Skip to main content

Yeah, we used napalm in Vietnam. But that was different!

Double standards at play....as Senator McCain, apart from ignoring his constituents calling for no attack on Syria, somehow (!) seeks to explain that the US employing napalm in the Vietnam was different to what the Assad regime did (assuming it was them and not the so-called "rebel" fighters) in using chemical weapons a few weeks back.

"Here's the infuriating spectacle of John 'Never-Met-A-War-I-Didn't-Like' McCain at town meetings in Arizona, ostensibly set up for the quintessentially democratic purpose of letting him hear what the people who elected him to his job want him to do, except when those people really don't want to go to war with Syria, at which discomforting impasse he pointedly fails to hear what they are saying and pointlessly argues that "Assad is a merciless butcher," even though they haven't argued otherwise and are making entirely valid cogent points about why that is not the issue. The most rage-inducing moment is a tough call: When his eyebrows lift in supremely patronizing dismissal of a woman's fervent call for diplomacy? When a Vietnam veteran notes that the U.S. has likewise used chemical weapons - ie: napalm - and McCain responds, “Napalm is a terrible weapon (and) wars are terrible, but...you had an enemy, and war is hell (and) if you killed that enemy, you probably prevented that enemy from killing one of (our) people (and) that’s what I think is a bit of a difference here,” because apparently he never saw or even saw pictures of those napalmed children running screaming down the road? Or just the disheartening entire exhibition that is his hollow version of democracy in action? Appalling, all of it."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more