Saturday 20th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

happy birthday .....

happy birthday .....

Now, on the seventh anniversary of the unconstitutional, immoral, aggressive, unjust, unnecessary, manufactured, manipulated, and senseless war that is the war in Iraq, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan has eclipsed any mention of the ongoing war in Iraq. And this in spite of the fact that there are still 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

When I wrote about the Iraq war on its third anniversary, 2,317 American soldiers had died for a lie. On the fourth anniversary, that number had risen to 3,218. On the fifth, it was up to 3,992. Last year, on the sixth anniversary of the war, the number of dead American soldiers rose to 4,259. Currently, the death toll is at 4,385, with 157 of those deaths since Obama became the new commander in chief.

But, it is said, look how the number of deaths per year has fallen. Agreed. But that is no consolation to the father, mother, wife, or child of the soldiers who died in vain and for a lie yesterday, last week, or last month.

Although combat deaths are decreasing in Iraq (but certainly not in Afghanistan), increasing among returning soldiers are suicides, PTSD, broken families, substance abuse, unemployment, horrible memories, lingering injuries, shattered dreams, acts of violence, and criminal activity. And of course, the war is still costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars a week.

But even if only one American soldier had died since last month, even if only one American soldier had died since the last anniversary of the war, even if only one American soldier had died since Obama took office, and even if only one American had died since the beginning of the war, that would still be one too many.

 

Only the grossly naïve still think that those fighting and dying in Iraq are doing so for our freedoms or to keep us safe from terrorism. The truth is rather that since the war on terrorism began our freedoms have steadily deteriorated and we have created more terrorists.

Before the United States invaded Iraq, not one American had been killed by an Iraqi since the previous time we invaded that country. But no U.S. soldier had to die in either war against Iraq. Bringing "democracy" to Iraq, ridding the country of Saddam Hussein, and destroying Iraq's weapons of war were not worth the life of one American. They were not worth the shedding of one drop of American blood.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance198.html

The Media and Truth - opposite poles.

G'day John,

Great article and how insulting to the very intelligence of the "rag heads" as the Americans call them, to expect them to accept any manufactured "democracy" from a nation which has long ago lost its right to use that word to describe themselves?

IMHO Obama is basically a good man who is trying to make a difference.  However, he still has the Bushit mob to deal with and they are more his enemies than the Middle East nations ever were. Oil or not.

The Main Stream Media are the real bastards in the contemporary dislocation of the international bodies in the world today. This forum has informed me so much more on local and international matters that I believe I can make a considered opinion.

If only that could happen in Australia general.

All the talk of absolute "freedom from regulation" is a blank cheque for the exploitation of the public with false opinions which have no, or little basis in truth.

It doesn't matter whether the "media" is controlled by a dictatorship or a media mogul, the result is the same.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This forum and its administrators has gone to great trouble to give both sides of a story and that sits well with me.  For every argument against Media regulation I can debate an equal and opposite opinion.

Whether we like it or not, civilization demands that advanced societies should respect certain generally applied requirements to maintain the appearance of civilization.  The days of the oppression of the media are long gone to such an extent that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction.

How can we be hoodwinked into believing that electing a government of our nation or state, is based on an independent opinion when all, yes all, of the information fed to us by the Press; TV and Radio which are all controlled by private enterprise?

What about the ABC you say? Note the extreme right focus of Fran Kelly, Barry Cassidy and now even Kerry O'Brien?  Did anyone take umbrige at Fran Kelly's attempted "Sainthood" of Rattus?

When Howard refused to have three debates, the media treated that with consideration.  Now a person who, still withstanding the abuse of the media, should make us sit up and take notice.

Almost all of the Rudd government's policies are targetted at the future of this nation and the Corporation media is implying that that is an indication of "no action government".  Fair dinkum.

IMHO the Howard cultivated ABC is more of a corporation now than ever before.  I remember that he chose the arch Smellygraph reporter Malcolm Farr to officiate at his "debate".  I must confess that Mr. Farr did try to be fair.  Struth.

I believe that the ABC's Chris Ulman is to be moderator.  I consider this just another gift to Abbott since Chris is not revered as a Labor advocate.

Nevertheless, Rudd has, as always tried to be fair and down the straight line.  No Prime Minister in my life time has ever tried to be as honest as this man.  His very fairness has caused the contempt from the Howard "New Order" remnants and his debating style has angered the Murdochracy.

Everything that this Rudd government has done, or tried to do, or is trying to do, is for the benefit of ALL Australians. While his government's intentions are to "close the gap", the many Employer Unions have not only supported his policies of "stimulus" but even modified their employment to assist in the recovery.

Australians believe the Corporation party of Abbott at their peril.  Leopards do not change their spots.

God Bless Australia and protect us from Bushit policies.  NE OUBLIE.

from "honest" john to the dishonest monk...

rattus attack...

Yes Ernest...

"Australians believe the Corporation party of Abbott at their peril.  Leopards do not change their spots."

remember when Rudd had a dinner were Burke was present?:

rattus attack...

 

Meanwhile one has to remember that Abbott was in favour of the federal government taking over the states' role in hospital funding... and warned states and territories they will face a public backlash if they oppose the changes.... How things change... But I would suggest that his little plan was to load hospital "local boards" with liberal leaning mates and those boards who did not fall into line would have been dealt with... The Gestapo did similar things. Remember too when Abbott reneged on "promises" he made in the 2004 election in regard to medicare despite saying the promises were rock solid?...

This publicity-seeking budgie-smuggler is like a hypocritical two-faced weasel.

Who gave the media the right to elect?

As bad as Mark Latham was painted and haunted by the media, he made at least one monumental statement that still resonates with me.  He said of Howard..."How does he get away with it?"

Whatever happened in the recent State elections cannot be excused on bad government as the conservative media would have us believe.

The Rann government of South Australia has a superb record on employment and a progressive economy which should have been appreciated by the people of that State but...out of the blue comes a woman who claims that "when mike Rann was in opposition and not married he had an affair with her - a married woman". And to add to the grubby drama, the "Husband" beats up the Premier.  Fair dinkum.

Shades of a marvelous Golfer who is no longer a marvellous Golfer because he was unfaithful to his wife.

Who wrote those rules?  Any woman who betrays her husband is a victim and conversely the male is cheating.  Fair dinkum?  I always thought that a woman can pretend in bed but a man cannot?  Some of the media does not dare to blame the female because that would be blasted by all other forms of media as discriminatory.  Struth.

So back to Mike Rann.  Why would a media, whose "Oath" is to inform the public, choose an unfaithful wife and her accusations as sacrosanct about the "dirty deed" which was allegedly done when the male culprit was in no position to have cheated either on his Wife (who didn't exist) or his Political duty which also had no obligations?  Remember Mark Latham' ex-wife?  Hell hath no fury.

In Australia, the Howard "new order" allowed and indeed encouraged the concentration of media power and by so doing he gave an enormous edge to the ultra conservatives. To even try to force honesty in our mainly one and a half proprietors is only achievable by enforcing regulations which will stop the use of false providers of unsubstantiated stories from Journalists who really have no freedom themselves.

Howard and Downer laid the groundwork when they, as the Australian Government, sued two Journalists from the Herald Sun for not revealing their source of information which "Rattus" didn't like.

So much for freedom of the press.  We really should do something about it instead of continually complaining.

God Bless Australia and rationalize discrimination.  NE OUBLIE.