Peace Through Superior Firepower

February 12th, 2008 at 11:03am Andy In Glenwood 712

I recently had the pleasure of conversing with Mr. Conman on his radio show concerning our military. I would simplify our positions thusly: The Conman feels we are wasting resources preparing for threats that do not exist. (Michael please correct me if I am in error.) My contention is that we need a strong military as a deterrent to any threats that might develop.

Before I continue, I am at the forefront in pointing out government waste, corruption, lies and projects hidden from the citizenry. Michael is correct here and I completely agree with him valuable resources are being wasted and misappropriated. HAARP in Gakona, Alaska (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is a good example. Few have heard of this project (outside the "conspiracy" crowd anyway). Millions of tax dollars have been spent on this "research" project. I challenge anyone to first research this project and then contact their senator and/or congressperson about it. See if the answers the government gives you is even remotely similar to what you find in your research.

The point here is not about the pros and cons of HAARP, but the way the government is run. And how the federal government has no qualms of out right lying to it's population. The initial budget for the entire project is less that what the government ended up spending on the transmitters alone. Lies and the misappropriation of funds that would be much better spent at the local level.

This mentality permeates our federal government. It is the military-industrial complex Dwight Eisenhower warned us about over 4 decades ago at work. And this mentality of doing "whatever" and putting a pretty face on it extends to how our military is built and used.

We need a strong military. But we need logic, honesty and the Constitution dictating how that military is utilized. Not political agendas. Ron Paul voted against invading Iraq for two reasons. He refused to drink the kool-aid being served up by the White House and stood fast to his belief that we do not have the right to arbitrarily invade another country (irregardless of his political party affiliation). And more importantly, he understood that the Constitution states that only Congress can take us to war, not the President. The President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed services, but the country is ruled by laws passed by Congress. And the laws are subject to the Constitution. Part of that ingenious separation of powers our Founding Fathers thought up.

So in my mind, the mismanagement of our military and our "global policeman/nation building" policies do not mean we should not invest in our defensive posture. Imagine having a pissant military and then waking one day to find out we need a strong one. It's like having a condom - I would prefer to have one and not need it rather than needing one and not having it.

Entry Filed under: Technology, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Foreign Policy, Con Games, Garfield County, United Post

16 Comments Add your own

1. Mitch Mulhall | February 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

[we need a strong military as a deterrent to any threats that might develop.]

Interesting position, Andy. How does a strong military, or any military for that matter, neutralize the threat of a stateless enemy?

Cheers,
2. Andy In Glenwood | February 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

A strong military does little to neutralize a stateless enemy. Unless perhaps you were using that military to protect your own country, to patrol your own borders.

A strong military does however empower us to respond, should the need arise, to a true threat to our sovereignty. It at least presents us with one more option to choose from.

Do you think it is too far fetched in this day and age to think that one country might actually invade another with it's army, station a hundred thousand or more troops on it's soil and then try and force it's way of life and government on the populace?

In my opinion, having a strong military diminishes the possibility of that happening. Like I said, I'd rather have one and not need it than vice versa.
3. Hugh520 | February 13th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

I think the last 50+ years have born out the fact that having a strong military guarantees one thing -- that we will use it.

That we will use it tragically in places like Vietnam and Somalia, and stupidly everywhere else. We were warned by Washington and Eisenhower of the dangers of standing armies, that the business of armies and military spending in general would lead to trouble. Can we think with real pride on one incursion since WWII where the wasn't some selfish national or commercial interest underpinning the endeavor? Nations must act in their self interest, but anyone can see how misguided our policies in Southeast Asia and South America have been?

What we accomplished during WWII was nothing short of one of the greatest feats of mankind -- the problem is it's been too profitable to stop ever since. America is in the business of projection its power around the world. But the problem is most Americans can't even tell you where we are projecting it and why on earth we're there. Think of it, a whole foreign policy with real boots on the ground that that doesn't answer to you or me. And I'm not talking about Iraq.

Who knows why we really went to Iraq. You ask 3 experts and your likely to get three different answers. Saddam was busy ruling his little Potemkin country like the 8th century feudal society is is. Why couldn't we have figured that out? The answer is we could have, but arrows are more profitable than laurel leaves and the American eagle clutches both.

The ruse is he's looking in the direction of the laurel leaves, that's supposed to be our preference, peace. This may have been who we were, but its no longer who we are.
4. reckless G | February 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

[Saddam was busy ruling his little Potemkin country like the 8th century feudal society {it} is. ]

Actually, Iraq was one of the most modernized countries in the Middle East. Saddam struggled mightily against the forces of Islamic Fundamentalism to give his country the best in medical, educational, and occupational opportunities.

Women were free to drive, become educated and hold professional jobs. There was no headscarf requirement. In fact Saddam discouraged traditional Muslim attire. He preferred his people to appear modern, and very much admired American society.

When I was there in January '03, the remnants of a once thriving nation were evident. Baghdad, though somewhat run down, still retained a glimmer of elegance and Basra reminded me of Long Beach California. The most traditional and conservative place I visited in Basra was a Christian church.

Contrary to popular belief, if it weren't for the economic sanctions, Iraq would've rivaled any modern first world nation.

We went into Iraq mainly because, after extensive inspection by the UN which determined that Iraq was complying with the IAEA ban on WMDs, the UN was considering lifting the sanctions, thus allowing Russia's previously agreed to oil contracts with Iraq to go forward.

And of course, we couldn't let THAT happen. The no-bid contracts for Halliburton were just a bonus.
5. Hugh520 | February 13th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

The rift between Sunni and Shia dates back to the seventh century and while Saddam's Iraq may have included many or the reforms instituted in countries like Turkey, it is still largely a tribal society, and needed a strongman to prop up even its modest claims to modernity and military power. The "Potemkin village" was the military bluff Iraq was running.

Are you telling me G, this was a contract grab from the "Don't they have enough of their own oil to pump and sell Russians?"

My point above is that armies will be put to use as long as their are armies to put to use. the other problem is you can't go digging holes in Saddam's back yard looking for WMD without a few Stealth Fighters and infantry divisions to back you up.
6. infowars.com | February 13th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

The only thing this country makes now is porno and weapons...enuff said.

Its time for Ron Paul.

also why has nobody checked out HAARP like I did.

This government is criminal and out of control, but people dont like to talk about that.
7. mgman | February 14th, 2008 at 6:40 am

I fully hesitated to post any of this because we all know how email and posts from an individual lead to an interpretation of personality and character that is almost always incorrect. I’m not a hard-core conspiracy theorist and I don’t think our leaders are ‘evil’ and are making decisions for their personal benefit. It’s way bigger than that. Jack Nicholson was right: “You can’t handle the truth!”

As always, follow the money/oil.

mgman
8. mgman | February 14th, 2008 at 6:47 am

Sorry, the above post is incomplete. I'm a bit technically challenged.
Here is the full post:

Thank you, Reckless G! Denying the relationship of oil resources in Iraq to the war there is naïve at best. Released under court order over the opposition of the Bush administration, documents from the 2001 White House Energy Task Force (held in secret by Vice President Dick Cheney) showed Iraqi oil-field maps and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi oil-field Contracts”(this is the title of a particular 2-page document). It identifies 63 oil companies from 30 countries and specifies which Iraqi oil fields each company is interested in and the status of the company's negotiations with Saddam Hussein's regime. Among the companies are Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total Elf Aquitaine, which was identified as being interested in the 25-billion-barrrel Majnoon oil field.Baghdad had "agreed in principle" to the French company's plans to develop this prime real estate of Iraq.

The documents have garnered little attention, probably because they address the question of the administrations motives for the invasion of Iraq. While the original motives for invsion – WMD’s and links to Al Qaeda (not to mention the indirect 9/11 references) – have been discredited, referencing oil as a motive is still greeted with derision. Suggesting that private oil interests were in any way considered is consistently disparaged with charges of conspiracy theory.

But we just love the Iraqi people and want them to be free, right? Wait, there’s more:

As the documents show, prior to the U.S. invasion, foreign oil companies were nicely positioned for future involvement in Iraq, while the major U.S.oil companies, after years of U.S.-Iraqi hostilities, were largely out of the picture. Indeed, the U.S. majors would have been the big losers if U.N.sanctions against Iraq had simply been lifted. "The U.S. majors stand to lose if Saddam makes a deal with the U.N. (on lifting sanctions),"noted Germany's Deutsche Bank in October 2002.

A major reason that regime change in Iraq was seen as a potential benefit for U.S. major oil companies was that it would open up a previously closed door: private ownership of Middle East oil. In the 1970’s, most Middle Eastern countries nationalized their oil industries… so un-American! Currently, state-owned companies control the majority of the world’s oil resources – about 90%. Most people don’t know that Exxon Mobil, the worlds largest privately owned oil company, owns only 1.08% of the world’s oil reserves. All the largest private global oil companies together own only about 4% of the world’s reserves. I point this out only to further illustrate the deceptive complexity of the Iraq war motive.

But we're supposed to believe that, as the Bush administration assessed its options just before invading Iraq in the spring of 2003, the advantages of securing vast, untapped oil fields - in order to guarantee U.S. energy security in a world of dwindling reserves and to enable U.S. oil companies to reap untold riches - were far from mind. What really mattered to those in the White House, we're told, was liberating the people of Iraq.
So when looking at the complexity of US policy from administrations Democrat and Republican, we see that an unstable state in control of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world is indeed a national security issue when considering our consumption oil and all its products. It’s not as simple as “we drive a lot, we need oil to make gas.” The keyboard I’m typing on has petroleum based parts. The American people are not leveled with when it comes to energy policy and it’s incestuous relationship to national security. We’re better at understanding good vs. evil.

Well, I fully hesitated to post any of this because we all know how email and posts from an individual lead to an interpretation of personality and character that is almost always incorrect. I’m not a hard-core conspiracy theorist and I don’t think our leaders are ‘evil’ and are making decisions for their personal benefit. It’s way bigger than that. Jack Nicholson was right: “You can’t handle the truth!”

As always, follow the money/oil.
9. reckless G | February 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am

[also why has nobody checked out HAARP like I did.]

On the advice of several friends who are heavily involved in conspiracy theories, I did just that several weeks ago. This is a very deep rabbit hole indeed.

The official explanation of the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program is;

“HAARP is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defense purposes.”

But the conspiracy theories run the gamut from electro-magnetic mind control to radio-frequency radiation weapon to weather control for the purpose of disrupting the ability of governments to maintain power in order to usher in the New World Order.

Perhaps only a mind as keen as that of Ed Troy could decipher the vast amount of technical jargon (both real and imagined) involved in researching this issue. But whether he could communicate it in a way we average Americans could understand, is another matter.

I suspect that the HAARP program is not as innocent as the government would lead us to believe, but also not as sinister as the conspiracy theorists espouse. Messing with the ionosphere is probably not a good idea, but that has never stopped scientists or the military from conducting dangerous experiments without regard for the possible consequences to life on earth. Because of this kind of irresponsible experimentation, we have the atomic bomb, DDT, agent orange, depleted uranium weapons, and who knows what else.

So if it’s not one thing, it’s another. Either we’re all going to die from global warming or nuclear annihilation or cel phone tumors or bee disappearance or terrorist attacks or electromagnetic ionosphere experiments gone wrong.

In the meantime, we’ll continue to debate the veracity of sports figures’ testimony on steroid use.

Nero would be proud.
10. Hugh520 | February 14th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Oil is too simple a reason. It seems obvious, but when you consider the investment so far, hardly worth it. And I think looking at oil fields is like porn to Dick Cheney and his oil men cronies anyway. I bet he a Lynn have oil field maps on their bedroom ceiling. Besides I thought Dick had puckered up on that meeting.

Nope, you've got to remember the Cole and the Embassy bombings in the 90's and the !st Gulf War which was fought as a proxy for Saudi Arabia. Now remember two things about Saudi Arabia: The Bushes are its sworn protectors, and SA is the sworn protector of Mecca and Medina the holiest places in The Islamic world.

Enter Osama and his Fatwa against all Americans wherever they be found. His reason wasn't Israel it was 10,000 US soldiers on Saudi soil were are there as insurance that Saddam wouldn't try again to invade.

Now if you were going to keep your promise as protector of the Kingdom ( an idea abhorred by most Arabs) but had decided it was in your best interest to leave (9/11 is now part of the cost and 15 Saudis were involved ) you'd start the process of ginning up a war to topple Saddam once and for all, which quietly allows you to leave the now not so threatened Kingdom.

I guess you could say it way indirectly for oil, and the neocons even obfuscate the matter further, but this was about something as ancient as a Crusader footprint in Mecca.
11. mgman | February 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm

(Oil is too simple a reason….I guess you could say it was indirectly for oil, and the neocons even obfuscate the matter further)

Agreed that oil is not a singular reason, but when talking about a U.S. military presence in the Middle East it absolutely belongs in the discussion. The neocons are great at muddling the topic by using one of two simple statements: ‘vital U.S. interests’ and ‘national security.’

The Deulfer report shows that inspections and sanctions worked to cripple Saddam’s regime and therefore set Iraq up to be a state destined for regime change in this decade.

We all remember the Project for a New American Century which publicly advocated “regime change” in Iraq and other countries. A 1998 letter by Project members stated that “we should establish and manintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf – and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.”

That’s a genuinely fascinating observation of the situation in relation to Saudi Arabia.
We’ve had a compulsive relationship with the Saudi Royal Family since Roosavelt. That tangled web has allowed for much of our last 30 years of generally uninterrupted prosperity (U.S. oil production peaked in the 1970’s).
12. Hugh520 | February 14th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Well it's all about the oil, you're absolutely right.

It's about agreements with unanticipated consequences; it's about our support for the repressive Pahlavi regime in Iran.

But the decisive moves in the the game were made in the 1950's and 1990's.

It's a fact that the Fatwa from Bin Laden was a reaction to our presence in Saudi Arabia after the 1st Gulf War -- the protector of Mecca -- and the unintended consequences of our "noble" presence was the deaths of soldiers, sailors and 3000 office workers.

So yeah, oil, but not oil at the same time. What a rallying cry. Imagine how many soldiers you'd get sign up for that.
13. Hugh520 | February 14th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Bush is defending his right to wiretap without a warrant. McCain has surrendered his objections to water-boarding. The republicans are preparing their next bid for the White House by all but declaring, "We're the scare the shit out of you party."

Our enemy is ourselves. Twas not always the case.
14. Andy In Glenwood | February 15th, 2008 at 7:25 am

I have discovered an untapped source of power: Our Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.
15. mgman | February 15th, 2008 at 7:41 am

Attempted shoe bombing = take off your shoes; Attempted liquid bomb = no 8 oz. bottle of cucumber melon body cream for you, lady – all of these are measures to create a sense of security in order to keep people’s fears at bay just enough that they will continue to to what we do.

Surely, we all remember the months after 9/11/01 when our fearless leaders were, in so many words, saying: “Be afraid…but fear not, we’re on the job,” and “Be vigilant, because the terrorists are out there…but go about your lives, travel, spend, etc.”

We're living with a false sense of insecurity:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-5.pdf
16. Edward Troy | February 18th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

While I have had an interest in particle physics, I am not an expert, but what follows is what I am sure they could be doing; which is creating "windows" and "mirrors" for certain wavelengths in the extremely long wavelength part of the EM spectrum. This can be useful in creating short term conditions for narrow bands in communication; or disrupting them. By using a large amount of very low energy photons, the low mass of the extremely rarified atmosphere can be heated considerably, leading to re-emission of photons, some possibly in the visible part of the spectrum. Each photon is emitted by a very specific quantisized change in the energy states of particles, of which there are many. The most familiar are electrons, protons and a combination of the two; neutrons -- atomic particles.

The re-emission of photons is what makes the sky blue on a clear sunny day because of the quantisized energy states of the electrons associated with the hybrid double triple bond changing diatomic oxygen into triatomic oxygen -- ozone, the reason gold is a metallic yellow is because of the quantisized states of the electrons in "outer" orbits, green house gasses are green house because again the quantisized energy states of the electrons in the molecules.

HAARP/ HARP is something that will change the "color" of what is reflected by the ionosphere; like gold to copper to silver.

To me this is pork -- relatively useless since there are far more efficient ways of communication. AM radio works pretty well at night and is a perfect example of how changes to the ionosphere can change reflectivity of certain wavelengths.

The SCC would have been far more interesting, (totally different and much more expensive, but basic research). But hey this is America, why continue to lead?