re: U.S. vs. US 'Global Posture'
In the U.S., 35% polls "in favor of" --one militarUStic USventure after another; one militarUSt$ crUSade after another, interrupted too infrequently by truly humanistic crU.S.ades of Justice (Sudan, Uganda, Africa, with and without justUS; when, if not without justUS, at least not on behalf of, not in the name of justUS) [at moments of great (in a US quantumized time frame) politisized republic of devisiveness]-- corporatUSt$, in favor of militarUSt$ have for most of my life of 55yrs now, carried the day...carried generations of the "United States of America" of the Americas through its multifarioUS manUSfestations through the Americas and the Pacific Basin that was not already of British imperial corporatists, and sometimes French corporatists domain, after US imperial war against Spain, five or so years after sending in the U.S. Marines to secure for US corporatists the Hawaiian archipelago to exploit upon the generationally diminishing US$propriated gold and natural wealth of the indigenous peoples of California, who have been virtually exterminated with rarely a lethal bullet ever being fired by a duly employed U.S. government employee, duly submissive taxee.... and target of militant anti- U.S. policy by US, by accident or US design and neglectfulnUS.
My question is: Since, apparently, had it not been for the objections of US Senator Inouye, U.S. military expenditures in Hawaii would have diminished (except for the neighbor islands' "Stryker Force" proposed for Big Island, and Pacific Missile Range Facilities, aka "Star Wars", on Maui and Kauai), as in, demilitarization of the Hawaiian archipelago. Is that a correct observation?
Have a Question? Want to Send a Comment?
http://www.defendamerica.mil/..... ..
In the U.S., 35% polls "in favor of" --one militarUStic USventure after another; one militarUSt$ crUSade after another, interrupted too infrequently by truly humanistic crU.S.ades of Justice (Sudan, Uganda, Africa, with and without justUS; when, if not without justUS, at least not on behalf of, not in the name of justUS) [at moments of great (in a US quantumized time frame) politisized republic of devisiveness]-- corporatUSt$, in favor of militarUSt$ have for most of my life of 55yrs now, carried the day...carried generations of the "United States of America" of the Americas through its multifarioUS manUSfestations through the Americas and the Pacific Basin that was not already of British imperial corporatists, and sometimes French corporatists domain, after US imperial war against Spain, five or so years after sending in the U.S. Marines to secure for US corporatists the Hawaiian archipelago to exploit upon the generationally diminishing US$propriated gold and natural wealth of the indigenous peoples of California, who have been virtually exterminated with rarely a lethal bullet ever being fired by a duly employed U.S. government employee, duly submissive taxee.... and target of militant anti- U.S. policy by US, by accident or US design and neglectfulnUS.
My question is: Since, apparently, had it not been for the objections of US Senator Inouye, U.S. military expenditures in Hawaii would have diminished (except for the neighbor islands' "Stryker Force" proposed for Big Island, and Pacific Missile Range Facilities, aka "Star Wars", on Maui and Kauai), as in, demilitarization of the Hawaiian archipelago. Is that a correct observation?
Have a Question? Want to Send a Comment?
http://www.defendamerica.mil/
Comment