[Peace-discuss] Some war and occupation notes for NfN/AOTA

[J.B. Nicholson]

War/Politicos: Regarding Oprah Winfrey for US President (something the 
corporate media was talking about not too long ago):

Bill Moyers Journal played an October 9, 2002 clip from "Oprah" on Moyers' 
PBS program. This Moyers PBS episode has the title "Buying the War".

"Buying the War"
Transcript: https://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W56Ezi3ZlzI
Excerpt of the following transcript: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmevAN_FLnQ

 From the episode:

 > BILL MOYERS: EVEN OPRAH GOT IN ON THE ACT, FEATURING IN OCTOBER 2002 NEW
 > YORK TIMES REPORTER JUDITH MILLER.
 >
 > JUDITH MILLER: (OPRAH 10/9/02) The US intelligence community believes
 > that Saddam Hussein has deadly stocks of anthrax, of botulinum toxin,
 > which is one of the most virulent poisons known to man.
 >
 > BILL MOYERS: LIBERAL HAWK KENNETH POLLAK.
 >
 > KENNETH POLLAK: And what we know for a fact from a number of defectors
 > who've come out of Iraq over the years is that Saddam Hussein is
 > absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as
 > fast as he can.
 >
 > BILL MOYERS: AND THE RIGHT HAND MAN TO AHMED CHALABI.
 >
 > OPRAH: And so do the Iraqi people want the American people to liberate
 > them?
 >
 > QUANBAR: Absolutely. In 1991 the Iraqi people were....
 >
 > WOMAN: I hope it doesn't offend you...
 >
 > BILL MOYERS: WHEN ONE GUEST DARED TO EXPRESS DOUBT OPRAH WOULD HAVE NONE
 > OF IT
 >
 > WOMAN: I just don't know what to believe with the media and..
 >
 > OPRAH: Oh, we're not trying to propaganda-- show you propaganda. ..We're
 > just showing you what is.
 >
 > WOMAN: I understand that, I understand that.
 >
 > OPRAH: OK, but Ok. You have a right to your opinion.

And there's also 
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2600/1*1hDL3hsWqdNmZ3SynqmeYA.jpeg -- 
Oprah cozying up with G.W. Bush -- reminiscent of what has become in vogue 
since Trump was elected.




Venezuela: US's next war in Venezuela?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8i2XLwSJAA -- US supports Juan Guaidó 
[GUAY-doe], head of the Venezuelan National Assembly, as an unelected 
self-declared interim president of Venezuela. Guaidó doesn't recognize the 
Nicolas Maduro administration. For the US government (elites), this is a 
good thing: Guaidó is the stooge who will help usher in the takeover the US 
has wanted since 2001. VP Pence, Nikki Haley, and Sen. Marco Rubio are in 
favor of recognizing Guaidó, as are the Washington Post and New York Times 
which both urge military intervention to rescue the oppressed Venezuelans 
(regime change war). Pres. Trump has already called for violent overthrow 
of Venezuela:

Pres. Trump on August 11, 2017:
 > We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military
 > option.

Pres. Trump on September 25, 2018
 > It's a regime that, frankly, could be toppled very quickly by the
 > military if the military decides to do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc07gT6gczc -- Russia disagrees with the US 
on Venezuela.




Israel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbRkPYnJIZc -- Israel opens segregated 
road; the wall of separation spans a 5km stretch of the road. Palestinians 
call this wall the "Apartheid wall".





Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is running for POTUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXKsDap51_Q -- RT's coverage of her 
candidacy so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWfwqxwSUF8 -- Jimmy Dore promotes her and 
covers how the corporate media smears her.

There are good reasons to object to Rep. Gabbard and both the corporate 
media and Dore aren't bringing any of them up for discussion.

One major problem is Gabbard's support for the drone war.

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/

 > Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the
 > past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with strike
 > forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your position
 > that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the U.S.
 > military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is that
 > still your position?
 >
 > Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional
 > threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other
 > groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically
 > what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass
 > mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars
 > going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and
 > taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those
 > current AUMFs [Authorization to Use Military Forces].
 >
 > So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe
 > that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical
 > strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no
 > long-term occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and
 > then get out and the very limited use of drones in those situations
 > where our military is not able to get in without creating an
 > unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not
 > causing, you know, a large amount of civilian casualties.

"Quick strike forces", "Surgical strikes", "in and out" are propaganda 
terms. Remember when we were assured that the invasion of Iraq would be speedy?

Donald Rumsfeld from 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rumsfeld-it-would-be-a-short-war/

 > "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going
 > to last any longer than that," he [Rumsfeld] said. "It won't be a World
 > War III."

Drone attacks mean extrajudicial murder of "a large amount of civilian 
casualties" without traditional occupation. Drone wars continue current US 
policy set back in G.W. Bush's administration and escalated in every 
subsequent administration. If she were POTUS there is no reason to believe 
she'd do anything differently: hand-pick the targets from dossiers 
("baseball cards") in a Tuesday afternoon meeting ("terror Tuesday" 
meetings) resulting in killing a lot of other people who just happen to be 
in the blast zone.

If she runs on an identity politics campaign like Hillary Clinton did 
there's another conflict with the drone war: innocent women and girls die 
in drone bomb attacks just like men and boys do.

Noam Chomsky in an interview with Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald in 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOksJKfapVM around 1h8m28s into the recording:

> Noam Chomsky: Let me say that there are plenty of people who live
> constantly under the threat of terrorism. If you wanna find them go to
> Yemen or North Waziristan where people don't have to be told about
> terrorism. They are constantly in fear that five minutes from now the
> guy across the street is going to be blown away along with anyone else
> who happens to be around. That's massive global terrorism.
> 
> And it has repercussions, and we're seeing some of the repercussions.
> 
> What happened in Brussels was a monstrous terrorist act but it's worth 
> looking at the explanation that was given for it: ISIS took credit for 
> it and issued a statement which basically said 'As long as you keep 
> bombing us, we're gonna respond by attacking you.'. There's something
> to that.
This also helps put into context the term "terrorist" -- Gabbard uses it to 
describe those being bombed by the US, Chomsky gives a good argument for 
how those at the receiving end of US foreign policy could use the term to 
describe the US bombing.

Most of the people who are killed in drone attacks are not the targeted 
people (and there's strong reason to killing the targeted people as well, 
there's no evidence, no trial, no opportunity for debate or review). 
Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, "drone missiles cause 
collateral damage. A few militants are killed, but the majority of victims 
are innocent citizens.".

It looks like people have been looking into Rep. Gabbard's political 
history, particularly now that she is running for POTUS. My conclusion 
(based on her electoral record, her political affiliations, and her own 
political commentary): she's complying with Democratic Party/permanent 
government values quite well. It might be to the Democrat's benefit to 
criticize her harshly to bring voters into the Democratic Party primaries 
(as if they were elections and not the rigged corporate selections the DNC 
corporation's lawyer Bruce Spiva told us they were) and support her. If 
she's down with the deep state/permanent government on the most significant 
issue the state ever takes up -- war -- she might be acceptable to party 
elites and can be "brought to heel" (to use another Democratic Party 
representative's phrase) on domestic issues where she's giving lip service 
to amenable ideas like Medicare for All (HR676).

-J