Mad as Hell, If You're Not You Should Be

Killing in the Name .

That's what they're doing. Every day. In your name and with your blessing.

"They use force to make you do what the deciders have decided you must do."

Come on.

Lesser of two evils. Hell, Romney is so bad you know the other side is thinking the same damn thing.

Vote anyway they say. Elect Obama then we’ll work on making progress as progressives evidently are supposed to do. What kind of progress and how fast doesn’t matter. If you’re taking two steps back and then take a step forward, you’re making progress man. Shit, there aren't any steps forward anymore. We can't even stop the bleeding.

That didn’t work the first four years but somehow it’s supposed to work now.

Is it immoral to vote for Obama? Yes

Is it immoral to vote for Romney? Yes.

Tired of waiting, stop voting for the motherfuckers.

When is enough, enough? Stop doing what they tell ya.

First you've got to get mad!

"All I know is first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, "I'm a human being. God Dammit, my life has value." So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out, and yell, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" I want you to get up right now. Get up. Go to your windows, open your windows, and stick your head out, and yell, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Things have got to change my friends. You've got to get mad. You've got to say, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open your window, stick your head out and yell, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Topic: 

Tags: 

Rating: 

0
No votes yet

Comments

The Cold War lasted 45 years. Officially.

Big Al's picture

It never really ended, just held in abeyance. The Global War OF Terror has lasted over eleven so far. There is absolutely no end in sight. Now, the Cold War has been reignited to include China and Russia, who are developing coaltions with even more countries. The world is changing quickly and the one thing that has always come to the fore is nastier than ever, greed and the quest for power. Common citizens are never considered.

0
No votes yet

The cold war was kept alive by neocons

geomoo's picture

When relations with the USSR were thawing during the Carter administration, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al consciously sabotaged detente by creating and publicizing lies about what the Soviets were doing and how dangerous they were. Sound familiar?

0
No votes yet

Very familiar.

Big Al's picture

They are good at that, have to hand it to em.

0
No votes yet

I wonder if and how the powers that be

traveler's picture

would have kicked this off without the "New Pearl Harbor" that the neocons, and others, longed for. What would have been the public and congressional reaction if they had dared to try?

Consider that question for a moment. One major event made perpetual war and the severe erosion civil liberties acceptable to the masses, and but for a handful of exceptions, our lawmakers and visible political leaders.

Would they have found another pretext to pursue full-spectrum dominance?

Those who have read Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard, will see that the general blueprint for American primacy was laid out in the mid to late 1990's. There would be no "peace dividend" after the fall of the Soviet Union. Amazon describes the book:

As the twentieth century draws to a close, the United States has emerged as the world’s only superpower: no other nation possesses comparable military and economic power or has interests that bestride the globe. Yet the critical question facing America remains unanswered: What should be the nation’s global strategy for maintaining its exceptional position in the world?

The Grand Chessboard was published in 1997. The sub-title is "American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives". Read a review of his book. Scroll down to the customer review by R.D. Smith which begins like this:

Like others offering their reviews, I rate this book very highly not because it is a real "page turner" or is particularly well written, but because of its cold Machiavellian analysis of the need to protect and expand the American Empire and what that means to the ordinary Joe and Jane Citizen.

Smith's book review was posted in 2004. More follows below:

Three things in this book made my blood run ice cold. The first is the complete absence of any sense of morality in the whole discussion. I do not mean that this is an *im*moral book, it is not a moral book, it is *a*moral in that there is literally no discussion whatsoever whether what is being proposed is RIGHT or should be done. That the recommendations to grow the American Empire are valid is simply assumed, not proven or even argued.

The second thing was the whole discussion on how the political center of mass was Central Eurasia (i.e. the region between Turkey and Pakistan and between Iran and Turkmenistan) and how unlikely it was that we were going to be able to have a substantial presence in the region (in the near term) unless we have SOME PEARL HARBOR CLASS EVENT to accelerate the populations willingness to accept the costs.

Read the book if possible. Read the customer reviews.

Prior to that, though not by much, from 1996, we saw the policy paper The Clean Break ... Securing the Realm, Wikipedia link here, which called for breaking Lebanon, Iraq and "rolling back" Syria because they were potential threats to Israel.

The goal of regime changes in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Iran - "seven countries in five years" as we heard from General Wesley Clark who stated that he had heard it while visiting the Pentagon "about 10 days after 9/11".

I wonder how long this was on the back burner. It is not easy to imagine such a drastic policy would be developed in less than 10 days.

The "New Pearl Harbor" arrived and the timing was perfect. Interesting coincidence.

An election promise of "change" changed nothing except the tactics. The policies remain.

As Big Al notes, we are in abeyance. The months prior to national elections are not the time to stir the stink pot. The goals remain in place. Dreams of empire, the lust for power and wealth remain in play. Hubris remains in the equation and as history reveals hubris and blowback are potential spoilers of grand dreams.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

And of course the PNAC, Project for a New American Century,

Big Al's picture

in 2000 which is the one where they called for a new Pearl Harbor and a ten year buildup of the defense, intelligence and national security budget. Without 9/11 could they have done all that? Very doubtful, there has to be a boogeyman and they got it with the War on Terror. All because of 9/11. That's the key. What really happened? How is it possible that all these plans were implemented directly after the attack? They were definitely ready for 9/11 to happen. How is it possible that the neocons could call for a new Pearl Harbor, then get one? To me, it goes beyond coincidence.

0
No votes yet

This is what's absurd about the 'how many ships' argument ...

BruceMcF's picture

... the problem with the US Navy, in terms of the maritime defense needs of the United States, is not how many ships we have, but how badly the ships fits our defense needs.

We have 11 carrier strike groups, each with an air wing of around 70 aircraft. The rest of the world has a maximum of 14 carrier groups, most of which are light or medium carriers rather than full sized carriers, with air wings of 20 aircraft or less. As far as refighting WWII, we've got a slam dunk on deck.

How useful are Carrier Strike Groups for keeping Sea Lanes open? When a carrier strike force detects a submarine, the aircraft carrier runs away, or, IOW, the most expensive, most lucrative missile target in the CSG, which the rest of the CSG is there to defend ... is basically useless for defending a sea lane.

We have eight amphibious assult helicopter carriers, eight amphibious assault helicopter docks, and a bucketload of other assets for Sending in The Marines ... which because of the usefuless of helicopters in Anti-Submarine Warfare would be of some use in defending sea lanes, but which would need substantial retrofit to avoid wasting all the cargo capacity presently used to carry the equipment for a Marine Expiditionary Force.

If we were a Republic, with a navy focused on defending the interests of our Republic ... it seems like over half of our navy would be useless or would require substantial retrofit to serve that role.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Perfect

LaEscapee's picture

Is it immoral to vote for Obama? Yes

Is it immoral to vote for Romney? Yes

When they ask me I don't say I don't care who wins, I say my caring is the reason neither should win.

0
No votes yet

That's it man.

Big Al's picture

Neither should win. Obama has done what he's done and Romney would do the same. My brother was a Republican, voted for Bush twice. Now he knows too. Everybody knows but they're so well trained to do what they're told they can't step outside the box.

0
No votes yet

Interesting foreign policy discussion here

traveler's picture

with Charlie Rose

Perhaps there is some recognition of the need for change. We have Zbigniew Brzezinski, James L. Jones, David Ignatius and Michael Mazarr. Brzezinski comes across as being, by far, the most sensible of the group. The other three seem to see only some need to adjust our tactics.

0
No votes yet

I think Scarborough is an excellent snake oil salesperson.

Glinda's picture

How Brzezinski's daughter Mika continues to work with Scarborough is something I'll never understand.

And I just read that Obama agreed to be interviewed by Joe and Mika. BIG MISTAKE.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)