A covert coup? The U.S. Is at war with itself.

a reply to: desert

Contradictions?
Does it matter its still a power struggle

And where does Hersch say anything about a coup? That’s in the OP title, as far as I know not in the article.

Maybe I missed it

a reply to: DJW001

Thank you for the response. I'm gaining a new perspective of the extent of what goes on behind the curtain.
Mind boggling to say the least.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tweetie

Wow, you don't think there is an internal power struggle going on in the context you mentioned above. Wow.

Please explain what you mean by "power struggle," given that the Commander in Chief will certainly be different in one year's time.

From snatches of videos and comments I happened to catch in all sorts of places on the Web, I think some long-term members of the military (I would probably call them Patriots) put Obama in his place very early on. I wasn't looking for this kind of thing but I came across bits of info and filed them away mentally. In other words, these Patriots were not going to let this President undermine what they'd established over the years. I don't know anyone high-up in the military who could back me up on that but I would bet money on it.

I have no doubt the next President will be carefully scrutinized and vetted (privately) by the top brass in military, too, because they want to know exactly what kind of person they will have to deal with for the next four years and how much that person will try to overpower or subvert them.

FWIW!!

a reply to: Willtell

Good point. And, nope, you didn't miss it. IMO it certainly wasn't a coup, and I still feel it was a little thin on the extent of a power struggle. Nonetheless, Mr. Hersh's entire article is a good read, if just for showing the complexities of the situation.

We seem to be at the beginning of a new Middle East century. I wish I could live long enough to see how it all shakes out.... I'm hopeful for the best prospects for those who live there.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: desert

Contradictions?
Does it matter its still a power struggle

And where does Hersch say anything about a coup? That’s in the OP title, as far as I know not in the article.

Maybe I missed it

No, no that was all me. *flashes artistic license*

Hence the "?" , it was my question to ATS. When the military branch does one thing in complete contradiction to the executive branches wishes, from all the history stories I ever read that spelled coup.

But as with everything else America is the exception and not the norm. If that is the case, that just means America was never self determined anyways.

Splitting hairs? 6 in 1, half dozen in the other?

Just your typical reindeer games?

Personally, I just sat back and took this thread in. Most specifically, those who seem to accept this as normal. Seriously, you guys sit here and justify the unjustifiable. Sickening, like drone in American cities. Legal propaganda on your televisions. Politics bought and paid by the highest bidders.

"Meh, it's what they do, who cares."

Idiots. That's not how I read the constitution.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

I think your insult and anger are misplaced.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Rosinitiate

I think your insult and anger are misplaced.

I'm not angry and I use the term specifically to convey the self-defeating mindset most Americans have. It's always lost before it even starts it seems.

a reply to: 5leepingWarrior

After all, an enemy who wars with himself is doomed to failure.a reply to

IF only, how much longer must the world put up with and suffer untold casualties so the US can stay afloat, on the back of endless money printing and arms manufacturing?

a reply to: tweetie

In other words, you consider yourself to be a patriot and are wishing for a military coup. Sorry, it's not happening, and if it does you can kiss the rest of the Constitution goodbye.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Personally, I just sat back and took this thread in. Most specifically, those who seem to accept this as normal.

That's because it is normal. The world is complex. Russia is all about self determination, unless a Russian territory wants to secede. The United States is all about democracy and human rights, unless a brutal dictator is willing to allow the US access to something of strategic value. China is happy to help the developing world... but it expects something in return. Do you honestly not understand how the world works?

Seriously, you guys sit here and justify the unjustifiable.

Where does anyone do that? What do you consider unjustifiable?

Sickening, like drone in American cities.

How is a drone sickening?

Legal propaganda on your televisions.

Got it, you are in favor of censorship.

Politics bought and paid by the highest bidders.

Only if you sit by and do nothing.

a reply to: DJW001

The fact you equate opposition to legalized propaganda to promoting censorship says way more about you than it does me.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: DJW001

The fact you equate opposition to legalized propaganda to promoting censorship says way more about you than it does me.

On the contrary; making any speech, even propaganda, illegal is censorship. I assume by "legal propaganda" you mean facts and/or points of view you disagree with.

a reply to: DJW001

1.
derogatory
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
"he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"
synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin; More

Seriously? Propaganda is a targeted attack on a collective.

There is a difference between censorship and encouraging your government to mislead you.

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes an amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, reports Michael Hastings of BuzzFeed.

www.businessinsider.com...

You're just being intellectually dishonest.

I've long held that the only way to fix our government is to tear it down to nothing, and rebuild. It is too big and corrupt to address parts of it individually. The beast won't allow its arm to be cut off any more than you or I would. But the military is another issue.

With a very broad "there are many limits and details to this statement"...I'm not totally opposed to the idea of the military taking over, or removing our government so long as the plan includes the rebuilding afterwards back to a Constitutional, law-abiding and incorruptible government. And before anyone bitches...yes...incorruptible is impossible, but there are many safe-guards I'd love to see imposed that would be impossible today.

For example...

Politicians campaign promises are converted into an employment contract before they take office. They sign the contract and if they don't work toward the promises they were elected to execute...they can be fired.

Term limits for all and much shorter ones. Personally I'd love to see a one or two year draft from the people of their representatives to avoid any career politicians. But I would settle for "you can be a politician once and for no more than two years" type rule.

I'd love to see a "no lies" clause for all politicians. From the date they take office they will be considered under oath when addressing the people or their peers. If they knowingly lie...they can and will be removed from office. "You can keep your Doctor" type protection.

If a politician does not support the law, or if he/she breaks or doesn't enforce the law...they WILL BE removed from office. Period! I want to have respect for my leaders...not loathe them.

Big one here...the role of politicians should be as employees OF THE PEOPLE. They are interviewed, hired and fired based upon their actions or in-actions. Standard holidays, vacations, etc.

OK...I could go on for hours but I'll leave it there Santa? Are you listening (ha-ha)

a reply to: Rosinitiate

1.
derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
"he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"
synonyms: information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin; More

Emphasis mine. Note how "information" can be called "propaganda" by those who fear facts.

Seriously? Propaganda is a targeted attack on a collective.

Propaganda is a means to convince individuals to subscribe to a particular narrative or opinion. The term is used with a negative connotation. One man's opinion is another man's propaganda.

There is a difference between censorship and encouraging your government to mislead you.

Correct: censorship is when the government determines which viewpoints can be published and which are "propaganda." When freedom of speech is permitted, government propaganda becomes ineffective because people have access to alternative sources of information, hence the need for censorship.

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes an amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, reports Michael Hastings of BuzzFeed.

www.businessinsider.com...

He has the right to make that claim. Fortunately, thanks to America's transparent if byzantine government, it is possible to see if that statement is true. Control F the actual passed legislation:

www.gpo.gov...

You're just being intellectually dishonest.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but if you still deny that it is sometimes necessary to pursue two different approaches to the same goal in the real world, and that doing so is evidence of a coup, you are the one who is naïve or dishonest.

Webster Tarpley has been alleging and covering what he interprets as "dissension" in the US military for a long time now, on his World Crisis Radio program and in his writings.

The resignation of General McChrystal, the "Benghazi Affair", the tug of war in the military command and the State Department over whether to have a "no fly zone" over Syria, or whether to bomb Syria and the activities of "ISIS Czar" (some say "ISIS Ambassador to the United States") General John Allen in containing/expanding ISIS military strength have all been cited by Tarpley in various contexts, as either the military working with the President or sometimes the military working against the President.

US policy on Syria has certainly evolved/drifted/improved/degraded since Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. I think a lot of what has been happening has to be viewed against the general trend in US foreign policy to carry on as if the Cold War hadn't been won and was still a live issue. Many people in the US persist in interpreting current events in the Ukraine, for example, in that light.

Tarpley often refers to David Petraeus, retired general and ex director of the CIA as a possible "Bonapartist" potential coup leader.

There is also the question of several lapses by the Secret Service that might be seen as "messages" to the President or even as attempts to get at him from inside, rather than outside, the American governmental or military establishment.

There is also the question of several nuclear bombs being “lost” for 36 hours after taking off August 29/30, 2007 (during the Bush administration) on a “cross-country journey” across the U.S., from U.S.A.F Base Minot in North Dakota to U.S.A.F. Base Barksdale in Louisiana. This was only learned about when lower level military whistle blowers revealed it. What exactly was going on in this incident is not fully understood, but at the very least, there were gross deviations from normal procedures involved, and some believe, elements of the military acting against one another at the behest of individuals well up the chain of command.

I'm glad that Hersh is talking about this sort of thing, but it has been around for a while now, as a topic.

a reply to: ipsedixit

There is dissent in every group because not everyone always shares the same opinion. It is only when a group acts to overthrow the hierarchical structure of an organization that it becomes mutiny. Have some military officers retired over questions of policy? Probably. That's a matter of honor, not a coup in the making. Sometimes the government makes a gaffe that becomes public because censorship is not (generally) practiced in America. The Secret Service screw ups and mislaid nuclear bombs are just the tip of the iceberg. They are not a message of any kind, they are what happens when human beings are expected to function at peak performance 24/7.

I had a thought with this thread. Somewhere between idealism and fatalism is reality. It seems that, in recent years especially, popular thinking has been that only two ways exist, that there are only two possibilities, only opposites. Only GoodvEvil, you're either with us or against us, it is only this or that. There is a richness to reality, a deepness, with background and context. There are easy answers in a bifurcated world, but a bifurcated world is not reality. Reality can be a harsh mistress. Anyway, I'm off to start my seasonal celebrations. Here's to reality in 2016

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: Rosinitiate

I think your insult and anger are misplaced.

I'm not angry and I use the term specifically to convey the self-defeating mindset most Americans have. It's always lost before it even starts it seems.

Why do you say most Americans have a self-defeating mindset? I want to understand your point of view.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tweetie

In other words, you consider yourself to be a patriot and are wishing for a military coup. Sorry, it's not happening, and if it does you can kiss the rest of the Constitution goodbye.

Thanks for the chuckle. I'm not accomplished and noble enough to be considered what I would call a true patriot. I didn't take an oath to protect the Constitution and still abide by that oath. I do care very much, though, what happens to/is happening to my country of origin. I want to be proud of my country again. I can't say I'm wishing for a military coup but now that you've mentioned it, if it ever does happen I imagine it would be as a last resort.