Newsletter
Text
V269
©1999-2006 All Rights Reserved
June
5, 2006
Index:
Working
definition of fascism
for new readers? An abusive and dangerous oligarchy based on a
pernicious
blend of government, big business, and religion. ... A boot-heel
cynically
placed on the throat of the masses, justified in principle by
perversion
and bastardization of religion.
Alleged
Murders Of Iraqis By American Troops June 1, 2006
U.S.
Willing To Talk Directly With Iran May 31, 2006
1500
Additional Troops To Be Sent To Iraq May 30, 2006
CBS
News Crew Suffers Iraq IED Attack May 29,
2006
ACLU-Criminal
Website Deletions
Fraudulent
Deletion Of Websites
Alleged Murders Of Iraqis By American Troops June 1, 2006
There are a number of separate investigations all over Iraq involving the murder of innocent Iraqis by American troops. The situation has gotten so bad the Pentagon is announcing battlefield "moral and ethical standards" will be re-taught to soldiers. The program is called "values training" and will teach troops to "uphold honor." Why wasn't this learned during basic training? Were commanders derelict?
Although there is a clear difference between killing an enemy combatant in battle and an innocent civilian, there is nothing moral or ethical about warfare. Nothing. War is neither moral or immoral. Rather, it is amoral, -- without morals.
That is not to say war is unnecessary, however. Sometimes, clearly it is. ... As it was during the Second World War. ... With exception of the attack against Afghanistan and bin Laden shortly after 9/11, however, not one of the conflicts we've been involved with in the last sixty years since surrender of the Axis powers has been justified. Not one. Despite the loss of thousands and thousands of troops.
Regardless, there are, and should be, rules of war. To claim these rules are "moral," however, is ludicrous. -- There is nothing "moral" in the use of a bayonet to literally eviscerate an enemy combatant in battle. Despite the fact such hand to hand personal combat is justified in war, it is amoral. Indeed, devoid of morality.
Darwin's survival of the fittest is supremely demonstrated in war. Kill or be killed is more than an empty slogan. It is crucial to survival. Personal survival. Combat veterans have repeatedly stated when the rubber hit the road they fought for each other, -- not the Flag, the American way, or the Constitution. "It was them against us." They fought to protect each other.
War is sanitized. -- When was the last time you saw an explicit combat photograph? In the mainstream media, never. Thirty years or so ago this writer sat in a barber shop waiting for a hair cut. Thumbing through the latest edition of Hustler, I came across a photo spread that has not been forgotten to this very day.
At the time, publisher Larry Flynt was in the midst of pornography litigation he ultimately won on First Amendment grounds. In frustration at the time, however, he published what he called the true obscenity in life, -- explicit photos of war. Page after page after page of grisly detail.
... Know what a body looks like with half the chest cavity gone? How about a decapitated soldier? Or limbs blown off? How about most of someone's face gone? Man's inhumanity to his fellow man. -- Every one of those dead bodies had loved ones. ... A mother, father, brother, sister, wife, etc.. Someone who dearly loved them and was devastated at their loss. On both sides.
Is war necessary? Yes, but very, very, seldom. Graphic combat pictures are never published in mainstream media because government and media are afraid support for the war would be quickly lost. While the American people are indeed aggressively stupid, they are not so stupid and ignorant they wouldn't support a war that had to be fought.
There would, however, be far fewer wars if graphic war images were indeed published. Wars fought solely to enrich war contractors would become passé, intolerably unacceptable if people were visually reminded about the true cost of war. -- Mutilated bodies, unspeakable horror and suffering. Mindless destruction.
There is nothing moral about opening fire on a nine-year-old who roles a grenade into the midst of American soldiers as happened in Vietnam. Yet, a child who kills in war is a legitimate target. Can only imagine, however, the eternal torment of a soldier who was forced to kill a kid under such conditions.
Many did during Vietnam. Many Vietnam veterans are tormented to this very day over their service. One even told this writer he is still there. -- They taught him to go and kill, but not how to come home and survive. ... Forty goddamned years after the fact.
We often ask the impossible of the military. We teach and equip them to efficiently kill and destroy under specific conditions. Then, when they break under stress and wantonly murder innocent civilians after seeing their buddies killed, we wring our hands and promptly court martial them.
Yes, there are rules of war. Yes, there is supposed to be discipline and strict following of lawful orders. For damned good reason. Yet, men break under savage conditions. Not all of them, but a small percentage. Sadly, possibly a larger percentage than expected, however, considering the number of investigations currently going on in Iraq.
Then again, we've never fought a war quite like Iraq. Regardless, we had better reserve judgment until the investigations are complete and the accused get their day in court. We better make sure if convicted they receive proper treatment, -- not just long prison terms at hard labor.
Sadly, we repeatedly go to war under false pretenses. For phony reasons. We teach soldiers how to kill, maim, and destroy, yet fail to integrate them back into society after their tour of battle is finished. When they use the "tool" they were so effectively taught to solve problems, i.e. violence after returning to society, we lock them up and throw away the key.
We create the monster than kick them to the curb when they misuse the "skills" they were taught in service of their country. Again, we mindlessly and repeatedly send them to war under false pretenses and propaganda from their "Commander In Chief" and his henchmen. We glorify war and sanitize it for political expediency.
If we're going to prosecute grunts for war crimes, when the hell will we similarly hold the "President" up to scrutiny? When will Mr. Bush be impeached, convicted, removed from office, and prosecuted for his war crimes?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has announced a reversal in American policy, stating the U.S. will talk directly to Iran if the Iranians immediately suspend uranium enrichment. Interesting, isn't it? Mr. Bush and his henchmen want Iran to immediately comply with "Administration" wishes in return for direct contact. Generous, isn't it?
Why should they? Who is the United States, as well as members of the UN Security Council, to dictate to any country what types of weapons it can and cannot have? Why has no pressure been placed on Pakistan and India to renounce their weapons of mass destruction? More pointedly, what about Israel? Why should Israel have nukes? Why the double standard?
Either all nations should have weapons of mass destruction, -- or none. Why should any one particular country be banned from being able to "protect" itself? ... We don't see Russia, England, France, or the United States offering to give up their nuclear weapons, do we? -- Don't do as we do, do as we say, right, boys?
While the Fascist Right legitimately fears nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable regimes such as Iran and North Korea, does it really believe the fascist occupying the Oval Office to be any more stable? Any less likely to aggressively and stupidly launch a nuclear attack under false pretenses?
Think again. Mr. Bush and his henchmen already deliberately floated a trial balloon several weeks ago regarding use of tactical nuclear weapons to strike at underground Iranian nuclear facilities. ... Tactics, currently and seriously considered by the Bush "Administration." -- Not, just routine contingency war planning by the Pentagon.
Sadly,
it's far more appropriate
to fear an imminent nuclear attack by the lunatic in the White House
than
the current leadership in Iran or North Korea. After all,
both countries
clearly know American retaliation to any first
strike by either
would be immediate and catastrophic. Incineration.
With violence sharply increasing in Iraq, the "President" has made the decision to send an additional 1500 U.S. troops currently stationed in Kuwait.
CBS
News reporter Kimberly Dozier,
embedded with the U.S. military, was critically injured by an
IED.
Two of her crew were killed in the attack. So was an American
soldier,
a captain. To date, 71 journalists have been killed in Iraq,
five
more than during the entire Vietnam war. Sadly, nearly 2500
U.S.
military personnel have been killed in action, approximately 18,000
maimed.
The
following is a series of unedited
email correspondence between the American Civil Liberties Union and
this
writer in regard to criminal deletions of Ledger websites over a year
ago.
To date, no response, other than a canned autosponder message has been
received from national ACLU headquarters to the latest complaint
filed.
Apparently, ACLU no longer has any interest in First Amendment issues,
-- or is wildly incompetent. You decide. ACLU-Criminal
Website Deletions
Click Hacker Updatefor further information.
Tim
Chorney, Publisher
Liberty
In Peril
... Formerly
The
Llano Ledger
Previous
Newsletter
Next
Newsletter
Back
To Home Page
Tim
Chorney, Publisher
P.O. Box
997
Buchanan
Dam, Tx. 78609