Debate the War's Journal|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 14 most recent journal entries recorded in
Debate the War's LiveJournal:
|Tuesday, October 6th, 2015|
Pronounced and hidden aims of Trident Juncture 2015
Originally posted by wiktorkovalski
at Pronounced and hidden aims of Trident Juncture 2015
NATO started the biggest and most ambitious exercise in more than a decade. The Trident Juncture 2015 exercise, which kicked off on September 28 to run until November 6 and involves 36,000 personnel from more than 30 Allied and Partner Nations, is taking place throughout Italy, Portugal, Spain, the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea and also Canada, Norway, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.
The first stage of the exercise starts with the Command Post Exercise for Strategic and Operational level staff on Saturday 3 October in Zaragoza, Spain.
The pronounced aim of the Trident Juncture drills is to train and test the NATO Response Force, a technologically-advanced high-readiness unit comprising land, air, maritime forces. It is reported also, that TRJE15 has been designed to ensure that NATO concepts and procedures will work in the event of a real crisis.
NATO also claimed that its exercises are transparent, giving a link to what appears to be a partial list of exercises which are conducted by US and other NATO members. But on the official The Trident Juncture 2015 exercise Website there are no data about the involved units. So the transparency is only partial and such covering of the event arises a lot of questions.
Many European media outlets believe the large-scale drill is aimed against Russia. And they really have serious reasons for such point of view.
Though NATO is keen to emphasize that this exercise is defensive in nature, many experts consider it as a nonsense statement since the drills are conducted in Europe, at the Russian or proximity of the border. This would make sense if the military exercise was near, for example, US or Canada borders.
It should be said that not all of the participating countries share the organizers’ anti-Russian slant.
For example, Massimo Zuchhetti, a prominent Italian scientist and peace activist pointing to NATO’s ongoing Trident Juncture 2015 war games is sure, that “it is NATO, not Russia which poses the biggest threat to European peace.” “As a nuclear scientist, I think that Italy is violating the nuclear proliferation treaty by having 80 nuclear bombs stored at the Ghedi and Aviano airbases used by the Americans”, he said.
“What we see now is the militarization of Italian territory with military bases scattered all over the country and one-third of Sardinia set aside for military purposes… That’s why we believe that Italy should pull out of NATO. It’s not an equitable alliance, it’s all about making this country an underdog,” Massimo Zuchhetti, a Turin-based nuclear physicist and founder of the No War, No NATO movement added. Massimo Zuchhetti as many others scientists and activists fears that Italy could be drawn in NATO’s future military adventures, which are totally at variance with the country’s national interests.
In his turn Miguel Martinez Tomey, responsible for EU affairs in the Chunta Aragonesista political party, said, that “the deployment of the NATO troops in the Spanish city of Zaragoza entails risks for the local population and the environment, that is being concealed from the public.”
Obviously not all NATO members support such exercises but they just have no possibility to oppose US because it is US who mainly pays for collective defense and choose the common enemies.
|Tuesday, October 31st, 2006|
|Wednesday, July 12th, 2006|
War, Foreign Policy and Activism
What do America’s top bloggers have to say about foreign policy, politics and how U.S. foreign policy is created, implemented and influenced by the emerging netroots? Watch footage from the YearlyKos Convention 2006 Panel on War, Foreign Policy and Activism: Problems and Solutions available at the Link TV and ForaTV websites and find out.
Panelists Lakshmi Chaudhry, Arianna Huffington, Ari Melber, Alex Rossmiller and Jonathan Singer address how the media can devise objectives and progressive alternatives to the current political climate, what national interests they think should guide foreign policy and what moral imperatives they believe should constrain U.S. action.
“With campaign consultants once again trying to poll and focus-group their way to victory, it’s up to the netroots to take the lead in making sure that in the elections of 2006 and 2008, the war in Iraq — and how it’s made America less safe — stays front and center. It’s all about the national security, stupid!” — Arianna Huffington, founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post.
About Link TV
Link TV is a non-commercial, independent television network available in more than 27 million U.S. homes on DIRECTV channel 375 and DISH Network channel 9410. The 24-hour programming is a mix of documentaries, international news, foreign films and the best of World Music. The network recently received the first satellite-only Peabody Award for MOSAIC: World News from the Middle East, a daily news show featuring English translations of national television reports from more than 24 countries in the Middle East. Select Link TV programs are streamed on the Internet at www.linktv.org. Link TV is operated by Link Media, Inc., a California non-profit organization, with production studios in San Francisco, New York and Washington, DC.
|Thursday, October 14th, 2004|
How is this war going well? Because there is a new government to run it and a building of a new army and police force.
Sure, there are some who want to see the transition to democracy fail because they know democracy brings prosperity & they hate that.
|Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004|
A CATOSTROPHIC SUCCESS?
I would like to know from those of you who lean to the Right why you think that this war is going so well?
Despite mounting contrary evidence, President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue to insist that everything's going just fine.
I have a hard time reconciling this, so perhaps some of you can illuminate for me how it is that I am supposed to have faith in this administration's evidently disastrous foreign policies regarding the Middle East?
I understand that Rome wasn't built in a day, but from the looks of things, and from the apparent projections, Rome will not be built by the end of another four years of this administration either.
So, without telling me about why Kerry's weak on terror, and without telling me because Bush is the right man for the job in this turbulent time (that WE
instigated), can you please tell me exactly why it is that this conflict is going in the right direction, and why should I consider voting for an administration with such a flagrant disdain for the world community?(And before you tell me that THEY instigated it by attacking us on 9.11, I can appreciate that position, but we had in no way accomplished our mission in Afghanistan before we jumped into Iraq, so that is not relevant to the question I'm asking. What I want to know is why, here and now, in 2k4, am I supposed to believe that anything happening right now in the Middle East should be looked at as any manner of successful foreign policy?) Current Mood: curious
|Monday, February 9th, 2004|
To everyone who protests the Americans serving the cause in Iraq...
I would like to say that maybe Bush wasn't completely correct when he claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but at least he took no chances. At least Hussein was removed before he could attack and kill others around the world. He deserves everything that has happened to him. He is a murder and he was a dangerous dictator. Hussein didn't and still doesn't love his country or his people. He loves himself, riches and power. Yes, it is terrible that innocent people are dying because of the war but the United States is not murdering and slaughtering civilians. They are not killing them intentionally. The goal is to rebuild the country and give the Iraqis a better way of life,but they can't do that with protesters and savage milita in the way. If the Americans were to leave, the people who are attacking the Americans would take over and continue to kill as they pleased. Then the place would really be hell. At least the United States is giving food to the civilians and they are helping them rebuild their government and economy so that they can stand on there own feet. Now at least women can go outside and show their faces and children can watch television and hear music and be exposed to the outside world and new cultures. Now the Iraqis can make their own choices. In situations like this you have to look at what the long term results will bring. At let me say again, it is terrible that innocent men, women and children are dying...but my grandparents and evey other German that wasn't a part of Adolf Hitler's 'Third Reich' or 'Final Solution to the Jewish Question' was innocent too. It's casualties of war, it's sacrificing a few so that the many can survive... deal with it.
~Svenja Von Rundstedt Current Mood: aggravated
|Sunday, March 30th, 2003|
|Saturday, March 29th, 2003|
Ok.. i found these pictures on the internet..You might have seen them.. but i HAVE to warn you.. they are REALLY grotesque.. so if you get easy affected.. please don't look at them( WARNING!! UGLY PICTURES!Collapse )
I'm against the war..I think USA should have given Iraq more time. They said their new "smartbombs" wouldn't kill as many civilans..there's allready atleast 250 dead civilans..after just a week. I think that is way to much. I'll probably write another post later with arguments for and against the war. I just wanted to show some of these pictures. Current Mood: angry
|Monday, March 24th, 2003|
Hello, I just joined today.
I just thought some of you may be interested in supporting our U.S. Troops
I also have a question.
Do you think that the Turks are up to something? I can see them not supporting the war, but why are they trying to keep troops out of Turkey?
|Saturday, March 22nd, 2003|
Here we go
First lets start with one of the champions of the Anti War Movement. The basic problem with the Anti War movement is there need to manipulate facts to make them shown to be right. A fine example is one Michael Moore. In his latest movie he manipulated many facts for his Anti War movie. here is some information located here. http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Furtheremore most of the people in the movement ignores the facts. Frontline ha shad several excellent specials on how we ended up in War. It detailed Saddam from start to finish. It also had an Excellent interview with a journalist linking an Al Queda Camp in Iraq to Saddam. In the article the General talks about information having to deal with this Camp. Found here : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
Finally is the whole Bush is an idiot thing. If he is such an idiot why do I hear these vast conspiracy theories about him stealing our rights in a progressive manner so he can turn America into . The fact is he is a Republican president and a lot of people just don't like that. Now if they came out and said it thats fine but instead they insult him. The most commons thing I hear is he can't speak well, WELL STEVEN HAWKINS CAN'T SPEAK AT ALL! While I don't agree on his domestic policy dealing with big buisness atleast he isn't selling our secrets to the Chinese government like Clinton and Gore. I believe he is acing in the best intrest of the American people. How else do you propose he keeps all of us safe? Ignoring the problem and it will go away? That will never happened again. Ocean borders no longer protect the Americas and it has been proven that containment does not work.
This ins't bushes war. The wheels of this war started with Bill Clinton. He also wished to go to war but decided in light of the Monica Lewinsky case it would be in his best intresrt not to pursue it. Stop thinkining with your emotions and look at the facts presented to you. Do not live in the past learn from it. It was said long ago "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Why then is it so hard for people to understand the connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. If an idiot (According to a the Anti War movement mass) like George Bush figured it out. Why can't you?
|Friday, March 21st, 2003|
x-posted from my own journal
Remember that young nation you knew, the one that wanted to be a shining beacon of hope, the one that was so in love with Peace, Liberty and Freedom ? You know the one. Well, guess what happened? It turned badly. It started with a few white lies, all in a good cause, of course. But it went from there to bullying, to bribes, theft, it took it's three love and made them it's whores, keeping them happy with dollars, gift and a little fix of that wonderfully addictive drug :Truth. Not too often mind you, you have to keep them hungry. Every good pimp knows that once they're hooked they'll always do what they're told and come back for more, no matter the abuse. And those that don't agree? Beat them into submission. After all you'll always be able to buy new friends or find ass-kissers to lick you blood drenched jackboots
"Abandon all hope ye who enter here" could be a new inscription for the whore of liberty who should kneel instead of stand in front of New-York
Your friend Harlequin bids you good night Current Mood: disappointed
|Thursday, March 20th, 2003|
quick curious quip
"the best way to hide something is to put it out in the open" - variation by my father
the embedded press in the military units don't seem to be doing a lick of good.
the military is stating to tell their people not to be talking to the press too much and I have seen VERY little coverage by them hitting the television sets.
is it just me? Current Mood: curious
|Wednesday, March 19th, 2003|
While it's true that no one is exactly fond of Saddam Hussein, he has never threatened the United States with the weapons of mass destruction that everyone just seems to assume he possesses. If he truly had these weapons, don't you think he probably would have used them already? Don't you think that if the Bush administration had any real evidence that Iraq was hiding all these weapons that it would come out and shared this evidence with the American people, not to mention with the rest of the world, in order to generate more support for this war? The fact is, Bush has nothing in terms of evidence that Hussein is a threat to us, which leads me right into my next point...
...the United States has no right to decide on its own to invade another nation purely on a whim, which is basically what the Bush administration is doing. We have no proof that Hussein is a direct threat to us right now, so what right do we have to storm in there and eliminate him, to assassinate him? Just because the U.S. is a superpower doesn't give it the right to do whatever the hell it wants, whenever it wants to.
Um, hello...the economy sucks ass right now!!! The president has been hesitant to give us any estimates about how much this war is going to cost, and that's because the cost is going to be astronomical. Our economy is already suffering, so why put it in even more jeopardy?
This war has absolutely nothing to do with the events of September 11, but Bush has constantly tried to convince the American people to believe otherwise. There is absolutely no evidence that links Saddam Hussein to Al Queda, and it's wrong of the president to try and generate support for his war by misleading the country and relying on our post-9/11 emotions to back him up. This war is not going to do anything to end terrorism: if anything, going to war in Iraq is likely to increase the threat of terrorism worldwide.
As a result of everything that has happened with the United Nations as of late, the United States has weakened and insulted many members of the international community. Never in the history of this country has the U.S. faced such dramatic opposition to a military operation as it does right now. We're going at this one alone, and we're pissing off a whole lot of people in the process.
I could go on and on and on...but I won't, because it won't make a damn bit of difference. I firmly believe that the Bush administration has been planning to go to war with Iraq ever since they took over the White House. Nothing's going to stop them now. We just get to sit back and watch everything explode.