However, in all this death bringing activity, no war was ever declared. All the above were "police actions,' 'peace keeping' or 'protective' military interventions. In every case, initially, Congress carefully avoided calling any of these invasions a war.
Shooting people dead in their very own country, more often than not, in their very own residences is simply mass-murder, whether justified as anti-communism, anti-terrorism or the protection of capital investments. One doesn't have to be Einstein himself to see this clearly.
Likewise, U.S. corporate commercial mass-media would never call India's consistent, year after year, intentional allowing of millions of its citizens to die of starvation, mass-murder. India is always described as the world's largest democracy, and media and U.S. politicians make a show of proudly promoting support for democracy. everywhere. So, no criticism of India, corporate ally of U.S. imperialism and globalization - certainly no charge of homicidal crime for its annual starvation of millions of its citizens.
UN statistics over decades have shown no improvement in this horrendous and painful death toll, and often, even recently, a worsening of the amount of its citizens dying for having been denied food has been documented. Yet year after year this mass death goes on being legislated.
The half-billion Indians who are nourished, and the millions that are over-nourished go about their lives and occupations in full knowledge and awareness, though distracted by India's corporate commercial media's entertainments, advertising to consume, dramatization of religious conflict and promoted fear of neighboring nations.
That same New York Times that regularly nicknames India "the world's largest democracy' got around to feature a horrific side of its particular type of formal democracy with pathetic photo of a mother sitting next to her starving child on the front page of its August 8, 2010 edition.
India Asks, Should Food Be a Right for the Poor? by Lynsey Addario
"JHABUA, India -- Inside the drab district hospital, where dogs patter down the corridors, sniffing for food, Ratan Bhuria's children are curled together in the malnutrition ward, hovering at the edge of starvation. His daughter, Nani, is 4 and weighs 20 pounds. His son, Jogdiya, is 2 and weighs only eight.
Jogdiya, 2, lay with an intravenous drip in the Jhabua District Government Hospital as his father, Ratan Bhuria, looked after him and his 4-year-old sister. [More Photos]
Landless and illiterate, drowned by debt, Mr. Bhuria and his ailing children have staggered into the hospital ward after falling through India's social safety net. They should receive subsidized government food and cooking fuel. They do not. The older children should be enrolled in school and receiving a free daily lunch. They are not. And they are hardly alone: India's eight poorest states have more people in poverty -- an estimated 421 million -- than Africa's 26 poorest nations, one study recently reported."
The best part of the article is where the talk turns to making money from feeding the starving as an incentive. (Financial gain being a preferred motive if not common provision within capitalist economics)
"The question is whether there is a role for the market in the delivery of social programs," said Bharat Ramaswami, a rural economist at the Indian Statistical Institute. "This is a big issue: Can you harness the market?"
There follows shocking massive incriminating evidence of simple cruel murder of the poor victims of the control by private investment banking and the police enforcement inherent in a government of, by and for conscienceless free enterprise:
"India vanquished food shortages during the 1960s with the Green Revolution, which introduced high-yield grains and fertilizers and expanded irrigation, and the country has had one of the world's fastest-growing economies during the past decade. But its poverty and hunger indexes remain dismal, with roughly 42 percent of all Indian children under the age of 5 being underweight."
The New York Times and all U.S. media, while didactically supporting the parliamentary democracy of capitalist economy but excusing the amoral byproducts of business priorities and basic class distinction, have always jumped to designate as mass murder any loss of life caused in revolutions against the world ruling imperial system. Revolutions caused precisely by desperation to feed hungry children.
For example, the killing during the bloody civil war in Russia created by the invasion of armed forces from fourteen nations, and the starvation in its aftermath are attributed to communism. Allied invasions (two American armies among them) were meant to overthrow the Bolshevik led fledgling Soviet Union, a new popular government come to power peacefully by consensus in the bloodless October Revolution. ("Bolshevik' means majority)
Many of the various efforts of the Mao Zetong led revolution against the starvation of millions under the foreign banking backed government of Chiang Kai-shek are still characterized in capitalist media as mass murder. In other words, starvation is only murder if it happens under communist and anti-imperialist rule; the earlier horrendous starvation that precipitated revolution is never referred to as mass murder.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).