Veterans symbolically discard service medals at anti-NATO rally
Veterans symbolically discard service medals at anti-NATO rally
(Source: Reuters)
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Nearly 50 U.S. military veterans at an anti-NATO rally in Chicago threw their service medals into the street on Sunday, an action they said symbolized their rejection of the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some of the veterans, many wearing military uniform shirts over black anti-war t-shirts, choked back tears as they explained their actions. Others folded an American flag while a bugle played “Taps,” which is typically performed at U.S. military funerals.
“The medals are supposed to be for acts of heroism. I don’t feel like a hero. I don’t feel like I deserve them,” said Zach LaPorte, who served in Iraq in 2005 and 2006.
LaPorte, a 28-year-old mechanical engineer from Milwaukee, said he enlisted in the Army at 19 because he felt there were few other options. At the time, he could not afford to stay in college.
“I witnessed civilian casualties and civilians being arrested in what I consider an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation,” LaPorte said.
He said he was glad the United States had withdrawn its combat troops from Iraq, but said he did not believe the NATO military alliance was going to leave Afghanistan.
On Sunday, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen opened the two-day summit of the 26-member alliance saying there would be no hasty exit from Afghanistan.
A veteran from New York who only gave his name as Jerry said: “I don’t want any part of this anymore. I chose human life over war, militarism and imperialism.”
The veterans had hoped to present their medals to a NATO representative. The closest they could get was the fence ringing the McCormick Place convention center about a block from where U.S. President Barack Obama and other leaders were meeting. The veterans threw their medals toward the convention center.
Matt Howard, 29, who served in the Marines from 2001 to 2006, said the rate of suicides among veterans returning from the wars is high.
“These medals are not worth the cloth and steel they’re printed on. They’re representative of failed policies,” said Howard, a spokesman for Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Former U.S. Army Sergeant Alejandro Villatoro, 29, of Chicago, served during the Iraq 2003 invasion and in Afghanistan in 2011.
He said he suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome and depression and gave back three medals – one “War on Terrorism” medal, one for participating in the Iraq war and a NATO medal from the Afghanistan war. He said he wants the war in Afghanistan to end.
“There’s no honor in these wars,” said Villatoro, before he threw away his medals. “There’s just shame.”
(Editing by Greg McCune and Stacey Joyce)
A Global Crime Spree — What’s NATO Ever Done?
A Global Crime Spree
What’s NATO Ever Done?
by JOHN LaFORGE
(Source: Counterpunch)
Wondering why anyone would confront NATO’s summit in Chicago this month? A look at some of its more well-known crimes might spark some indignation.
Desecration of corpses, indiscriminate attacks, bombing of allied troops, torture of prisoners and unaccountable drone war are a few of NATO’s outrages in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere. On March 20, 2012 Pakistani lawmakers demanded an end to all NATO/CIA drone strikes against their territory. As reported in The New York Times, Pakistan’s foreign secretary Jalil Jilani said April 26, 2012, “We consider drones illegal, counter-productive and accordingly, unacceptable.” On May 31 last year, Afghan President Hamid Karzai gave what he called his “last” warning against NATO’s bombing of Afghani homes, saying “If they continue their attacks on our houses … history shows what Afghans do with trespassers and with occupiers.”
While bombing Libya last March, NATO refused to aid a group of 72 migrants adrift in the Mediterranean. Only nine people on board survived. The refusal was condemned as criminal by the Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog.
NATO jets bombed and rocketed a Pakistani military base for two hours Nov. 26, 2011—the Salala Incident— killing 26 Pakistani soldiers and wounding dozens more. NATO refuses to apologize, so the Pakistani regime has kept military supply routes into Afghanistan closed since November.
The British medical journal Lancet reported that the US-led unprovoked 2003 bombing, invasion and military take-over of Iraq—which NATO officially joined in 2004 in a ‘training’ capacity—had resulted in over 665,000 civilian deaths by 2006, and 200,000 in the UN-authorized, 1991 Desert Storm massacre led primarily by the US with several NATO allies.
On April 12, 1999, NATO attacked the railway bridge over the Grdelica Gorge and Juzna Morava River with two laser-guided bombs. At the time, a five-car civilian passenger train was crossing the bridge and was hit by both bombs. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused NATO of violating binding laws that require distinction, discrimination and proportionality.
NATO rocketed the central studio of Radio Televisija Srbije (TRS) in Belgrade, the state-owned broadcasting corporation, on April 23, 1999 during the Kosovo war. Sixteen civilian employees of RTS were killed and 16 wounded when NATO destroyed the building. Amnesty Int’l reported that the building could not be considered military, that NATO had violated the prohibition on attacking civilian objects and had therefore committed a war crime.
Headlines chronicle NATO’s crime spree
“U.S. troops posed with body parts of Afghan bombers.” Los Angeles Times, April 18, 2012
“Drones At Issue…: Raids Disrupt Militants, but Civilian Deaths Stir Outrage.” New York Times, March 18, 2012
“G.I. Kills 16 Afghans, Including 9 Children In Attacks on Homes.” New York Times, March 12, 2012
“NATO Admits Airstrike Killed 8 Young Afghans, but Contends They Were Armed.” New York Times, Feb. 16, 2012
“Informer Misled NATO in Airstrike That Killed 8 Civilians, Afghans Say.” (Seven shepherd boys under 14.) New York Times, Feb. 10, 2012
“Video [of U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters] Inflames a Delicate Moment for U.S. in Afghanistan.” New York Times, Jan. 12, 2012
“Commission alleges U.S. detainee abuse.” Minneapolis StarTribune, Jan. 8, 2012
“Six Children Are Killed by NATO Airstrike in Afghanistan.” New York Times, Nov. 25, 2011
“American Soldier Is Convicted of Killing Afghan Civilians for Sport.” New York Times, Nov. 11, 2011
“Pakistan: U.S. Drone Strike Kills Brother of a Taliban Commander.” New York Times, Oct. 28, 2011
“Afghanistan officials ‘systematically tortured’ detainees, UN report says.” Guardian, & BBC Oct. 10; Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2011
“G.I. Killed Afghan Journalist, NATO Says.” New York Times, Sept. 9, 2011
“Cable Implicates Americans in Deaths of Iraqi Civilians.” New York Times, Sept. 2, 2011
“Civilians Die in a Raid by Americans and Iraqis.” New York Times, Aug. 7, 2011
“NATO Strikes Libyan State TV Transmitters.” New York Times, July 31, 2011
“NATO admits raid probably killed nine in Tripoli.” St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 20, 2011
“U.S. Expands Its Drone War to Take On Somali Militants.” New York Times, July 2, 2011
“NATO airstrike blamed in 14 civilian deaths.” St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 30, 2011
“Libya Effort Is Called Violation of War Act.” New York Times, May 26, 2011
“Raid on Wrong House Kills Afghan Girl, 12.” New York Times, May 12, 2011
“Yemen: 2 Killed in Missile Strike.” Associated Press, May 5, 2011
“NATO Accused of Going Too Far With Libya Strikes.” New York Times, May 2, 2011
“Disposal of Bin Laden’s remains violated Islamic principles, clerics say.” Associated Press, May 2, 2011
“Photos of atrocities seen as threat to Afghan relations.” St. Paul Pioneer Press, March 22, 2011
“Missiles Kill 26 in Pakistan” (“most of them civilians”) New York Times, March 18, 2011
“Afgans Say NATO Troops Killed 8 Civilians in Raid.” New York Times, Aug. 24, 2010
“A dozen or more” Afghan civilians were killed during a nighttime raid August 5, 2010 in eastern Afghanistan, NATO’s officers said. Chicago Tribune, Aug. 6, 2010
“Afghans Say Attack Killed 52 Civilians; NATO Differs.” New York Times, July 27, 2010
In June 2008, NATO bombers attacked a Pakistani paramilitary force called the Frontier Corps killing 11 of its soldiers. New York Times, Nov. 27, 2011
“Afghans Die in Bombing, As Toll Rises for Civilians.” New York Times, May 3, 2010
John LaForge works for Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog and anti-war group in Wisconsin and edits its Quarterly.
G8 moved in face of planned protests
G8 moved in face of planned protests
(new-power.org)
Both NATO and the G8 were to be held in Chicago, USA in the month of May. These summits were the focus of many protests. Many forces planned to gather in Chicago that month. The forces that would make up such protests are diverse. They range from social-imperialist to anti-imperialist, First Worldist to Third Worldist, reformist to revolutionary. In face of the Occupy protests last year, to avoid disruption, the G8 has moved its meeting to Camp David in Maryland. This new location makes it difficult to protest in numbers. The moving of the protest to Camp David represents a defeat for those who would challenge the imperialist institution in the streets. Although NATO will still hold its meeting in Chicago, providing a target for protesters, NATO by itself will not generate the same numbers as NATO and the G8.
In the past high-profile summits have provided a target, an opportunity for those seeking to disrupt the state to gather and act. This has especially been the case after the Seattle protests of the World Trade Organization in 1999. The moving of G8 represents a new tactic in response to summit-hopping protesters and the Occupy movement. In addition, expect a sophisticated state response to the protest. Expect increased militarization of the police, FBI, and Homeland Security involvement. Those who planned to attend should take note. Even with the reduced numbers, the protest of NATO in Chicago provides a good opportunity to spread the word about Leading Light Communism.
Orientation toward Occupy
Orientation toward Occupy
(new-power.org)
The Occupy protests continue to dwindle in the Unites States. This is expected. The weather has played a role. It is harder to organize in the winter. The police repression has played a role. The inability of the Democrats to fully co-opt Occupy has resulted in Occupiers losing their status as media darlings. The media has turned against them. Media coverage is much more hostile today than it was at the beginning of the movement. Also, people in the United States have short attention spans. They are easily bored. People lose interest. However, most importantly, Occupy is running up against the social forces of trying to sustain a movement for social change in the First World. The vast majority of First World peoples do not have an interest in radical, egalitarian social change. They simply benefit too much from the system. They are too comfortable. Occupy is not about Leading Light Communism, is not about a radical reorganization at the deepest levels to bring about a world without oppression. Occupy is dominated by social-democratic and populist rhetoric. Even though social-democratic reform is often in the interests of most people in the United States, most people are simply too comfortable to fight very hard for it. People are too a-politicized and comfortable to even stand up for their own bourgeois interests. This is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, increasing the living standard of First World peoples as a whole is almost always connected to impoverishing Third World peoples. Nonetheless, Occupy still lingers on.
Could Occupy get a second wind? It will pick up a bit in the spring, but probably not return to previous levels. If the economy goes downward, then we could see more people at Occupy in the spring. However, at the moment, it does not appear the economy is falling. Rather, the latest numbers indicate a slight improvement in the situation. Occupy may be able to get a boost of energy by combining its efforts with the May Day efforts of the migrants. Occupy may get some kind of traction out of combining its efforts with the NATO/G8 protests this year. The “full-moon factor” could also boost Occupy’s numbers. It is 2012. Many New Religious Movements believe that 2012 heralds the transformation of the world. This idea, based upon, often chauvinist, misappropriation and misinterpretation of the Maya calendar, is widespread in pop culture. Movies have been made about the supposed significance of 2012. Many tomes have been written on the topic. There is a long history of apocalyptic “Great Awakening”-type movements in the United States. There is a possibility that Occupy could get a second wind if its numbers are boosted by people thinking that Occupy is somehow connected to the end of the world. In a country where economic contradictions are not sharp, culture plays a more significant role in social motion.
The correct orientation toward Occupy is the same as before. Do not bother trying to lead directly. For those who can, create a Leading Light pole in the movement. Look for the most caring, the most daring, and the most intelligent. They are the ones who will be drawn toward the Leading Light. Educate. Recruit. If the economy does go downward, we need to have the organization ready to mobilize that minority who break left, toward internationalism. Discipline. Organization.
Who are the one percent?
Who are the one percent?
(new-power.org)
This is an interesting poster we found online at globalequality.me. We do not know who made it, but we like the sentiment. The numbers aren’t exactly correct. Most Americas fall within the top 10% globally, almost all fall within the top 15%. Now, change will come from the bottom up. It will come from the global poor, not the global rich. Revolution will come from the Third World, not the First World. Revolution will come through global people’s war, not through First Worldist populism. Even so, it is important to educate those in the margins.
First Worldism is social fascism
First Worldism is Social Fascism by ModernMarxist
There is a reason why Third Worldists refer to First Worldists as “social fascists”. We are living in a day and age where imperialism has advanced capitalist centralization of wealth on a global level. The rich countries rape, plunder, pillage, impoverish and enslave the poor countries, coercing and bombing them into submission. If the “leaders” of the third world will not sell out their people and submit their resources and labor to the imperialists, their countries are subject to invasion, slaughter, and ultimately destruction. This is not some kind of secret that only a chosen few know; there are no conspiracy theories or men in suits lobbying in smoke filled rooms. This is common knowledge. Unfortunately, it is common knowledge which, today, few in the First World choose to think about or even acknowledge. Today, the First World’s primary source of wealth and labor is the Third World. When First Worlders, especially First World workers, want more, when they want an increase in their living standards, they are taking that new barbecue or 3D flat-screen right out of the mouths of Third Worlders. They are using luxury and commodity fetishism to rob the Third World of simple austerity measures. They are taking more and more from those who are already barely surviving: those who produce but cannot eat from the fruit of their labor.
During his life, Marx spoke of what criteria defines who is of the proletariat and who is of the bourgeoisie. He described the proletariat as a class receiving far less than the value of their labor - of having nothing to sell but their labor and subsequently being alienated from their labor. This does not describe the vast majority of First World peoples. This does define, however, the majority of Third Worlders. One important criterion of the bourgeoisie is consuming much but producing little or nothing in terms of valuable labor. This is very descriptive of most First World peoples, even those on the lowest strata (who are in and of themselves a minority) in the First World. We can gather from this (as well as all other Marxist criteria of what defines each class) that today’s class contradiction is a global one in the current age of globalization and US hegemony. Today there is a global proletariat struggling to survive under the yolk of a global bourgeoisie. It is the duty of a communist to struggle against the bourgeoise in support of proletarian revolution, even if it means becoming a class traitor.
One who does not even recognize these global class contradictions cannot possibly call oneself a communist. It is laughable that today’s First World “communist” parties are so willing to describe themselves as Marxist (or indeed anything even leftist) when they not only fail to recognize today’s material conditions, the way imperialism has changed the game, but they also fail to support the global proletariat against the global bourgeoisie. In fact (and this is almost shockingly dim), these “communist” parties support the global bourgeoisie in their parasitic devouring of the Third World peoples, the global proletariat. They are the labor aristocracy. They are completely bought off by imperialism. They call for more. More for First World peoples. More wages. More benefits. More at the expense of those who have nothing. Those who truly have nothing to lose but their chains.
In order to wage a People’s War (which some “communist” parties, hilariously, actually have the gall to say might happen in the First World), or even begin any sort of proletarian revolutionary action, you don’t just need a proletariat (which does not exist in any revolutionary form in the First World), but you also need a social base. People have to desire and work for a revolution, because a communist revolution doesn’t just closely involve common people, but it is subsequently composed of the efforts of common people. First Worlders are asleep. They are too busy wallowing in their decadence and consumerism. First Worlders do not make the basis for revolution. They are not concerned with the proletariat. This is a very basic truth. To refuse to acknowledge this is not science. It is not Marxism. To refuse to acknowledge this is to have your head buried in dogma, the dogmatic idea that all workers are exploited and oppressed, regardless of material conditions.
First Worldists are social fascists because they do not want to force First Worlders to give up their privilege. They do not want to give the Third World back what rightfully belongs to them. They want to establish another Third Reich: material prosperity at the expense of others. The only difference is that First World imperialism is based on bourgeois decadence and a standard of living exponentially higher than that of any imperialist power in history. The First Worldists will not halt imperialism. They are the beneficiaries of imperialism. Any First World “revolution” by any First World “socialist” movement would be social imperialism. The First World simply will not receive more from true non-imperialistic socialism: really, they would receive less. The First Worldists will not and would not do what needs to be done to truly establish socialism, to truly take the world on the road to communism. They remain content consuming more while those they take from starve and die, living under the iron gauntlet of imperialism. First Worldists are enemies of equality and enemies of the global proletariat, regardless of whether or not they paint their imperialism red or blue or gold or white or black.
Historically, communist revolution has always come from the darkest of places. It has always come from those who truly had nothing to lose but their chains. It came from those who, for them, revolution meant survival; for those who fought so that their children might be able to live decent, dignified and meaningful lives. Clean, sanitary water. Food. Clothes. Housing that doesn’t blow away or crumble in front of weather, or tanks. Education. Health care. Never has a communist revolution occurred in the rich countries, where the majority of its people could live without much concern for daily needs. In the rich imperialist counties, a different kind of revolution occurred once it’s people’s living standards took a drop. Once the imperialist privilege of these spoiled populations was threatened, they turned to fascism and bourgeois nationalism. They allied with the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat. The most reactionary elements of society took control and reorganized their economies and societies in order to not just allow but demand imperialism. Death was the answer to everything.
First Worldist “communists” are not communists at all. They are social fascists and social imperialists, demanding more for their own people, and actively working to oppress and exploit others to maintain imperialist privilege. They reject science and today’s reality and material conditions, clinging childishly to dogma and revisionism. Socialist redistribution of wealth on a global level is not in the First Worldists’ interests. “Revisionism” means to cut the revolutionary heart out of communism, and that is exactly what First Worldists do. Leading Light Communists are the only real communists today. Be a Leading Light. Support real communism, not First World revisionism.
Recent Comments