Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson Speaks Out

[Nat Algren]

Bush Military Official: US Citizens Must Stand Up to Stop the Empire
Posted on December 16, 2015 by Robert Barsocchini
From ‘Empire Files‘: “Abby Martin interviews retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former national security adviser to the Reagan administration, who spent years as an assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell during both Bush administrations.”


A few of the points made by Wilkerson:

US’s foreign bases are “colonial, imperial” stations over the globe.

‘The empire… is run by about one percent of the people, if not fewer, in this country, constituting essentially a plutocracy.’

Military officers retire from the military, go to arms manufacturers and media jobs to make the media ‘want war’.

US is ‘oriented towards first what increases its power, and second what makes it rich.’

US military ‘isn’t an all volunteer force. It’s an all-recruited force, because we’re spending billions of dollars to entice these people, who feel that they don’t have many other prospects, into the armed forces.’

What made Wilkerson speak out? Bush and Cheney both personally encouraged heinous acts like torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions.

‘Empire never has enough. That’s the nature of imperial power. It never has enough. It never has a stable status quo. It has an increasingly unstable status quo.’

To stop the empire, ‘a powerful minority, or a majority’ of US citizens must ‘stand up … and say, I’ve had enough. Does that mean revolution? It might. It might indeed.’

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015...icial-us-citizens-must-stand-stop-empire.html

 

[naturalmwa]

Rather than painting the streets with a bloody revolution, how about we just elect someone like Sanders or Paul and defund the MIC? That strikes me as a more sensible solution.

 

[22*43*51]

If I didn't have reason enough to crack into the 1%, well there it is...

 

[22*43*51]

"Military officers retire from the military, go to arms manufacturers and media jobs to make the media ‘want war’."


As the retired officer uses the media to call for Revolution...

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

From ‘Empire Files‘: “Abby Martin

Thanks for posting this. I really liked Abby Martin when she was on RT.

 

[Nat Algren]

Rather than painting the streets with a bloody revolution, how about we just elect someone like Sanders or Paul and defund the MIC? That strikes me as a more sensible solution.

Sanders is pro war as well. Rand? Who knows? Too wishy washy. He seems to crave the love of the GOP big wigs controlled by the neocons. They don't love him back and his numbers have languished. He 'might' have hopefully had an epiphany and circled back to his Dad.

 

[SSG T]

"Military officers retire from the military, go to arms manufacturers and media jobs to make the media ‘want war’."


As the retired officer uses the media to call for Revolution...

He may be hypocritical, but it doesn't make him wrong.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

If I didn't have reason enough to crack into the 1%, well there it is...

I think there is a bigger reason than this.

 

[strummingram]

Good topic. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Rather than painting the streets with a bloody revolution, how about we just elect someone like Sanders or Paul and defund the MIC? That strikes me as a more sensible solution.

Ehh that would help but the reality is that in order to accomplish that we would need to make a cultural change in this country.

The thing is that this country has an entire culture of believing that almost every foreign policy problem especially those in the middle east have a military solution. On top of that the culture preaches somewhat that diplomacy and negotiation and failure to immediately act with a military solution make you look weak.

This fits into the culture of death that the Pope's have talked about. It is most certainly cultural and that is why changing it would be so entirely difficult.

You can tell it's cultural simply because of how little resistance there really is to it. Each party only has a few loose cannons within that party that have *consistently* opposed it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Ehh that would help but the reality is that in order to accomplish that we would need to make a cultural change in this country.

The thing is that this country has an entire culture of believing that almost every foreign policy problem especially those in the middle east have a military solution. On top of that the culture preaches somewhat that diplomacy and negotiation and failure to immediately act with a military solution make you look weak.

This fits into the culture of death that the Pope's have talked about. It is most certainly cultural and that is why changing it would be so entirely difficult.

You can tell it's cultural simply because of how little resistance there really is to it. Each party only has a few loose cannons within that party that have *consistently* opposed it.

That's a good point. But if true, I don't know that calling for revolution is the path toward changing the culture. Unless the revolution was so horrible that the survivors elected to do away with the military and guns and football and other expressions of violence and become hippies. I don't personally wish to take on so much pain for such an uncertain outcome. That's why I like to work within the system for incremental change over time.

 

[INXS83]

Rather than painting the streets with a bloody revolution, how about we just elect someone like Sanders or Paul and defund the MIC? That strikes me as a more sensible solution.

Unless you also elect a completely better bunch in Congress, you can't defund the MIC. Congress controls the purse strings. No POTUS can effect the same changes with executive orders alone.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That's a good point. But if true, I don't know that calling for revolution is the path toward changing the culture. Unless the revolution was so horrible that the survivors elected to do away with the military and guns and football and other expressions of violence and become hippies. I don't personally wish to take on so much pain for such an uncertain outcome. That's why I like to work within the system for incremental change over time.

Culture can't be changed by revolution or violence. Especially not a culture of death. One does not make others appreciate human life by killing others.

It can be changed by laws or technology, but I see neither being able to change this.

It can also be changed by a stunning event. Unfortunately such events usually involve a large amount of death in themselves and there is no guarantee that such an event would change our culture but instead cause it to double down upon itself. Far too often people respond to violence with more violence, death with more death.

I honestly don't know what can be done to change this and the rest of our culture of death for that matter.

 

[naturalmwa]

Unless you also elect a completely better bunch in Congress, you can't defund the MIC. Congress controls the purse strings. No POTUS can effect the same changes with executive orders alone.

That's a good point, but that miserable lot in Congress has also shown they won't declare war. So if we get sanity in the WH, the MIC will wither.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That's a good point, but that miserable lot in Congress has also shown they won't declare war. So if we get sanity in the WH, the MIC will wither.

I thought it interesting that Ben Carson called for a declaration of war against ISIS.

 

[naturalmwa]

I thought it interesting that Ben Carson called for a declaration of war against ISIS.

Hasn't Obama called for this too?

 

[lucas80]

There was a neat discussion on NPR's On Point yesterday about utilization of special forces around the globe. In the crescent from Africa to Afghanistan the US now has 100+ special forces outposts. Now, most of them are small, but the guests talked about what a large footprint this is, and how the US refuses to share space and facilities with host nations. Doing so might lead to better relations.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Rather than painting the streets with a bloody revolution, how about we just elect someone like Sanders or Paul and defund the MIC? That strikes me as a more sensible solution.

the point is: these people are not elected they are installed, so we would have to have a revolution of the people- to even get paul or sanders in there, and even then, they would be not be well liked or well received by the bilderbergs and new world order, and would probably have a heart attack from the heart attack gun, soon after we put them in with a revolutionary coup

 

[ottumwan in tx]

There was a neat discussion on NPR's On Point yesterday about utilization of special forces around the globe. In the crescent from Africa to Afghanistan the US now has 100+ special forces outposts. Now, most of them are small, but the guests talked about what a large footprint this is, and how the US refuses to share space and facilities with host nations. Doing so might lead to better relations.

yes because we have no boots on the ground at all, except these ones that you cannot see and are not supposed to know about { dees boots}

 

[naturalmwa]

the point is: these people are not elected they are installed, so we would have to have a revolution of the people- to even get paul or sanders in there, and even then, they would be not be well liked or well received by the bilderbergs and new world order, and would probably have a heart attack from the heart attack gun, soon after we put them in with a revolutionary coup

You first. After no one went to jail and we gave away trillions in the bailout, I have little faith any of you revolutionary types will ever get off your couch and revolt. So not only does my plan have the charm of not killing people. It also has the possibility of actually happening.

 

[markfromj]

To stop the empire, ‘a powerful minority, or a majority’ of US citizens must ‘stand up … and say, I’ve had enough. Does that mean revolution? It might. It might indeed.’

Yeah, right, revolution. Hell, half of you don't even vote, only 10 percent of you can name your representative. Only 3% of you have ever contact the rep.

The fact is, it is WAY too good here for most of us to spark any "revolution". If you want change, vote it in!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Hasn't Obama called for this too?

IIRC, he has called for recinding the old authorization to use force and the passage of one that better fits the current circumstances - but not a declaration of war.

Some people are concerned about declaring war against a non-state. Of course IS claims it's a state, but it has gotten little recognition and we don't recognize it.

Once you start declaring war against non-states, where does it stop?

Can we declare war on Goldman Sachs (and their ilk) for crashing the world economy and robbing millions of Americans of their jobs and homes?

Can we declare war on Exxon and other components of Big Oil for massive harm to the environment that we all share and depend upon?

Can we declare war on Big Pharma for all the people who died because they couldn't afford the available drugs?

Can we declare war on the Republican Party for supporting all those "enemies" and the harm they have done to America and humanity?

 

[naturalmwa]

IIRC, he has called for recinding the old authorization to use force and the passage of one that better fits the current circumstances - but not a declaration of war.

Some people are concerned about declaring war against a non-state. Of course IS claims it's a state, but it has gotten little recognition and we don't recognize it.

Once you start declaring war against non-states, where does it stop?

Can we declare war on Goldman Sachs (and their ilk) for crashing the world economy and robbing millions of Americans of their jobs and homes?

Can we declare war on Exxon and other components of Big Oil for massive harm to the environment that we all share and depend upon?

Can we declare war on Big Pharma for all the people who died because they couldn't afford the available drugs?

Can we declare war on the Republican Party for supporting all those "enemies" and the harm they have done to America and humanity?

I hear you, I agree in theory, but it strikes me as practically a distinction with little difference. Call is a declaration of war or an authorization of force and the result is so similar I struggle to even imagine the difference.

 

[Nat Algren]

Yeah, right, revolution. Hell, half of you don't even vote, only 10 percent of you can name your representative. Only 3% of you have ever contact the rep.

The fact is, it is WAY too good here for most of us to spark any "revolution". If you want change, vote it in!

Ahhh. I smell an American exceptionalist. After a long interview, you take exception to the last 5 seconds. Anything else?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I hear you, I agree in theory, but it strikes me as practically a distinction with little difference. Call is a declaration of war or an authorization of force and the result is so similar I struggle to even imagine the difference.

I agree. It's pretty silly to think that there's any practical difference between an authorization to use force vs a declaration of war. But there could be important legal differences. Whether certain conventions and international laws apply, for example. And while the AUMF Bush got was basically a blank check, such authorizations don't have to be - whereas a declaration of war presumably is.

Here's an interesting link touching the current state of affairs

https://www.lawfareblog.com/congress-about-vote-aumf-against-isil-quietly-and-without-debate

 

[Nat Algren]

There was a neat discussion on NPR's On Point yesterday about utilization of special forces around the globe. In the crescent from Africa to Afghanistan the US now has 100+ special forces outposts. Now, most of them are small, but the guests talked about what a large footprint this is, and how the US refuses to share space and facilities with host nations. Doing so might lead to better relations.

Or just getting the flip out. Peace may even break out if we were actually defending our borders instead of crossing the borders of others w/o permission. What else did they say on Pravda?

 

[naturalmwa]

Or just getting the flip out. Peace may even break out if we were actually defending our borders instead of crossing the borders of others w/o permission. What else did they say on Pravda?

I wonder what part of our economy is dependent on our international adventures? Do we make or lose money over all? With shifting all the manufacturing to China we need to find some way to pay the bills. Maybe we should go the mafia path and offer to leave people alone who pay us to go away.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

There was a neat discussion on NPR's On Point yesterday about utilization of special forces around the globe. In the crescent from Africa to Afghanistan the US now has 100+ special forces outposts. Now, most of them are small, but the guests talked about what a large footprint this is, and how the US refuses to share space and facilities with host nations. Doing so might lead to better relations.

This is what I think of as our Taser Foreign Policy.

The good aspect of this approach (along with using drones) parallels the taser argument for police. It lets you handle situations will less force and less lethality (especially collateral lethality in the foreign policy arena). The problem with this approach is that you get seduced into using it more and more in cases that you previously would have ignored or handled with diplomacy.

When all you have is a phone and a hammer, you tend to use the phone as much as possible before using the hammer. When you have a phone, a set of thumbscrews and a hammer, you tend to use the thumbscrews most of the time.

 

[Nat Algren]

I wonder what part of our economy is dependent on our international adventures? Do we make or lose money over all? With shifting all the manufacturing to China we need to find some way to pay the bills. Maybe we should go the mafia path and offer to leave people alone who pay us to go away.

Are all of the millions that lie dead worth it? You and I would probably agree it is not. Madeline Albright, Bill Richardson and all of the psychopaths in government disagree. How much do you think our economy would be if the soldiers were all home here spending their $$$?

 

[naturalmwa]

Are all of the millions that lie dead worth it? You and I would probably agree it is not. Madeline Albright, Bill Richardson and all of the psychopaths in government disagree. How much do you think our economy would be if the soldiers were all home here spending their $$$?

I don't know, that was my question. Does the MIC pay for itself or cost us?

 

[Nat Algren]

I don't know, that was my question. Does the MIC pay for itself or cost us?

Since the MIC steals from taxpayers to benefit and the soldiers pay in blood....I vote NO.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Since the MIC steals from taxpayers to benefit and the soldiers pay in blood....I vote NO.

Not really responsive to his question. Or at least I assume not. Pretty sure he's asking whether the MIC is a profitable enterprise.

Obviously it is if you only look at the profits made by the companies involved. But what if you also factor in the costs of paying the personnel, VA services and so on?

And what if you ask "the economic question" - what else could we have done with all that money and would that have been even more profitable? What contributions would those dead and maimed people have made? What advances in science, health and education could we have paid for with those funds?

What if we had put that money into completely modernizing our infrastructure and going green?

Then again, what if we spent that "peace benefit" on pet rocks and better reality TV shows?

 

[Nat Algren]

Not really responsive to his question. Or at least I assume not. Pretty sure he's asking whether the MIC is a profitable enterprise.

Obviously it is if you only look at the profits made by the companies involved. But what if you also factor in the costs of paying the personnel, VA services and so on?

And what if you ask "the economic question" - what else could we have done with all that money and would that have been even more profitable? What contributions would those dead and maimed people have made? What advances in science, health and education could we have paid for with those funds?

What if we had put that money into completely modernizing our infrastructure and going green?

Then again, what if we spent that "peace benefit" on pet rocks and better reality TV shows?

Ok. My mind was clearly elsewhere.

The economy was pretty darn good after WW2 when 12 million soldiers came home and entered the workforce and the defense budget was halved.