Veterans For Peace Chapter 111
  • Home
  • Tipping the Scale Blog
  • Events and Announcements
  • CO Program
  • Media
  • Contacts
  • Mission
  • Chapter Minutes
  • Chapter Bylaws
  • Charter
  • Newsletters
  • Newsletters

50 Years After the Fall of Saigon, Let’s Accept Defeat

4/30/2025

0 Comments

 
Ted Rall
April 30, 2025

Picture
My mom had an uncanny ability to size up current events and accurately predict their long-term effects. 50 years ago, I sat in my mom’s colonial dining room and watched the fall of Saigon on her black-and-white TV with two folds of aluminum foil dangling from the rabbit ears. America was not riding high. A year earlier, gas rationing went into effect and a president reelected in a record landslide resigned in disgrace.

As desperate Americans and South Vietnamese scrambled to evacuate, embassy staffers burned millions of dollars in cash to prevent it from falling into the hands of the victorious North Vietnamese. As landing decks on aircraft carriers in the South China Sea became overcrowded, UH-1 “Huey” helicopters, each worth at least $1 million in today’s dollars, were pushed into the ocean to make room for incoming aircraft. The estimated value of the military and other equipment left behind by retreating U.S. forces ranges between $1 billion and $4 billion, plus an additional $1 billion to $2 billion in corporate assets.
“The United States will never recover from this,” my mom said. “They’ll never learn anything from it, because they’ll never understand why it happened.”

Half a century later, she was clearly right. We lost but we didn’t learn.

The big lesson of the Vietnam catastrophe, one we haven’t begun to internalize, is that self-determination is a universal value. No one wants to be told what to do, much less exploited, by foreigners. There’s a corollary to that lesson: superior military and economic power cannot overcome the universal human desire to independently pursue one’s destiny.

“The enemy will win many battles, but in the end, we will win the war,” General Vo Nguyen Giap, commander-in-chief for North Vietnam, told a French interviewer in 1964. That’s what happened in 1975. And in 2011 in Iraq. And in 2021 in Afghanistan, where the $7 billion in abandoned war materiel and the falling bodies of our Afghan employees raining over Kabul created a perfect echo of the collapse of South Vietnam. Sooner rather than later, the same fate will befall Israel in Gaza.

Movies are a window into America’s political soul. American films about its invasion and occupation of South Vietnam depict a barely revised version of Kipling’s patriarchal “White Man’s Burden” with heavy dollops of confusion and self-pity. While “The Deer Hunter” (1978), “Apocalypse Now” (1979), “Platoon” (1986) and “Full Metal Jacket” (1987) all depict the brutalization of Vietnamese civilians by American troops, the primary effect of those narratives is to portray naïve young men corrupted by forces beyond their control and forced to cope with their physical wounds and psychological guilt in the aftermath. The Vietnamese play bit parts or none whatsoever, relegated to background scenery as their U.S. oppressors blow them to bits and struggle with PTSD—failing to make the ethnically correct decision to refuse to kill.
Americans weren’t victims in Vietnam. We were the bad guys. We lost 58,000 soldiers, who were sent to the other side of the earth to prop up a corrupt, unpopular regime against an enemy that posed no threat to us. Our troops killed 2 million Vietnamese. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall in Washington is slightly less than 500 feet long. An analogous structure dedicated to the Vietnamese would be more than three miles long.

We have never admitted that we had no business being there. “Rambo: First Blood Part II” (1985) marked the beginning of something even worse than mawkish self-pity, a string of right-wing negationist releases that attempted to retroactively justify the war as a noble patriotic cause—don’t feel guilty, be proud of your service to your country—followed by “Hamburger Hill” (1987), “We Were Soldiers” (2002) and similar imperialist whitewashing of the Iraq War in works like “Jarhead” (2005), “The Hurt Locker” (2008), and “American Sniper” (2014).
The second big lesson of Vietnam for a United States that continues to pursue international monetary, economic, political and military hegemony is that it’s cheaper to rent than to own. The United States currently has a $150 billion a year bilateral trade relationship with Vietnam and hundreds of thousands of Americans visit Vietnam every year as tourists. Business is good. There was no need to control their political system.

Finally, war is expensive. Eight million Vietnam war veterans require care for PTSD, exposure to Agent Orange and various psychological and physical injuries. Resources diverted to the Vietnam War contributed to the hollowing out of Rust Belt cities, declining schools and insufficient spending on infrastructure—problems we’re still dealing with, with no end in sight. The war cost approximately $1 trillion in 2025 dollars.

Finish article on Substack.
0 Comments

Patrick Lawrence: Losing & Learning Nothing

4/29/2025

0 Comments

 
April 29, 2025
Picture
Fan art of the “Ghost of Kyiv.” (Wikimedia Commons /CC BY-SA 4.0)
How odd to look back now — now, as Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine ends in ignominious defeat—and think of that cornucopia of propaganda spilling out of what I called during the early months Washington’s “bubble of pretend.” Take a few minutes to remember with me. 

There was the “Ghost of Kyiv,” an heroic MiG–29 pilot credited with downing six, count ’em, six Russian fighters in a single night, Feb. 24, 2022, two days after the Russian intervention began. The Ghost turned out to be a fantasy confected out of a popular video game.

So crude, the early Ukrainian propaganda, so rank.

And then, shortly to follow, we had the heroes of Snake Island, 13 Ukrainian troops who — trumpets and drums here — defended a Black Sea islet to the death. It turned out this unit had surrendered, and the posthumous medals of honor President Volodymyr Zelensky awarded them with great flourish were neither posthumous nor deserved. 

This corny nonsense, slathered on as thick as frosting on a wedding cake, went on and on such that The New York Times could no longer pretend it didn’t exist. I do not care for journalists who indulge in self-reference, but allow me these sentences from a piece published a couple of months into the conflict: 
“After railing against disinformation for years, the Times wants us to know, disinformation is O.K. in Ukraine because the Ukrainians are our side and they are simply ‘boosting morale.’

We cannot say we weren’t warned. The Ghost of Kiev and Snake Island turn out now to be mere prelude, opening acts in the most extensive propaganda operation of the many I can recall.”

Prelude, indeed — prelude to a war so malignly reported it was soon impossible for readers and viewers in the Western post-democracies to see it (which was, after all, precisely the point).

And prelude, let’s be careful to note, to the probably fatal collapse of foreign correspondence among Western media, the Times and the BBC well in the lead in my estimation, but with many pilot fish swimming beside them.


Read in Scheerpost.
0 Comments

The Horrors of Gaza

4/28/2025

0 Comments

 
Dr. Feroze Sidhwa's Experience

Bill Astore
April 27, 2025

On the Chris Hedges Report, Doctor Feroze Sidhwa provides searing testimony of his experience providing medical care in Gaza. As you would expect, his testimony is disturbing—and it must be seen and heard.
Children are now beginning to starve to death in Gaza. The Trump administration continues to put all the blame on Hamas, even as it provides more bombs and bullets to Israel to facilitate mass killing.

This is not a war. It is a massacre.

0 Comments

Nobody Say "Fuck Israel, Free Palestine"

4/25/2025

0 Comments

 
Caitlin Johnstone
April 25, 2025

Picture
Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

Nobody say “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine.” Saying “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine” is very offensive to people who think genocide is good.

When you say “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine,” you are hurting the feelings of the people who believe it’s fine to bomb every hospital in Gaza. So you must never, ever say “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine.”

Who do you think you are, saying “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine”? Don’t you know that by saying “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine” you are causing the people who applaud the deliberate starvation of an entire civilian population to become emotionally upset?

Instead of saying “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine,” you should try putting yourself in the shoes of the tender-hearted individuals who support the complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. They’re just minding their own business, merrily celebrating the carpet bombing of a giant concentration camp full of children, and then you come along and ruin their day by saying “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine”? What a cruel and hateful thing that would be.

I mean, all they are doing is cheerleading the mutilation, evisceration and incineration of children, and the assassination of journalists and medical workers, and the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the complete flattening of an entire region whose population they are methodically exterminating via bullets, bombs, starvation and disease. It’s not like they’re doing anything nasty or disgusting like saying offensive words. Offensive words like “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine.”

So don’t say “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine.” Under no circumstances should anyone ever say “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine.” And they must certainly never say “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine” as many times as they possibly can, every single day until Palestine is free, and get everyone else to say it constantly as well.

Again, the phrase you must avoid saying at all cost is Fuck Israel, Free Palestine.

Fuck Israel, Free Palestine.
0 Comments

War Dust and Collateral Inhalation: Israel Breathes in Gaza's Dust

4/24/2025

0 Comments

 
A Forensic Study of the Self-Inflicted Consequences of Modern Warfare

Dennis Kucinich
April 23, 2025

Picture
Gaza is suffering the most intense bombing, per capita, of anywhere on earth, ever.

Over 100,000 tons of bombs have been dropped on Gaza, an area slightly smaller than the City of Detroit, Michigan, resulting in the recorded deaths of at least 60,000 Gazans and injuries to hundreds of thousands.¹

It is impossible to overstate the effects of the abominable bombing war on Gazans, their lives, their families, their health, and their communities.

What has escaped attention up until now is the undeniable environmental and health effects of the bombing of Gazans on Israelis, as well as on citizens of neighboring states, and the potential harm to U.S. military personnel in the region.

A study of explosion physics based on declassified Department of Defense data, as well as blast temperature data and consequent emissions; a review of wind patterns, together with publicly available data of health effects from 9/11, as well as data gathered from U.S. veterans of the Persian Gulf War, yield a shocking conclusion.

Israel, in executing the unprecedented bombing attack on Gaza, is, in effect, bombing itself, with grave consequences for the public health of its people.² What is being visited upon Gaza does not stay in Gaza.

The sustained bombing of Gaza pulverizes stone, heavy metals, and the human body. The vaporizing of human beings under extreme heat and pressure combines with dust, water vapor, and metallic particles the size of microns, all blasted upwards, aerosolized, wind-driven across borders, into Israel and surrounding countries.³

The unlimited bombing of Gaza has created an unparalleled ecological and biomedical feedback loop. Israel exhales death in Gaza and inhales the Gaza it has vaporized.


Continue reading in The Kucinich Report.
0 Comments

Pope Francis

4/23/2025

0 Comments

 
A great man with flaws and one terrible failure at the end

Tarik Cyril Amar
April 23, 2025

As the pope, that is, not just some political leader but a man with great soft power and extraordinary moral duties by design, he should, as a minimum, have condemned the genocide as just that and told all Roman-Catholics that not opposing it in every way they can is a grave sin.
When a great man and leader of the Roman-Catholic Church, and beyond it, like Pope Francis – before his papacy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio – dies, it may seem almost impious to speak or write about politics. But in his case, we know for certain that it simply means doing what he told us to do.
Picture
For one of his fundamental teachings was that we have a religious and moral – not merely a civic – duty to engage in politics. He made this clear, for instance, in one of his major statements, the 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti (All Brothers). There, he spelled out the pronouncedly broad and political – not merely intimate, small-scale, or private – meaning of the story of the Good Samaritan, one of the most famous parables taught by the founder of all types of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth.

In Fratelli Tutti, Francis stressed that the Good Samaritan story “summons us to rediscover our vocation as citizens of our respective nations and of the entire world, builders of a new social bond” in order “to direct society to the pursuit of the common good.” That is about as far away as you can get from the intellectual platitude and ethical cop-out of religion-is-just-a-private-matter. And that was a good thing, too.

Because, as Francis made clear time and again, he – rightly – saw our world in deep social, ecological, and, fundamentally, spiritual crisis. If you share his belief or not, it is important to understand that political engagement to save this world, for him, was a matter of survival of not just a species and its much-abused planet but God’s creation.

There is something else we should remember about this late pope. He was known for being both genuinely relatable – especially with the poor, weak, abused, sinful (his last major meeting was with JD Vance, after all), and troubled – and, at the same time, capable of harsh rebuke and tough determination. Having worked as a bouncer in his youth and later as a Jesuit taskmaster, he knew how to handle the gathering of careerist, vain, pushy, and scheming egos that the higher Church also is.

As a pope, he was a decent and mostly kind man, in other words, but no push-over. And yet, with all his assertiveness, he was also humble, not in an ostentatious but a substantial manner: the kind of humility that makes you give up on many of the lifestyle perks that have corrupted the papacy and wash the feet of prison inmates. Or admit that you are not the one to judge, as once when commenting on a priest who was said to be gay.

Think about it: it is true, obviously; and, by the standards of tradition, it is at the same time something sensationally extraordinary for a pope to say about a priest. For, remember, the Roman-Catholic Church, is not a fake democracy – as secular states usually are now – but an unabashed absolute, if elective, monarchy.
Against that background – Francis’s instructions to engage with politics and his fundamental humility – two simple questions make sense: What is the political meaning of his tenure as pope between 2013 and 2025? And where did he succeed and where did he fail?

A full disclosure won’t do any harm either: I am writing about this pope as someone raised as a Roman-Catholic yet now largely lapsed. Largely, because, in reality, with something like a Catholic upbringing, about which I am far from complaining, “there are,” as the Russians wisely say about another experience that shapes you for life, “no formers.” Perhaps, that explains why I have always felt much sympathy for him. Although, come to think of it, that was due to his politics.

Regarding those politics, for starters, let’s note a basic piece of context that, however, is often overlooked: It’s commonly noted that Francis was a multiple first: first pope from Latin America, first Jesuit, first one not from Europe for well over a millennium. But there was yet another important first: even if the Cold War between – very roughly – the capitalist West and the socialist-Communist Soviet camp ended in the late 1980s and Francis became pope in 2013, he was, actually, the first substantially post-Cold War pope, even if he as well had been shaped by its cruel local variant in his homeland Argentina. He had the ability to move on and evolve.
Counterintuitive as that fact may be, it is not hard to explain it. It was the result of the de facto rule that popes get elected when they are old and likely to be set in their ways and – usually, not always – serve until death. Specifically, once the Cold War had ended, the very Polish and very conservative John Paul II – a quintessential Cold War pope – stayed in office until 2005. His successor, the not merely conservative but leadenly reactionary Benedict XVI from Germany was, in essence, the Angela Merkel of the Vatican: the one you call when, in reality, everything must change, but you are in obstinate denial about it. And did Benedict fulfill those expectations!

It was really only after rigid Benedict abdicated and, in effect, retired – the first pope to do so in more than half a millennium – that there was an opening for finally moving the Church beyond this sorry state of stagnation. It was Francis’s achievement that, once elected to the papacy, he did his best – or, as his many critics and opponents would gripe, worst – to use that opportunity.

Apart from setting an example by his personal modesty – for instance, just two rooms in a Vatican hostel, a comparatively simple pectoral cross, no flashy cape or dainty red slippers, and, finally, orders for a fairly simple coffin, lying-in-state, and burial – Francis tackled major unresolved issues inside the Church, such as finance scandals and corruption, sexual abuse, and the prevalence of rule by clique and intrigue.
On these issues, he certainly did not universally succeed. Regarding child abuse by clericals, his reactions and actions well-intentioned, sometimes perfectly misguided, and sometimes unprecedented and consequential: as when he, in essence, forced a mass resignation of bishops in Chile and defrocked a truly demonic US cardinal for his revolting crimes and sins. But his record remains mixed. He himself, to his credit, ended up admitting his “grave mistakes” in this crucial area. Victims of clerical child abusers and critics plausibly find that his efforts did not go far enough.

Francis could neither defeat nor eradicate the hardy networks, lobbies, and plots of the Vatican and the Church leadership more broadly. In particular, the – surprise, surprise – conservative US cardinals form a powerful, mean lobby. But to be fair, no single person could have cleaned up these Augean Stables. That would take a miracle, one that did not happen under this pope.
Yet Francis did have an impact. His challenge was sometimes fierce, and the resistance it provoked proves that he hit a nerve. This, clearly, is an issue which will be decided, if ever, in the future. In that respect, note that kind, smiling Francis was worldly and tough enough to promote – where he could (an important caveat) – like-minded men to high office. As he installed the preponderant majority of the 135 or 136 cardinals who will elect his successor, his policies might be continued. Yet Church politics is less transparent than the Trump White House and much more complex. Nothing is certain.

Yet what about the world beyond the upper ranks of the Church? That is, after all, clearly what Francis – the pope with a personal cross that depicted Jesus as the Good Shepherd – cared about the most. For practical purposes and to greatly simplify, think of that world-beyond-peak-Church as consisting of two concentric circles: the inner yet large circle consists of currently about 1.4 billion Roman Catholics globally, and the outer, even larger one of everyone else in a world population over 8 billion.
There, Francis pursued two great lines: He clearly sought to finally do justice to the fact that demographically and in terms of commitment and dynamism, Roman-Catholicism’s center of gravity has inexorably shifted away from Europe and, roughly speaking, to the Global South-plus: Latin America, Africa, and Asia, too. Indeed, over the last half-century, Africa and Asia have been the only two regions where the increase in the number of Catholics has exceeded population growth.

When elected, he immediately pointed out – with a hardly hidden edge, I believe – that his cardinal brothers had plucked him “from the ends of the Earth.” That was a statement in favor of those “ends” and against the breathtaking, institutionally inbred provincialism that has made 80 percent of popes come from tiny Italy. By now, though, the cardinals who will elect the next pope come from 94 countries and less than 40 percent are from Europe, “with a record number from Asia and Africa.”

This true globalization of the Roman-Catholic Church in its most fundamental meaning, namely as the community of its members is what Francis was in sync with as no pope before him, not even the globe-trotting John Paul II. If the Church is wise, it will follow his example; if it is foolish – which, historically speaking, happens a lot – it will revert to Benedict XVI’s futile retreat into the past.
The other major policy Francis consistently pursued was – believe it or not – a form of socialism. If that sounds odd, recall that socialism is a broader and older church than Marxism. Socialists, even by the narrowest, most modern definitions, existed before Marxism. If we widen the lens to ancient history, a certain Palestinian rebel called Jesus, executed by the indispensable empire of his day, obviously, was one, too.

Francis understood that and stuck to it. That is why The Economist sniffles at what it mislabels as his populist and Peronist leanings. It is true that Bergoglio came from Argentina’s Peronist tradition, but Francis the pope cannot be captured by this past. He was, in reality, a sharp critic of populism, if understood as, say, Trumpism (or Sanderism-AOC-ism, I would add): the fake appeal to longings for justice solely to control, mobilize, manipulate, and profit.

The core of Francis’s evolved, de facto socialist position was – as The Economist, to its credit, also admits – “scorn for capitalism” or, to quote the Washington Post, another party organ of the global oligarchy – a strong concern for “social justice.” Indeed. And then some.
In sum, it is true that Francis was not a Marxist. Indeed, he failed to appreciate or see eye to eye with Latin American Liberation Theology, and his behavior during a brutal, murderous right-wing dictatorship in Argentina was less than exemplary, although accusations of collaboration have been shown to be unfounded and probably politicized.

As pope, in any case, he ended up being, in effect, a man of the Left. He had built the breadth of mind and the strength of character to reject the unfortunate recent hegemony of liberal capitalism in favor of something fairer and more moral, something worthy of humanity. In the dark post-Cold War that we are forced to inhabit, that fact made the Roman-Catholic pope one of the main forces (next to China, intriguingly) of the survival of leftwing ideals.

For those “realists” without imagination who are tempted to ask with – perhaps apocryphal – Stalin “The pope? How many divisions?”: Look where Stalin’s creation is now (hint: nowhere). And yet the Church is still around.

There was (and still is) another issue of immense importance for our future on which he stood out by being more honest and more courageous than all too many others: Francis did repeatedly censure Israel’s – and the West’s – brutal slaughter of the Palestinians, using terms such as “cruelty” and “terror” and pointing out that what Israel is doing is not even war, but, clearly something worse.

And yet, those who now claim that he condemned the Gaza Genocide are wrong, unfortunately. I wished he had, but he did not. The fact remains, painful as it may be for those who liked and respected him (such as I), that he failed to take this crucial and necessary step. The closest he came to it was the following, far too cautious statement: “According to some experts, what is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide. It should be carefully investigated to determine whether it fits into the technical definition formulated by jurists and international bodies."

That was more than almost any other leader in the “value” West; it was also more than the studious public silence practiced by Pius XII during that other holocaust, when the Germans did not support Jews committing a genocide, as now, but – together with their many collaborators and friends – committed a genocide against Jews. But both are pitiably low bars.

As the pope, that is, not just some political leader but a man with great soft power and extraordinary moral duties by design, he should, as a minimum, have condemned the genocide as just that and told all Roman-Catholics that not opposing it in every way they can is a grave sin. He should also have excommunicated co-genocider-in-chief Joe Biden and preening neo-Catholic JD Vance. Pour encourager les autres.

Francis did have a steely, even ruthless side,
as he himself knew well. This was where the world needed him to show it most, but he did not.


I like to think he would be the first to admit this fact. Because that is the way he was as a pope: great, fallible, and, ultimately, humble.


Read Tarik Cyril Amar on Substack.
0 Comments

Jeffrey Sachs: Close the US Military Bases in Asia

4/22/2025

0 Comments

 
The best strategy for the superpowers is to stay out of each other’s lanes.

Jeffrey D. Sachs
April 22, 2025
Picture
U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, South Korea. USAG- Humphreys, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
President Donald Trump is again loudly complaining that the US military bases in Asia are too costly for the US to bear.  As part of the new round of tariff negotiations with Japan and Korea, Trump is calling on Japan and Korea to pay for stationing the US troops.  Here’s a much better idea: close the bases and return the US servicemen to the US.
  

Trump implies that the US is providing a great service to Japan and Korea by stationing 50,000 troops in Japan and nearly 30,000 in Korea.  Yet these countries do not need the US to defend themselves.  They are wealthy and can certainly provide their own defense.  Far more importantly, diplomacy can ensure the peace in northeast Asia far more effectively and far less expensively than US troops.
      

The US acts as if Japan needs to be defended against China.  Let’s have a look.  During the past 1,000 years, during which time China was the region’s dominant power for all but the last 150 years, how many times did China attempt to invade Japan?  If you answered zero, you are correct.  China did not attempt to invade Japan on a single occasion.

You might quibble.  What about the two attempts in 1274 and 1281, roughly 750 years ago? It’s true that when the Mongols temporarily ruled China between 1271 and 1368, the Mongols twice sent expeditionary fleets to invade Japan, and both times were defeated by a combination of typhoons (known in Japanese lore as the Kamikaze winds) and by Japanese coastal defenses.
  

Japan, on the other hand, made several attempts to attack or conquer China.  In 1592, the arrogant and erratic Japanese military leader Toyotomi Hideyoshi launched an invasion of Korea with the goal of conquering Ming China.  He did not get far, dying in 1598 without even having subdued Korea.  In 1894-5, Japan invaded and defeated China in the Sino-Japanese war, taking Taiwan as a Japanese colony.  In 1931, Japan invaded northeast China (Manchuria) and created the Japanese colony of Manchukuo.  In 1937,  Japan invaded China, starting World War II in the Pacific region.
  

Nobody thinks that Japan is going to invade China today, and there is no rhyme, reason, or historical precedent to believe that China is going to invade Japan.  Japan has no need for the US military bases to protect itself from China.


Read in Scheerpost. 

0 Comments

The Pope Has Died, And The Palestinian People Have Lost An Important Advocate

4/21/2025

0 Comments

 
Caitlin Johnstone
April 21, 2025

Picture
Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative MatrixListen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):
Pope Francis has died after using his Easter Sunday address to call for peace in Gaza. I don’t know who the cardinals will pick to replace him, but I do know with absolute certainty that there are transnational intelligence operations in the works to make sure they select a more reliable supporter of Israel. They’ve probably been working on it since his health started failing.

Anyone who’s been reading me for a while knows my attitude toward Roman Catholicism can be described as openly hostile because of my family history with the Church’s sexual abuses under Cardinal Pell, but as far as popes go this one was decent. Francis had been an influential critic of Israel’s mass atrocities in Gaza, calling for investigation of genocide allegations and denouncing the bombing of hospitals and the murder of humanitarian workers and civilians. He’d been personally calling the only Catholic parish in Gaza by phone every night during the Israeli onslaught, even as his health deteriorated.

In other words, he was a PR problem for Israel.

I hope another compassionate human being is announced as the next leader of the Church, but there are definitely forces pushing for a different outcome right now. There is no shortage terrible men who could be chosen for the position.

Read in Caitlin's Newsletter.
0 Comments

"Israel Has A Right To Defend Itself" Is A Genocidal Slogan

4/18/2025

0 Comments

 
Caitlin Johnstone
April 16, 2025

Picture
Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):
Bernie Sanders has been repeatedly uttering the phrase “Israel has a right to defend itself” on his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, which in the year 2025 can only be interpreted as blatant genocide apologia.

Israel does not have “a right to defend itself” against an occupied population in a giant concentration camp. Under international law it has a right to end the occupation, and that’s it. “Israel has a right to defend itself” is just a slogan people say when they want to justify supplying an ongoing genocide.

At one point in the tour Sanders stood passively watching as police dragged off rally attendees who draped a Free Palestine flag over the US flag during his speech. He just awkwardly continued monologuing as their flag was confiscated and they were forcibly removed, even as the crowd booed and eventually began chanting “Free Palestine”.


Finish post on Substack.

0 Comments

Dave Smith | Scott Horton | Part Of The Problem

4/17/2025

0 Comments

 
Dave Smith brings you the latest in politics! On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave is joined by Scott Horton to discuss the future of the U.S. and Russia, the conflict in Iran, and more.

Scott Horton is director of the Libertarian Institute, editorial director of Antiwar.com and podcasts the Scott Horton Show from ScottHorton.org. He’s the author of the 2024 book Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War With Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine.

0 Comments
<<Previous
    The VFP-111 Tipping the Scale blog is not an elite space, reserved for experts or professional bloggers. This is a blog for real people who are willing to share themselves honestly and vulnerably.

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    January 2021
    November 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    September 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014

Proudly powered by Weebly