an article by our site
Archbishop Desmond Tutu said "Peace is more than the absence of war. The peace we want is something positive and dynamic. . . . It has to do with an harmonious coexistence with one's neighbors in a wholesome environment allowing persons to become more and more fully human."
Note: it is readily admitted that military preparedness is a good thing. The naive condition of nonpreparedness which Europe, the United States, and other non-German countries manifested in the 30s and early 40s of last century very nearly allowed the world to fall to the incredible evils of Naziism. Such a world wouldn't be worth having. It's been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Who knows what Khrushchev and his flunkies would have done to the world had not the West kept him from destroying freedoms and coercing others to adopt Communism on a grand scale? The arms race was somewhat unavoidable until the Soviets (1991) disavowed Marxism, Communism, and world domination.
There is a race to acquire the A-bomb in dozens of nations—including the most dangerous
And now that there is a race to acquire the A-bomb in dozens of nations—including the most dangerous, it is important that there are plenty of deterrence options. So the military strength of the West's conventional forces at the end of last century seemed warranted, but the neocon's 21st century armaments increase does not. Regardless, 95 percent of our nuclear weapons, as well as Russia's and China's, should be dismantled as a threat to world security, and the U.N. should, on an emergency basis, act to limit the spread of arms, especially nuclear arms. So far they've taken a few steps in that direction. But much more needs to be done.
The only certain, irrefutable, perpetual and insidious bias in reporting comes from the neocon elites themselves, which make an all-out effort to stay covert and invisible to the unsuspecting citizen
Countries like Iran are not looking to become nuclear powers because they are troublemakers or because they are crazy; they pursue nukes in order to avoid the sad fate experienced by Iraq and Afghanistan
The race to acquire the A-bomb was and is an avoidable threat to world security. Countries like Iran are not looking to become nuclear powers because they are troublemakers or because they are crazy. They are going after nukes in order to avoid the sad fate experienced by Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which could threaten the U.S. with nukes—and such nuclear threats are a very effective deterrent to U.S. aggression. The U.S. arbitrarily decided to attack them because it's part of the U.S. neocon plan of world domination and because of the oil in Iraq and the rich mineral deposits in Afghanistan. They used both imaginary WMDs and 9/11 as excuses to lay waste to these countries. And they used "democratization" as a cover story, which few people in the world believed, with the exception of a small percent of our citizens who naively assume that propaganda from our mass media is the truth. These poor innocents believe "they wouldn't LIE to us," not realizing that network news anchors simply read CIA talking points given to them by the administration in power when it gets to our military actions and foreign policies. See:
- Freedom of the Press—an American Delusion
- Lies, Incorporated: The World of Post-Truth Politics
- American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies That the Government Tells Us
9/11 terrorist attack
The unelected neocon elites of the shadow government are in charge of not only the content of such reporting, but also the decisions about military actions and foreign policy content. Elected leaders as well as news anchors know they are obliged to parrot the party line and accept the warmongering decisions of these neocons, even though neocon agendas are not in the interests of the U.S. or its citizens or its economy or its security. Said agendas, although financed by the public, are solely in the interests of the wealthy oligarchs and neocons of the shadow government, the banks that get wealthy from war financing, the Halliburtons and other corporatocracy companies that profit immensely from rebuilding countries we wreck, the weapons manufacturers that profit immensely from supplying our military the weapons they use to wreck countries and to assassinate "terrorists" with drones, and the mercenary armies like Blackwater they use for "security" in places we wreck. See:
- The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program
- Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
- Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government, and the Free Market
- The Neoconserative Threat to World Order: America's Perilous War for Hegemony
- The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
- Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War (American Empire Project)
- Dozens more articles about U.S. decline
“Early societies and some primitive societies existing today do not have the concept of ownership. But when societies become hierarchical, income and material wealth flow upward and accumulate in an elite class. This class's primary purpose, then, is to maintain its position and accumulate more wealth. One way of doing this is to perpetuate images in the general culture of 'enemies in the world that we need to protect against,' which has more to do with the elite's fear of losing its wealth than any real threat to national security. This, of course, leads to increased military spending, which leads to more perceived threats which leads to more military spending, etc. The military-industrial complex is one of the most powerful elements of the establishment, with strong vested interest in high military expenditures and the diversion of resources away from areas that genuinely improve social security.”
Early societies and some primitive societies existing today do not have the concept of ownership, therefore they don't fabricate 'enemies' to protect against so they can protect their wealth when the people arm themselves against their foes
"In the past 40 years [it was 1988] we have militarized the planet. In the 1930s very few countries had significant armed forces. But today, out of 200 nations, only Costa Rica and Iceland have no military. The world spends more on the military than the poorer half of humankind earns. And political leaders tolerate this waste because they fear loss of office if they try to stop it.” (Source: The Gaia Peace Atlas, Survival into the Third Millennium)
All this money spent on arms is unavailable for sustainable economic and social development. The arms race, instead of providing any real security, creates fear and mistrust. Instead of creating cooperation, it promotes constant secrecy and confrontation.
The unelected elites are the lords of secrecy—they are unaccountable, secret, and beyond our reach, yet they run things
If overall social resources were more evenly distributed, we would have less to fear, but world socialism obviously isn't about to happen—nor should it. Consumption and grinding poverty work together to create environmental destruction. Militarism exacerbates all these problems. Now we all fear nuclear war and are cynical of the future. (Another cause of environmental destruction: A Game As Old As Empire: The Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of Global Corruption.)
Military spending for 2012 (Source: SIPRI, but it's our original graphics)
What is also interesting is that literacy has been found to have a direct connection to birth rates. And birth rates relate to how warlike a country is. The higher the birth rate, the more warlike a country seems to be. In research done in India researchers found that women in illiterate areas have an average of 6.1 babies (this is the fertility rate); when female literacy reaches 40 percent, the fertility rate drops to 4.2, and at 80 percent it drops to levels that maintain slow population growth. Literate women also marry later, put their children in school rather than to work, and are more likely to use birth control. Sixty million Americans are functionally illiterate in 1991. The U.S. ranks 49th in literacy of the 158 countries in the United Nations.
Iran and Iraq have birth rates of 45 and 46 births per 1,000 population, and 45 percent of their populations are 15 years old or younger. Other warring countries show high birth rates: Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Sudan, Mozambique, Angola, and Uganda, all which have lost hundreds of thousands to wars which went on in the eighties, have birth rates of 44 or more per 1,000 population, with 44 to 49 percent of the population 15 or younger. For comparison the United States, Japan, and Western Europe have annual birth rates of 15 per 1,000. In countries devoted to the military (like Iraq in the Gulf War [2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991], for example) at the expense of a sound economy, it's easier to send young men to war than to deal with their unrest from unemployment. Similarly, since 2003 the United States is also wrecking its economy for the purpose of furthering the elite neocons' warmongering agendas and enriching its greedy oligarchs. And since our corporatocracy sent millions of jobs to other countries where labor is cheap, our young are finding few jobs so many either live with parents or join the military. Again, it's easier to send young men and women to war than to deal with their unrest from unemployment.
Neocons do not care what happens to our young or to Mideast citizens—they care about their own power and wealth, and see citizens as mere cannon fodder—a means to an end
United States, Japan, and Western Europe have annual birth rates of 15 per 1,000
Prior to World War II, military spending had always shrunk back to peacetime levels after wars. But since World War II, world military spending has continued to rise. This stopped all world economic growth. The annual GNP increments from 1960 to 1985 totaled $8.6 trillion, while military spending in the same period was $14 trillion. As the oligarchs of the military sector grow fat, the rest of humanity and the environment grow thin. Keep in mind that our citizens are not violent people, born wanting to kill fellow humans. We train them via violent video games and movies to believe in win-lose contexts in which violence is the answer. We parent them in ways that encourages win-lose contexts. We educate them in ways that encourage win-lose contexts. See Flat-gradient Nurturance versus Steep-gradient Nurturance and How Children Fail.
As the oligarchs of the military sector grow fat, the rest of humanity and the environment grow thin
There's a huge gap beween poor incomes and rich incomes and that's how the rich elites set things up and they want it to stay that way
Our military runs around attacking, killing, exploiting, and threatening and the inevitable response is terrorism since they want the U.S. to stop acting like a bull in a china shop and go away and leave them alone. Having pushed the "enemies" into terrorism, our military uses this as an excuse to attack other nations so they can assure supplies of cheap oil and minerals and so the Halliburtons and other corporatocracy companies can get rich repairing the damage our bombs just did, and our banks and arms makers get rich too. Our leaders could never convince us to follow such morally bankrupt warmongering military strategies without first precipitating terrorist actions from "enemies" to use as a basis of fearmongering, and without using lots of lie-oozing propaganda backing it up. Now—they say—any "patriot" can see that we need to go kill kill kill for our security and to stop the terrorists, so join up today and be part of the glorious heroics that are saving the world from the evil terrorists of the "axis of evil."
Our military runs around attacking, killing, exploiting, and threatening and the inevitable response is terrorism since they want the U.S. to stop acting like a bull in a china shop and go away
Of course, it wasn't just Bush's imaginary WMDs in Iraq which he used as an excuse for attacking them that was total B.S. The entire shameful, warmongering episode in U.S.'s foreign affairs was and is a crock of crap from one end to the other. Our actions in WWII were self defense and world defense and our Gulf War actions (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991) were good, but other than that since WWII our wars have been corrupt, exploitative, and profit motivated. Even with all the propaganda, fewer citizens in the U.S. buy these lies now, and virtually NO citizens outside the USA are naive enough to believe such nonsense. Asked in polls about what is the most worrisome aspect of today's world and few people in the world cite "terrorism by Islamic radicals." The most frequent poll response is "crazy, out-of-control Americans with way too many weapons." See:
- The Neoconserative Threat to World Order: America's Perilous War for Hegemony
- The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals
- A Game As Old As Empire: The Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of Global Corruption
- The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
HERE IS THE TRUTH U.S. CITIZENS KEEP TRYING TO REPRESS BUT IT DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE IT'S SO DAMN OBVIOUS: Each so-called terrorist we blast to smithereens creates ten more terrorists out to get us (furious relatives and friends). But the defense industry isn't fazed by such obscene calculus, since this means more terrorists to blast which in turn means more killer drones to purchase from a very profitable General Atomics with the public's apparently infinite supply of disposable income. The presidential administrations of Bush and Obama claim that their war on terror is about reducing terrorism, but that is a hollow lie that's wearing thin since the exact opposite result is occurring and they know it, and yet they continue to pursue their flawed strategy—revealing that the goal they tell us and the goal they really have are two different things. Neocon warmongers of the shadow government have a hidden, self-serving agenda of power, control, and wealth for themselves that citizens are forced to pay for. Don't take our word for it. Research it yourself like we did. See America. See also Terrorist Attacks More Than Quadrupled In Decade Since Sept. 11, 2001, Study Finds, Huffington Post, Reuters, Peter Apps, posted 12/04/2012. See also: Americans Tell the Terrorists: You Win.
If the money spent on just part of today's worldwide military spending was diverted to basic needs of Earth's people and to the task of correcting the already-created devastation of the environment, and on socially-beneficial development, here are some benefits that humanity could get (this is based on one year's military expenditures worldwide of about $2.89 million a minute, or $1.7 trillion per year, in 2013):
- 1.47 hours (of the worldwide military expenditures) ($250 million): The entire budget of WHO. If WHO's resources were doubled, the organization could increase its coordinating work not only in controlling the effects of specific diseases but, more importantly, in preventive care and research, including giving AIDS the attention its deserves.
- 4.12 hours ($700 million): save 5 million children each year in developing countries from death of diarrhea, through oral rehydration therapy.
- 5.88 hours ($1 billion): reduce the projected global population peak by 1 billion people—by making contraception available to the estimated 80 million women who want it, but cannot obtain it.
- 7.06 hours ($1.2 billion): Finance the whole malaria eradication program of WHO.
- 7.6 hours ($1.3 billion): Fund the World Bank's Action Plan for Tropical Forests. ($1.3 billion per year over five years.)
- 25.88 hours ($4.4 billion): This tiny percent of arms spending would pay for all the farm equipment needed to enable low-income, food-deficit countries to achieve self-sufficiency.
- 28.24 hours ($4.5 billion): Fund the UN plan to counter desertification.
- 31 hours ($5 billion): Reduce the emissions by half of about 24 million tons of sulfur dioxide—just one of the constituents of acid rain—generated each year by the U.S., causing $7 billion worth of corrosion damage alone.
- 7.06 days ($30 billion): At the beginning of the 1980s, 71 percent of people living in rural areas of the South were without clean water. For $30 billion a year, they could have it.
- 7.06 days ($30 billion): devoting 7 days of military expenditures of industrial countries to overseas development would double aid programs in developing countries. Military spending is now 30 times the amount given in aid.
- 1.76 weeks ($50 billion): Primary health care for all children in the developing world would be paid for, including full immunization against the six most common infectious diseases (at $5 per child) and access to safe water.
- 1.47 months ($200 billion) could wipe hunger off the face of the Earth. Hunger could be ended in a few years if sufficient action was taken now in helping developing countries to restructure their own agricultural production, as well as improving storage and transport facilities.
Doing all these listed things would take a total of approximately 79 days of world military spending. We could certainly change a lot of human misery by giving up only 22% of one year's world military budget. (Source: updating all figures from 1988 to 2013 and basing figures on the book The Gaia Peace Atlas, Survival into the Third Millennium) See Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield and The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War.
Speaking of foolish military spending: "After 9/11, President Bush declared regime change to be official U.S. policy. He took this country to war to create regime change in Iraq. How does the president know which governments to overthrow? According to Bush’s criteria, a government must:
- build or sell weapons of mass destruction
- violate U.N. resolutions
- threaten, invade, or dominate its neighbors
- exploit many of its own poorest citizens
- erode the civil liberties or human rights of its people
- fail to live up to democratic ideals
Dubya is a merciless warmonger following greedy neocon agendas of empire building, and Obama expanded this murderous destruction
The recent president [Dubya], of course, was thinking of countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Syria. But look at the list more carefully. Sound familiar? The criteria that call for regime change apply to the American government itself. Americans live under a regime that is threatening to dominate not just its neighbors but the world as a whole." (Source: Regime Change Begins at Home: Freeing America from Corporate Rule.) If, as George Dubya Bush says, these are the correct criteria for regime change, doesn't that mean the U.S. needs regime change now? And that is precisely the author's (Charles Derber) insightful point! See The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
Dubya considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason. That sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic to us
Let's see now, the difference between Hitler's goal of controlling the world and the U.S. neocons' goal is . . . is . . . oh hell, there MUST be a difference, but we just cannot think of any!