Showing posts with label military issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military issues. Show all posts
Saturday, May 24, 2014
War - To Proselytize, Murder, and Rape
Dear friends,
Many ordinary people, especially those who have never served in any kind of military capacity, are unaware of the acts of rape and murder combined as being "traditional" behavior in human warfare. Of course, it is well-documented that around 2500 years ago, Hebrew/Jewish armies murdered and raped people, and burned the books of the villages that they attacked, then forcibly converted their victims to Judaism.
The "believers" of Christianity - a religion that grew out of Judaism - which itself influenced the birth of Islam, always acted in the same way that their Hebrew predecessors did. Therefore, raping and proselytizing those who survived the heinous assaults is the rule, rather than being the exception.
Even worse, such victims/new converts, sometimes, became the next group of conquerors themselves. As a matter of fact, during wars, considering the amount of rape victims who are not killed and become pregnant, the lunacy of Adolph Hitler with his fantasy about there being an "Aryan race" is totally exposed. After all, if one simply goes to the literature, s/he will find that the dark-skinned Mongolian Huns, who were originally led by a man named Attila, raided much of the area now known as Europe, for centuries, murdering the male inhabitants and raping women and little girls, in the process, making "mixed" children.
Of course, Amer-Asian children from the Vietnam war era are proof of the continued savagery of some American soldiers and others who keep the incredibly despicable murder/rape tradition intact, now followed by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, while it is not always rape, per se, unfortunately, we see the results of this same type of inhuman and vicious sexual impropriety here-to-mentioned, from politicians, actors, athletes, musicians, and other "celebrities" who have both broken the hearts of and abandoned women and their children, spread around our country - and the world.
Finally, rape happens right here in the states to women in the armed forces, perpetrated by their own male "comrades" - all of the time. Not just when they are in a war. Again, please go to the literature. I challenge you. If you are unaware of that simple fact, then you may have a different view of how this country has been run,, since its inception. To be sure, this says a great deal about the overall direction that we need to be heading. President Obama's signing, and subsequent re-authorization of, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is an important start.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Monday, November 11, 2013
Honoring Our Fighting Men and Women on Veteran's Day
"...there has hardly been a single skirmish in North American history, over the past three centuries or twelve grandmothers' lifetimes, in which African American soldiers have not either killed or been killed or wounded.''
Dear friends,
The outstanding African American scholar and historian Vincent Harding has written, "...it was on the edges of our continent that the long struggle for Black freedom began." - There is a River
Each Memorial Day we mark the beginning of summertime and cookouts. There is, to some extent, as well, the remembrance of US soldiers who have died in battles for both freedom and profit.
However, throughout the festivities, most people in the United States take for granted the security that we enjoy. Yet, it is in no small part due to the historic courage of African American soldiers fighting alongside their non-African American counterparts (who before the war of Independence, were mostly British, with some German and Dutch - no Irish, Italinn, Polish, or Jewish ones), whether in segregated or non-segregated units, that has brought us to this present point of relative peace and prosperity.
To be sure, the roles of people of African descent began with our predecessors fighting on both sides of the various conflicts. Still, even though our forebears fought on both sides, they have helped to liberate all North Americans.
For example, in The Negro in Colonial New England, author Lorenzo Johnston Greene cites that one year prior to the Declaration of Independence, ‘’when Paul Revere and William Dawes aroused the Massachusetts countryside on that memorable night of April 18 - they called Negro as well as white Minutemen to the defense of American liberties.’’ Peter Salem of Framingham, Job Potomea and Isaiah Barjonah of Stoneham, Cuff Whitemore of Cambridge were a few of the many African American warriors who rode with Revere and others in the now famous call to arms against British imperialism.
Of course, although African American soldiers have become part of a military force that, throughout time, has served as more of an enemy to them than a friend, the reasons for these Black soldiers fighting has rarely been mercenary. Instead, as many of their European American counterparts have done, Black soldiers fight, not only for the pay, but out of a genuine feeling of "fighting for freedom" in the abstract, along with the opportunity to feel powerful as individuals, in a seemingly powerless existence.
In any case, hardly ever mentioned, if not avoided altogether, in discussions concerning the African American experience are the historic roles of African American women in preserving the heritage of our people in the midst of a "double jeopardy", that is, being African American and a woman. (see essay by Francis Beale called "Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female"," from The Black Woman, edited by Toni Cade Bambara)
Although they have been victimized, historically, from almost everyone in society, African American women have continued to have an unchallenged influence on North America by virtue of the fact that they have preserved the African American culture, at times almost single-handedly.
Moreover, African American women are tough workers and great fighters. Lately, there has been a cry by Western feminists regarding all women being allowed to join active fighting units in the military. Of course, African American women have a long history of taking part in North American warfare, long before names like Harriet Tubman became widely known, and ever since, with warriors like the Black Panther Party’s and Black Liberation Army’s Assata Shakur (who now lives in Cuba).
Nevertheless, while the name of Sojourner Truth who on more than one occasion had to ask her European American counterparts, "Ain't I a woman?", is fairly recognizable, few are familiar with the story of Ida B. Wells. She was a genuine gun-toting liberator (in fact, she carried two guns).
After the lynching of three African American businessmen in her native Memphis, Tennessee, about 120 years or five generations ago, Wells began a personal crusade of justice for her people that included lectures, rallies and other forms of protest.
Additionally, readers should be reminded that Ida received a great deal of support from her African American sisters. She was no lone nut. Her fight lasted for decades (see When And Where I Enter, by Paula Giddings.)
At any rate, there has been hardly a single skirmish in North American history, over the past three centuries or twelve grandmothers' lifetimes, in which African American soldiers have not either killed or been killed or wounded. Yet, Black soldiers have not only been infantry fighters. For there have always been military leaders of African descent who have helped shape military campaigns or administrate both war and peacetime units. More importantly, African American soldiers, as a whole, have helped secure liberties, without which, few people who make up our current U.S. A. citizenry, would even have the opportunity to call themselves "American", much less "white."
Cheers!
Happy Veteran's Day!!!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Dear friends,
The outstanding African American scholar and historian Vincent Harding has written, "...it was on the edges of our continent that the long struggle for Black freedom began." - There is a River
Each Memorial Day we mark the beginning of summertime and cookouts. There is, to some extent, as well, the remembrance of US soldiers who have died in battles for both freedom and profit.
However, throughout the festivities, most people in the United States take for granted the security that we enjoy. Yet, it is in no small part due to the historic courage of African American soldiers fighting alongside their non-African American counterparts (who before the war of Independence, were mostly British, with some German and Dutch - no Irish, Italinn, Polish, or Jewish ones), whether in segregated or non-segregated units, that has brought us to this present point of relative peace and prosperity.
To be sure, the roles of people of African descent began with our predecessors fighting on both sides of the various conflicts. Still, even though our forebears fought on both sides, they have helped to liberate all North Americans.
For example, in The Negro in Colonial New England, author Lorenzo Johnston Greene cites that one year prior to the Declaration of Independence, ‘’when Paul Revere and William Dawes aroused the Massachusetts countryside on that memorable night of April 18 - they called Negro as well as white Minutemen to the defense of American liberties.’’ Peter Salem of Framingham, Job Potomea and Isaiah Barjonah of Stoneham, Cuff Whitemore of Cambridge were a few of the many African American warriors who rode with Revere and others in the now famous call to arms against British imperialism.
Of course, although African American soldiers have become part of a military force that, throughout time, has served as more of an enemy to them than a friend, the reasons for these Black soldiers fighting has rarely been mercenary. Instead, as many of their European American counterparts have done, Black soldiers fight, not only for the pay, but out of a genuine feeling of "fighting for freedom" in the abstract, along with the opportunity to feel powerful as individuals, in a seemingly powerless existence.
In any case, hardly ever mentioned, if not avoided altogether, in discussions concerning the African American experience are the historic roles of African American women in preserving the heritage of our people in the midst of a "double jeopardy", that is, being African American and a woman. (see essay by Francis Beale called "Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female"," from The Black Woman, edited by Toni Cade Bambara)
Although they have been victimized, historically, from almost everyone in society, African American women have continued to have an unchallenged influence on North America by virtue of the fact that they have preserved the African American culture, at times almost single-handedly.
Moreover, African American women are tough workers and great fighters. Lately, there has been a cry by Western feminists regarding all women being allowed to join active fighting units in the military. Of course, African American women have a long history of taking part in North American warfare, long before names like Harriet Tubman became widely known, and ever since, with warriors like the Black Panther Party’s and Black Liberation Army’s Assata Shakur (who now lives in Cuba).
Nevertheless, while the name of Sojourner Truth who on more than one occasion had to ask her European American counterparts, "Ain't I a woman?", is fairly recognizable, few are familiar with the story of Ida B. Wells. She was a genuine gun-toting liberator (in fact, she carried two guns).
After the lynching of three African American businessmen in her native Memphis, Tennessee, about 120 years or five generations ago, Wells began a personal crusade of justice for her people that included lectures, rallies and other forms of protest.
Additionally, readers should be reminded that Ida received a great deal of support from her African American sisters. She was no lone nut. Her fight lasted for decades (see When And Where I Enter, by Paula Giddings.)
At any rate, there has been hardly a single skirmish in North American history, over the past three centuries or twelve grandmothers' lifetimes, in which African American soldiers have not either killed or been killed or wounded. Yet, Black soldiers have not only been infantry fighters. For there have always been military leaders of African descent who have helped shape military campaigns or administrate both war and peacetime units. More importantly, African American soldiers, as a whole, have helped secure liberties, without which, few people who make up our current U.S. A. citizenry, would even have the opportunity to call themselves "American", much less "white."
Cheers!
Happy Veteran's Day!!!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Some Words of Wisdom from Dr. King about War
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. "
The Wisdom of MLK, Jr. A wonderful collection of quotes by Martin Luther King, Jr.
"A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: This way of settling differences is not just. This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood." Excerpt from "Beyond Vietnam", an address delivered on 4 April 1967 to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam at Riverside Church in New York City.
Downloaded from the MLK, Jr. Papers Project, Stanford University
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/ Read full post
Saturday, May 19, 2012
A South African analyzes Apartheid versus Zionism (originally posted 8/30/08)
"Of course, invading a country under false pretense is not a form of terrorism to the victims. Is it? They are glad to see their liberators. Right?"
Dear friends,
The link below features an article from a great resource spot that you may want to check out from time-to-time. The producers of the Website focus on Africa. Particularly, in the case of Africa, little attention is given by Western journalists, outside of tragedies. As well, since 9/11, particularly the Israelis and their allies in the United States, via the mass communications media, have been able to somehow put fighters of the the Palestinian Liberation Movement in the same context as the Al Quaeda (a group that is nothing but an enterprise concocted by the likes of the C.I.A. and Mossad). Neat trick. Eh?
Of course, invading a country under false pretense is not a form of terrorism to the victims. Is it? They are glad to see their liberators. Right? If they are not, then like the former mayor of Baghdad, shortly after the US-led invasion of Iraq, they will be locked up, if they are not happy to have their land invaded, their army disbanded, their government dismissed, and both their human and civil rights taken.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/49608 Read full post
Dear friends,
The link below features an article from a great resource spot that you may want to check out from time-to-time. The producers of the Website focus on Africa. Particularly, in the case of Africa, little attention is given by Western journalists, outside of tragedies. As well, since 9/11, particularly the Israelis and their allies in the United States, via the mass communications media, have been able to somehow put fighters of the the Palestinian Liberation Movement in the same context as the Al Quaeda (a group that is nothing but an enterprise concocted by the likes of the C.I.A. and Mossad). Neat trick. Eh?
Of course, invading a country under false pretense is not a form of terrorism to the victims. Is it? They are glad to see their liberators. Right? If they are not, then like the former mayor of Baghdad, shortly after the US-led invasion of Iraq, they will be locked up, if they are not happy to have their land invaded, their army disbanded, their government dismissed, and both their human and civil rights taken.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/49608 Read full post
Monday, May 30, 2011
Military pay already cut in half - some Memorial Day
Dear friends,
While Michelle Obama and Biden's wife do commercials about supporting the troops and travel the country with that same message, their husbands and Congress have already cut military pay in half.
That means that Navy Seals 6 went on a murder mission for reduced compensation. They may have been paid more doing what FBI agents did in the Sixties, working for the Mob. Meanwhile, the troops in both Afghanitan and Iraq, as well as the other two million people in our armer services, are operating on less than a check-to-check basis.
On the link below, is a brief YouTube post that is sad.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy1PbDcAa-Q&NR=1
Read full post
Friday, October 15, 2010
Has the recent ruling by a California judge made US armed forces "gay"?
Meanwhile, readers, listeners, and viewers of mainstream media gobbledygook are swayed from the larger issue of why our young people, since the end of the Civil War, and except for World War 2, have been hoodwinked into fighting to enrich profiteers and racketeers like Boeing, Polaroid, Halliburton, and so many other corporations via US armed forces and the latter’s wars of expansion (imperialism).
Dear friends,
Is it exciting that people who call themselves homosexuals can now freely join forces with others in order to protect the interests of profiteering and racketeering US multinational corporations through exercises that are, euphemistically, called wars? Additionally, if so, then are those who claim to be homosexual finally legitimate citizens, under that moniker?
At least to me, that’s very confusing, because on the one hand, they’ve estranged themselves from the rest of society, with many of them currently insisting that homosexuals are an actual “race”, while, on the other hand, these “gays”, both male and female, are seeking to be included in the process of our way of life unquestioned. Again, it’s very confusing.
In any case, will there still be a need for “Gay Pride” parades? Perhaps, instead, some gay men will lose their pink dresses and purple wigs and ride on top of tanks, along with their war buddies, in full camouflage gear, and celebrate victory along a road in some far away place, right after blowing up a hospital or day care center, as US armed forces have done so many times, previously, in places like Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
And what problems has the whole homosexual issue brought to the Pentagon? Obviously, the headache of trying to figure out what could possibly drive people of the same gender to mimick the lifestyles of ordinary males and females, much less want to be soldiers, must have left generals and admirals in a daze.
The so-called Gay Rights Movement is hardly a progressive one (i.e., movement). That’s why so many African Americans become nauseated when so-called “gays” compare their alleged plight to our ongoing dilemma and fight against White Supremacy.
Moreover, unlike the historical series of freedom movements that African Americans have initiated that have created better circumstances, not only for ourselves, but groups other than us as well, from the anti-slavery and early women’s rights initiatives, to the Back-to-Africa Movement led by the great Marcus Garvey that was followed by nationalist movements such as the Nation of Islam and the Republic of New Africa, all the way up to the modern-day Civil Rights Movement and the Black Consciousness Movement which grew out of all of the physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual energies of its predecessors, the so-called Gay Rights Movement selfishly seeks legitimacy, even though their claim of whiteness already gives them advantage over those who are not considered “white”. So, they want a dual citizenship, in other words. This is particularly so, because their leaders always look the same.
To that extent, the Gay Rights Movement is racist and reactionary!
Oh! Yes. There have been African Americans like the late and great Audre Lorde and James Baldwin who related, sexually, to others of their same gender. However, neither of these giants ever claimed that s/he was progressive because s/he was a homosexual. Rather, their intellects and actions which, by the way, still inspire others to join in the struggle for human freedom, was their cause.
Nevertheless, apart from a few horny guys who want access to a lot of men, male homosexuals are not socialized through this market construct called “gay culture” in a way that would cause them to have an interest in being soldiers. Yet, lower middle class young men, as well as women who think that they will become “tougher” by joining the armed forces are much easier to lure into that kind of life. Some of the aforementioned women may call themselves “lesbians”. But, again, homosexual males are, largely, a no-go.
And so, a California judge has done what, to be sure, perplexed generals and admirals at the Pentagon have been unable to do. But what’s next?
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
Is it exciting that people who call themselves homosexuals can now freely join forces with others in order to protect the interests of profiteering and racketeering US multinational corporations through exercises that are, euphemistically, called wars? Additionally, if so, then are those who claim to be homosexual finally legitimate citizens, under that moniker?
At least to me, that’s very confusing, because on the one hand, they’ve estranged themselves from the rest of society, with many of them currently insisting that homosexuals are an actual “race”, while, on the other hand, these “gays”, both male and female, are seeking to be included in the process of our way of life unquestioned. Again, it’s very confusing.
In any case, will there still be a need for “Gay Pride” parades? Perhaps, instead, some gay men will lose their pink dresses and purple wigs and ride on top of tanks, along with their war buddies, in full camouflage gear, and celebrate victory along a road in some far away place, right after blowing up a hospital or day care center, as US armed forces have done so many times, previously, in places like Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
And what problems has the whole homosexual issue brought to the Pentagon? Obviously, the headache of trying to figure out what could possibly drive people of the same gender to mimick the lifestyles of ordinary males and females, much less want to be soldiers, must have left generals and admirals in a daze.
The so-called Gay Rights Movement is hardly a progressive one (i.e., movement). That’s why so many African Americans become nauseated when so-called “gays” compare their alleged plight to our ongoing dilemma and fight against White Supremacy.
Moreover, unlike the historical series of freedom movements that African Americans have initiated that have created better circumstances, not only for ourselves, but groups other than us as well, from the anti-slavery and early women’s rights initiatives, to the Back-to-Africa Movement led by the great Marcus Garvey that was followed by nationalist movements such as the Nation of Islam and the Republic of New Africa, all the way up to the modern-day Civil Rights Movement and the Black Consciousness Movement which grew out of all of the physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual energies of its predecessors, the so-called Gay Rights Movement selfishly seeks legitimacy, even though their claim of whiteness already gives them advantage over those who are not considered “white”. So, they want a dual citizenship, in other words. This is particularly so, because their leaders always look the same.
To that extent, the Gay Rights Movement is racist and reactionary!
Oh! Yes. There have been African Americans like the late and great Audre Lorde and James Baldwin who related, sexually, to others of their same gender. However, neither of these giants ever claimed that s/he was progressive because s/he was a homosexual. Rather, their intellects and actions which, by the way, still inspire others to join in the struggle for human freedom, was their cause.
Nevertheless, apart from a few horny guys who want access to a lot of men, male homosexuals are not socialized through this market construct called “gay culture” in a way that would cause them to have an interest in being soldiers. Yet, lower middle class young men, as well as women who think that they will become “tougher” by joining the armed forces are much easier to lure into that kind of life. Some of the aforementioned women may call themselves “lesbians”. But, again, homosexual males are, largely, a no-go.
And so, a California judge has done what, to be sure, perplexed generals and admirals at the Pentagon have been unable to do. But what’s next?
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
More US troops in Afghanistan?
The name gives it all away: the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. There can be no genuine “democracy” in a nation that is governed by religion, since religion, as a vertically-structured cultural institution, is based on privilege and intolerance. Hence, the notion of inclusion in decision-making is shunned, if not suppressed.
Dear friends,
The name gives it all away: the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. There can be no genuine “democracy” in a nation that is governed by religion, since religion, as a vertically-structured cultural institution, is based on privilege and intolerance. Hence, the notion of inclusion in decision-making is shunned, if not suppressed.
So, about what is the real point being made, as well as the insistence upon the supporting of “democracy” – whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan, by the military/industrial complex of the United States government? At least to me, it is: those who possess the greatest amount of military puissance (might) dictate the rules. Please remember that the United States of America has only been a “world” power for six decades; that is, since it dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Besides, the essence of “democracy” is non-violent conflict resolution.
Nevertheless, on the link below is a concise, yet informative piece, by the always impressive Stephanie Kraft of the Valley Advocate that reveals continuing growth of the far-reaching tentacles belonging to the aforementioned United States’ military/industrial complex. Meanwhile, after the people of Afghanistan have been explopited, for centuries, by alien marauders, earlier this year (2009), the Embassy of Afghanistan, in Washington, DC boasted, "More than 70 American companies have registered in Afghanistan since 2003, representing $75 million in potential investment, and more than 15 foreign and domestic banks have opened their doors in Afghanistan...Ford, 3M, and Boeing are examining business opportunities in Afghanistan, and Coca-Cola has opened a $25 million bottling plant in Kabul."
And the beat goes on...
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10881
Read full post
Dear friends,
The name gives it all away: the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. There can be no genuine “democracy” in a nation that is governed by religion, since religion, as a vertically-structured cultural institution, is based on privilege and intolerance. Hence, the notion of inclusion in decision-making is shunned, if not suppressed.
So, about what is the real point being made, as well as the insistence upon the supporting of “democracy” – whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan, by the military/industrial complex of the United States government? At least to me, it is: those who possess the greatest amount of military puissance (might) dictate the rules. Please remember that the United States of America has only been a “world” power for six decades; that is, since it dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Besides, the essence of “democracy” is non-violent conflict resolution.
Nevertheless, on the link below is a concise, yet informative piece, by the always impressive Stephanie Kraft of the Valley Advocate that reveals continuing growth of the far-reaching tentacles belonging to the aforementioned United States’ military/industrial complex. Meanwhile, after the people of Afghanistan have been explopited, for centuries, by alien marauders, earlier this year (2009), the Embassy of Afghanistan, in Washington, DC boasted, "More than 70 American companies have registered in Afghanistan since 2003, representing $75 million in potential investment, and more than 15 foreign and domestic banks have opened their doors in Afghanistan...Ford, 3M, and Boeing are examining business opportunities in Afghanistan, and Coca-Cola has opened a $25 million bottling plant in Kabul."
And the beat goes on...
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=10881
Read full post
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Elmer Smith Reminds Us of War's Consequence
"At some point, we're going to have to assess this war in human terms, whether they are our children or not. "
ear friends,
On the link below, one of the nation's premier journalists, Elmer Smith of the Philadelphia Daily News, reminds us about the consequences of war.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
ilynews/local/20090904_Elmer_Smith__Funeral_for_a_soldier_from_a_faraway_war.html
Read full post
Friday, March 20, 2009
A response to my comments on President Obama's "State of the Nation" address
He doesn't at all sound like a former community organizer when he talks economics.
Dear friends,
The brief comments below were sent to me, via e-mail, in response to comments that I posted here on this blog on February 24(2009). They are in regards to President Obama's "State of the Nation" address last month (February). The author of the comments is someone who is very special to me, but who does not want to go on record in public, at this time, with criticisms of President Obama. Nevertheless, while he will remain anonymous, he has given me permission to print the missive. It is just too powerful for me not to share it.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
*****************************************
Interesting. I didn't listen to his speech, but it seems like there is no intention of any real discussion of real change. In that respect I think he's most guilty of trying to appease those in power.
He doesn't at all sound like a former community organizer when he talks economics. I'm hoping at least there is some sincerity in his education policy. I knew he was going to be weak against the military when he started talking about Afghanistan. One thing that no one is even going to consider addressing is why has this country so thoroughly entrenched itself in dependence on war. This is the real problem with the way this economy is organized. They have never been without a war and don't appear to be capable of existing without it as the major outlet and control for the economy.
The last couple of Bush years brought this to stark reality. Was it complete stupidity or just incredible incompetence that the US embarked on a war in which we ended up with a trillion dollar deficit while those we were fighting against came out of it with billions in surplus? Is not economics a major military front? Don't they use sanctions and embargoes and other economic weapons as part of a complete military strategy in the modern world? Then how did this come about? I choose to believe that the Bush family are and have for many generations been war profiteers. They certainly didn't lose money. Why couldn't they see to it that this country's people didn't lose and suffer? The whole charade is disgusting.
Read full post
Dear friends,
The brief comments below were sent to me, via e-mail, in response to comments that I posted here on this blog on February 24(2009). They are in regards to President Obama's "State of the Nation" address last month (February). The author of the comments is someone who is very special to me, but who does not want to go on record in public, at this time, with criticisms of President Obama. Nevertheless, while he will remain anonymous, he has given me permission to print the missive. It is just too powerful for me not to share it.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
*****************************************
Interesting. I didn't listen to his speech, but it seems like there is no intention of any real discussion of real change. In that respect I think he's most guilty of trying to appease those in power.
He doesn't at all sound like a former community organizer when he talks economics. I'm hoping at least there is some sincerity in his education policy. I knew he was going to be weak against the military when he started talking about Afghanistan. One thing that no one is even going to consider addressing is why has this country so thoroughly entrenched itself in dependence on war. This is the real problem with the way this economy is organized. They have never been without a war and don't appear to be capable of existing without it as the major outlet and control for the economy.
The last couple of Bush years brought this to stark reality. Was it complete stupidity or just incredible incompetence that the US embarked on a war in which we ended up with a trillion dollar deficit while those we were fighting against came out of it with billions in surplus? Is not economics a major military front? Don't they use sanctions and embargoes and other economic weapons as part of a complete military strategy in the modern world? Then how did this come about? I choose to believe that the Bush family are and have for many generations been war profiteers. They certainly didn't lose money. Why couldn't they see to it that this country's people didn't lose and suffer? The whole charade is disgusting.
Read full post
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
US refuses Israel bomb technology?
Dear friends,
At least to me, it is quite curious that, just in the last day or so, a "former" George Bush aide has revealed that the president will not attack Iran before he leaves office...
That statement comes only a few days after the US government refused to sell certain military technology to Israel. To be sure, during South Africa's apartheid era, the US reneged on its promise to abide by UN sanctions against South Africa, by funneling technology and other assets through Israel. I now wonder: What country will be Israel's conduit for what they need from the US?
Meanwhile, Russia and Iran are developing closer ties. Talk about the economy, if you want. Wait until Mr. Obama is faced with having to defend Israel. Big problems. A new world order is apparently on its way.
Finally, the link below raises more questions than it answers.
At any rate, as the washed up whale insisted: Life's a beach, and then you die.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080911/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusweapons_080911123836
Read full post
At least to me, it is quite curious that, just in the last day or so, a "former" George Bush aide has revealed that the president will not attack Iran before he leaves office...
That statement comes only a few days after the US government refused to sell certain military technology to Israel. To be sure, during South Africa's apartheid era, the US reneged on its promise to abide by UN sanctions against South Africa, by funneling technology and other assets through Israel. I now wonder: What country will be Israel's conduit for what they need from the US?
Meanwhile, Russia and Iran are developing closer ties. Talk about the economy, if you want. Wait until Mr. Obama is faced with having to defend Israel. Big problems. A new world order is apparently on its way.
Finally, the link below raises more questions than it answers.
At any rate, as the washed up whale insisted: Life's a beach, and then you die.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080911/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusweapons_080911123836
Read full post
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Female Vets
Dear friends,
On a serious note, please look at what the war in Iraq is doing to our neighbors, at the same time the Republicans are claiming to be so interested in the future of women in this country...
I am quite proud to say that the thoughtful and compassionate piece on the link below was written by a buddy of mine who is a well-known journalist in Philly, Dave Gambacorta.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080911__nbsp__nbsp__nbsp_FEMALE_VETS_SEEKING_TO_HEAL_LIVES.html?viewAll=y
Read full post
On a serious note, please look at what the war in Iraq is doing to our neighbors, at the same time the Republicans are claiming to be so interested in the future of women in this country...
I am quite proud to say that the thoughtful and compassionate piece on the link below was written by a buddy of mine who is a well-known journalist in Philly, Dave Gambacorta.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080911__nbsp__nbsp__nbsp_FEMALE_VETS_SEEKING_TO_HEAL_LIVES.html?viewAll=y
Read full post
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Was US expecting Russia to attack Georgia?
Dear friends,
In light of the bold move by the US government in signing a missile defense deal with the government of Poland, it appears that, at least to me, the Russians, knowing what the US was going to do with Poland, decided to strengthen its own military might in both the Northern and Eastern European regions. On the other hand, it also seems that, perhaps, the US government, claiming that Russia's recent activity in Georgia, as well as Norway and Estonia, is cause for concern. Is there a lot of grandstanding on both sides? Who wins or loses? Please check out the two links below. THen think about it. Cool? Peace.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08202008/news/worldnews/us_signs_missile_defense_pact_with_polan_125304.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407262,00.html Read full post
In light of the bold move by the US government in signing a missile defense deal with the government of Poland, it appears that, at least to me, the Russians, knowing what the US was going to do with Poland, decided to strengthen its own military might in both the Northern and Eastern European regions. On the other hand, it also seems that, perhaps, the US government, claiming that Russia's recent activity in Georgia, as well as Norway and Estonia, is cause for concern. Is there a lot of grandstanding on both sides? Who wins or loses? Please check out the two links below. THen think about it. Cool? Peace.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08202008/news/worldnews/us_signs_missile_defense_pact_with_polan_125304.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407262,00.html Read full post
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
About what is Senator Obama's plan for leaving Iraq?
Dear friends,
Yesterday (7/14) the New York Times had an Op-ed by Senator Barack Obama where he made his case for the United States military leaving Iraq. First of all, personally, I am still not sure of what the purpose of the US being there is. Have thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, let alone the thousands more crippled on both sides, been used as a means to an end to enhance power and profits for various governments and religious institutions (like the Muslim sects at war there)? How is any war going to benefit either American or Iraqi citizens, much less the rest of the world? And what will the war with Afghanistan - or, if included, Iran - do for everyday people here and abroad? Again, if the people are simply being used as means to ends, then it seems, at least to me, that the ends are greater wealth for a few and more power and prestige for institutions like governmental and religious ones - at the expense of people. Please think about it.
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Yesterday (7/14) the New York Times had an Op-ed by Senator Barack Obama where he made his case for the United States military leaving Iraq. First of all, personally, I am still not sure of what the purpose of the US being there is. Have thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, let alone the thousands more crippled on both sides, been used as a means to an end to enhance power and profits for various governments and religious institutions (like the Muslim sects at war there)? How is any war going to benefit either American or Iraqi citizens, much less the rest of the world? And what will the war with Afghanistan - or, if included, Iran - do for everyday people here and abroad? Again, if the people are simply being used as means to ends, then it seems, at least to me, that the ends are greater wealth for a few and more power and prestige for institutions like governmental and religious ones - at the expense of people. Please think about it.
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Is troop withdrawal from Iraq coming?
Dear friends,
Exactly what does troop withdrawal from Iraq mean? While Senator Obama has insisted that he will begin bringing troops home, as soon as he is elected, more or less, Senator McCain has been equally adamant that, at least, "some" troops need to stay in Iraq for years to come. President Bush's position has been the same as McCain's, basically.
Now we hear from the Iraqi government that they want a "timetable" for withdrawal of all "foreign" troops (which includes the US). The initial response from the Bush administration is that they still do not want to be limited by a timetable. So what is happening here? There are several possibilities it seems.
They are: 1) The Iraqis, in cahoots with the Iranians, have their own idea about what to do with all of the oil there, profit-wise. 2) The Bush people (and their business partners) have been assured their "cut" or share of future oil profits and are now willing to bow out. (However, that would seem to be a "shaky" contract in which to enter for US oil people.) 3) The claim of the troop withdrawal by Iraqi leaders proves that the US, particularly the Bush administration, has been right on target about "staying the course". (Of course, if McCain wins the election, that hypothesis would be exposed as a sham, immediately, if the war intensified again.) 5) By not attacking Saudi Arabia after nineteen Saudis flew planes into the country and blew up two of our largest symbols of being the world's only "Superpower", the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings, and had another jet on its way to blow up the White House, many of the enemies of the United States (which is most of the world), may now be considering the idea of banding together, in order to counteract decades of economic abuse at the hands of US rulers and their allies.
Meanwhile, the government- and corporate-controlled media, along with our politicians, have the people of this country focusing upon "gay marriage", celebrity divorces, the artistic validity of Will Smith's latest movie, and other such important topics.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Exactly what does troop withdrawal from Iraq mean? While Senator Obama has insisted that he will begin bringing troops home, as soon as he is elected, more or less, Senator McCain has been equally adamant that, at least, "some" troops need to stay in Iraq for years to come. President Bush's position has been the same as McCain's, basically.
Now we hear from the Iraqi government that they want a "timetable" for withdrawal of all "foreign" troops (which includes the US). The initial response from the Bush administration is that they still do not want to be limited by a timetable. So what is happening here? There are several possibilities it seems.
They are: 1) The Iraqis, in cahoots with the Iranians, have their own idea about what to do with all of the oil there, profit-wise. 2) The Bush people (and their business partners) have been assured their "cut" or share of future oil profits and are now willing to bow out. (However, that would seem to be a "shaky" contract in which to enter for US oil people.) 3) The claim of the troop withdrawal by Iraqi leaders proves that the US, particularly the Bush administration, has been right on target about "staying the course". (Of course, if McCain wins the election, that hypothesis would be exposed as a sham, immediately, if the war intensified again.) 5) By not attacking Saudi Arabia after nineteen Saudis flew planes into the country and blew up two of our largest symbols of being the world's only "Superpower", the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings, and had another jet on its way to blow up the White House, many of the enemies of the United States (which is most of the world), may now be considering the idea of banding together, in order to counteract decades of economic abuse at the hands of US rulers and their allies.
Meanwhile, the government- and corporate-controlled media, along with our politicians, have the people of this country focusing upon "gay marriage", celebrity divorces, the artistic validity of Will Smith's latest movie, and other such important topics.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
