Mr. Gates did soften his message a bit, noting that, not counting United States forces, NATO troops in Afghanistan were to increase from 30,000 last year to 50,000 this year.

“By any measure,” he said, “that is an extraordinary feat.”

More sobering, he said, was that just two months into the year, NATO was facing shortfalls of hundreds of millions of euros — “a natural consequence of having underinvested in collective defense for over a decade.”

-----------------------

more boom booms... see business is business and a finacial obscenity...

from Chris Floyd...

War is no longer seen as a vast, horrific failure of the human spirit, a scandalous betrayal of our common humanity, a sickening tragedy of irrevocable loss and inconsolable suffering – although this is its inescapable reality, even in a "good" war, for a "just" cause. (And of course no nation or faction has ever gone to war without declaring that its cause is just.) Instead of lamenting war, and girding for it, if at all, only in the most dire circumstances, with the most extreme reluctance, the infected society celebrates it at every turn. No national occasion – even a sporting event! – is complete without bristling displays of military firepower, and pious tributes to those wreaking violence around the world in blind obedience to their superiors.

--------

 see toon at top.

Cud and Complicity: Burying the Alternatives to Empire's Dominion



Written by Chris Floyd      

Rep. Dennis Kucinich's proposal to withdraw from Afghanistan was debated, heatedly, for hours in the House of Representatives on Wednesday. After the debate, dozens of Representatives cast their vote to end the war immediately. This was an unprecedented event in the history of the conflict, now in its ninth year.

Think about that for a moment: an unprecedented event, on the floor of the House, going on for hours, involving a question of supreme national importance. Regardless of one's position on the issue, is this not the very definition of "news"? But on Thursday morning, you could search high and low on the front pages (print and web) of both the New York Times and the Washington Post -- our national arbiters of serious newsworthiness -- yet find no mention whatsoever of this event. This, even though the web fronts -- unlike the paper versions -- contain headlines for dozens of stories, including sections devoted entirely to Washington politics.

You would have had to know about the debate already -- or else trawl diligently through piles of pixels or print -- to reach the small stories that our papers of record deigned to release on the subject. No ordinary newspaper reader -- someone who has a more than passing interest in current events but also has a life to live -- would even know that such a debate took place, much less learn anything about the powerful arguments against the war delivered on the floor of the national legislature. That is to say, it is entirely possible that a reasonably informed and engaged citizen of the Republic would not even be aware that dozens of elected officials at the highest level of government voiced their support for the most radical position on the war: immediate withdrawal.

But such is the way of our imperial system. Our ruling class does not want the citizenry to know there are any alternatives to the grand bipartisan consensus on the true aims of government: servicing the needs of Militarism and Money. And so what cannot be ignored entirely is buried "certain fathoms in the earth ... deeper than did ever plummet sound."

-----------

read more of Chris Floyd

This article from Chris Floyd is as momentous as he suggests but, are we in Australia surprised at this attitude of the "all powerful" media?  Being able to learn of these important events is just another tick in the value of Your Democracy.

The previous forum from which I was expelled, would not accept my opinions that the media elects and by definition, can dismiss the governments under the loosely used and abused title of "democracy".

I can trace this injustice in my mind back to the early days of information.  My father used to sit conscientiously beside the radio during WW. II. In retrospect, I accept that the propaganda which was (as surely as that of our "enemies") constantly convincing us that we were "winning".  I can understand that.  When the politicians declare war on our behalf we certainly need some comforting "news" when our citizens are being sacrificed to the "powers that be".

The Howard/Costello "New Order" used this principle to the extreme by claiming that to reveal what they were doing would not be in the National Interests!  Struth.

So, to consider what went wrong with the "freedom of the Press" it simply requires the knowledge of WHO were powerful enough financially, to buy up as many if not all of the major sources of "information".  If possible, in both the major competing nations of military power - and act only for a profit of land or natural wealth.

IMHO good intentions of the masses was taken under consideration by the powers that always controlled public information such as Monarchies - dictators - religiously committed peoples - Communism - and Capitalism.  Just to make my point - we in Australia are now in that very position.

Howard made a career out of paying homage to the media moguls and even had the cheek to declare that the Daily Telegraph was his favorite "Newspaper".  Struth.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs that, in times of relative peace, it is not the government elected by the people who is providing the information from which we make our decisions - but the media moguls.

If the people of Australia - let alone the Americans - can ever come to realize that the media - in all of its forms - is controlled by a relatively small number of "the powers that be" - they may be able to shake off the belief in media integrity - because there isn't any. Only profit and influencing the readers to increase that objective.

That's the problem - what is the solution?  The Howard "New Order" sued two Herald Sun reporters who stepped outside of their "lock down" principle.  Do we remember?  He also had a well financed "dirt digging unit" while all of the participants plus all senior public servants were refused permission to testify at any Senate or otherwise enquiry.

The Rudd government has reversed that policy as any government should but, the "censor powered" media tried to convince us that the transparency and accountability of these public servants was bad no matter what they did.

Shonky businesses have been very active during Kevin Rudd's successful attempts to keep our unemployment as low as possible during the world wide financial disaster.

Free press has become a system where any or all media barons can decide who they will “allow” to be our government.

I find that so repulsive that I wonder at the intelligence of our people.

God bless Australia and give us as much regulation on the media as we the people have to accept.  NE OUBLIE.