Home
That's the argument our whimpering generals made when faced with the possibility that a bill designed to remove judicial oversight in sex crime investigations and criminal trials from command officers was supported by several members of the U.S. Senate.
Unfortunately for those 25,000 female victims of rape and/or sexual harassment in our military services each year, the senate voted to not take any power away from our generals. After all, we really need our generals to fight all the recent wars (none of which, however, any of them have been able to win). So why antagonize them by taking away their right to protect a fellow office or a non-com who, you know, got a little poontang or head from a lower ranking troopess.
The senates' rejection of the subject bill flies in the face of overwhelming public support to remove judicial sexual oversight from staff officers, so that genuine investigations and trials are correctly pursued. Why?
Consider: Major corporations who fund the campaigns for most of the folks who serve in our congress, eye rich resources of some third-world black, brown or yellow country, and lobby for our executive branch and the state department to come up with a reasonable cause for our military to invade the country we intend to victimize, under the guise of "protecting our national interests.
And with the support of our national media, and deep pockets of our MIC, our generals vie with each other for the right to command a war that they know we will have no intention to actually win. They know they will have neither the personnel nor the equipment necessary for a decisive victory. But, commanding a war is what they've been working towards all their adult careers, right? Besides, who's going to complain? All the troops are volunteers! And so what if a few thousand of them gets maimed or blown to Hell. That's the cost of fighting to control someone elses oil, minerals or rare metals, etc. Oooorawwhhh!
Do you really wonder why the majority of the senate voted to not offend the whimpering generals? Do you buy the argument that allowing military personnel who have been accused of sexual crimes to be investigated and possibly tried by independent legal forces, would lessen a general's war-fighting capability? What utter bullshit!!
Listen up, if your wife, sister or girlfriend starts talking about joining up, do all you can to persuade her otherwise. That, by the way, is the exact sentiment expressed by Senator McCain last year -- on camera -- because he was outraged by a general who cleared a subordinate officer who was his personal friend, from being investigated for a heinous sex crime perpetrated on a lower ranking female.
Yessireesir, Amerika Inc is all for unending wars that make a few big companies very, very, very rich. And if 25,000 female troopers are sexually victimized each year, that's tough. Call it one of the costs of patriotism, right?
Reality.
Screw Amerika Inc.!!
Unfortunately for those 25,000 female victims of rape and/or sexual harassment in our military services each year, the senate voted to not take any power away from our generals. After all, we really need our generals to fight all the recent wars (none of which, however, any of them have been able to win). So why antagonize them by taking away their right to protect a fellow office or a non-com who, you know, got a little poontang or head from a lower ranking troopess.
The senates' rejection of the subject bill flies in the face of overwhelming public support to remove judicial sexual oversight from staff officers, so that genuine investigations and trials are correctly pursued. Why?
Consider: Major corporations who fund the campaigns for most of the folks who serve in our congress, eye rich resources of some third-world black, brown or yellow country, and lobby for our executive branch and the state department to come up with a reasonable cause for our military to invade the country we intend to victimize, under the guise of "protecting our national interests.
And with the support of our national media, and deep pockets of our MIC, our generals vie with each other for the right to command a war that they know we will have no intention to actually win. They know they will have neither the personnel nor the equipment necessary for a decisive victory. But, commanding a war is what they've been working towards all their adult careers, right? Besides, who's going to complain? All the troops are volunteers! And so what if a few thousand of them gets maimed or blown to Hell. That's the cost of fighting to control someone elses oil, minerals or rare metals, etc. Oooorawwhhh!
Do you really wonder why the majority of the senate voted to not offend the whimpering generals? Do you buy the argument that allowing military personnel who have been accused of sexual crimes to be investigated and possibly tried by independent legal forces, would lessen a general's war-fighting capability? What utter bullshit!!
Listen up, if your wife, sister or girlfriend starts talking about joining up, do all you can to persuade her otherwise. That, by the way, is the exact sentiment expressed by Senator McCain last year -- on camera -- because he was outraged by a general who cleared a subordinate officer who was his personal friend, from being investigated for a heinous sex crime perpetrated on a lower ranking female.
Yessireesir, Amerika Inc is all for unending wars that make a few big companies very, very, very rich. And if 25,000 female troopers are sexually victimized each year, that's tough. Call it one of the costs of patriotism, right?
Reality.
Screw Amerika Inc.!!