Real Cost of War

What war does to people and nations. 'Cost' is much more than a monetary valuation. War really costs most of us our Humanity!

Thursday, September 22, 2005
On this day:

Where does the money come from for 'War'?

The total whackos who have embroiled us all in an illegal and immoral invasion of two soverein countries - Afghanistan and Iraq, are doing more than killing and maiming foreign men, women and children.

They are bleeding our economy dry. And it is SO DRY at this point that it is fairly certain we are all in for a MAJOR Recession at the least and probably a Depression, which will be horrific for all the people of the US and nearly as bad for most of the rest of the world's population

An article which expounds on some of this from Information Clearing House:

Dodging the Costs of the Warfare State

By Norman Solomon

09/19/05 -- -- The New York Times began this week with an editorial that typifies the media mind-set of the warfare state.

Monday's editorial warns of dire consequences from a growing deficit that has been boosted by tax cuts -- in combination with "the pre-Katrina priorities laid down by Mr. Bush." Those priorities include a U.S. military budget that has reached half a trillion dollars per year. But the Times editorial does not devote a single word to military spending or the Iraq war.

Why not mention the option of an American pullout from Iraq, where the U.S. war effort has already drained $200 billion from taxpayers? Well, those who determine editorial positions at the New York Times -- and the other major newspapers in the country -- cannot bring themselves to call for a quick end to the U.S. military role in Iraq.

Fierce criticism of White House policies is routinely compatible with support for militarism. When the Times condemned the Bush administration's handling of hurricane relief in a Sept. 2 editorial, the final paragraph included this unequivocal sentence: "America clearly needs a larger active-duty Army."

Now, fiscal conservatives in Congress are squawking about what federal expenditures for the Gulf Coast will do to the deficit. Contradictions between humane rhetoric and death-machine spending are more glaring than ever. The domestic economic toll of U.S. militarism should be on the table -- not swept under the rug.

The people of the United States are far ahead of politicians in Washington and top editors in the New York Times building. On Saturday, the Times reported the results of a poll it had just completed in tandem with CBS News. Nationwide support for the Iraq war has fallen to an all-time low. ("Only 44 percent now say the United States made the right decision in taking military action against Iraq.") And the survey also found: "With Hurricane Katrina already costing the federal government tens of billions of dollars, more than 8 in 10 Americans are very or somewhat concerned that the $5 billion being spent each month on the war in Iraq is draining away money that could be used in the United States."

The enormous financial burden of continuing with U.S. military intervention in Iraq is an issue that could be devastating for the right-wing zealots who now hold state power along Pennsylvania Avenue. But liberal elites who refuse to call for swift withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq -- whether congressional leaders of the Democratic Party or members of the New York Times editorial board -- are in no position to hammer on that issue.

The public should be hearing, much more often, the kind of insights that were expressed by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953: "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."

It's up to the antiwar movement to directly address the connections between war spending and economic distress that the latest Times/CBS poll says are matters of concern for more than 80 percent of the public. Along the way, the largesse for the Pentagon's corporate contractors can be put in the context of militarism that is killing many Americans and many more Iraqis. This moment in history offers a crucial opportunity to widen opposition to the Iraq war -- and the entire warfare state.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For information, go to:

Friday, September 02, 2005
On this day:

New Orleans - Another Casualty of War

America... bastion of Freedom, Democracy and Justice!

The Country which really, really cares about it's citzens, because (theoretically at least) it is a 'Government of the People, By the People and For the People.

So, where was all the compassion, the assistance to fellow citizens in extremely dire need, the 'American Spirit' when it counted?

In spite of all the rhetoric coming from the White House and other places of power where the Establisment works with almighty fervor to control and dominate the entire world, little help was in evidence when it was so sorely needed. It appears that the bulk of the resources which could have been of assistance in the critical hours just after the hurricane's fury had abated were 'elsewhere'.

The fact that the resources needed were elsewhere would have been bad enough a situation IF the reason for them being there was actually a valid one. But, no such thing of course, as EVERY reason given for going into Iraq, and even the ones given for the invasion of Afghanistan is a fabrication. Of course, only by distorting reality in this fashion could the Neo-Cons have been able to do as they wished in this respect.

As an example of how and why the National Guard and Army Reserves have been so depleted and made so ineffective, some short excerpts from and article written by Mike Whitney on Counterpunch are relevant:

"The changes that are taking place in the military under the deceptive name of "transformation" have nothing to do with national defense. Rather, the military is being converted into a taxpayer-subsidized security apparatus for multinational corporations. Its primary task is to seize dwindling resources through force of arms and crush indigenous movements that resist US aggression.

Traditional defenses provided by the National Guard have been substantially weakened to allow the Pentagon to insert itself into domestic affairs and establish an ongoing military presence within the United States.

Rumsfeld called for 30 Air Guard units scattered around many states to lose their aircraft and flying missions.

In Pennsylvania Rumsfeld tried to "dissolve the Pennsylvania Air National Guard division without the Governor's authority.


The move was a conspicuous attempt to undermine Pennsylvania's defenses and put more power under the direct control of the Defense Dept

Rumsfeld's behavior has been identical everywhere across the country. He is determined to undermine the National Guard and limit the states' ability to protect themselves against attack. His intention is to smash America's internal defenses, which are currently under control of the states' governors, and introduce the military into homeland security. It is a clear attempt to centralize authority and further militarize the country.

By weakening America's defenses, Rumsfeld has paved the way for deploying troops and aircraft within the country and setting the precedent for a permanent military presence within the nation. It is one giant step towards direct military rule."

The full article is here.

What we should all become aware of is that the 'War' that is currently being fought is mainly against anyone who stands in the way of these predators - who's main purpose is to gain control of and then keep control of the entire world, it's resources and all of the peoples.

The main centre of this cabal is the good old US, although they have 'helpers' in various other countries, and it could be said that some 'command and control' of the process is orchestrated and directed from some of these too.

There is some speculation that the 'breaks' of the levees which subsequently flooded the entire city may not have been 'natural' but perhaps were 'assisted' into failure to cause just the sort of pandemonium we are seeing in order to further this agenda of increased Military Rule in the US. There are even those who have the opinion that the way Katrina formed and traveled indicated some sort of 'weather control' technology application.

Oh, you don't think there is even any possibility that weather control or modification could presently be done?

Some excerpts from Above Top Secret seem to indicate that much is now known about modifying or controlling the weather, and possibly even 'creating' weather whenever one wants to:

" What Do We Mean by "Weather-modification"?

Today, weather-modification is the alteration of weather phenomena over a limited area for a limited period of time.11 Within the next three decades, the concept of weather-modification could expand to include the ability to shape weather patterns by influencing their determining factors.12 Achieving such a highly accurate and reasonably precise weather-modification capability in the next 30 years will require overcoming some challenging but not insurmountable technological and legal hurdles.

In the broadest sense, weather-modification can be divided into two major categories: suppression and intensification of weather patterns. In extreme cases, it might involve the creation of completely new weather patterns, attenuation or control of severe storms, or even alteration of global climate on a far-reaching and/or long-lasting scale."

Of course, 'disclaimers' are made that this is not yet possible with 'current technology'.

" Extreme and controversial examples of weather modification-creation of made-to-order weather, large-scale climate modification, creation and/or control (or "steering") of severe storms, etc.-were researched as part of this study but receive only brief mention here because, in the authors' judgment, the technical obstacles preventing their application appear insurmountable within 30 years. If this were not the case, such applications would have been included in this report as potential military options, despite their controversial and potentially malevolent nature and their inconsistency with standing UN agreements to which the US is a signatory"

Do you really believe these people after they have all been proven to be LIARS?