Advertisement
As we know, there is a myth that American troops will not murder Americans. As we also know, a civil war is looming when Bush cancels elections. It is possible Americans will not fight and accept any excuse by the leadership but it is possible that some protestors will opt for partisanship.
It is my opinion that fighting is an outcome the Bush administration will welcome. If an outright civil war occurs, I think B-2's, B-52's, F-16's any means necessary will be used. Helicopter gunships will be used. Troops will shoot to kill.
Why not? They do this is in Iraq already.
October 26, 2007
Several years ago, I warned that as the Bush/Cheney administration sought to reduce politically problematic casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would resort to increased use of air attacks to combat the growing insurgency in Iraq and the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
I also predicted that the result of this switch in tactics would lead to higher civilian casualties in those two countries.
We're now seeing those results.
In the latest reports from Iraq, we had 15 women and children slain, mostly in their homes by rockets and bullets fired from helicopter and fixed-wing gunships which were allegedly in pursuit of some supposed "al Qaeda" fighters, and as many as 17 civilians killed in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood when US forces called in air strikes after seeing a group of men they deemed to be hostile. Again those air strikes ended up killing more civilians than alleged enemy fighters.
The casual use of the term "air strikes" belies the horror of what is happening. It's one thing to call in air strikes during a battle out in the desert or the mountains, where the enemy is isolated and readily identified. It's another to call in the bombers and gunships in the heart of a densely populated city. Such tactics are guaranteed to kill innocent people in large numbers.
In Afghanistan, meanwhile, where there is even less media coverage than in Iraq, the casual slaughter of innocents by American forces has become routine--so much so that even British officials are complaining. The US command simply "regrets" the "loss of innocent life," making it sound like the after-effects of a natural disaster, when it fact the killings are the predictable result of the cold calculus of mass murder by a technologically advanced military inflicted on an impoverished Third World country. It is unacceptable to argue, as the Pentagon does all the time, that the enemy "uses civilians as shields." Maybe they do, but that's the reality, and the military has to accept it, not ignore it. If a gunman is holding a baby, you can't just shoot the baby and blame the gunman.
In both countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, the slaughter of civilians by US forces has been so outrageous that even their puppet leaders have been compelled to speak up, demanding that the US stop being so aggressive and indiscriminate.
The problem is, if the US stops using its gunships and its fighter-bombers to do its fighting, it will have to either quit and go home, or put more troops out on patrol, where they are vulnerable to attack. In fact, the Pentagon may not even have that option. Already, it has been reported that troops in Iraq have coined the term "search and avoid" for missions where they go out under orders, but then spend their time avoiding danger.
What would one expect? The rank-and-file troops know that the war is lost in both countries, and that the American public doesn't support what they are doing anyhow, so who's going to want to die for that? You'd have to be a real chump to let yourself be killed just to provide political cover for a politically challenged president and vice president--especially a president and vice-president who famously ducked their own duty during the Vietnam War.
It is my opinion that fighting is an outcome the Bush administration will welcome. If an outright civil war occurs, I think B-2's, B-52's, F-16's any means necessary will be used. Helicopter gunships will be used. Troops will shoot to kill.
Why not? They do this is in Iraq already.
October 26, 2007
Several years ago, I warned that as the Bush/Cheney administration sought to reduce politically problematic casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would resort to increased use of air attacks to combat the growing insurgency in Iraq and the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
I also predicted that the result of this switch in tactics would lead to higher civilian casualties in those two countries.
We're now seeing those results.
In the latest reports from Iraq, we had 15 women and children slain, mostly in their homes by rockets and bullets fired from helicopter and fixed-wing gunships which were allegedly in pursuit of some supposed "al Qaeda" fighters, and as many as 17 civilians killed in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood when US forces called in air strikes after seeing a group of men they deemed to be hostile. Again those air strikes ended up killing more civilians than alleged enemy fighters.
The casual use of the term "air strikes" belies the horror of what is happening. It's one thing to call in air strikes during a battle out in the desert or the mountains, where the enemy is isolated and readily identified. It's another to call in the bombers and gunships in the heart of a densely populated city. Such tactics are guaranteed to kill innocent people in large numbers.
In Afghanistan, meanwhile, where there is even less media coverage than in Iraq, the casual slaughter of innocents by American forces has become routine--so much so that even British officials are complaining. The US command simply "regrets" the "loss of innocent life," making it sound like the after-effects of a natural disaster, when it fact the killings are the predictable result of the cold calculus of mass murder by a technologically advanced military inflicted on an impoverished Third World country. It is unacceptable to argue, as the Pentagon does all the time, that the enemy "uses civilians as shields." Maybe they do, but that's the reality, and the military has to accept it, not ignore it. If a gunman is holding a baby, you can't just shoot the baby and blame the gunman.
In both countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, the slaughter of civilians by US forces has been so outrageous that even their puppet leaders have been compelled to speak up, demanding that the US stop being so aggressive and indiscriminate.
The problem is, if the US stops using its gunships and its fighter-bombers to do its fighting, it will have to either quit and go home, or put more troops out on patrol, where they are vulnerable to attack. In fact, the Pentagon may not even have that option. Already, it has been reported that troops in Iraq have coined the term "search and avoid" for missions where they go out under orders, but then spend their time avoiding danger.
What would one expect? The rank-and-file troops know that the war is lost in both countries, and that the American public doesn't support what they are doing anyhow, so who's going to want to die for that? You'd have to be a real chump to let yourself be killed just to provide political cover for a politically challenged president and vice president--especially a president and vice-president who famously ducked their own duty during the Vietnam War.
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
"As we know, there is a myth that American troops will not murder Americans."
I was unaware this was a myth people belived in. Soldiers will attack whomever they are ordered to attack was my impression, American or otherwise.
"As we also know, a civil war is looming when Bush cancels elections."
As much as I wonder if he will cede the reins of power quietly, I would dispute that it is a foregone conclusion that this will occur. I think that provoking a civil war would be against capitalist interest, and thus not likely to occur.
"It is possible Americans will not fight and accept any excuse by the leadership but it is possible that some protestors will opt for partisanship."
No one wants to have to fight for their rights these days, TV and Video games are more fun. But I think the general opinion of the public is such that we'd see people in the streets against Bush, moreso than towing the line.
"It is my opinion that fighting is an outcome the Bush administration will welcome."
I disagree. A civil war disrupts commerce and profit margins. His base would not support that. It's also a disruption of their PNAC agenda. They want America united (enough) behind assaults on foreign territories, not fighting each other.
"If an outright civil war occurs, I think B-2's, B-52's, F-16's any means necessary will be used. Helicopter gunships will be used. Troops will shoot to kill. "
We already saw the troops ordered to shoot to kill looters after Katrina. Those were just looters. The second Joe Average is gunned down for protesting electoral disruption then you would see a civil disitegration. As far gone from reality as Dick n Bush are, I can't see them being that incredibly stupid. If you want to see what they are really up to, read up on the PNAC, and worry about that reality. Its not us you should be worried for its the rest of the world.
Far be it for me to tinkle on your apocalypse here, but I disgree with almost all your assertions regarding what's in the hearts and minds of others, particularly our soldiers.
I would doubt you've been one, so perhap sthis will help you're understanding. They condition these people to follow orders and justify killing another person under "appropriate" circumstances. Its not murder if you were ordered to do it. There's a whole mindset the military creates to enable soldiers to do things that the average person (you and I) would find we wouldn't want to do. History is replete with examples of soldiers and civilians alike doing all manner of things because an authority figure either told them to do so directly (thereby absolving them of responsibility--or so they felt at the time), or failed to give them adequate instructions *not* to do certain things.
"If a gunman is holding a baby, you can't just shoot the baby and blame the gunman. "
Yet this is American law. You obviously try NOT to shoot the baby, but the gunman must be stopped, so if the baby is hit or otherwise injured during the takedown, the gunman is held accountable, and the officer is not, so long as he followed all protocols he was supposed to to prevent it.
Its a war. People die, and casualties will be from intent and proximity both. The tools won't matter. Cheney's Chickenhawk Brigade never served either so its no wonder they don't understand the lesson war (and a foreign occupation) generally teaches a nation. What can you expect from the self deluded, i guess...
-
-
"As we also know, a civil war is looming when Bush cancels elections."
I agree elections will not be canceled.
However both side are in a race to see who can steal the next election. The Republicans with massive election fraud through electronic voting and pruning the voter roles of the poor voters. The democrats trying to register illegal immigrants as voters.
Whatever the outcome the vote will not be a true reflection of the will of the people of this country. -
-
There's always Blackwater - they are paid mercenaries. They will do whatever they are told. Doesn't really matter who wins. The Electorial College decides & it's whoever has the most blood relations to the Illumanati bloodlines. The adgenda will be continued whomever is elected. No ned for a revolution. That's why there are elections - to make people feel like there is a democracy.
-
-
