U.S. SOLDIERS SPEAK ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES ON DEPLOYMENT

Please leave comments below.

WAR IN AFGHANISTAN (VIDEO)

In case you haven't seen much war footage on your local news network recently, I thought I would share this video I found on Youtube:



U.S. Media war-coverage is fairly ambiguous and sterile, since it is subject to heavy censorship and influenced by the big corporations upon which it depends for advertising dollars.

World War III, Get Both Sides Of The Story

After reading books such as George Orwell's, 1984, or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and seeing movies with the same general message like Brazil, THX-1138, Wag The Dog, etc., I have had little trust in the mainstream sources for world news. Accordingly, I spend a lot of time looking for alternative information sources whenever I am trying to find the truth on global political matters.

The PAK-ALERT PRESS stands out as an excellent source for independant stories and articles out of the Middle- East and especially with respect to the situation in the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The photos and stories that I find there, give a realistic perspective to the stark reality of a distant war that most Americans are insulated from by our sterile and impotent media giants.

Here is the article that inspired me to write this: The Anatomy Of America's Defeat In Afghanistan

World War III

How does one make a distinction between "occupation" and "invasion"? It should be obvious right? Most would immediately say that an occupation is temporary and an invasion permanent.  But, let us look more closely at these words.

My Encarta Dictionary tells me that the first definition of "occupation" is "1. the job by which somebody earns a living." That makes sense when I think about what the United States is doing in the Middle-East. But wait, we're talking about a military action, right? The traditional military use of  the word "occupation" according to Encarta, is "4. MILITARY the invasion and control of a country or area by enemy forces."  Hhmmn, there is nothing there about leaving the invaded country...

The order by which Encarta lists the definitions for any given word are supposed to be representative of the commonality of their usage, so I was not surprised when I looked up "invasion" to find that the first definition was perfectly military in its application, "1. a hostile entry by an armed force into a country's territory, especially with the intention of conquering it."  Again, there is nothing here about leaving the invaded country. I like this word better for a description of what our country has done in the Middle-East; there is no deception with this word.

Of course our troops in the Middle-East are planning to leave...just as soon as they are done building a few more permanent military bases. Just like in Viet Nam, our presence there will eventually change the culture into a more "American friendly" place to be. The US military never had a plan for "leaving" Iraq, because that is not what an "invasion" is all about.

Let us use words that convey the true meaning of our actions in the Middle-East when we talk about our "enterprises" there. And let us not pretend that we are conducting "police actions" or "occupations"--this is not a "war on terror." We are in the middle of nothing less than World War III! How many nations are involved in this global power struggle? I think they all are...

Please leave your comments below.  Especially if you disagree with me!