Originally posted by donwhite
I’m reading Juan Williams book, “Enough: The Phony Leaders . . “ 2006, who said the top ONE PERCENT earn as much as the bottom 40%! He also said
the top ONE PERCENT own property equal in value to the lower 90% of the population. With 14% capital gains tax, almost no estate tax and I heard a 5%
tax on income earned outside the US, the rich no longer advocate for the FLAT TAX. They have it!
Tax rates on the rich were significantly higher earlier , and for most, of the twentieth century and certainly the Reagan and Clinton era
reforms made the rich richer at a pace not seen since ( as i remember) the age of tycoons in the mid nineteenth century. It is interesting then that
while some reactionaries in the 'liberal' , but strangely corporate owned, msm claims that socialism for the poor is on the rise when the only thing
that seems to get handed out is tax breaks for those who have more houses than they know what to do with.
I thought it was ten brigades and not divisions? Whatever Armed Forces we keep, they certainly need to be prepared for the kinds of conflict we
are likely to be involved in. At that force level, I’d see the USMC about 50% the size of the Army, 5 brigades.
1st Armored Division, 1st Cavalry Division, 1st Infantry Division, 2nd Infantry Division,
3rd Infantry Division, 4th Infantry Division, 10th Mountain Division, 25th Infantry Division,
82nd Airborne Division, 101st Airborne Division.
Well there honestly isn't much you can do with a ten division if your going to keep the war conventional with the current limitations of the USAF. I
agree that the USMC should be massively expanded if the US withdraws from all foreign bases. Obviously you need a specialized force that will create
the bridgeheads from which any invasion force must fight.
And therein lies the crux of our current American empire. Long ago, perhaps by the War of 1812, we had hit on the notion of an economic
domination of weaker nations and not a old style European empire form of control.
It was always the intent of the founding fathers to build a empire ( first continental obviously) worthy of their privileged station and the main
problem of the time was the very strong empires that existed at the time. The US could barely defeat Britain while it was occupied in a continental
war of epic proportions so that should give some idea of it's limitations.
Let me recite that Haiti has been invaded by the US more than 6 times, and we occupied Haiti from 1918 until 1933. Yet it remains the poorest
country in the Hemisphere, or so we “boast.”
There are no surprises there for the few of us who had at some stage started reading books about empires now and then...
Let me remind that we overthrew the only land reform government ever in Guatemala (1954) and since that time, 200,000 Guatemalans have been
killed by the Right Wing Army we put into place and still oversee. We had Salvador Allende in Chile killed to avoid nationalization of Anaconda’s
copper mines. And everyone saw what happened to a CIA stooge when he gets off the ranch, Manuel Noriega. We called him a president before he went on
his own now we call him a dictator.
Saddam Hussein is probably the best example of the lot given how his reign and overthrowing have now cost two million Iraqi lives. We should probably
point out that by 'land reform' we mean that the people of that country were attempting to end modern feudalism in their country which then led to
the direct involvement of the US national security state on behalf of the landed rich folk.
This is the problem in Iraq today. The Iraqis will not grant sweetheart concessions to ExxonMobil, TexacoChevron and ConcooPhillips. That is
the price tag the US has put on our ending the occupation of their country. And for which ordinary folks have paid with 4,200 KIA. Thank you George
I will let Americans care about the 4200 killed in action ( and the few dozen thousand seriously wounded despite the best efforts of the occupation
forces to hide in sprawling bases) and focus my concern for the million odd Iraqi's who's lives have been ended by this brutal conflict. Had the US
forces patrolled the streets to preserve the peace ( as demanded of a occupation force under the Geneva conventions) it would have been more than 4200
killed but clearly 'hard' decisions are being made and Iraqi lives not counted.
What you have labeled our “. . legitimate trade activities” I want to see us abandon that White Man’s Burden concept and treat all
God’s Chil’uns as our equals.
Don't we all.
Fact is even the 'evil' US empire conducts legitimate trade that can and should be defended with or with attempts at empire. Being
heavily armed and armored allows one the options to do ' the right thing' if that was ever part of the intent. Currently the US have no worthy
defense against the primary threat of ICBM's/SLBM's and is thus in the classic imperial way 'forced' to invade entire countries to 'defend'
itself. Obviously i believe this is why the US have no continental ABM defenses ( it's very cheap as compared to invasions) as it's government will
then be largely robbed of it's 'excuses' to invade and butcher of false premises. At least these days the 'enemies' must be accused of having
nuclear weapons where some decades ago you just invaded them based on the premise that 'communism' was 'expanding'.
Note: "The White Man's Burden" is a poem by the English poet Rudyard Kipling. It was originally published in the popular magazine
McClure's in 1899, with the subtitle The United States and the Philippine Islands.
Yes and we all know the fate of the Filipino's under US imperial rule. To be most accurate we should say the burden of the poor whites who are forced
under arms when they have been taxed into poverty to maintain all those imperial 'possesions' that makes empire no burden at all on the backs of
I think the USMC has a small fleet of troop carrying ships also fitted out with helicopter landing pads. There may also be some USMC ships
capable of supporting a few Harrier jump-jets
It's not 'small' by comparative standards but it would be vastly expanded under my 'plan'.
As of today as I write this, we need some aid to Arizona which is being invaded by drug cartel gangs. We are going to have to begin to treat
Mexico as a partner and not as a servile “protectorate” if we are ever going to stop this madness called the War on Drugs. That was started by
President Nixon in case you have forgotten.
Why bother? Let people use whatever drugs they want? I mean if you let all the cartels in or start selling it at Walmart i can assure you the prices
would drop so far so fast that it would be better money to actually work at Walmart..... The war on drugs must be fought not to stop the drug trade
but to ensure that the pressure and perception is enough to make prices high and jail terms very long to best enrich CIA ( or should i say Wall
street) and kill off those who aren't in their drug rings.
Originally posted by donwhite
The only “enemy” coming at us from the sea lanes is coc aine from Columbia. Despite a declaration of War on Drugs in 1969, and more than 1
million Americans imprisoned on drug or drug related crimes, it seems the price of illicit drugs gets cheaper and the product is more plentiful.
The price is getting cheaper because the CIA has mostly failed to reduce the supply they wish to control.
This is a war they never intended to win
completely but as far as i can tell they are doing what they can to control as much of it as they can.
As for the “keeping” the sea lanes open, don’t forget it equally important to the SELLER as it is to the BUYER to keep the sea lanes
free and safe. This sounds more like a job for the top 20 import/export countries to work on themselves. Maybe a UN Open Seas force supported by a
TAX on the tonnage of goods shipped?
Well yes and no.
In my opinion the thing to understand here is that having such a large naval and imperial presence is basically a vast import
subsidy on corporations to allow them to best manufacture goods cheaply elsewhere and then sell them to the wealthiest consumers ( who will pay the
most) in Europe and the US. It can certainly be argued that exporting nations should share in this cost but for most of them it would make far more
sense to invest that money in their own consumers thus negating the need for foreign one's. I suppose the UNOSF might/will come to pass but i wonder
if it's intent would be much other than protecting corporate profit as is the current role of the USN. In my design the USN would be funded to
fulfill it's design strategy of protecting legitimate US trade and national interest ( as decided by the American public in a senate and house where
the people are actually represented) against those who would attempt to disrupt it.
America cannot afford to be the world’s policeman no matter how much about ½ of our population likes the machismo effect!
Well it's more like one in five voters but either way it's not surprising given how the public is indoctrinated to believe that force is the only
method to survive in this 'capitalist' world. I suppose their daily experiences of being treated like second class citizens at corporations will
reinforce the view that might pretty much makes right.