ready to retire. The idea that if kids refused to sign on the dotted line, the lender would have to come up with better terms for payment agreement seems to be lost on them. I guess the idea is protests are fun, cutting off your iphone is a threat to your survival, why it would be social suicide!!! To make a corporation listen, you affect their bottom-line. They will rate all the rest as lip-service. We have been getting reamed because the masses allowed it.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

I agree 100%

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 8 years ago

I prefer to have drones monitoring terrorist activities than have entire armies occupying countries, which has been proven not to work. Pakistan welcomes terrrorists, even while maintaining a tense relationship with the U.S., purporting to be assisting us. Anyone who thinks Bin Laden could have been hiding out for years right next to a military facility in Pakistan without their knowledge is beyond rational thought. I say bring most of the troops home and leave behind the drones. Keep the terrorists on the move.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

'monitoring terrorist activities' or relentlessly bombing a civilian population?

I do hope you realize that what you give is what you get,. and your wish to roboticly kill people who 'may' be against 'us' with utter disregard for any other people around the intended 'target' is utterly depraved. good luck with that.

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 8 years ago

I agree, and I don't think we just shoot indiscrimately in populated areas everyday. You never hear about the times we DON'T shoot.Why? Because we didn't shoot. I think we need a combination of some boots on the ground intelligence operatives and the drones. We really just want to prevent them from having a safe base to plan and train. If satellites can do the job, fine, but we need to have "eyes" that give us real time information. We need, and I'm sure have, controls on the operators of the drones, levels of approval needed to take action. Don't take such a black/white view of things.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

I don't give a sht about spy-bots,. well perhaps I do, but that is hardly the issue. The killings of people by robotic drone with no trial or even any concern for the people standing near the 'target', that is a despicable act, and one the Obama administration has ramped up since Bush Jr. started doing it before him,.





US Drone Strike Statistics estimate according to the New America Foundation analysis of Newspaper articles. Year Attacks Killed Min. Max. 2004 1 4 5 2005 2 6 7 2006 2 23 23 2007 4 56 77 2008 33 274 314 2009 53 369 725 2010 118 607 993 2011 70 378 536 2012 12 65 88 Total 295 1,782 2,768

Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52

Strikes under the Obama Administration: 267

See the fascism is still on the rise, Dem. or Rep. makes no difference!

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 8 years ago

Holy cow! From the Bureau article itself, it shows that what our military is doing is working, and also shows whose side you are on. It declares flatly that Taliban militants were gathered and preparing to cross border into Afghanistan to attack U.S. forces, and seemed quite surprised that "the U.S. struck first". It goes on to say that civilians are learning to not go near these sites and that "something will happen". Yes, precisely the point. Stay away from and isolate the terrorist militants. Good idea! 260 drone attacks in 3 years? Certainly we could do better than that if we were trying to kill civilians! I love the proof given that we intentionally targeted funerals, etc. Absolutely none. "Eyewitness" accounts from Taliban sympathizers, much like eyewitness accounts from OWS members of rampant, indiscriminate violence on the part of police (rolls eyes). Very trustworthy news sources. The point of all this is to make the people eventually understand that if they harbor militants who are going to attack U.S. forces, then they are going to potentially be in danger. Now, I'm for gettng the hell out of the country to start with and leaving the poor women in Afghanistan to deal with their oppressors, since they seem to like them a lot. Quit sending them money, let Karzai see if he can hold onto power without us. Keep the spy-bots in the air and spies on the ground, and kill if you have reliable intelligence of terroristic activity.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

Oh I see, you are hopelessly mind-washed, what branch of the military are you in? Your logic seems to go like this; we have to kill the 'terrorists' in Pakistan because they are attacking our occupying army in Afghanistan, any reports from the region, not coming from our military, are suspicious because all those people are just 'sympathizers' with the people we are killing?? Do I have you right? Are you five years old?

So the USA is bombing and has been bombing different populations all over the place,. is this not terrorism? Does your lack of reasoning, not then permit any of these other countries from doing drone attacks on the leaders of our military,. since we are terrorizing them with our military? While havinging no regard of civilians killed either?

Total reported killed: 2,433 - 3,093

Civilians reported killed: 467 - 815

Children reported killed: 178

Total reported injured: 1,163 -1,268

All with no trial or need to prove any crime, just bombs from the dark of night, on a country we never declared war against? That is just the murders in Pakistan as reported on Wikipedia, there are other drone kill areas,. This is not the behavior of a peaceful or just nation, this is a war crime and this does not come without consequences. You can't just invade a country and when people shoot back call them terrorist or some other propaganda dehumanizing term, and kill'em all,. is this the zimmerman defense?

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 8 years ago

If you're not aware, we are currently involved in a WAR in Afghanistan, and the same credence you want me to give to "eyewitness" reports gleaned by a far-left organization funded by more far left organizations and individuals you won't give to the fucking President of the United States, a person who the far left simply loves. To your question about drones on our military leaders? Go for it. Pakistan is not doing anything about it because they WANT us to kill these terrorists, but cannot politically come out and say it. They bitch and moan publicly for the consumption of the zealots that live in their country, but you'll notice they never do a damn thing. I live in the real world, you live in a dream world, where we could send over detectives and policemen to secure crime scenes, gather evidence, cart the Taliban off to jail, issue an indictment, and send over a jury and judge to give them a "fair" trial. I prefer to believe in the people in our military, the commanders, the people on the ground, our intelligence operatives, special forces, and the Commander in Chief himself, and defer to their judgment because they are right in the middle of it, as opposed to organizations and publications with self-serving agendas. The people "shooting back" are the terrorists and Taliban, not the ordinary Afghan citizens. I'm for getting the hell out because clearly at this point, nothing we've done, no amount of sacrifice, money, or attempt to help the Afghans build a decent society free of the Taliban and terrorism is wanted, but as long as we're there and our guys and ladies are getting shot at, we protect them.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

I guess it is easy to just follow orders, and "defer to their judgment", however what if those people you trust also have "self-serving agendas"? Well they do, corporate power and more money for themselves, sorry to burst your bubble.

In case you missed it the 'Taliban' has never attacked america, we went to their country, invaded it and have been occupying it for over TEN YEARS! Your telling me the locals have no right or even an obligation to attack invading troops? If it was America invaded by China/India/whoever,. would you expect the people here to just do what they are told by the outside invading army? Really?!?

You sound like you have you head up big military's ass. Try some critical thinking and reason. Calling someone a 'terrorist' because they shoot at you, as you march around their land with a gun strapped to your back, protecting the corporate thieves, who are plundering their resources, and building a corporate dream of a legal system as well,. is pathetic. Sheep look up..,