A basic premise of my understanding of war and warfare is that Clausewitz and Sun Tzu are basically telling you that war is the dumbest possible way in which to resolve any dispute. The problem is that it takes 2 to make a peace while only 1 is needed to start a war.
Megalomania has clearly infected the entire ruling class in this country, in fact the entire MICIMATT complex. It just may turn out to be a fatal disease that proves to be the undoing of US global dominance. That would be the best outcome. A far worse outcome would result in nuclear Armageddon. Meanwhile, isn't it a bit curious that, since the Israeli genocide was unleashed back in October 2023, the neocons no longer use the phrase "rules-based order." I suppose even they realize that to utter such ridiculous nonsense now would be laughable.
I posted this comment to Julian Macfalane's piece today, but it seems to fit with here as well.
As pathetic as our octogenarian leaders are, there is no hope in sight from the younger leaders in the US, Canada and Europe who are absolute, arrogant, blithering idiots. I never quite imagined how so many leaders from so many Western countries could coalesce into one blob of hubris so vast, none have any interest in actual statecraft and diplomacy. It's all about the "rules-based order," baby!
One reason I have such an intense dislike for a majority of U.S. politicians is the extremely blatant dishonesty with which they are so comfortable. They can repeat false narratives without so much as a blink- as if they actually believed what they are saying. Thus, Putin can be a modern-day "Hitler", out to roll over Europe en route to taking over the noble U.S. of A; and we must stop him NOW (at the expense of actual national security, the slaughter of hundreds of 1000s of Ukrainians and Russians, and the growing risks of nuclear war.
So they smilingly tell lies, hiding the real causes of the war, the facts that the so-called 'enemy' had pleaded for a diplomatic settlement to avoid war and that they not only dismissed those calls but actively blocked them. And to boot, as you write here, Bill, they crow about the good investment that the war represents - though again, they don't tell the truth about who the beneficiaries are or who is paying the costs.
I contrast this deceitfulness with Ralph Nader (for good example), who was interviewed on Democracy Now yesterday on his 90th birthday. It's a durn shame that the shallow neoliberal tool Al Gore spoiled Ralph's chances for the Presidency in 2000, thereby handing the election to Shrub. Had that not happened, neither would have the Iraq invasion; nor quite possibly, 9/11; nor perhaps, the 9/11-justified Patriot Act (though the authoritarian turns of both Parties were possibly already pre-ordained). Maybe we wouldn't have coup'd Ukrainian Pres. Yanukovych; the 8-year long war against ethnic Russians wouldn't have happened nor the Russian invasion of the Donbass, etc. Oh, if wishes were horses, and 'if only' could happen, I'd have a stable.
Do the national defense authorization acts (NDAA) of whatever years say the US raised armies (limited to 2 years funds worth of stuff to give away?
Presidential depletion of US war stocks for Ukraine is both unusual and likely extra legal.
I find nothing in the US constitution about donating arms to other countries, we raise an army and maintain a navy. There is nothing in there about giving away parts of the unauthorized standing army.
It seems the US constitution also did not foresee the republic would have "American (national?) interests" 6000 miles away, or that "world security" would be part of the "common defense". It might be if the founding fathers had decided the republic should morph to a world spanning empire.
But George Washington....
All the above is nothing as US funds genocide in another 6000 mile away "world securit"y operation.
I grew up in Boston. My very first protest letter was to the Globe's editor! I was 17. They are an Israeli apologist rag with rabid Zionists infesting their staff reporters. They are also war mongers!
The problem with War is that as soon as we go Nuclear it will simply be Game over for most species on Earth. CS suggests that in the natural order and scheme of things that extinction is common, meaning many species disappear over time. On the other hand survival , or the continuation of a species, is less common and considered an exception. It reflects the idea that life on Earth has faced numerous challenges, and the ability to survive and persist is truly remarkable and rare in and of itself when it occurs in the grand scheme of evolution and the Cosmos..!
A basic premise of my understanding of war and warfare is that Clausewitz and Sun Tzu are basically telling you that war is the dumbest possible way in which to resolve any dispute. The problem is that it takes 2 to make a peace while only 1 is needed to start a war.
Megalomania has clearly infected the entire ruling class in this country, in fact the entire MICIMATT complex. It just may turn out to be a fatal disease that proves to be the undoing of US global dominance. That would be the best outcome. A far worse outcome would result in nuclear Armageddon. Meanwhile, isn't it a bit curious that, since the Israeli genocide was unleashed back in October 2023, the neocons no longer use the phrase "rules-based order." I suppose even they realize that to utter such ridiculous nonsense now would be laughable.
I posted this comment to Julian Macfalane's piece today, but it seems to fit with here as well.
As pathetic as our octogenarian leaders are, there is no hope in sight from the younger leaders in the US, Canada and Europe who are absolute, arrogant, blithering idiots. I never quite imagined how so many leaders from so many Western countries could coalesce into one blob of hubris so vast, none have any interest in actual statecraft and diplomacy. It's all about the "rules-based order," baby!
One reason I have such an intense dislike for a majority of U.S. politicians is the extremely blatant dishonesty with which they are so comfortable. They can repeat false narratives without so much as a blink- as if they actually believed what they are saying. Thus, Putin can be a modern-day "Hitler", out to roll over Europe en route to taking over the noble U.S. of A; and we must stop him NOW (at the expense of actual national security, the slaughter of hundreds of 1000s of Ukrainians and Russians, and the growing risks of nuclear war.
So they smilingly tell lies, hiding the real causes of the war, the facts that the so-called 'enemy' had pleaded for a diplomatic settlement to avoid war and that they not only dismissed those calls but actively blocked them. And to boot, as you write here, Bill, they crow about the good investment that the war represents - though again, they don't tell the truth about who the beneficiaries are or who is paying the costs.
I contrast this deceitfulness with Ralph Nader (for good example), who was interviewed on Democracy Now yesterday on his 90th birthday. It's a durn shame that the shallow neoliberal tool Al Gore spoiled Ralph's chances for the Presidency in 2000, thereby handing the election to Shrub. Had that not happened, neither would have the Iraq invasion; nor quite possibly, 9/11; nor perhaps, the 9/11-justified Patriot Act (though the authoritarian turns of both Parties were possibly already pre-ordained). Maybe we wouldn't have coup'd Ukrainian Pres. Yanukovych; the 8-year long war against ethnic Russians wouldn't have happened nor the Russian invasion of the Donbass, etc. Oh, if wishes were horses, and 'if only' could happen, I'd have a stable.
Do the national defense authorization acts (NDAA) of whatever years say the US raised armies (limited to 2 years funds worth of stuff to give away?
Presidential depletion of US war stocks for Ukraine is both unusual and likely extra legal.
I find nothing in the US constitution about donating arms to other countries, we raise an army and maintain a navy. There is nothing in there about giving away parts of the unauthorized standing army.
It seems the US constitution also did not foresee the republic would have "American (national?) interests" 6000 miles away, or that "world security" would be part of the "common defense". It might be if the founding fathers had decided the republic should morph to a world spanning empire.
But George Washington....
All the above is nothing as US funds genocide in another 6000 mile away "world securit"y operation.
I just found out that our "defense" secretary, Lloyd Austin, came from the board at Raytheon.
I grew up in Boston. My very first protest letter was to the Globe's editor! I was 17. They are an Israeli apologist rag with rabid Zionists infesting their staff reporters. They are also war mongers!
The problem with War is that as soon as we go Nuclear it will simply be Game over for most species on Earth. CS suggests that in the natural order and scheme of things that extinction is common, meaning many species disappear over time. On the other hand survival , or the continuation of a species, is less common and considered an exception. It reflects the idea that life on Earth has faced numerous challenges, and the ability to survive and persist is truly remarkable and rare in and of itself when it occurs in the grand scheme of evolution and the Cosmos..!