I have never subscribed to it, but in the past I came into possession of
a number of Braille Forums on cassette tape. I remember the name of
Nolan Crabbe in pretty much every issue. I just don't remember the
context. He was either editor or something else that required his name
to be in the credits. It could have been assistant editor, treasurer,
editor of some specific department or something else.
On 3/23/2018 7:09 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I don't think he was editor of Dialogue. He is a techie, teaches or taught tech
to disabled people at a college I Ohio, I think. Is or was a Mormon. Was active
in Ohio ACB. I doubt he's quiet. He's very kind and polite, but he rns that
email list with an iron hand. He's very , by the book.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 6:31 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Pentagon Lies About Yemen, Says US Role in Saudi War Is
"Noncombat"
I've met Nolan Crabb a couple of times. I think he had been editor of the
Forum? and then was with Dialog, unless my muddled mind has him confused with
someone else. I must admit, I never thought of Nolan as a person with an
opinion. Maybe it's because he was so quiet, and I'm...not.
Carl
On 3/23/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There are, of course, people who identify with the image of America as
a military power. You know who Nolan Crabb is, right? He druns the DB
Review list. When he reads nonfiction, it tends to be nonfiction about
WW2, that glorifies the role of the US and its allies. Or he reads
about our past presidents or generals or battles.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:28 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Pentagon Lies About Yemen, Says US Role
in Saudi War Is "Noncombat"
My tried and true method of determining when the Pentagon is lying, is
to listen. When you hear the official Pentagon releases, it's a 99.5%
chance that it's a lie.
And if the Pentagon is not talking, what we hear is the slopping sound
of the Military/Industrial Corporations slopping at the public trough.
Just how long will we allow it to go on before we demand our own
representation in the running of our nation? When will we wake up and
realize that the big lie was, "What's good for General Motors is good
for the Nation"?
Just where has all that goodness gone? Not in the pockets of those
Americans who sweat and strained to create it.
Carl Jarvis
From Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pentagon Lies About Yemen, Says US Role in Saudi War Is "Noncombat"
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
22 March 18
"The U.S. government claims that it's not engaged in hostilities
unless U.S.
troops are on the ground being shot at by the enemy.. It stretches
the imagination, and it stretches the English language beyond its
breaking point, to suggest the U.S. military is not engaged in
hostilities in Yemen."
- Senator Mike Lee, Utah Republican, Senate floor March 13
The Pentagon, having spent three years creating famine and spreading
cholera on an unprecedented scale in one of the poorest countries in
the world, Yemen, now lies, baldly but with lawyerly gracelessness,
that the American bombs guided by American officers to targets as
often as not civilian is somehow "noncombat." Effectively, the
Pentagon argues that when US military forces only enable genocide,
it's not combat. Strictly speaking, the Pentagon is only following
orders to commit ongoing war crimes.
In late March 2015, with US blessing from the Obama administration,
Saudi Arabia and its allies started bombing Yemen more or less
indiscriminately, making as many as 200 sorties a day. Yemen, with no
air force and few air defenses, was helpless. From the start this was
an illegal war of aggression, a nexus of war crimes in all its
particulars, and so it will be until it ends. Without US approval and
participation, it's highly unlikely Yemen would have become the
world's most serious humanitarian crisis, regardless of the crimes of
others.
The gross criminality of US enabling of and participation in the
genocidal war on Yemen is not part of the official discussion of the
horror our country perpetuates on a daily basis. From the beginning,
US military has engaged in the war by providing tactical advice on
bombing, offering intelligence, maintaining warplanes, re-fueling
Saudi warplanes in mid-air, providing cluster bombs and smart bombs,
and generally offering military support for a bombing campaign as
vicious as any since the US dropped more explosives on Vietnam than
were used in all of World War II.
This is the official view of the scope of US involvement in the Saudi
war on Yemen, along with a perverse insistence on calling it a "civil
war," when there is only one outside aggressor: the Saudi coalition
and its supporters.
Even Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, accepts this
demonstrably false framing, as she did at the Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing on March 13. She even accepts as gospel the alleged
Iranian involvement in Yemen for which there is scant evidence and
less precise definition. That has been a chronic Saudi-American lie
about Yemen from the beginning, pretending that a local territorial
dispute between the Houthis and the Saudis was some sort of grand
geopolitical last stand. It wasn't true when Obama green-lighted the
killing, and it's not true now as Trump keeps the slaughter going,
but it will continue to be accepted as official truth until people
like Warren challenge it. But Warren is also the Senator from
Raytheon, the defense contractor that sells billions of dollars worth
of precision-guided munitions to the Saudi coalition.
Euphemistically,
Raytheon says it helps the Saudis "meet their security needs," even
though there is no serious threat to anyone from the Houthis in
Yemen, and the Saudi war is less about security then aggression.
The Pentagon says what it is doing with the Saudi war is "limited US
military support," in the words of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis
before the Senate on March 13. Mattis did not acknowledge that the
Saudi war could not continue without US support, since the Pentagon
position is that the US provides "noncombat assistance." None of the
US senators present asked about this big elephant taking a dump in
the middle of the room. There was only the slightest objection when
the Pentagon Central Command head who runs the American part of the
war, General Joseph Votel, told senators with a straight face: "We're
not parties to this conflict."
According to General Votel, the US is not party to the conflict even
though it chooses targets, programs smart bombs, and re-fuels bombers
that have now killed something like 10,000 civilians and an unknown
number of combatants.
General Votel claims US noncombatant status mainly because once the
bombs go up, the US pays no official attention to where they come
down.
In late February, three senators introduced Joint Resolution 54,
designed to put some Congressional check on US war-making in Yemen
and elsewhere. The Pentagon's official response was that Congress has
no right to tell the Pentagon what it can and cannot do under
presidential authority. This view is spelled out in a February 27
letter from the general counsel of the Department of Defense,
opposing Joint Resolution 54 and explaining why all the war-making
activities of US forces in Yemen have nothing to do with
"hostilities" (even though they do in any honestly rational world).
The letter even refers obliquely to actual "hostilities" that are
mostly ignored, "the October 2016 strikes against radar facilities in
Houthi-controlled territory in defense of US Navy ships in
international waters." That's the whole reference, but even as it
confirms the US firing weapons at Houthis, it then defends this
engagement as an exception that somehow doesn't count as
"hostilities." Navy Times lists the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden region off
Yemen as one of the "Navy's 5 most dangerous at-sea deployments."
Navy Times frames the issue with a clear statement of the hostilities and a
hilarious version of the geopolitical history:
The fact that sailors have already had full-on missile battles with
Yemeni rebels near this global choke-point makes the Bab-el-Mandeb,
or the BAM, an obvious pick for the most dangerous place in the world
where sailors are deploying.
The Gate of Tears is the maritime equivalent of the Wild West. Yemen
is a failed state in the grip of a bloody civil war that has roped in
both Saudi Arabia and to a lesser degree, the United States. But
spillover from the conflict, as well as meddling from Iran, has made
the waters around Yemen extremely dangerous.
This is all duplicitous kabuki on both sides, Pentagon and Senate.
They are arguing within a falsely framed reality to perpetuate deceit
they all own.
Even if the US role were actually limited to merely supporting the
aerial attacks, everyone lies by omission by failing to acknowledge
(much less object to) the air campaign's role in blockading Yemen,
thereby directly causing famine and disease and toxic drinking water
for more than half the population. This biological warfare is also a
war crime.
The blockade of Yemen is also a land blockade along the Saudi-Yemeni
border in the north. To the east, the blockade relies on the desert
and the presence of al Qaeda and ISIS forces, also at war with the
Houthis. US Special Forces were operating in Yemen for years with the
blessing of Yemen's internationally-imposed "legitimate" government
headed by a Saudi puppet. When the Houthis, long a rebellious,
independence-minded minority, overthrew the imposed government in
2014, US forces withdrew for awhile.
Now
the US operates in Yemen on a contingency basis, if not continuously.
As is well established in international law, a blockade is an act of war.
The "noncombatant" US admittedly participates in the aerial blockade
of Yemen. The US does not admit its much greater participation in the
naval blockade of Yemen. The US-Saudi naval blockade depends on the
US Navy, which has enforced the blockade since 2015. Yemen has needed
to import food to survive for decades. The US-Saudi blockade cut off
food to Yemen, as well as medical supplies, fuel, and all the other
things needed to support a normal civil society. The US-Saudi
blockade has led directly to starvation and famine. The US-Saudi
blockade has led directly to the spread of cholera and other
diseases. The US-Saudi blockade is a war crime of stunning enormity.
And no one talks about it.
When President Bashar al Assad engages in similar tactics in Syria,
as in Ghouta of late, the world hears about it, but doesn't do much.
When the US and its allies in the war on terror terrorize and destroy
places like Raqqa, the world hears much less about it and does
nothing. When the US, Saudi Arabia, and its allies spend three years
in Yemen committing war crimes that have yet to end, the world hears
little about it, humanitarian agencies and the United Nations raise
objections, but nothing humane is accomplished.
The
US in Yemen is morally indistinguishable from Bashar al Assad.
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
