Search Results

for:

• Prev
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• 34
• 35
• 36
• 37
• 38
• 39
• 40
• 41
• 42
• 43
• 44
• 45
• 46
• 47
• 48
• 49
• 50
• 51
• 52
• 53
• 54
• 55
• 56
• 57
• 58
• 59
• 60
• 61
• 62
• 63
• 64
• 65
• 66
• 67
• 68
• 69
• 70
• 71
• 72
• 73
• 74
• 75
• 76
• 77
• 78
• 79
• 80
• 81
• 82
• 83
• 84
• 85
• 86
• 87
• 88
• 89
• 90
• 91
• 92
• 93
• 94
• 95
• 96
• 97
• 98
• 99
• 100
• 101
• 102
• 103
• 104
• 105
• 106
• 107
• 108
• 109
• 110
• 111
• 112
• 113
• 114
• 115
• 116
• 117
• 118
• 119
• 120
• 121
• 122
• 123
• 124
• 125
• 126
• 127
• 128
• 129
• 130
• 131
• 132
• 133
• 134
• 135
• 136
• 137
• 138
• 139
• 140
• 141
• 142
• 143
• 144
• 145
• 146
• 147
• 148
• 149
• 150
• 151
• 152
• 153
• 154
• 155
• 156
• 157
• 158
• 159
• 160
• 161
• 162
• 163
• 164
• 165
• 166
• 167
• 168
• 169
• 170
• 171
• 172
• 173
• 174
• 175
• 176
• 177
• 178
• 179
• 180
• 181
• 182
• 183
• 184
• 185
• 186
• 187
• 188
• 189
• 190
• 191
• 192
• 193
• 194
• 195
• 196
• 197
• 198
• 199
• 200
• 201
• 202
• 203
• 204
• 205
• 206
• 207
• 208
• 209
• 210
• 211
• 212
• 213
• 214
• 215
• 216
• 217
• 218
• 219
• 220
• 221
• 222
• 223
• 224
• 225
• 226
• 227
• 228
• 229
• 230
• 231
• 232
• 233
• 234
• 235
• 236
• 237
• 238
• 239
• 240
• 241
• 242
• 243
• 244
• 245
• 246
• 247
• 248
• 249
• 250
• 251
• 252
• 253
• Next

Saudi Arabia: Friend Or Foe?

Tuesday November 17, 2015

Saudi Arabia's desire to be a regional leader in the Middle East has led it to act as a primary conveyor belt of jihadists into Syria, where the Saudis seek the overthrow of the secular Assad government. When Saudi-backed al-Qaeda rebels get hurt in southern Syria, they are patched up in Israeli hospitals. But the head-chopping Saudis are facing slow-motion suicide. Assad did not melt away, and the Saudis' brutal war on Yemen continues to empty the Saudi coffers. The oil glut has shut off the welfare tap to keep its citizens at bay. Still the US continues to coddle the Saudi tyrants, this week announcing that it would sell them $1.3 billion more bombs to drop on the suffering Yemenis. More on the US/Saudi dysfunctional relationship on today's Liberty Report...
read on...

Someone Wants War with Russia

Tuesday November 17, 2015

Something very odd is going on in Washington. I recently attended and spoke at a conference in Washington on “realism and restraint” as a broad formula to reform US foreign policy. Most presentations reflected that agenda more-or-less but oddly one of the speakers said that it was necessary for the United States to mark its place in the world while “carrying a big stick” while another panelist asserted that it was a core mission of the American people to “help other countries striving to be free.” Both were referring to how the US should comport itself vis-à-vis Russia and one had to suspect that they had wandered into the auditorium by mistake, intending instead to visit the nearby American Enterprise Institute.

That such views should be forthcoming at a conference featuring “restraint” might not in fact be regarded as particularly surprising if one bothers to listen to either the Republican or Democratic so-called debates. Nationalism and American “exceptionalism” are easy products to sell at any time, but recently there has been a strain of bellicosity that is quite astonishing to behold, particularly as only one candidate has ever served in the military, and he was a lawyer. One might call it “Chickenhawks on Parade.”

It is useful to consider in their own words what the GOP candidates said last Tuesday night. Carly Fiorina led the baying pack with “One of the reasons I’ve said I wouldn’t be talking to Vladimir Putin right now is because we are speaking to him from a position of weakness brought on by this administration, so, I wouldn’t talk to him for a while, but, I would do this. I would start rebuilding the Sixth Fleet right under his nose, rebuilding the military — the missile defense program in Poland right under his nose. I would conduct very aggressive military exercises in the Baltic States so that he understood we would protect our NATO allies…and I might also put in a few more thousand troops into Germany, not to start a war, but to make sure that Putin understand that the United States of America will stand with our allies… We must have a no fly zone in Syria because Russia cannot tell the United States of America where and when to fly our planes. We also have a set of allies in the Arab Middle East that know that ISIS is their fight…but they must see leadership support a
read on...

Blowback — The Washington War Party’s Folly Comes Home To Roost

Tuesday November 17, 2015

Exactly 26 years ago last week, peace was breaking out in a manner that the world had not experienced since June 1914. The Berlin Wall—-the symbol of a century of state tyranny, grotesque mass warfare and the nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over the planet—-had come tumbling down on November 9, 1989.

It was only a matter of time before the economically decrepit Soviet regime would be no more, and that the world’s vast arsenal of weapons and nuclear bombs could be dismantled.

Indeed, shortly thereafter according to Gorbachev, President George H.W. Bush and Secretary Baker promised that NATO would not be expanded by “as much as a thumb’s width further to the East” in return for acquiescing to the reunification of Germany.

So with its “mission accomplished” there was no logical reason why NATO should not have been disbanded in parallel with the Warsaw Pact’s demise, and for an obvious and overpowering reason: On November 9, 1989 there were no material military threats to US security anywhere on the planet outside of the suddenly vanishing front line of the Cold War.
read on...

Paris Attack Motivation: Retaliation?

Monday November 16, 2015

As might be expected, the usual suspects are using the attacks on Paris to call for even more US intervention in the Middle East. Senator Ted Cruz said we need to stop worrying so much about civilian casualties. But none of them understand what motivates people to blow themselves up just so they can spread terror overseas. Why should we try to understand why the attacks on Paris happened? It is not to justify what happened. On the contrary. If we don't understand the motivation of the attackers we open ourselves up to more attacks. Today's Liberty Report takes a look at motivation beyond the usual bumper sticker "they hate us because we are free."
read on...

Paris and What Should Be Done

Sunday November 15, 2015

The horrific attacks in Paris on Friday have, predictably, led to much over-reaction and demands that we do more of the exact things that radicalize people and make them want to attack us. The French military wasted no time bombing Syria in retaliation for the attacks, though it is not known where exactly the attackers were from. Thousands of ISIS fighters in Syria are not Syrian, but came to Syria to overthrow the Assad government from a number of foreign countries -- including from France and the US. 

Ironically, the overthrow of Assad has also been the goal of both the US and France since at least 2011.

Because the US and its allies are essentially on the same side as ISIS and other groups – seeking the overthrow of Assad – many of the weapons they have sent to the more “moderate” factions also seeking Assad’s ouster have ended up in the hands of radicals.
read on...

The City of Light Falls Dark

Sunday November 15, 2015

On Friday the 13th, Paris, the City of Light, was plunged into darkness and fear.

At least eight young jihadists, allegedly from the so-called Islamic State group, attacked the national sports stadium, where President Francois Hollande was attending a soccer match with Germany’s foreign minister. They also attacked outdoor cafes, a pizzeria and a rock club.

As of this writing, 127 civilians were killed and dozens wounded. All of the attackers are believed to have died. For the second time this year, Paris is terror-struck and shaken to its foundation. Pope Francis aptly described the attacks as “homicidal madness.”

What was Islamic State’s objective in attacking all these improbable soft targets? Madness is not a sufficient motive. Clearly, Islamic State’s 20-somethings were bombing and shooting up targets that youngsters frequented, like a pizzeria or Friday night heavy metal concert. Their objective: to kill as many people as possible in a pure revenge attack.

Islamic State (IS), a collection of young hooligans, misguided idealists, and bitter riff-raff, have warned the West, “we will make you feel what we have felt.” They adopted this slogan from the Chechen independence fighters who resorted to attacks on Russian civilians after Russian forces killed an estimated 100,000 of their people in the 1990’s.
read on...

Opting Out: A Small Step for Peace

Sunday November 15, 2015

Let’s discuss conscientious objection. For those who don’t know what it is, conscientious objection is a moral or religious opposition to war. It is essentially the refusal to participate on moral or religious grounds. So I am a conscientious objector. Interestingly enough, before I conscientiously objected, I was an F-15E fighter pilot. I deployed twice to Afghanistan, and I sincerely regret to say that I have killed people. That is a heavy burden for an honest person to carry whether it’s justified or not.

People disagree on this point for obvious reasons: was it self-defense or aggression? It’s difficult to tell for sure. Most of the situations I have experienced are very gray. They could easily be viewed as self-defense (particularly from a tactical "on the battlefield" perspective). That is, when somebody shoots at you or some 18-year-old kid you’re supposed to protect, you shoot back. Pretty simple. Or is it? From a strategic perspective, it’s hard for me to see the world in the same light. Sure, you can make a pretty good case that Osama Bin Laden should have been captured, put on trial, and convicted for his crimes. That’s fairly straightforward. But he’s dead now and none of the countries we’ve invaded since 2001 had anything to do with it. Nor have they attacked the United States. That should be a problem for any sensible person. So I guess my point is that your perspective matters. The tactical perspective is very different than the larger picture.

What I am very proud to say is that when I personally changed my mind about the moral foundation of the American wars of the last century, I had the courage to act on my convictions and quit the military. To actually change your behavior is very difficult, but possible. Now I’m here to make the case for freedom of conscience in hopes of changing a few minds for peace. So what are we to do about all this war? In my view the answer is conscientiousness.
read on...

Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

Saturday November 14, 2015

You don’t want to read this, and I take no pleasure in writing it, and no one really wants to hear it right now. But I believe it needs to be said.

I join the world in grieving for the dead in Paris. I have grieved for the dead from 9/11 forward — the Australians who died in terror attacks on Bali in 2005, Londoners who died in terror attacks in 2005, the French citizens who died in the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January of this year, the Russians whose plane went down over the Sinai a week or so ago. I grieve also for those killed in smaller attacks already smuggled deep into the obscurity of our memory.

And so we Tweet hashtags and phrases in high school French and post GIFs to Facebook. We know what to do; we’ve done this before.

But it has to be said, especially looking at the sick repetition of the same story, that despite fourteen plus years of a war on terror, terror seems to be with us as much as ever, maybe even more. It is time to rethink what we have done and are doing.

Since that day in 2001, the one with those terrible sparkling blue skies in New York, we have spied on the world, Americans at home and foreigners abroad, yet no one detected anything that stopped the Paris attacks. We gave up much to that spying and got nothing in return.
read on...

Paid Patriotism: The Artist Formerly Known as ‘Propaganda’

Friday November 13, 2015

Last week, Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and John McCain (R-AZ) released a report revealing the Department of Defense paid professional sports teams to host “patriotic events.”

Anyone who has ever attended a sporting event knows these well. Military personnel are featured on the jumbotron, huge flags are spread across the field, returning veterans are named “hometown heroes,” or asked to participate in half-time contests, ceremonial first pitches, and other activities intended to honor the US military.

Though seemingly a spontaneous illustration of national pride, the report revealed such actions to be anything but genuine. In fact, the report found that the Department of Defense had contracted with the NFL, NHL, MLB, and Major League Soccer to host such events, to the tune of $10.5 million taxpayer dollars.

In releasing the report, Senator McCain expressed his disappointment that sports franchises took federal funds for such purposes saying:

Americans across the country should be deeply disappointed that many of the ceremonies honoring troops at professional sporting events are not actually being conducted out of a sense of patriotism, but for profit in the form of millions in taxpayer dollars going from the Department of Defense to wealthy pro sports franchises. Fans should have confidence that their hometown heroes are being honored because of their honorable military service, not as a marketing ploy.

Criticizing these franchises is easy. Major league sports leagues certainly aren’t known as bastions of morality. People have taken the report as a chance to discuss how “capitalism” has cheapened even our armed forces. But the real villain here isn’t capitalism. It’s the government. While the DOD maintains that such payments were to enhance recruiting, it’s time we call these activities by their appropriate name.
read on...

America’s Dedication to Regime Change in Syria Halting Peace Process

Friday November 13, 2015

With the second round of Syria peace talks scheduled for this weekend, the United States is still strongly objecting to any proposal to bring the Assad government together with moderate rebel factions to discuss political solutions to the ongoing slaughter. According to the US State Department it is "premature" for any talks between the Syrian government and rebels. In an interview, RPI Director Daniel McAdams says, "let's be frank: the US is still completely dedicated to regime change in Syria, and that is where the road block is to further progress."
read on...