surely the troop surge considered by the President can only make small marginal difference -

the previous surge allowed Anbar to flame up more, and Baghdad was still pretty violent.

our troops have done what they could ... everyone of our land-based military should go to a safe friendly place - US is a good choice -

the mercs can stay if they want, but the US govt needs to quit contracting with private folks heavily armed and re-establish the military as the sole perpetrator of violence on behalf of our nation - and let others buy their security as they choose, but not the US military, and mercs only on their dime, not the US citizen

if the 3 interest groups in Iraq (Sunni, Kurd, Shiite) wanted to bind together, share resources in some mutually beneficial way, they surely would have by now - they voted overwhelmingly for interest-group reps, rejecting the nationalist slate - and have steadily fallen into a chaotic civil war -

our troops were given a constantly shifting direction, and deserve our thanks and support. But their presence now impedes progress more than we help - we should be prepared to have US collaborators (and nasty infiltrators) petition to come to US as we pull out - which we have to do sooner or later -

a surge is a cover to say, we tried, put more into it .... and then wait it out until a different president takes the job - maybe one who will get us out, rather than Mr McCain and similarly viewed folks

What do the next 20 years of the current or a similar foreign policy hold for the nation? Limited material and human resources will force choices: increased immigration?(legal and not),reduced living standards?(wage levels); underfunded education, medical care, air and water quality?, a withering of democracy at all levels of American life?
Current foreign policy in tandem with an aggressive collusion between DC, Wall Street and the military industrial complex is leading us in directions we'd not freely choose.
A poorly educated, increasingly economically vulnerable population gives more leverage to those behind the curtain. A better educated, economically secure population does not serve their ends well.

I don't get it. Even a person like yourself who is not a outright administration stooge uses the Orwellian word "surge" to say "increase troops."

What's with you people? You are writers. You are smart. Words have meaning. Yet you mindlessly adopt the Orwellian construction of the week. Surge. Puh-leeeze.

More Troops Buys Silence of the Lambs...?

Remember the Beatles song: Money Can't Buy Me Love!

We wouldn't have to have more troops if we were more pragmatic about our approach in terms of dealing with other nations. Because of the Bush policies, we have lost the world's love.

Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but there were more people and nations in the world who loved the U.S.A. during the Clinton years, than there are now.

America needs to 'get some luv' from the rest of the world, and in order to do that we need to change our policies and if possible, make sure that Bush and the killer-cons will never rise to the echelons of power again!

Remember Hootie and the Blowfish? Currently we have Bush and the Killer-Cons, both groups have a bad 'record', pun intended!

HIGH SCHOOL DROP OUT TO SERVE. WHY NOT THEY ARE JUST RUNNING THE STREETS. DOING NOTHING, BUT FILLING OUR JAILS. LETS MAKE MEN OUT OF THEM. THEY DID IN NAM. WHY NOT NOW?

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

http://www.associatedcontent.com/pop_print.shtml?content_type=article&content_type_id=97467

Secret Societies: They Are Not Just at Yale - They Are Running a University Near You

Associated Content | December 21, 2006
Artevia Wilborn

The world over has heard of Skull and Bones of Yale University. This elite secret society holds within its membership at least four U.S. Presidents. George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are both members of Skull and Bones. This made the 2004 presidential election the first known election where two secret society members ran against each other. However, names like the Order of the Bull's Blood, Mystical Seven Society, The Order of Gimghoul , Burning Spear, and Machine are less familiar. Make no mistake these too are powerful societies. The clear pronounceable difference between these organizations and Skull and Bones is that these secret societies were founded and continue to wield power at universities where ivy does not grow.
At the University of Virginia the number 7 mysteriously pops up on campus buildings and other campus fixtures and checks in the amount of 1,777 or 7,777 are sent to the university. For nearly 100 years candidates picked by the most secretive society have virtually always won the University of Alabama's student government elections. How is it that a group that claims only 13 years of existence on Florida State University's 156-year-old campus became the natural choice to sponsor FSU Homecoming? On the campus of Baylor University the school fountains turn pink, announcements declare Homecoming canceled, and figures are seen parading around campus adorning wigs and fake noses.

If the average college freshman is expecting to step on a campus where he or she leaves behind the stereotypical high school cliques then most will be given a false sense of freedom. Most college students are unknowingly under the yoke of the definite yet predominantly silent hold university secret societies possess on what is popularly called college life.

There are many aspects of college life. One could argue that there are so many diverse parts of campus life that it would be impossible for secret societies to control all of them. The mistake is thinking that these societies need to physically control all of these parts. In all fairness there are some aspects of college life these societies wouldn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole. But what societies like Spades aim to do is build an ever growing web of influence; and like a bunch of spiders they position themselves in key places on their web so that their slightest touch affects the entire college web. So what parts of the college web do these secret societies position themselves upon and how does this affect college life? The physical landscapes and traditions of the school, student government and student leadership, and social events are where these societies seem to assert their control.

Secret societies put university politics into play like a well-oiled machine. In fact, it is well documented that Machine, University of Alabama's secret society, has used all manner of illegal tricks and threats to both win university elections and discourage opponents from running against them. One year on their order groups of students boycotted a popular pizzeria to the point of running it out of business. Why? Well the son of the pizzeria owners ran against a Machine student government candidate. No one knows the exact membership, their leadership is especially secretive, but Machine's representatives inform potential election candidates what student positions Machine will allow them to pursue. Burning Spear is comprised of the most elite of the student senate and student government association, incidentally most currently belong to Insight Party, the FSU political party that has been sweeping university elections, under one name or another, for several years.

The reason these societies fight so earnestly to control the political makeup of their universities is simple, the pursuit of ever more power. What is most alarming is that many universities pay student government officers, thus compensating these secret society members for exerting their control in everyday student life. They control student organizations' budgets and place students on the student judicial board. They write legislation that affects the student body and hold representatives in every college or school on their university's campus. They allocate funds for student festivities and events and safeguard the interests of groups like fraternities and sororities, of which many secret society members also hold membership.

Just how these societies impact the physical landscapes and traditions of school are probably the easiest thing to observe about them. For instance, The Seven Society writes 7s on school property at the University of Virginia. Members of Burning Spear begin the beating of a large drum in the FSU's Student Union when the university plays a rival like UM or UF. The Noze has painted school bridges pink , dyed the water in school fountains pink, and made false announcements declaring Homecoming canceled. Michigamu, unlike any other group on campus, is given a free office space on campus.

Some may see these acts as mysterious or cool, foolish or petty vandalism, or simply harmless but they have been mistakenly viewed as part of these Universities' distinctions and traditions. These organizations are physically making a clear statement: This university and everything you think is yours belongs to us. They are given the power to take up space and "decorate" the university as they see fit without question, without revealing their motives or membership, and without campus reprisal and without being subjected to following standard university rules .

Homecoming, and Alumni Weekend, and concerts oh my. Oh these are just a few of the events these society members host. Oh how they like the limelight (so long as you don't focus too much attention on their membership in said societies) and being the life of the party. A university's time honored events and most awaited social spotlights are under the command of these organizations. After only 13 years of proclaimed existence Burning Spear unquestionably is given the honor of sponsoring FSU's homecoming. Florida Blue Key also sponsors colossal events such as University of Florida's Homecoming and Gator Growl. Students who secretly hold membership in these groups get to represent themselves as everyday students while they gain and build professional, social, and alumni connections. What is ironic is that the university funds the parties these societies sponsor under the guise of school spirit. It is however, the sprit of their own society and influence over these events that they are most interested in maintaining.

With the power of government, influence over tradition, and determination to plan the goings on at your local university know that elite secret societies participate in all these activities with only one goal - their ever advancing power. The aforementioned colleges and universities don't immediately endear visions of prestige that one thinks of when Harvard or Yale is mentioned. However, like the members of Skull and Bones these secret societies members on public university campuses go on to powerful positions in local, state, and federal government, they become successful business men, and continue the ever connecting web of power.

Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy, puts the best case of why these societies succeed. Phillips states, "People have wondered why these secret societies have been hotbeds of future success. Rather than competing with fraternities and student organizations, these 'secret societies' augment or leverage other organizations. What makes them unique and singularly successful is that they stress goal-oriented vision among a limited and distinguished group. Often they assist each other, secretly, in gaining prominent campus positions as practice for what they want to do in the real world. As opposed to larger organizations they maintain the strength of their ties post graduation."

American troops need to be pulled out of the cities and limited to guarding oil facilities--the REAL reason why we are in Iraq. Let the three big tribes--Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites fight it out until they have the sense to cut a deal with each other--which they will do on their terms anyway, not ours. Why let bomb planters fill up the Veterans Administration hospitals yet again? All now know that Saddam DID NOT have WMD that threatened the US and WAS NOT part of 911 so what now? The Iraqi president has said he doesn't even want the US to train his forces-"the Americans have gone from failure to failure". US troops need to guard the pipelines and nothing else--get them away from all population centers. Let Iraqi oil pay for Halliburton and other contractors who have cost the US taxpayer a few trillion dollars during the past five years. Five years ago the US had a budget surplus of 2 trillion and now we are 5 trillion in the red--thanks George and Company--the Dems will get the White House in 2008 even if they field Osama Bin Laden.....

"The pragmatic public, faced with even the slimmest prospect of making lemonade will go along with the President's proposal if it gets the okay from the generals. The American public then are the only ones with honor and with their hearts in the right place."

Their hearts may be in the right place, but unfortuately their brains aren't. And so the ratchet wrench of militarism will take another turn. We used to be a powerful country with an army; we're on our way to becoming a powerful army with a country.

NO MORE BUSH 'T?

Ah forgive the Rev, I read that on a commuter's bumper sticker several years ago when I was in the District.

Father forgive me for I have sinned!
````````````````````````
You know, what is truly sad about all of this is that after the Soviet Union broke up a couple of decades ago, America was able to reduce its troop strength, and to close a lot of military bases around the country and the world.

Coupled with the declension of the Soviet threat, America felt then that the superior technological military advantage that America enjoyed would be sufficient to offset the troop reductions.

Well, what happened? Answer: George Bush and the Republican Reich happened. And as a result, America will need to increase its military strength (go Representative Charles Rangel) exponentially, because the Bush Doctrine should keep America involved in internecine military conflicts long after he and Chaney are shooting pheasant on his farm in Crawford Texas.

And what will the world say about Bush? How about, he came, he saw, he messed up, so he left went quail hunting with his 'shorty', Dick!!

W. Bush likes to use the army as the solution to every problem. Of course he wants more troops, regardless of how they will be used.

But Iraq is already lost and the best we can hope for there is that eventually we will have a clear, strong ally to support. We will need the new troops--and more--for the coming war in Pakistan.

Assuming that all actions of the Bush administration have been based on ideas by the "genius" Mr. Rove, I think it is time to start seriously thinking about putting Mr. Rove in front of a firing squad, and increasing the size of the Army to do this.
Mr. Rove managed to get the President in such dire straights that the Republican Party would have almost certainly lost, and badly, the Midterm elections of 2002. Then Osama came to the rescue, and gave Rove a chance to redeem himself by invading Afghanistan and dispatching the hated Talibans as a universally wanted act of vengeance against terrorism, and as the first phase of a declared war on Islamic Terrorism. The world thought: the plan of the war must be to build a friendly powerful nation in Afghanistan in two or three years. Two or three years because that is the minimum it will take our Army to eradicate the Taliban, refurbish its weapons, and establish an economically viable nation from the ruins of the Taliban regime. Now it is 2006 and, Step 2 of the War on Terrorism is about to start. Saddam of Iraq will be given his walking papers, the borders of Iraq will be sealed to prevent outsiders from coming in or going out, Saddam's Republican Guards and Army will be disarmed, cleansed, and reeducated in the ways of democracy and retrained in honest work. And finally the Iraqi people using their own resources, will be starting to rebuild a powerful, independent nation, in peace and harmony. At this point, Rove is about to be nominated for sainthood, Bush has become the Messiah, and the Republican Party makes mince meat of the Democrats in the 2006 Midterm elections.
Now, the Republican Party knows that the most difficult phase of the War on Terrorism is about to begin: Iran needs to be neutralized. But for this a volunteer Army is no longer sufficient. So Rove has to do the thing the Republicans have not dared do so far: reestablish the draft. Even with the help of the friendly governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, we need a huge Western Force, anchored by the US Army and Marines, to take on Iran. You see, Iranians are religious fanatics, and they don't surrender, they must be beaten into submission. Surrounded by unfriendly nations, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, the Mullahs of Iran may decide that it would be better to wait for another day, rather than risk oblivion.
I know you like the sound of this story, but there never was a plan to win the War on Terrorism, because there never was a War on Terrorism. There was just greed. Bush wanted chaos in Iraq so that Country's oil would stay in Iraq. With the Europeans itching to buy Iraq's oil the sanctions against Saddam were about to be lifted, and Iraq's oil would have flooded the market further deflating an already abysmal price. What was needed was not a stable and economically viable Iraq, but an Iraq in chaos with its oil installations in shambles. That is what we got, not the War on Terrorism. Oil prices needed boosting up, and the oil companies wanted compensation for their support for Bush 43. The best way to accomplish this was to create chaos in Iraq, and that is why we invaded with a force big enough to win the war but not the peace.
At this point Mr. Mc Cain, an Army of 2000000 will be needed to win in Iraq, and the world is not going to stand by watching us wipe out that part of the Middle East.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1548.shtml

The Democratic majority and Social Security: Watch what the party says and does

By Seth Sandronsky

Democrat Nancy Pelosi is set to be the first female speaker of the House of Representatives in U.S. history. Among other domestic policies of the new Democratic majority under her lead, she has vowed to "preserve" Social Security. The popular federal program pays benefits to nearly one of every six Americans.

The Democratic majority is arriving in the wake of President George W. Bush's failed attempt last year to change Social Security with private savings accounts for younger workers. He claimed that his plan would keep the program solvent for their future. One of the underreported stories of 2005 was the U.S. public's successful opposition to Bush's plan.

Against this backdrop, the 2004 Social Security Trustees Report projects the year 2042 as the depletion date of the Social Security trust fund. By design of the 1983 Greenspan Commission, the trust fund is running a surplus of Social Security payroll taxes from employees, employers and the self-employed. Even if the trust fund is depleted in 2042, Social Security's tax revenues alone will fund 75 percent of the benefits due to recipients, writes Doug Orr, a professor of economics at Eastern Washington University, in the summer 2006 Review of Radical Political Economics.

And what does the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's forecast for Social Security? The CBO projects that Social Security is fully funded to pay disability, retirement and survivor benefits for the next 40 years. This is with no funding changes to the popular program.

Meanwhile, the securities and investment industry contributed a total of $48,276,563 to federal candidates and parties in the 2006 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Democrats got $24,878,830 of the total versus the GOP's $22,538,828. Firms such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch lead the way with these bipartisan campaign contributions.

The securities and investment industry has been leading the charge to privatize Social Security, speaking through the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. Why? For starters, there are hefty fees to collect for setting up and overseeing millions of private savings accounts.

Representative Pelosi promised to "guarantee a dignified retirement by preserving Social Security" on December 14. How the Pelosi-led party plans to do that is the political question.

Will the Democratic majority be able to stand up for the American public against the securities and investment industry? Only if Main Street, USA, thinks and acts on what the Democrats say and do concerning the preservation of Social Security. As is, the program is solvent for the long-term.
Seth Sandronsky is a member of Sacramento Area Peace Action and a co-editor of Because People Matter, Sacramento's progressive paper. He can be reached at: bpmnews@nicetechnology.com.

I don't think anyone in Washington has a clue about how to run a government or an army. In deed, we don't have a government, but an on going election campaign. Government is not a business, because, in theory, it is a non-profit organization. Business is based on the profit motive, and it is all about profit. When you privatize government functions, you increase the cost of government. Business always seeks to maximize profits. The Bush Administration has turned the Government into a cash cow for big Business. Between the privatizing of the military logistics system, the money wasted on missile defense systems that don't work, and the virtual fence that is supposed to prevent illegal immigration, you could have had a million man army and a fully staffed Border Patrol or a real fence. Everything is turned into a government contract for Halliburton, Boeing, or some other defense contractor.
Iraq or no Iraq, we need a proper Army and Marine Corp to defend this country. The military services and the American people are being being cheated and used by an Administration that is for sale to the highest bidder.

The claim is that a bigger Army and Corps would be needed to fight the long war on terror. What would their role in the long war be if, as Arkin theorizes, the US is out of Iraq by 2009 when the first new division can actually take the field? Arkin believes it makes no sense, that the Army and Corps would be adequately sized if the US were out of Iraq.

My belief is that the only way it makes sense is if the President is planning more major foreign expeditions. Winning the long war on terror must mean destroying the "Axis of Evil". Iran and Syria for sure, and maybe North Korea. If one believes the More Troops! contingent (like presidential candidate McCain) a bigger Army and Corps would allow the US to succeed in those countries after invasion, rather than fail like in Iraq. President Bush is just gearing the military up for more invasions.

The Rev is absolutely right, US foreign policy has to completely change. But the first thing that might have to change is the commitment to have the US remain the top financial, economic and military power in the world. I dont know if the American public are going to support not being the richest people on earth. It's an interesting question that wont be debated.

"one of the most brilliant gambits ever."

Good men of conscience may disagree. I think anyone over 40 in public service knows about the trick to hint at future Good Things in the same session that you're being shafted in some manner. It costs nothing, and gives the victim's pride something to hide behind.

Of course the calculus might be different if the promise of future Good Things might actually be realized, but that's not the intention.

What secret campaign against China? The US probably has plans for conflict with China as a potential adversary as well it should as prudent but hopefully never needed option, but some secret active conspiracy to do what with China? Did we force them to have a massive trade surplus with us, force them to have American investment in their expansion, force them to buy Treasury notes to finance our debt?

Bill, there is an old 1950s Biblical epic called SAMSON AND DELILAH that has an amusing scene in it wherein the Saran of the Philistines (played brilliantly by George Sanders) is approached by his top general of the army having just just suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Samson who was said to be armed with only the jawbone of an ass. The general was pleading for more soldiers having lost a fair number of his cohort. The Saran's reply is exquisitely appropriate in our present circumstances: "Like all generals, when you fail by the sword, you ask for more swords".

However, the analogy is reversed in our modern example. It is the generals who seem to apprehend that more swords is not the answer and the Head of State who wants to send in more. Iraq is history playing a bad joke on us.

The "War on Terror" seems to be like the "War on Drugs".

Neither has effective stategies, objectives or measurements that hold the leadership accountable.

Terror is psycological war... Very few participants but a big media impact. Maybe they sould re-tune to fit the reality.

It Is An Inconvenient Truth...

Borrowing from the title of the man who I suspect really won the year 2000 General Election (had it been above board), it is an inconvenient truth that America will need more troops if America is to continue along its present course. And we may have to reopen many of those bases that were closed after the discontinuance of the Soviet Union.

And I am not just talking about Iraq. The fact is that nations of the world are beginning to stand up and say, we are tired of American hegemony and American double-standards.

Look at China! Despite the secret campaign carried out against China for the past 30 or so years by America, they have still emerged, and are continuing to emerge into what will be a formiddable power, both economically and militarily.

And to boot, there are many other nations around the world and even in the Americas who are beginning to emerge, and they have notified America, 'no mas'.

Folks, we have had our way in the world for some time now, isn't it time to stop and to play fair and try to get along as equals with other nations of the world rather than acting like we are their superiors? Otherwise, if we continue to label every person or nation that does not accede to the will of America as terrorists, terrorist-nations and enemy combatants, we might require a 5-million man and woman army.

And that 5-million man and woman army would be in addition to all of our armaments, secret weapons, spy satellites, and other high-tech weaponry.

There is an easier and cheaper solution and it is to change American foregin policy; oh and by the way, it can save lives!

We may inject more troops into Iraq, but that won't stop the Sunni/Shi'ite civil war. The increased security will not get rid of the War of Ideologies between these two factions.

Democracy is not something you can force on a country. They have to WANT IT.

So far, the Iraqis may SAY they want a democratic form of government, but the civilian population isn't willing to actually support it just yet. They would be outing the insurgents on BOTH sides if they did. Instead they've moved to the respective Sunni and Shi'ite "borroughs" in Baghdad and sheltered the insurgents wearing their particular brand of religious fanaticism.

So the question becomes: just how long will we stay there and wait for them to decide that they DO want a democratic government and that they will fight these influences against it?

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm not very hopeful based upon a proposal to increase the troops. I think we'd just be furnishing the insurgents from both sides more targets to practice on.

When you informed us the president said"I haven't made up my mind"(about increasing troup sizes) are you SURE he has a mind???This whole mess is insane. Heaven Help Us All! Happy Holidays Arkin