Earlier this month, CIA-operated drones killed as many as 55 people in Yemen in several separate strikes. Although it was claimed that those killed were “militants,” according to press reports at least three civilians were killed and at least five others wounded. That makes at least 92 US drone attacks against Yemen during the Obama administration, which have killed nearly 1,000 people including many civilians.
The latest strikes seem to contradict President Obama’s revised guidelines for targeted killings, which he announced last May. At the time he claimed that drones would only be used against those who posed a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people,” that there must be a “near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured,” and that safeguards to prevent civilian casualties were at “the highest standard we can set.”
None of these criteria seem to have been met. In fact, the threshold in Yemen is considerably lower than the president claims. In 2012 President Obama approved “signature strikes” in Yemen, a criteria for attack that is not based on actual or suspected wrongdoing, but rather on a vague set of behaviors that are said to be shared by militants.
This means that the individuals killed in the most recent drone attacks were not necessarily terrorists or even terrorist suspects. They were not proven to have committed any crime, nor were they proven to have been members of al-Qaeda or any terrorist organization. Yet they were nevertheless targeted for attack, and the sovereignty of Yemen was violated in the process.
Some may claim that we need to kill suspected terrorists overseas so that we can be safer at home. But do the drone attacks in places like Yemen really make us safer? Or are they actually counter-productive? One thing we do know is that one of the strongest recruiting tools for al-Qaeda is the US being over there using drones against people or occupying Muslim countries.
How can we get rid of all the people who may seek to do us harm if our drone and occupation policies continually create even more al-Qaeda members? Are we not just creating an endless supply of tomorrow’s terrorists with our foolish policies today? What example does it set for the rest of the world if the US acts as if it has the right to kill anyone, anywhere, based simply on that individual’s behavior?
We should keep all of this in mind when the US administration lectures world leaders about how they should act in the 21st century. Recently, the US administration admonished Russian president Vladimir Putin for his supposed interference in the affairs of Ukraine, saying that violating the sovereignty of another country is not the 21st century way of conducting international relations. I agree that sovereignty must be respected. But what about the US doing the same thing in places like Yemen? What about the hundreds and even thousands killed by US drones not because they were found guilty of a crime, but because they were exhibiting “behaviors” that led a CIA drone operator safely hidden in New Mexico or somewhere to pull the trigger and end their lives?
What about a president who regularly meets in secret with his advisors to determine who is to be placed on a “kill list” and who refuses to even discuss the criteria for placement on that list? Is this considered acceptable 21st century behavior?
The Obama Administration needs to rein in the CIA and its drone attacks overseas. They make a mockery of American values and they may well make us less safe.
Monday
NEVADA STANDOFF A SYMPTOM OF INCREASING AUTHORITARIANISM by RON PAUL
The nation’s attention has for the past few weeks been riveted by a standoff in Nevada between armed federal agents and the Bundys, a ranching family who believe the federal government is exceeding its authority by accessing “fees” against ranchers who graze cattle on government lands. Outrage over the government's use of armed agents to forcibly remove the Bundys’ cattle led many Americans to travel to Nevada to engage in non-violent civil disobedience in support of the family.
The protests seem to have worked, at least for now, as the government appears to have backed off from direct confrontation. Sadly, some elected officials have inflamed the situation by labeling the Bundys and their supporters “domestic terrorists,” thus justifying any future use of force by the government. That means there is always the possibility of another deadly Waco-style raid on the Bundys or a similar group in the future.
In a state like Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, these types of conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of land means that land is in theory owned by everyone, but in practice owned by no one. Thus, those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it for the long term. As a result, land-use rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats. Oftentimes, the so-called “public” land is used in ways that benefit politically-powerful special interests.
Politicians and bureaucrats can, and will, arbitrarily change the rules governing the land. In the 19th currently, some Americans moved to Nevada because the government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be able to use the federally-owned land. The Nevada ranchers believed they had an implied contract with the government allowing them to use the land for grazing. When government bureaucrats decided they needed to restrict grazing to protect the desert tortoise, they used force to drive most ranchers away.
By contrast, if the Nevada land in question was privately owned, the dispute over whether to allow the ranchers to continue to use the land would have likely been resolved without sending in federal armed agents to remove the Bundys’ cattle from the land. This is one more reason why the federal government should rid itself of all federal land holdings. Selling federal lands would also help reduce the federal deficit.
It is unlikely that Congress will divest the federal government’s land holdings, as most in government are more interested in increasing government power then in protecting and restoring private property rights.
A government that continually violates our rights of property and contract can fairly be descried as authoritarian. Of course, the politicians and bureaucrats take offense at this term, but how else do you describe a government that forbids Americans from grazing cattle on land they have used for over a century, from buying health insurance that does not met Obamacare’s standards, from trading with Cuba, or even from drinking raw milk! That so many in DC support the NSA spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many in government have for our rights.
History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare state -- and that of course would be good. This is why it so important that those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution.
The protests seem to have worked, at least for now, as the government appears to have backed off from direct confrontation. Sadly, some elected officials have inflamed the situation by labeling the Bundys and their supporters “domestic terrorists,” thus justifying any future use of force by the government. That means there is always the possibility of another deadly Waco-style raid on the Bundys or a similar group in the future.
In a state like Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, these types of conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of land means that land is in theory owned by everyone, but in practice owned by no one. Thus, those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it for the long term. As a result, land-use rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats. Oftentimes, the so-called “public” land is used in ways that benefit politically-powerful special interests.
Politicians and bureaucrats can, and will, arbitrarily change the rules governing the land. In the 19th currently, some Americans moved to Nevada because the government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be able to use the federally-owned land. The Nevada ranchers believed they had an implied contract with the government allowing them to use the land for grazing. When government bureaucrats decided they needed to restrict grazing to protect the desert tortoise, they used force to drive most ranchers away.
By contrast, if the Nevada land in question was privately owned, the dispute over whether to allow the ranchers to continue to use the land would have likely been resolved without sending in federal armed agents to remove the Bundys’ cattle from the land. This is one more reason why the federal government should rid itself of all federal land holdings. Selling federal lands would also help reduce the federal deficit.
It is unlikely that Congress will divest the federal government’s land holdings, as most in government are more interested in increasing government power then in protecting and restoring private property rights.
A government that continually violates our rights of property and contract can fairly be descried as authoritarian. Of course, the politicians and bureaucrats take offense at this term, but how else do you describe a government that forbids Americans from grazing cattle on land they have used for over a century, from buying health insurance that does not met Obamacare’s standards, from trading with Cuba, or even from drinking raw milk! That so many in DC support the NSA spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many in government have for our rights.
History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare state -- and that of course would be good. This is why it so important that those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution.
Saturday
RON PAUL SAYS TO FOX NEWS
Although federal agents left the Nevada ranch standoff over Cliven Bundy’s land this past weekend, former Rep. Ron Paul is one of several officials predicting that the situation is likely far from over, warning that government agents ultimately returned to end the 1993 Waco standoff with deadly force.
Speaking on to Fox News Monday, leading libertarian advocate of minimal government, Paul said that he is glad the Bureau of Land Management stood down from the cattle showdown with rancher Cliven Bundy – but continued land battles are on the horizon.
“I’m hoping this is a very positive of things to come, where the people stand up and object to the federal government’s intrusion into our lives and everything that we do,” Paul told Fox News. “And when the people do get together and stand up, if think the governments will be forced to back down. But the other thing is governments don’t give up their power easily and they may well come back with a lot more force, like they did at Waco with the Davidians.”
The Waco siege of 1993 occurred when the Branch Davidian religious group was suspected of weapons violations and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) made a failed attempt to raid the group’s compound, resulting in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians.
The ensuing siege of the compound occurred after a 51-day standoff when FBI agents launched a tear gas attack that ultimately ignited a fire that engulfed the Mount Carmel Center and killed 76 men, women and children, including Davidian leader David Koresh.
But Paul predicts that financial situation for many Americans will continue to decline, and that property battles between private citizens and public ownership will be the continued cause of problems – especially in the western U.S.
“In this case, it’s who should own the land. In Texas, we went into the Union and were privately owned and all the resources were privately developed and this wouldn’t happen because there’s no ‘public ownership,’” Paul told Fox News. “And yet, when they own most of these states in the West, everybody owns it, and nobody owns it. You’re bound to have problems prop up. But they have dual ownership of that land because they had been using it.”
Paul reiterated his small government approach that has won him a wide swath of libertarian and conservative supporters throughout his career.
“I think land should be in the states and the states should sell it to the people. It’s worked out quite well in big states as well as all our Eastern states,” said Paul. “But this whole idea is going to lead to more trouble: the politicians get involved, the management people get involved, the special interest, the environmentalists, the gold-mining people, the oil people and the ranchers.”
“No you need the government out of it, and I think that’s the important point. If you don’t look at that you can expect more of these problems, especially when our economy gets into more trouble, and then there’s going to be these arguments.”
“The enemy is really some bad ideas and bad politics that we have to change.”
Paul said that although the battles between government officials and private citizens will not let up, he was supportive of the government’s non-violent stand-down this weekend.
“So I don’t know which way it’s going, but so far so good. I was delighted that they got through those couple days and there wasn’t any shooting or killing. I really encourage the demonstration against unfairness by our government, but I’d like to see it all nonviolent and that weekend so far turned out to be a good step.”
Speaking on to Fox News Monday, leading libertarian advocate of minimal government, Paul said that he is glad the Bureau of Land Management stood down from the cattle showdown with rancher Cliven Bundy – but continued land battles are on the horizon.
“I’m hoping this is a very positive of things to come, where the people stand up and object to the federal government’s intrusion into our lives and everything that we do,” Paul told Fox News. “And when the people do get together and stand up, if think the governments will be forced to back down. But the other thing is governments don’t give up their power easily and they may well come back with a lot more force, like they did at Waco with the Davidians.”
The Waco siege of 1993 occurred when the Branch Davidian religious group was suspected of weapons violations and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) made a failed attempt to raid the group’s compound, resulting in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians.
The ensuing siege of the compound occurred after a 51-day standoff when FBI agents launched a tear gas attack that ultimately ignited a fire that engulfed the Mount Carmel Center and killed 76 men, women and children, including Davidian leader David Koresh.
But Paul predicts that financial situation for many Americans will continue to decline, and that property battles between private citizens and public ownership will be the continued cause of problems – especially in the western U.S.
“In this case, it’s who should own the land. In Texas, we went into the Union and were privately owned and all the resources were privately developed and this wouldn’t happen because there’s no ‘public ownership,’” Paul told Fox News. “And yet, when they own most of these states in the West, everybody owns it, and nobody owns it. You’re bound to have problems prop up. But they have dual ownership of that land because they had been using it.”
Paul reiterated his small government approach that has won him a wide swath of libertarian and conservative supporters throughout his career.
“I think land should be in the states and the states should sell it to the people. It’s worked out quite well in big states as well as all our Eastern states,” said Paul. “But this whole idea is going to lead to more trouble: the politicians get involved, the management people get involved, the special interest, the environmentalists, the gold-mining people, the oil people and the ranchers.”
“No you need the government out of it, and I think that’s the important point. If you don’t look at that you can expect more of these problems, especially when our economy gets into more trouble, and then there’s going to be these arguments.”
“The enemy is really some bad ideas and bad politics that we have to change.”
Paul said that although the battles between government officials and private citizens will not let up, he was supportive of the government’s non-violent stand-down this weekend.
“So I don’t know which way it’s going, but so far so good. I was delighted that they got through those couple days and there wasn’t any shooting or killing. I really encourage the demonstration against unfairness by our government, but I’d like to see it all nonviolent and that weekend so far turned out to be a good step.”
Friday
ANOTHER PHONY BUDGET DEBATE by RON PAUL
Anyone watching last week’s debate over the Republican budget resolution would have experienced déjà vu, as the debate bore a depressing similarity to those of previous years. Once again, the Republicans claimed their budget would cut spending in a responsible manner, while Democratic opponents claimed the plan’s spending cuts would shred the safety net and leave vital programs unfunded. Of course, neither claim is true.
The budget does not cut spending at all, and in fact actually increases spending by $1.5 trillion over ten years. The Republicans are using the old DC trick of spending less than originally planned and calling that reduced spending increase a $5.1 trillion cut in spending. Only in DC could a budget that increases spending by 3.5 percent per year instead of by 5.2 percent per year be attacked as a “slash-and-burn” plan.
The budget also relies on "dynamic scoring.” This trick is where the budget numbers account for increased government revenue generated by economic growth the budget will supposedly unleash. The claims are dubious at best. Of course, reducing government spending will lead to economic growth. But real growth requires real cuts, not this budget’s phony cuts.
As important as reducing spending and balancing the budget is, focusing solely on budget numbers ignores the root of the problem. The real problem is that too many in Washington — and the nation as a whole — refuse to consider any serious reductions in the welfare-warfare state.
I have always maintained that the logical place to start reducing spending is the trillions wasted on our interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, there are still too many in Congress who claim to be fiscal hawks when it comes to welfare spending, but turn into Keynesian “doves” when it comes to spending on the military-industrial complex.
These members cling to the mistaken belief that the government can balance it budget, keep taxes low, and even have a growing economy, while spending trillions of dollars policing the world, and propping up some governments and changing others overtly or covertly. Thus, President Obama is attacked as soft on defense because he only wants to spend $5.9 trillion over ten years on the military. In contrast, the Republican budget spends $6.2 trillion over the next decade. That is almost a trillion more than the budget’s total so-called spending cuts.
If there are too many fiscal conservatives who refuse to abandon the warfare state, there are too many liberals who act as if any reduction in welfare or entitlement spending leaves children starving. I agree it is unrealistic to simply end programs that people are currently dependent on. However, isn’t it inhumane to not take steps to unwind the welfare system before government overspending causes a bigger financial crisis and drags millions more into poverty?
Far from abandoning those in need of help, returning the responsibility for caring for the needy to private charities, churches, and local communities will improve the welfare system. At the very least, young people should have the freedom to choose to pay a lower tax rate in exchange for promising to never participate in a government welfare or entitlement program.
Last week’s budget debate showed how little difference there lies between the parties when it comes to preserving the warfare-welfare state. One side may prefer more warfare while the other prefers more welfare, but neither side actually wants to significantly reduce the size and scope of government. Until Congress stops trying to run the world, run the economy, and run our lives, there will never be a real debate about cutting spending and limiting government.
The budget does not cut spending at all, and in fact actually increases spending by $1.5 trillion over ten years. The Republicans are using the old DC trick of spending less than originally planned and calling that reduced spending increase a $5.1 trillion cut in spending. Only in DC could a budget that increases spending by 3.5 percent per year instead of by 5.2 percent per year be attacked as a “slash-and-burn” plan.
The budget also relies on "dynamic scoring.” This trick is where the budget numbers account for increased government revenue generated by economic growth the budget will supposedly unleash. The claims are dubious at best. Of course, reducing government spending will lead to economic growth. But real growth requires real cuts, not this budget’s phony cuts.
As important as reducing spending and balancing the budget is, focusing solely on budget numbers ignores the root of the problem. The real problem is that too many in Washington — and the nation as a whole — refuse to consider any serious reductions in the welfare-warfare state.
I have always maintained that the logical place to start reducing spending is the trillions wasted on our interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, there are still too many in Congress who claim to be fiscal hawks when it comes to welfare spending, but turn into Keynesian “doves” when it comes to spending on the military-industrial complex.
These members cling to the mistaken belief that the government can balance it budget, keep taxes low, and even have a growing economy, while spending trillions of dollars policing the world, and propping up some governments and changing others overtly or covertly. Thus, President Obama is attacked as soft on defense because he only wants to spend $5.9 trillion over ten years on the military. In contrast, the Republican budget spends $6.2 trillion over the next decade. That is almost a trillion more than the budget’s total so-called spending cuts.
If there are too many fiscal conservatives who refuse to abandon the warfare state, there are too many liberals who act as if any reduction in welfare or entitlement spending leaves children starving. I agree it is unrealistic to simply end programs that people are currently dependent on. However, isn’t it inhumane to not take steps to unwind the welfare system before government overspending causes a bigger financial crisis and drags millions more into poverty?
Far from abandoning those in need of help, returning the responsibility for caring for the needy to private charities, churches, and local communities will improve the welfare system. At the very least, young people should have the freedom to choose to pay a lower tax rate in exchange for promising to never participate in a government welfare or entitlement program.
Last week’s budget debate showed how little difference there lies between the parties when it comes to preserving the warfare-welfare state. One side may prefer more warfare while the other prefers more welfare, but neither side actually wants to significantly reduce the size and scope of government. Until Congress stops trying to run the world, run the economy, and run our lives, there will never be a real debate about cutting spending and limiting government.
Thursday
WHAT I THINK.........DANIEL McADAMS
To Ron Paul, the raw milk issue is a matter of personal freedom, and he is very pleased that Rep. Thomas Massie has introduced two bills – one quite sweeping and the other more incremental — that would make it easier for individuals to make their own decisions about what kinds of food they would prefer to consume.
As Dr. Paul points out in this free commentary from the Ron Paul Channel, he was at first surprised that the liberals who had supported him on cannabis decriminalization did not support him on raw milk. They thought the government needed to control that particular “dangerous substance.” But eventually, he explains, they started coming to his position that one must have the total freedom to choose what to put in one’s body. Now there is a broader coalition supporting the right of individuals to consume unpasteurized milk if they wish.
Dr. Paul also discusses the disturbing shift in how the Constitution’s commerce clause is misinterpreted. Initially, says Dr. Paul, the commerce clause was designed to help facilitate trade between the states. But unfortunately these days it is more often used to restrict the choices of individuals to purchase goods from another state, whether they be pharmaceuticals or raw milk.
Raw milk may hold some great health benefits, says Dr. Paul. And he also questions the government’s role in pushing genetically-modified organisms, which he believes may do great harm to health. Likewise, the problems with excessive sugar and high fructose corn syrup in foods is directly related to the “busybodies in Washington” who seek to protect us but end up endangering our health with their ill-informed meddling.
The Ron Paul Channel is tackling issues you will see nowhere else in the US media. Once again enjoy Ron Paul’s courageous and insightful commentary here at the link.
As Dr. Paul points out in this free commentary from the Ron Paul Channel, he was at first surprised that the liberals who had supported him on cannabis decriminalization did not support him on raw milk. They thought the government needed to control that particular “dangerous substance.” But eventually, he explains, they started coming to his position that one must have the total freedom to choose what to put in one’s body. Now there is a broader coalition supporting the right of individuals to consume unpasteurized milk if they wish.
Dr. Paul also discusses the disturbing shift in how the Constitution’s commerce clause is misinterpreted. Initially, says Dr. Paul, the commerce clause was designed to help facilitate trade between the states. But unfortunately these days it is more often used to restrict the choices of individuals to purchase goods from another state, whether they be pharmaceuticals or raw milk.
Raw milk may hold some great health benefits, says Dr. Paul. And he also questions the government’s role in pushing genetically-modified organisms, which he believes may do great harm to health. Likewise, the problems with excessive sugar and high fructose corn syrup in foods is directly related to the “busybodies in Washington” who seek to protect us but end up endangering our health with their ill-informed meddling.
The Ron Paul Channel is tackling issues you will see nowhere else in the US media. Once again enjoy Ron Paul’s courageous and insightful commentary here at the link.
Monday
FT. HOOD: AN AVOIDABLE TRAGEDY by RON PAUL
Last week we saw yet another tragedy at Ft. Hood, Texas, as a distraught Iraq war veteran killed three of his fellow soldiers before killing himself. It is nearly five years after the last Ft. Hood shooting, where 13 people were killed. These tragedies are heartbreaking and we certainly feel much sympathy for the families of the victims.
While there is much focus on the mental illness that appears to have driven many of these men to murder, what is left unsaid is the cause of the tragedy. Government officials and the media only talk about the symptoms that lead to these tragic events. They will tell us that there are people who get post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and kill themselves and others. They will all call for more government intervention into the lives of those in the military to root out and “treat” mental illness.
But they will never question the two causes of these tragedies: the disastrous decade-long US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have destroyed the minds of so many service members, and the government psychiatrists who prescribe extremely dangerous psychotropic drugs to treat these damaged soldiers.
On the drugs, it is true that in almost every story we read about these kinds of mass killings, whether on a military base or in a school, the kids or veterans have been treated with these dangerous drugs. When will the medical profession wake up and realize that these drugs are often worse than the illness they are designed to treat?
We need to understand that the problem of veterans returning home with serious mental illness is increasing at an alarming rate. We are not talking about a few thousand people returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are talking about a hundred thousand people. And according to government statistics, about 20 percent of returning vets will suffer from PTSD, and a further 20 percent will suffer from traumatic brain injuries.
The numbers are significant and they are frightening. While some will ignore these statistics and point out that these wars are producing far less deaths than previous ones, the fact is these brain injuries and disorders are a living death for the victims. And increasingly, those living in such horrific circumstances, full of deadly drugs that are supposed to treat the problem but only make matters worse, are striking out against those in their communities or committing suicide.
But what of the other main cause of these tragedies? What no media or government representative will admit is that US military members are suffering horrible mental illnesses because they have been sent over and over again into senseless wars overseas. That is the real cause of this crisis. The real horror comes when these soldiers return to the US to realize that the wars have not been won and all of the suffering and dying on both sides has been in vain. Just think of how many individuals over the last 15 years would not have suffered death or injury — or post-traumatic stress disorders or brain injuries — if we didn't go to war unnecessarily!
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be winding down, but the war against our veterans continues. Why are the people who are really guilty, those who lied us into war, not being called to task?
Unfortunately, the truth is that these same people who lied us into war in Iraq are still getting us involved unnecessarily overseas, in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Ukraine. The problem, the interventionism that creates these deeply troubled service members, continues to thrive, unpunished. And even worse: these people continue to plan our future disasters even though they will not suffer the fate of those they send to be broken on foreign battlefields.
We must end the aggressive wars that break our military, and end the dangerous drugs that turn deeply-troubled victims into killers. Let’s have no more Ft. Hoods!
While there is much focus on the mental illness that appears to have driven many of these men to murder, what is left unsaid is the cause of the tragedy. Government officials and the media only talk about the symptoms that lead to these tragic events. They will tell us that there are people who get post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and kill themselves and others. They will all call for more government intervention into the lives of those in the military to root out and “treat” mental illness.
But they will never question the two causes of these tragedies: the disastrous decade-long US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have destroyed the minds of so many service members, and the government psychiatrists who prescribe extremely dangerous psychotropic drugs to treat these damaged soldiers.
On the drugs, it is true that in almost every story we read about these kinds of mass killings, whether on a military base or in a school, the kids or veterans have been treated with these dangerous drugs. When will the medical profession wake up and realize that these drugs are often worse than the illness they are designed to treat?
We need to understand that the problem of veterans returning home with serious mental illness is increasing at an alarming rate. We are not talking about a few thousand people returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are talking about a hundred thousand people. And according to government statistics, about 20 percent of returning vets will suffer from PTSD, and a further 20 percent will suffer from traumatic brain injuries.
The numbers are significant and they are frightening. While some will ignore these statistics and point out that these wars are producing far less deaths than previous ones, the fact is these brain injuries and disorders are a living death for the victims. And increasingly, those living in such horrific circumstances, full of deadly drugs that are supposed to treat the problem but only make matters worse, are striking out against those in their communities or committing suicide.
But what of the other main cause of these tragedies? What no media or government representative will admit is that US military members are suffering horrible mental illnesses because they have been sent over and over again into senseless wars overseas. That is the real cause of this crisis. The real horror comes when these soldiers return to the US to realize that the wars have not been won and all of the suffering and dying on both sides has been in vain. Just think of how many individuals over the last 15 years would not have suffered death or injury — or post-traumatic stress disorders or brain injuries — if we didn't go to war unnecessarily!
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be winding down, but the war against our veterans continues. Why are the people who are really guilty, those who lied us into war, not being called to task?
Unfortunately, the truth is that these same people who lied us into war in Iraq are still getting us involved unnecessarily overseas, in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Ukraine. The problem, the interventionism that creates these deeply troubled service members, continues to thrive, unpunished. And even worse: these people continue to plan our future disasters even though they will not suffer the fate of those they send to be broken on foreign battlefields.
We must end the aggressive wars that break our military, and end the dangerous drugs that turn deeply-troubled victims into killers. Let’s have no more Ft. Hoods!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
