Political Climate Change: Weapons Sails Abroad

The New York Times, the paper that used a Judith Miller article to rouse the nation up to take a yellowcake walk through Iraq, has decried that, now, years in to the foray, US arms are taking a grim toll in the Yemen War. You'd think  that the DJ's proclamation that, “Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the world, by far", would have been a clue, but no. Apparently it's only now that the flailing NYT has discovered that when we sell weapons to a "Kingdom" ruled by a murderous brat, not much unlike our own be-diapered Baby Huey look-alike of a monarch (Is DJ's ass really that big?" ... Depends), he might use them to, ya know, kill people. That's why Reagan sold Tomahawk missiles to Iran, while providing intelligence about where they were deployed, to Iraq, for example. To whom we were selling anti-missile systems (they didn't work).

I find their objection to weapons sales, to allies, curious for two reasons. First, the NRA wins every case they bring when, after some other AK-47 -wielding, disgruntled Tea Partier, wipes out a select portion of the madding crowd, some attempt is made to limit such sales. "Guns don't kill people, people do", is about all they have to say. Oh, right, of course. (Nowhere do bullets get the slightest mention, yet neither guns nor people inflict the fatal damage: Bullets do).  Well then, ... so okay, just you keep doing that. Far be it for me to suggest otherwise. So that's where we stand on that moral/legal issue. Well, Phosphorous cluster bombs, and missiles, their tips alloyed with Depleted Uranium, they don't kill people, either, the Nations (that would be  us ... all but exclusively) that drop them do.

So why not let some one else do your dirty work? Which brings me to my second reason. We are still in a War with Afghanistan that the USA had no hope of winning, nor did it ever intend on doing so. Ditto Iraq. The reasons proffered for both conflicts are total nonsense. Everybody knows this, they just don't want to look the fool for supporting those endeavors when we were being manipulated into doing so. The point being, there is no other actual reason, or rather let's say, not one as disturbingly compelling s the ballooning of the the bottom lines of all those defense firms that need to keep conflict going so their fat profits therefrom keep rolling in. Right now the entire globe is being made privy to biological warfare waged by one party against the other, yet can still think it one step beyond to conceive of these wars as anything more than weapons-tests and display fields for the Awesome power of the USA:

"Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world, by far."

POW Camps:

Does the NYT think we're fighting in Afgahnistan, after all this time, for Democracy? Have you looked at what's occupying the Offal Office right now? Democracy has delivered to the world a Super Power ruled by a creature so vile he is proclaiming workers being sent to unsafe workplaces under threat of destitution and homelessness (as that's what being cut off from both your job, because they believe their President (they probably actually believe he's being treated with that aquamarineaquine, too)  and consider Covid-19 but a minor inconvenience, so your fellow workers don't deign to don a mask, yet if you don't go to the job, you get fired; and your red State has decreed you're therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits, or SNAP) consider themselves "Warriors", on the fields of the economic Wars he started on day one of his administration. As Betty and Wilma used to cry: "CHARGE! ... it." Yet the Companies being so generous as to provide those disease-ridden environments need never worry, as they are immune to lawsuits from any fatalities they incur on this, our latest war, our War on US. We have seen the enemy, and the Po' go first, boy.

"The best Warriors in the world, by far." ... "Let another one drop."

That includes in the Battleground countries, of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan: where, in order to withdraw the troops, a sop must be thrown to the companies raking in the bonanza from the trade in advanced sophisticated death machines. That is why the DJ has emphasized arms sales to other countries run by dolts with large checkbooks. As no one knows better than the failing NYT, the profits to be derived from selling the daily news are razor thin; but those to be raped, (Oh, did I say "raped?" I meant) reaped from selling machines that promise to harvest human lives, especially in large numbers from a safe distance, are as  fat and juicy as a tick on the DJ's ass (and those nosebleed-level maintenance contracts lock them into being bled for years into the future).

And since Isis, the Taliban, Al Qaeda in Syria, (and Yemen as well, it's been said), all seem to have no trouble ending up with US-manufactured weapons anyway, and at the taxpayers' expense, I for one, would rather we deliver them via a cargo vessel than the way we have been delivering them: directly onto helpless peoples' heads.