RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "Waging genocidal war on a defenseless country was never so baldly and honestly put on any agenda for talks among US Secretary of State John Kerry, representatives of Saudi Arabia's dictatorship, and their mutual allies, even though they are all engaged in an endless genocidal war on Yemen."

Air strike by Saudi Arabia on the al-Oradi Hospital in Sanaa, Yemen on June 9, 2015. (photo: Alex Potter/Harpers)
Air strike by Saudi Arabia on the al-Oradi Hospital in Sanaa, Yemen on June 9, 2015. (photo: Alex Potter/Harpers)


US Okay With Surgical Strikes on Yemen Hospitals

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

24 August 16

 

Nuremberg: “a war of aggression … is the supreme international crime”

aging genocidal war on a defenseless country was never so baldly and honestly put on any agenda for talks among US secretary of state John Kerry, representatives of Saudi Arabia’s dictatorship, and their mutual allies, even though they are all engaged in an endless genocidal war on Yemen. This war is a war of aggression, started by Saudi Arabia in March 2015, with crucial US blessing, participation, personnel, and ordnance. The US has been a willing, guilty partner and enabler in 18 months of military atrocities in a one-sided war that everyone involved knew – or should have known – was a pure war crime based on a paranoid delusion.

American participation in this war of aggression was a war declared by press release from the National Security Council on March 25, 2015, another example of the imperial presidency’s ability to act by fiat without fear of serious objection from the public, the media, or even Congress:

President Obama has authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council]-led military operations. [emphasis added]

The fundamental crime in Yemen is waging a war of aggression, which encompasses all the subsequent war crimes including bombing civilians, using cluster bombs, bombing hospitals, bombing food supplies, and trying to starve a population to submission or death. Yemen, with a population of 26 million people, was the poorest country in the region even before it was attacked. What the US supports and sanctions against Yemen makes any US complaint about Russian actions in Crimea sound like howling hypocrisy.

For all that the Saudis frame their war on Yemen as a defense against a threat from Iran, there has never been any credible evidence of any credible threat to Saudi Arabia from any element of the miniscule Iranian presence in Yemen. Yemen is fighting a civil war, a new version of the same old civil war Yemenis have been fighting for decades, both before and after Yemen was two separate countries. The Iran “threat” is the paranoid delusion supposedly justifying a merciless war on a civil population already beset by a four-sided civil war. There is no way that those who decided to wage this war of aggression could not have known the reality in Yemen if they had wanted to know it. Presumably they knew it all full well and chose a war of aggression anyway, recklessly, perhaps even thoughtlessly, but criminally all the same. The Saudi goal was always get rid of a longstanding threat on its southwestern border, where the tribal land of the Houthis lay both in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. When the long-oppressed Houthis, a Shia minority in a Sunni world, drove out the Sunni government of Yemen in 2015, the Saudis, without saying so in so many words, decided on a course of action that could lead to a final solution. And everyone knew, at the time, and no one objected, according to this account by the highly reliable Andrew Cockburn on Democracy NOW! (whose piece in Harper’s Magazine for September 2016, ironically titled “Acceptable Losses,” provides an excellent exegesis of the war on Yemen, but with a more elegiac tone):

I was told, very early on in the war, Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken went to Riyadh to ask the—this is two weeks—yeah, it was two weeks into the war [mid-April 2015], when they had already been bombing away, using the U.S. bombs, U.S.-supplied bombs, using U.S. weapons, killing already dozens, if not certainly, you know, hundreds of civilians, destroying factories. And finally, Blinken turns up in Riyadh and asks, “By the way, what are you trying to accomplish here?” And the Saudis effectively said, or at least the Americans understood them to say, “Well, we basically want to wipe out the Houthis.” Well, they termed it as “end all Iranian influence in Yemen.” So, the Americans—Blinken was a bit shocked by that, so I’m told, and said, “Well, you know, that’s going a bit far. But it’s—you should certainly stop the Houthis taking over the country.” And that, effectively, gave the Saudis carte blanche to continue this kind of mindless carpet bombing….

By 2015, American hands were already bloody with the US drone assassination program that had killed not only innocent civilians, but American citizens, without a trace of due process of law. In effect, already enmeshed in its own nexus of war crimes in Yemen, the US green-lighted the Saudi-led war of aggression that would make American crimes pale by comparison. As American policy over the years would have it, American weapons have been dispersed all over Yemen since 2006.

Kerry to consult on terrorism, but not US or Saudi terrorism

Terror bombing, an example of which is Saudi pilots flying American planes dropping American bombs on defenseless Yemeni civilian targets, is probably not the terrorism Secretary Kerry wants to discuss – ever – with the Saudis and their allies, never mind other weapons suppliers like France and the United Kingdom. As the official State Department notice put it in deadly opaque prose:

Secretary Kerry will travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for a series of meetings with senior Saudi leaders, his counterparts from the Gulf Cooperation Council, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations Special Envoy for Yemen. His discussion will focus on the ongoing conflict in Yemen and efforts to restore peace and stability….

Those “efforts to restore peace and stability” notably include the destruction of two schools, another hospital, and a potato chip factory, along with the associated men, women, and children, especially at the schools. Perhaps the latest great military “victory” achieved by the war criminals known as the Saudi-led coalition is to drive the world’s leading medical crisis-zone organization out of Yemen by targeting its hospitals over and over and over and over since March 2015. Of course, America the Exceptional does not stand for this betrayal of human decency, and our presidential candidates of all parties have railed ceaselessly against this indiscriminate murder of patients, their families, their doctors and other medical personnel, forcing the White House to take action to bring to an end 17 months of aggressive war and other war crimes and crimes against humanity – no, wait, that’s not happening, is it?

Actually, if any presidential candidate of any political party has expressed the slightest objection to the Saudi-coalition’s genocidal war on Yemen, such evidence is so hard to come by that it may as well not exist. (In August 2015, Jill Stein of the Green Party mentioned in passing that the Saudis “are committing war crimes right now in Yemen,” and more recently she called for an end to US funding for Saudi Arabia and Israel because of their violations of human rights laws, but she does not tend to make a point of the US support for a war of aggression in Yemen. But she’s better than any other candidate on Yemen.) At this point, a year and a half into our shared war of aggression, every candidate is complicit in this horrendous, unjustified war promoted and pursued with smug disdain for anything like peace by our peace prize winning President Obama. The blood drips from all their hands, their feet, their tongues and eyelashes, but most of all from every pore of our Nobel Laureate in the White House. (As the book Double Down reported in 2012: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people,” Obama said quietly, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”)

With the US at war, Congress has nothing to say about any of it

The US is at war with Yemen, in support of the Saudi-led coalition that launched its undeclared war of aggression on March 26, 2015. US war-making includes, but is not limited to: US intelligence services providing intelligence to the aggressor nations; US military personnel participating in daily target planning and attack assessment; US tanker aircraft re-fueling aggressor nation aircraft bombing Yemen (46,500 acknowledged sorties in the first 11 months of war); US drones targeting and attacking under US control; US military contractors servicing the Saudi F-15s that bomb Yemen; US personnel training Saudi military; US military personnel operating in Yemen; and the US Navy reinforcing the Saudi blockade intent on starving Yemen into submission.

The US Congress has never debated, never authorized US participation in a war of aggression against Yemen. The US president has never asked Congress for such authorization of a war of aggression against Yemen. Neither house of Congress has acted on any bill that directly addresses the war of aggression against Yemen. More than a year after the war started, two Democratic members of Congress (joined by two Republicans) introduced identical bills intended to respond to the war. California congressman Ted Lieu (joined by Florida congressman Ted Yoho) and Connecticut senator Christopher Murphy (joined by Kentucky senator Rand Paul) asked their colleagues to address the horrors of the war (briefly enumerated in the bill), not by ending the war, but only by temporarily limiting US arms sales to Saudi Arabia. That’s it. They did not mention US participation in the war. Both their bills were referred to committee. At the time there was a spotty ceasefire in Yemen while peace talks proceeded in Kuwait (the talks were suspended in early August, leading to the Saudi escalation currently killing more civilians).

Incredibly, this non-response response to war crimes in Yemen has gotten Rep. Lieu some recent positive press coverage, in The Intercept of August 22 and elsewhere, even though his bill is designed to have no immediate impact on the carnage. Rep. Lieu is a colonel in the US Air Force Reserve. When he was on active duty he taught the law of war to other Air Force officers. His interview rhetoric, like most of his public action, is soft-edged even though he knows perfectly well his country is committing war crimes. He almost said as much in an August 15 statement objecting to the Saudi attack on a school in Haydan, Yemen, that killed 10 children:

The indiscriminate civilian killings by Saudi Arabia look like war crimes to me. In this case, children as young as 8 were killed by Saudi Arabian air strikes. By assisting Saudi Arabia, the United States is aiding and abetting what appears to be war crimes in Yemen. The Administration must stop enabling this madness now. [emphasis in original]

Rep. Lieu and others have also objected to the State Department’s certification of another arms sale to Saudi Arabia: this one is $1.15 billion for 153 tanks, hundreds of machine guns, and other war materiel. This is in addition to the record $100 billion in arms sales to the Saudis already made by the Obama administration. The latest arms deal suggested to Rep. Lieu “that the administration is, at best, callously indifferent to the mass amount of civilians dying as a result of the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing.” He did not openly consider whether 153 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and other weaponry might open the way for the air war of aggression to be matched by an escalation of the ground war of aggression as well. Twenty of those new US tanks are specifically designated as replacements for tanks lost in combat, some of them in Yemen. On the other hand, the official State Department notice of the Abrams Tank sale assures Congress: “The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.” That’s hardly reassuring in a region where wars of attrition and military quagmires are killing not only thousands of Yemenis, but Palestinians, Israelis, Lebanese, Syrians, Saudis, Turks, Kurds, Iraqis, Afghans, and god knows who else, more often than not with Made-in-USA weapons and munitions.

The proposed US tank sale has drawn the attention of several NGOs (non-governmental organizations) looking to wash American hands of the war on Yemen by blocking the sale, or at least having a debate about it in Congress. Human Rights Watch (HRW) wrote a letter to Secretary Kerry August 19, with temperate language of concern about several countries, including Yemen. HRW asked Secretary Kerry “to emphasize the potential consequences if Saudi Arabia fails to improve its conduct.” But it did not suggest what those consequences might be in light of the reality that the US has coordinated and condones all Saudi conduct to date. CODEPINK is supporting a petition to support the Congressional letter that urges President Obama to postpone the US tank sale to the Saudis.

Even The New York Times is expressing something shy of anguish over “American complicity” and “carnage” and targets that are not “legitimate” under international law as it supports efforts to block the tank sale in Congress. The Times doesn’t mention that this is the same Congress that in June – supporting a White House request – refused to block the sale of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia for fear of “stigmatizing” cluster bombs. That’s a reflection of the American version of reality, since cluster bombs are already stigmatized by most countries of the world and using them on civilians, as US-Saudi forces do in Yemen, is widely understood to be a war crime. The solution, according to the Times:

Congress should put the arms sales on hold and President Obama should quietly inform Riyadh that the United States will withdraw crucial assistance if the Saudis do not stop targeting civilians and agree to negotiate peace.

That can’t happen in the real world, where the president and the Saudis all know they are war criminals and are, like Macbeth, so steeped in blood “that should I wade no more,/Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

There is no reason to expect any good to come to Yemen until a whole lot more Americans face the reality of their country’s support for a genocidal war of aggression. When enough Americans recognize that, then they will have to do a lot more about it than stop selling tanks to the aggressors. Until then the US-sponsored atrocity of ethnic cleansing in a poverty-stricken country that threatens no one will continue unabated.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+15 # indian weaver 2016-08-24 16:37
I wonder how many angry, armed Americans are ready to enjoin the government in all out domestic revolutionary war? Not many, yet? Stay tuned, and armed.
 
 
+13 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-24 21:34
Very brave. Very dangerous for you.

I pray that you not be visited by armed agents of the FBI.

Peace be with you.
 
 
-7 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-24 21:30
Mr. Boardman:

The Saudis are prosecuting a war of aggression in Yemen. The U.S. is supporting the war. Those facts are well known.

You article's headline focuses on bombing hospitals and U.S. support or approval of such bombings. I tried to read your prolix and disjointed prose (and its lumbering, elephantine paragraphs) to find some competent, digestible reporting of the details of such bombings and U.S. support or encouragement of it. My eyes rolled. I gave up.

I beg that you post a comment that puts a sensible (terse, not turgid) presentation of the factual details that support your article's headline.

Oh, thanks now for the many thumbs-down this comment will receive. Always, they are badges of honor.
 
 
+25 # WBoardman 2016-08-24 22:41
Capro-Lupo has a point,
probably should have mentioned
all four Medecins Sans Frontiers hospitals
the Saudis have bombed in Yemen,
the one the Syrians(?) bombed in Syria,
or the one the US bombed in Afghanistan,
but I assumed readers might be aware
of these particular war crimes.

MSF always gives the coordinates of its hospitals
to the combatants.

Lacking assurance from US-Saudi bombers
that they will not bomb more MSF hospitals,
MSF has closed six more in Yemen.

Capro-Lupo says US support for the US-Saudi
war of aggression is well known.
Name 20 officials who have said so. Name 2. Name 1.
 
 
-5 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-24 23:27
Per Mr. Boardman: "Capro-Lupo says US support for the US-Saudi war of aggression is well known. Name 20 officials who have said so. Name 2. Name 1."

Knowing & speaking differ, especially when the mind & mouth belong to an official. Cf. http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/17934-preposterous-a-postanterous-politics-of-religion-a-religion-of-politics

Many unofficial people know unofficially, but certainly.

Then, too, officials of WHAT? And WHAT is an "official"?
 
 
+2 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-25 04:49
Mr. Boardman:

You quote Rep. Lieu thus:

"The indiscriminate civilian killings by Saudi Arabia look like war crimes to me. In this case, children as young as 8 were killed by Saudi Arabian air strikes. By assisting Saudi Arabia, the United States is aiding and abetting what appears to be war crimes in Yemen. The Administration must stop enabling this madness now."

But do you not find more interesting the 70-years-contin uing, unanimous official U.S. support of Israel's genocidal violence (military and economic violence) committed against Palestinians (and related Arabs living in Lebanon) — genocide that began in 1945, when terrorist Ben Gurion and his terrorist Zionist cronies knew Britain and the U.S. would cause the UN to steal part of southwest Levant and give it to terrorist Zionist Jews?

Since Rome’s destruction of Judea (circa 74 A.D.) and the final diaspora (circa 135 A.D.), the land had not been Jewish. Since 637 A.D., the land had been Moslem (Arab, then also Kurdish and Turk), except 1099-1187 A.D., when Christian west European Crusaders held some of south Levant.

But starting in the late 19th century, Zionists claimed the land was theirs (and purloined some) because parts were Hebrew before Rome destroyed Judea, or because the Jewish "Bible" says (Hebrew-invente d) Yahweh promised the land to his chosen (Hebrew) people.

See also http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/25072-rising-from-a-meek-crevice AND comments posted there.
 
 
+4 # REDPILLED 2016-08-25 08:54
Capro-Lupo: I'm with you on all of your comments above. The very "fact" of the "diaspora" is in dispute now. See these books by Shlomo Sand:

The Invention of the Jewish People

The Invention of the Land of Israel

On the Nation and the "Jewish People"

How I Stopped Being A Jew
 
 
+1 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-25 17:14
REDPILLED 2016-08-25 08:54

Shlomo Sand's "historiography " suffers much scholarly doubt, legitimately strong doubt AND partial debunking. One need not accept his highly questionable views to recognize the evil of Zionism and its U.S. and British complicity.
 
 
+4 # GoGreen! 2016-08-25 13:23
It's even worse than Capro-Lupo says. The Jews have NO RIGHT to Palestine. Those European people are Anasazi people and have no connection to Palestine or any other Mid Eastern nation. The Ashkenazim fought a war with Poland and Russia and lost that war. Askenazim is on what was the trade route between Europe and China and they were robbing the people traveling through that area. At the end of that war the winners, Russia and Poland, said the Ashkenazim must choose a religion in an attempt to control their greed and lack of any moral code. They were given the choice of becoming Christians, Muslim or Jewish. They chose Judaism but kept their greedy way more underground---t hey went into the Banking industry and kept robbing people as before. These people speak Yiddish, a German dialect.

The newly formed United Nations cut the nation of Palestine in half, giving half of it to the European Jews. By what right?

I am very angry at the way our Congress does what ever Israel wants. I do not want my tax funds to be used to kill Palestinian and take their land. This is one sorry 'democracy' where our elected officials do what the Israelis say and pay NO HEED to what the American citizens say. We have NO RIGHT to attack all those Muslim nations. The Muslims DID NOT ATTACK US ON 9/11. It was an inside job by American Zionists with the assistance of Congress members with bags of 'donations' (bribes) from AIPAC.
 
 
0 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-25 16:08
GoGreen! 2016-08-25 13:23

Much evidence does suggest at least that U.S. government minds participated in planning, preparing, and accomplishing 9/11. But the most likely minds were not Jewish. The 9/11 Commission found (publically) that of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists, 15 were Saudis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese, and two citizens of the United Arab Emirates. None was Jewish.

Your Askenazim history is much false and gravely incomplete, even ludicrous. I mean this:

"Askenazim is on what was the trade route between Europe and China and they were robbing the people traveling through that area. ...Russia and Poland, said the Ashkenazim must choose a religion...to control their greed and lack of...moral code. * * * They chose Judaism but kept their greedy way more underground [&]...went into...Banking. ..and kept robbing people...."

Many Jews did help develop/realize neoconservatism . But many Jews fought hard against it.

Jews were most of the few "White" Americans who engaged (and risked their lives) in the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s. Many American Civil Liberties Union lawyers are or were Jews.

Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan were not Jews. Nor are Jimmy Carter, the 2 Bush Presidents, the Clintons, and Obama. Dick Cheney is not a Jew.

Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein ARE Jews.

Jews are 17 of the 49 top execs of Wall Street Banks; 32 are NOT Jews. See even the antisemitic site https://thezog.wordpress.com/who-controls-wall-street-part-1/

Are you a neoNazi?
 
 
+4 # maindrains 2016-08-26 14:31
Its silly to say that just because this article focusses on the US Yemen conflict/war crimes that the long standing equally horrible war crimes committed by Israel with the wests full support are not of interest. This article is about Yemen; there are plenty of articles concerned about all the other terrible events going on around the world.
 
 
+9 # jdd 2016-08-25 12:00
Obama proves, once again, that he is a war criminal.
 
 
+14 # sus453 2016-08-24 21:46
Well, Capro, you just got your first thumbs down, which I think is what you were really looking for. If you want to find details about the Saudi bombings of civilians in Yemen and the US role in it, you can aways google it and inform yourself.
 
 
+6 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-25 00:30
sus453 2016-08-24 21:46

Yours: "Well, Capro, you just got your first thumbs down, which I think is what you were really looking for."

No. I wish lucid writing that presents vital details succinctly, sensibly, usefully, AND, most crucial, coolly, objectively, without bias but with clear, valid, reliable evidential support.

Yours: "If you want to find details about the Saudi bombings of civilians in Yemen and the US role in it, you can always google it and inform yourself."

No. Mr. Boardman is obliged to supply support of his assertions. I do not need to Google anything. I knew the facts before I endeavored to struggle through Mr. Boardman's prose-morass to see whether he offered something new that illumined more than previously visible.

*I* am not the one purporting to be a journalist. Mr. Boardman is.

Reader Supported News is deteriorating — not just because of Mr. Boardman’s pieces of late, but also because of its recent proliferation of yellow journalism, its attempts of whitewashing Hillary Clinton, and its trying to seduce its readership to vote for that arch criminal psychopath.

Oh, Hillary Clinton was one of the top enablers of the Saudis’ vicious devastation of Yemeni life and property.
http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-arms-deals-gun-control/
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12057

Maybe for THIS comment RSN will BANISH me.
 
 
+15 # RMDC 2016-08-25 07:58
capro --- to me, Boardman's article was quite lucid and clearly thought out. Of course, it was not objective. "Objective" is a meaningless word when we are talking about an analysis of US/Saudi policy and action. What would be an objective analysis of the bombing of four hospitals. Boardman is arguing that the US is involved in a war of aggression against Yemen -- a violation of the Nuremburg Principles and the foundation of all war crimes.

There is no such thing as an objective argument. And he supports his assertions very well. The problem is that you disagree. I"m not able to see what your analysis or assertions are. You seem to disagree just for the sake of being disagreeable.

Boardman is right in this article. The US has started a war of aggression and is committing genocide in Yemen.

Don't blame it on the Saudis. They are proxies or surrogates for US policy. At least 5 years (maybe more) ago when the US began really heavy arms transfers to S.A and other Gulf States, there was a lot of discussion about creating an Arab army what would complete the regime changes desired by the neo-cons without the need for direct US military personnel involvement. The US would do all the planning and bomb direction, but Arabs would do most of the actual fighting. This would be the proxy armies that we now see in Yemen, Syria, and many other places. This is Obama's major contribution to the global war on terror -- surrogate armies.
 
 
-3 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-25 14:44
RMDC 2016-08-25 07:58

Surely, you are right respecting U.S. Middle East policies and actions. Like Cheney and Hillary Clinton, Obama, too, is a mass murderer.

But you misapprehend the possibility and utility of scrupulously detailed, objective, heavily fact-laden, painstakingly evidenced reporting (which Mr. Boardman's article is not).

Perhaps you think Mr. Boardman's article is lucid because you have become accustomed to syntactically sloppy prose tainted by emotion.

Mr. Boardman's article presents observations obvious to any intelligent reader who educates herself with evidence rendered by sources selected with rigorously critical examination.

U.S. Middle East policy and action are hideously worse than Mr. Boardman's article regards.

But my point was the decline of the quality of RSN’s publications and choices of re-publications .
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2016-08-25 17:56
"But you misapprehend the possibility and utility of scrupulously detailed, objective, heavily fact-laden, painstakingly evidenced reporting (which Mr. Boardman's article is not)."

There is room for more than one approach to the news. If there actually were a international court that had the nerve to prosecute the US, a detailed account would be very useful, but there isn't. But if you are trying to move public opinion, dispassion doesn't work very well. I, for one, am glad to see someone express the outrage the situation calls for. The US actions in allowing Saudi Arabia to commit genocide with planes and money is reprehensible and someone should say so in unmistakable terms.
 
 
+1 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-25 19:02
lfeuille 2016-08-25 17:56

I, too, feel outrage when I consider the murderous criminal conduct of our mostly criminal government and its military establishment.

But the more emotional and opinionated a report, the more it begs "conspiracy theory" type reaction of neocons, neoliberals, and pseudo-Conserva tive Republicans, whose fallacious, oft-fraudulent, oft-designedly- inflammatory published reactions tend to stir gullible or stupid citizens to dismiss the report and believe the contrary of its facts and conclusions.

Among the sadly-too-few good journalistic reports I have seen, recently, in the RSN website, most have come NOT from the writer of an article RSN published or re-published, but in some of the comments of an RSN member, Radscal, http://readersupportednews.org/user-profile/userprofile/Radscal
 
 
+3 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-25 19:32
Below follows a cite of good journalism RSN re-published (two years ago):
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/25102-wiping-another-country-off-the-map-israel-does-it-to-palestine

The article’s method and facts are flawless (though it bears two paragraphs two lines too long). I have not encountered less than good journalism wrought by the article’s writer, Mr. Juan Cole.
 
 
0 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-25 21:05
Another good article:

http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/israel-little-electricity.html

The article was written by Luisa Gandolfo, Lecturer in Peace and Reconciliation, Department of Sociology, University of Aberdeen (one of the top 1% of the world's universities).

The article was published by Informed Comment, http://www.juancole.com/
 
 
+18 # Thomas Martin 2016-08-24 22:36
I’ve often thought about what the main value of “comments” are to RSN articles – it seems to me they’re either adding more critical information to the article itself (or to others’ comments), either supporting or otherwise … or that they simply state in a brief comment, hopefully eloquently, either a thumbs up or a thumbs down, supporting the article or the comments it engenders. While the first category is the most valuable, the second category, which mine here is in, is important too. And my response is that Boardman’s article further points out a war crime by not only the Saudis, but by the US supporting the Saudis as a surrogate, and that Capro’s response that “a sensible (terse, not turgid) presentation of the factual details” be presented is answered wonderfully by sus453. To digress, we can try to answer in finer and finer detail now the Nazi genocide of WWII happened, or the US’s genocide in Vietnam or many other places did, but unless enough of us have the courage to fight against what’s happening in Yemen, and stop ignoring it or criticizing the way widespread knowledge of it is presented, then those ignoramuses and critics should go live in Yemen for a short while.
 
 
+5 # BlueMorpho 2016-08-24 23:10
About 2/3 to 3/4 of the way through I had to stop reading. This is too painful.
 
 
+22 # BettyFaas 2016-08-25 00:28
Ignorance really is bliss! Many Americans think the U.S. is the "good" savior of people around the globe. Awareness of the reality of the uncountable uncivilized, inhuman actions at home and abroad is overwhelming and nauseating. The fabric of the world community is coming apart. The question is whether it is repairable or not.
 
 
+7 # AshamedAmerican 2016-08-25 20:17
Another question is whether there is any entity powerful enough and with the will to repair it.
 
 
+25 # janie1893 2016-08-25 02:53
The US is not a good savior of people around the globe. Literate people everywhere know this. Why can't
Americans seem to figure it out? Stop killing!
 
 
+17 # RMDC 2016-08-25 08:15
janie -- "Why can't Americans seem to figure it out? Stop killing!"


Good question. Americans are the most heavily propagandized people on earth. In general, they do think their government is fighting terrorism and bringing freedom to people. They do think the US military are the heroes. There's a mass insanity in America. I don't see it stopping any time soon.
 
 
+8 # GoGreen! 2016-08-25 13:42
Only way we can stop the killing is vote out of office ALL the people in there now. Get rid of the two party system. I can not vote for either a Democrat or a Republican. I'm voting for Jill Stein. I'm going Green. Go to her web site and check out her platform. She and her V.P candidate, Ajamu Baraka are really good intelligent people. They are not for sale and will act in the interests of the working people of our nation. It really is the 1% vs the 99%. If you are not vastly wealthy you are not wise to vote for a
corporately funded candidate.
 
 
+6 # dquandle 2016-08-25 21:11
Because Americans are not yet being regularly bombed by their own government. But give the Bush/Cheney Obama/Clinton regime a minute and it will clear that up...At least they've gotten a few billion dollars worth of military tanks and armored turreted personal carriers into local police forces. How far behind can regular strafing runs over key "inner cities" be...? The ever cultured Obama might even suggest it as a US government reenactment of a certain famous Picasso painting..., thus both educating the public, and learnin' them, simultaneously. And there is historical precedent, with practice runs using incendiary "devices" over Philly and Waco etc. Perhaps the "community organizer" will rev up his vaunted talent for killing in the domestic arena as well, and treat us all to a dazzling display of domestic executive murder. A good possibility might be potentially unruly crowds protesting his ramming of the TPP down our throats. This might give him the nudge. If not him, then in the time remaining, he will undoubtedly pass the baton to Hillary, who will certainly want to revitalize this hallowed tradition, no doubt with the full imprimatur of her consigliere extraordinaire, Henry K..
 
 
-3 # Salburger 2016-08-25 06:43
The Yemen war is nasty and brutal and most of what Mr. Boardman says is completely justified. But when he throws in the term genocide when there is no evidence of any such he undermines both his argument and the specificity and utility of the term genocide. This is all too often used where it only serves as a rhetorical devise--which in turn trivializes real genocides like those against the Armenians, Jews, Roma/Sinti et. al., and Tutsi (among others). Lets drop the overuse of the term. And in the case of the Yemen war the situation is bad enough in its own terms without adding the genocide claim.
 
 
+15 # RMDC 2016-08-25 07:17
sal -- "But when he throws in the term genocide when there is no evidence of any such he undermines both his argument and the specificity and utility of the term genocide. "


Actually the term genocide is very good for all the wars being fought under the banner of the global war on terror. These are wars against people. The Convention Against Genocide defines genocide this way:


Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

From the US war against Korea up to now, all US wars have been designed to inflict conditions on the civilian population that make life impossible. It used to be called "bombing a nation back into the stone age." That phrase was invented for Korea but it has been used for every US war.

The examples you cite of other genocides are right in character with the US wars. The campaigns by the US military against Native Americans were designed to create conditions of life that would lead to the destruction of a people.
 
 
+13 # RMDC 2016-08-25 07:20
cont'd --


Sometimes US presidents say they are engaged in "nation building." But in reality US wars are about nation destruction. Yemen is being destroyed as a functioning nation. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Sudan have all been destroyed as functioning nations. Sometimes they are called "failed states." Well, the US deliberately makes them fail. The nature of the bombing of Yemen, Iraq, Syria and others is to make them fail -- bomb them back into the stone age.

The US is committed to preventing nations from developing into modern states. It would take a long discussion to talk about why the US does this. My point here is only observational: Boardman is right. The US and its surrogates like Saudi Arabia are involved in genocidal wars pretty much all over the world. The US hates indigenous peoples. Maybe all of the NATO states do. This is part of the legacy of colonialism and white supremacy -- destroy the conditions of life in nations inhabited by dark skinned peoples.

The important point is that the wars the US has fought since the end of WW II have not been against armies but rather against people and the governments they have tried to establish. Destroying people has been the goal in all of these wars and there have been more than 50 of them. These wars are genocidal, even if they do not kill everyone or even most everyone. They are wars to beat down indigenous populations and destroy them.
 
 
+10 # RMDC 2016-08-25 08:30
I might add the often quoted comment by George Kennan, who was a significant voice in post WW II US foreign policy:


"we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization . The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
http://www.russilwvong.com/future/kennan/pps23.html



I think all of the ruling elites know this. They know that their real enemies are the poor indigenous masses of the world who just happen to live where natural resources are located. These masses must be kept at the verge of destruction so that they will never imagine reaping the benefits of their own natural wealth. There is not a lot of natural wealth in Yemen, but it is strategically located and the US wants it for its location. So it must be depopulated. Same for Somalia. It is being depopulated. That's genocide, even if some people survive.
 
 
+1 # dquandle 2016-08-25 21:16
The US is heavily invested in building cities underground in poor relatively defenseless foreign countries. Necropolis-buil ding.
 
 
+10 # Robbee 2016-08-25 07:43
it's a relief to read the word "genocide" used in connection with evident, indiscriminate, whole-scale saudi bombing - with american planes, bombs and help - and starvation to depopulate civilians residing on the arabian peninsula - who belong to a different muslim sect from the saudis
 
 
+5 # boredlion 2016-08-25 11:38
Capro: For a more lucid, factually detailed and closer argued and contextualized account of the hideous and brutal Yemen war, you might take Mr. Boardman's suggestion and look into Andrew Cockburn's excellent article in the current Harper's magazine, "Acceptable Losses - Aiding and abetting the Saudi slaughter in Yemen" (Sept. 2016 issue).

Here's the link:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2016/09/acceptable- losses/
 
 
-1 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-26 20:01
boredlion 2016-08-25 11:38

The link does not open an article. It leads to an error notice. I tried thrice.

But thank you.

Still, I was fortunate enough to have found excellent reports before I encountered Mr. Boardman's piece.
 
 
+8 # Vardoz 2016-08-25 11:40
Too bad there is no Schindler to save some people. Our military has abandon any notion of morality. Obama just does what he's told now. I can see how so any millions of Jews were murdered as many Germans did nothing.
 
 
+6 # anarchaos 2016-08-25 12:27
"In August 15, Jill Stein of the Green Party,etc.".... SO,it seems the only humane, sane, not EVIL choice that any decent voter has this year is to elect Doctor Jill Stein as POTUS. And by checking out the Green Party platform and its 'Shadow Cabinet, you will be delightfully informed as to what things can be. However, all sociopaths will be enraged by said information from the Greens.
 
 
-5 # janie1893 2016-08-25 15:30
Robbee--if we overuse the word genocide, we demean the horror and the immensity of the word. I think the UN sometimes changes the original, true meaning of words to satisfy specific groups.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-08-25 18:09
How is attempting to "wipe out the Houthis" not genocide?
 
 
+4 # dquandle 2016-08-25 21:24
Yeah. The word should only be used on specified Thursdays, in a leap year, during a total eclipse, when Jupiter is in Pisces. Wouldn't want to wear it out.
 
 
+6 # elkingo 2016-08-25 15:31
How did we come this? Yeah, Jill is the only moral choice, and is, ironically the revolutionary candidate.
 
 
+10 # dbrize 2016-08-25 16:03
The great Vietnamese-Amer ican poet Linh Dinh sums up the insanity:

"The US allied itself with Stalin, then fought Communism. It propped up Saddam Hussein, then murdered him. After bombing Hanoi, it now sells weapons to the same regime. In front of a huge Ho Chi Minh bust, Bush, Clinton and Obama beamed. Freedom fighters will be redefined as terrorists, or vice versa. When it comes to geopolitics, there is no ideological consistency. Only war is constant, and the flow of refugees."
 
 
+7 # dquandle 2016-08-25 20:32
Who would have thought that a mere "community organizer" would show such a rare talent for cold blooded murder?
 
 
+4 # RMDC 2016-08-26 08:39
dq -- of course Obama was not a "mere" community organizer. Obama was recruited into the CIA while in college. After graduation he spent a year working for Business Consultant's International, a total CIA front company with offices in many capitols around the world. All of this is detailed by Wayne Madsen in many articles and his book, "The Manufacturing of a President: The CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House"

After law school, Obama was sent by the CIA to Chicago to begin an exemplarly career in community organizing a teaching law part time.

Very many prominent politicians owe their careers to the CIA. Bill Clinton is one. This is one of the things the CIA was created to do. It assures the control by the ruling elites of elected offices.

It is clear that Obama has always supported the agenda of the CIA, most especially its drone assassination program. He has not closed Guantanamo because it is a CIA operation.

Too bad this is not better known.
 
 
+3 # dquandle 2016-08-25 21:32
After all, what could be more appropriate than taking out hospitals with antiseptic surgical strikes. Medicine is all about getting to the root of a problem, not just trying to eliminate the symptoms. Its a well known fact that hospitals cause terrism.
 
 
+4 # WBoardman 2016-08-25 22:06
dquandle seems to have a bad attitude,
which is the best kind to have these days. ;-)))

ABC News doesn't blame Doctors Without Borders
for being under bombs that blew up its hospitals,
but that may be coming, if this is harbinger:

http://davidswanson.org/node/5253

The American journalism guide requires that
"victim" should never be used without "guilty" –
that way there's much less to explain, or feel.
 
 
+1 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-26 14:55
About 10 minutes ago, I finished reviewing today's (26 Aug. 2016) Reader Supported News pieces. Two read like Hillary’s and the Hillary campaign's version of far-right journalism and the worst stuff one might read in the New York Daily News or New York Post (both envies of the New York Times, which has been trying hard to avoid publishing news "fit to print" rather than material that makes NYT’s hard copy among the best means of picking up canis familiaris feces).

But the trouble is not merely the increasing quantity of yellow journalism RSN has re-published recently.

The trouble is also that while RSN continues to re-publish pieces published by sources like Counterpunch and The Intercept, RSN does not re-publish those sources’ publications that present legitimate impeachments of Hillary or her campaign, especially if those publications are very well researched, extensively hard-evidence-s upported, and scrupulously written. Example: Lee Fang, "Democratic Pundits Downplay Serious Ethical Issues Raised by the Clinton Foundation" (26 August 2016, 7:16 a.m.), https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/clinton-foundation-spin/

How very sad: RSN had been among the five-or-so best news sources of the U.S. Now it is slipping toward being much a Hillary-stooge propaganda rag.
 
 
0 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-26 15:10
Lest I mislead, I must observe also that increasingly RSN's original publications, too, have included Hillary-stooge propaganda
 
 
+1 # WBoardman 2016-08-26 20:26
Capro-Lupo's "stooge" fest:

FOCUS: Indicting Hillary
May 16, 2016 ... Boardman writes: It's not yet clear whether Hillary Clinton will be indicted. It's not even clear in the broader sense whether Hillary Clinton should ...
readersupportednews.org/opinion2/.../36902-focus-indicting-hillary

FOCUS: Black Lives Matter, Just Not to Hillary Clinton
Mar 4, 2016 ... Boardman writes: Over 50 years ago, in a 1963 Chicago protest against ... That protestor for black rights was not Chicago native Hillary Clinton, ...
readersupportednews.org/.../35550-focus-black-lives-matter-just-not-to- hillary-clinton

FOCUS: Hillary Clinton Is No Barbra Streisand
Apr 2, 2016 ... Boardman writes: In her essay 'Sexism in American Politics,' Barbra ... At the beginning of her piece, Streisand compares Hillary Clinton to ...
readersupportednews.org/.../36094-focus-hillary-clinton-is-no-barbra- streisand

Clinton to California: “Drop Dead”
May 22, 2016 ... Boardman writes: By now, anyone paying the least attention knows that the ... by establishment Democrats working on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
readersupportednews.org/.../37009-clinton-to-california-qdrop-deadq

FOCUS | Hillary Clinton: 'I Will Talk Only to White People ...'
Aug 25, 2015 ... Boardman writes: "After listening awhile, Hillary Clinton pettishly told a quintet of respectful Black Lives Matter activists that, 'Yeah, well, ...
readersupportednews.org/.../32028-focus-hillary-clinton-i-will-talk-only-to- white-people-
 
 
-1 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-27 16:40
Mr. Boardman:

In earlier years, I appreciated your journalism very much. Example: your work regarding the Fukushima disaster and Japanese government responses and silences of other governments. Top notch journalism, Sir.

But recently, your works have been unfortunately slanted — even those you cite in the comment to which this note replies. There, your texts treat a bit softly the monstrous conduct of Hillary, the DNC, and related others. I find so by comparing those pieces with your articles that slam Trump without adequate premises — even libelously in spots. Among the worst was your piece that compared reports of Hillary’s health and Trump’s. Also perfidious was your treatment of allegations that Trump raped a 13-years-old.

I wonder whether the current election’s uniquely and direly emotion-laden character may bear untoward effect upon your journalism. The election’s conduct has inflamed too many others’ views and assertions.

But in the instant case ("US Okay With Surgical Strikes on Yemen Hospitals"), my concerns are MOSTLY different: (a) Your article’s text does not support its title sufficiently. (b) Its writing’s rather poor syntax (organization, grammar, diction, paragraphing,
sentence-structure, logic) impairs the reader’s attention and appreciation.

May I paraphrase my first comment? I could not finish reading the piece, because its very awkward density made my eyes roll.

Still, truly, I wish you well. I am sure you intend good.

C-L
 
 
-1 # Capro-Lupo 2016-08-27 17:36
Sorry:

I ought to have noticed that in this piece —
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35550-focus-black-lives-matter-just-not-to-hillary-clinton —
after quoting Hillary's comment that she heard Dr. M L King speak and his speech "made such an impression on [her]," you wrote: "But it did not make such an impression that she couldn't support Goldwater (to be fair, he helped integrate the Arizona Air National Guard)."

Despite your article criticized Hillary's view and treatment of Blacks, your above-quoted language treated HILLARY, and Goldwater, unfairly (notwithstandin g your words "to be fair, he helped integrate the Arizona Air National Guard").

Goldwater, and Hillary's Goldwater support, cannot suggest Hillary is or was a bigot. Goldwater was a traditional conservative, like Eisenhower, not a bigot:

"Pretty much everyone, including Martin Luther King Jr., Roy Wilkins, and Julian Bond, is willing to concede that Goldwater was not personally bigoted." Matthew Yglesias, "Goldwater and Civil Rights," ThinkProgress (21 May 2010), https://thinkprogress.org/goldwater-and-civil-rights-f776ce938115#.i6f54dcca

Hillary supported Goldwater for his traditional conservatism and, I expect
(but do not know so), because he proposed a refreshingly rational (albeit would-be-initia lly-bloody) means of ending the Vietnam war VERY FAST.

So, I find myself observing that recently your writing has been unfair even to monster criminal, hideously corrupt Hillary.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN