Comments for Freedom Through Militarism: Does the US Military Actually Protect Liberty? »
Posted By populist 1 year, 3 months ago in NewsLiberty is not a child of militarism. The liberty of a people in any society, a rarity to be sure, is dependent on the character of the free members of that society; and therefore, for there to be liberty in society anywhere, its members, individually, must be free.
Liberty sought by use of bombs and other instruments of terror is liberty sought in vain. If found, it is fleeting and only for a special class.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 139
-
95%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like the author says later in the article, this is probably not a popular position, but I think he makes some very valid points as to how the military and militarism have been actually undermining our freedoms rather than protecting them.
Reply
The big question, though, is this - if true, is this due to policy, or is it inherent in the nature of armies?-
90%
BravoSierra1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There have been perhaps more military minds arguing against the militant policies of the Bush administration than there have been civilian minds. As a former military officer I can absolutely tell you that the key to liberty is an educated populace allowed and that demands the ability to think and speak freely. it is no accident that the founding fathers of the United States put the freedom of speech as the first of all rules. It is also no accident that their legal case and evidence for a just revolution listed multiple crimes under international law that were being committed by the British Army and governance of the British East India Company. In neither case was it the nature of the army to do this. It was in the failed fascist and anti-democratic policies of corporate brigands who placed corporate profits above the public good, who bought off members of Parlaiment and who misused the army; and, due to the failure of the military to refuse illegal orders. We've just seen this happen over the past 8 years in the US.
Reply-
86%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some great points. My only point of disagreement would be to say that these policies have been going on far longer than the past 8 years.
Reply
From Woodrow Wilson to FDR, Nixon, Clinton and Bush (and a few others in there too), this country has continued a path of increasing militarism.
to me, this is not about republicans or democrats. It's all about the massive power we give a few hundred people in D.C. - the power to destroy the entire world. All, supposedly, for our "safety"-
100%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did you forget that the USSR fell in '91 and that both Cheney and Clinton agreed with downsizing the military? Clinton got 100% Nato approval before going into Kosovo and didn't lose a soul to enemy fire... and used the military to nation build and meet international disasters! Finally to top it off, Cohen, the Defense Sec under Clinton was a repug! Did Clinton push star wars?
Reply
-
-
-
100%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No president has so politicized all aspects of governemt as Dumya with Cheney and Rove advising/mandating! Then Dumya calling a war a "CRUSADE". It started with the outing of Gen Shinsheki and resulted in Air Force Joint Chief head Meyers (sp?) saying to accept the Bush torture. Then add Dumya making a war czar and putting an admiral in charge of two ground wars and you just have more examples of poor leadership from the Bushies altogether! The military, especially its leadership, is only as principled as the administration!
Reply
Clinton did not do this level of damage to our military - the repugs still haven't even thrown out his don't ask, don't tell! The repugs did kill Paladin and Commanche though, and Rummy had treatened to cut two active duty Army Divisions before 911!
-
-
93%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's what James Madison had to say on the issue:
Reply
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. "
"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."-
92%
BravoSierra1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Absolutely. And the US is headed into an era of perpetual warfare by declaring EVERYTHING a war...war against terror, war against drugs, war against this and that... It's being done for corporate power and profits just as it was used by the British East India company to further their power and profits at the expense of England. Go read up on it...Bush may as well be the CEO of the British East India Company selling the Citizens of the US out to create a perpetual state of war for the purpose of securing corporate profits rather than the good of the nation.
Reply
Please to read the history of the root causes of the American Revolution and you will find that what our leadership is doing today is what cost the Crown the American Colonies. It will cost us allies and resources in the world and it will cost us our personal liberties and standard of living as we become foot soldiers and cannon fodder for the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against as he left office.-
-
100%
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BravoSierra ~
Reply
How true! When - and IF - they ever finish the game they are playing in the Middle East, they have already staked out their next areas of
conflict. Take a look at our involvement with Colombia and our continual disruption in Bolivia and Ecuador.
One day I stumbled across a reference to United Fruit Company and their dealings in Latin America. I was spellbound! I remember seeing the demonstrations about "Yanqui Go Home" - but never knew what that was all about. Well, all the way from United Fruit - to Iran-Contra, and on to the Bush policies now in that region.
It becomes quite clear that you cannot assist the elites to steal from the many and give to the few, nor can you build a truly
self-sustaining and PROFITABLE military machine if you don't have that one essential ingredient ..........continual conflict.
"Liar,liar - World on fire" - doesn't just apply to Bush - he's just been extrordinarily successful in selling the concept (through FEAR)
and changing our Constitutional structure to facilitate it.
-
-
83%
splitrch1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
50%
ChefEOD1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree on one level but to use the term terrorist with such a broad brush does not match the actions of the two. Please do not tell me that the three mentioned used attacks on civilians or attacks designed to produce civilian deaths to advance their cause - that is a huge difference between then & them to what occurs today.
Reply -
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, they weren't terrorists. The Declaration of Independence is a legal document that addresses international law of the period and specifically the conditions under which the ruled are obliged to rebel against the ruler. The legal premises were laid out by Friar Francisco Suarez and others in the 1600s and were ratified by the Catholic Church and later were adopted and expanded upon by international law and treaty. They were rebels. Now, according to Bush's definition of a "terrorist" they were terrorists but under international law they were not. The Declaration makes point of addressing all the conditions and principles laid out in international law of the time required to embark on a "just" rebellion. Just as there are principles for what defines a "just war" under international law, there are also principles that define a "just rebellion" or resistance.
Reply -
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
populist ~
Reply
Reading the Kenneth Roberts series of books about the American
Revolution, years ago, it became clear to me why Samuel Adams
was called a "rabble rouser". In today's lingo he would be
branded as an enemy combatant, or an insurgent ,at the least.
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Madison wrote a bunch of stuff I do not agree with.
Reply
I tended to like Hamilton's stuff a little more.
Madison was quite cornered about the "Mob rule" of a democracy, and wrote about the populist opinion that put Socrates to death and then built statues for him.
He is a hero of Karl Rove, because he tended to think we should be more of a republic than a democracy, and saner minds could temper the Mob if there was a bit of isolation in place. I kind of think he represents the thoughts of Republican conservatives when the principle has been rendered down to the basics.
None the less both of the Federalist Papers authors spent a lot of words describing and warning about the dangers of a huge military machine.
They both felt that the federal branch should maintain a strong Navy and have a small group of elite warriors.
They Strongly opposed the concept of large standing armies (no more than 2 years). There are words still in the Constitution about how the states can decide about officers.
Hamilton Basically stated that the country would freak out if the military machine became huge. We did not.
I think it is fair to say that we cover about 1/2 the bill for military expenditure for the entire world.
It also speaks well for the folks ,that have served this country, that in spite of the power they are capable of wielding, they still answer to our chosen civilian leaders.
The Business Plot: The Bonus army was offered the opportunity to overthrow Roosevelt. They where ****** off soldiers, but they let their honor shine.
I still prefer Hamilton, too bad he got shot.
Maria Reynolds-
100%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting perspective, and thank you for writing all that, although I strongly disagree. Maybe that's best left for another thread, though!
Reply
Anyway, if anyone's interested, there's a book coming out soon that discusses just these issues. (well, more from my point of view!)
It's called "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today"
http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842
Ok, I'll try to stay on topic now!-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cool that you disagree!
Reply
Sorry to pull a tangential thread.
Thanks for pointing out the book, If I was a better man I would read it.
I do think that many of the words that are attributed to Jefferson where Ghost written by Hamilton.
I am not that smart or well educated, so I was just kind of trying to share what I "felt" when I was cruising The Federalist Papers.
-
-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republic or Democracy is irrelevant to the principles in international law that justify rebellion of the ruled against the ruler. The form of government selected by the founding fathers was founded on legal principles that were the principle cause of the new government being formed in the first place. Whether a democracy of republic is in place, if the government violates the legal principles of the social contract between the ruled and the ruler under the concept of "natural law", then, under international law, the ruled have the obligation to rebel and bring the government down. Any violation of the principle cause for the rebellion and formation of the government in the first place violates the social contract and everything the government claims a right to is nullified ab initio...or from the beginning.
Reply-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I recommend that you back up to prior to Madison, Adams, Hamilton, etc and study Friar Francisco Suarez and the founders of international law at the time of the Age of Enlightenment. These are the principles that the Declaration of Independence addresses and makes a legal defense for rebellion based upon. Any law in the Constitution or any subsequent interpretation of our laws and liberties in violation of these earlier principles is invalid ab initio. Debating them is a moot point if they are invalid. Rove violated the legal definition of natural rights laid out in the Declaration and thus violated the law in many of his actions. Indeed, many of the Bush administration's positions are illegal, not because they violate the Constitution (which they do) but because they are contrary to the natural rights and freedoms accorded to the INDIVIDUAL ABOVE ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT as stated in the Declaration. Most people unfamiliar with international law think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the basis of US Laws and rights afforded citizens and thus they bicker over the "Constitutionality" of laws, executive privileges, etc. What they fail to recognize is that the Declaration of Independence is the first legal definition of the individual rights of US Citizens and that is is not a philosophical document but that it in fact strictly addresses international laws in place at the time of the American Revolution. It is Washington and the other rebel's legal defense that they would have presented in the courts of Europe and to the British Parliament had they lost. If they had lost, there is a fair chance they would have been exonerated. The British Parliament had already declared the British East India Company to be verging on treason to the Crown and had declared them immoral and incompetent governors of the Crown's possessions. Washington may well have been exonerated and officers of the British East India Company and other governors may well have been hanged for the crimes laid out in the Declaration. If that's what it would have taken to resolve the revolution peacefully and keep the colonies as part of the Empire I suspect that Parliament would have eaten its own. As it was, Washington won.
Reply -
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I recommend that you back up to prior to Madison, Adams, Hamilton, etc and study Friar Francisco Suarez and the founders of international law at the time of the Age of Enlightenment. These are the principles that the Declaration of Independence addresses and makes a legal defense for rebellion based upon. Any law in the Constitution or any subsequent interpretation of our laws and liberties in violation of these earlier principles is invalid ab initio. Debating them is a moot point if they are invalid. Rove violated the legal definition of natural rights laid out in the Declaration and thus violated the law in many of his actions. Indeed, many of the Bush administration's positions are illegal, not because they violate the Constitution (which they do) but because they are contrary to the natural rights and freedoms accorded to the INDIVIDUAL ABOVE ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT as stated in the Declaration. Most people unfamiliar with international law think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the basis of US Laws and rights afforded citizens and thus they bicker over the "Constitutionality" of laws, executive privileges, etc. What they fail to recognize is that the Declaration of Independence is the first legal definition of the individual rights of US Citizens and that is is not a philosophical document but that it in fact strictly addresses international laws in place at the time of the American Revolution. It is Washington and the other rebel's legal defense that they would have presented in the courts of Europe and to the British Parliament had they lost. If they had lost, there is a fair chance they would have been exonerated. The British Parliament had already declared the British East India Company to be verging on treason to the Crown and had declared them immoral and incompetent governors of the Crown's possessions. Washington may well have been exonerated and officers of the British East India Company and other governors may well have been hanged for the crimes laid out in the Declaration. If that's what it would have taken to resolve the revolution peacefully and keep the colonies as part of the Empire I suspect that Parliament would have eaten its own. As it was, Washington won.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Under every government the [last] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people ... entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the wealthiest citizens."
Reply
--Quote by an anonymous framer of the US Constitution, sourced from Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791
From the article.-
-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We seem to have made that mistake in privatizing our military and turning them into either bands of mercenaries like Blackwater who have conflicts of interest or soldiers bitter that are being misused.
Reply
This Administration has made nearly every mistake that could destroy our country that could have been made. I can only conclude they were not mistakes in the first place but that it has been the intention of the corporate powers that own Bush and this Administration to rob our citizens of their rights and privatize control of our form of government to a fascist elite that considers itself wiser than the founders fathers of our nation and authors of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution.
-
-
95%
Charlson1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was raised in a military environment for the formative years of my life. My father was a career soldier in the Army. I actually consider West Point instead of a regular university and my father had procured the attention of his state representative for an appointment. But I refused because I had other career goals. I only say this because I want others to understand that I have always had the utmost respect for my father and his profession. What this article says about the rights of individuals which are almost always undermined by the strict code of military conduct is true. And a military that becomes politicized can become the sword that cuts democracy's throat. So we must be diligent in assuring that does not happen and the military is accountable to our civilian government.
Reply-
89%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Charlson, that's really an excellent perspective. There's obviously a big need for defense. But, sadly, the way I see it is that the US military is rarely used for defense - instead it eats up a large chunk of our national wealth, stirs up hatred against our country, and in the end, we're less safe, and less free.
Reply-
80%
tiredofwhiners1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"--the US military is rarely used for defense--".
Reply
You are so right about that. Of the 140 wars the U.S. has fought on foreign soil, only one (WWII) was in response to an attack on our soil, Japan at Pearl Harbor (a territory at the time). 9/11 was an attack too but no country could be pinned down, but rather a terror organization emplaced in various countries and always on the move. Another fact is that those 140 foreign wars almost always were to protect our interests such as trade, shipping, oil, and our friends. The first war was against the pirates of North Africa at Tripoli and Algiers around 1801. It was to stop the piracy of our ships trading in the Mediterranean. Our marines fought two wars there and won both.
Perhaps the U.S. needs to make a historic change of policy which would be to refuse to fight for anyone but ourselves and only if directly attacked on our soil. But in this day and age it can be difficult to find out who attacked (i.e. a suitcase nuke or missile attack from offshore). Also to not go to war to protect our interests but let the chips fall as they may. In other words if a U.S. company wants to invest in, say, Russia and then it is taken by them, that would be their problem and part of the risk of doing business outside the USA.-
88%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TOW, a very insightful comment - I wholeheartedly agree with your idea here:
Reply
"the U.S. needs to make a historic change of policy which would be to refuse to fight for anyone but ourselves and only if directly attacked on our soil."
No fighting for foreign dictators, no fighting for lobbyists, no fighting for corporations, no fighting for the UN....protect the country here.-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
populist ~
Reply
I will only pose the question -
What would have happened to Great Britain, Italy, France, the
Jews of Europe in general, Scandinavia, etc. if we had followed such an isolationist policy and NOT entered the European theater of operations during WWII?
There ARE valid reasons for our leaders to commit our forces in global situations - they just have been choosing the wrong ones.
The only remedy is to choose OUR leaders very, very carefully.
-
-
83%
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tiredofwhiners ~ stick with me on this - I'll have to do a multi-comment.
Reply
I don't share this with you with any sense other than the stomach-turning
feeling I had when I first read, "Day of Deceipt", by Robert Stinnett.
My family LOVED FDR - and felt we needed to be involved in stopping
Hitler but - I still believe the American public would have rallied behind
an involvement if Pearl had been a BATTLE - and not a massacre.
I never look at the pictures without wondering how the men that
KNEW - ever got another night's sleep.
From Publishers Weekly:
Historians have long debated whether President Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Using documents pried loose through the Freedom of Information Act during 17 years of research, Stinnett provides overwhelming evidence that FDR and his top advisers knew that Japanese warships were heading toward Hawaii. The heart of his argument is even more inflammatory: Stinnett argues that FDR, who desired to sway public opinion in support of U.S. entry into WWII, instigated a policy intended to provoke a Japanese attack.-
83%
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
continued:
Reply
The plan was outlined in a U.S. Naval Intelligence secret strategy memo of October 1940; Roosevelt immediately began implementing its eight steps (which included deploying U.S. warships in Japanese territorial waters and imposing a total embargo intended to strangle Japan's economy), all of which, according to Stinnett, climaxed in the Japanese attack. Stinnett, a decorated naval veteran of WWII who served under then Lt. George Bush, substantiates his charges with a wealth of persuasive documents, including many government and military memos and transcripts. Demolishing the myth that the Japanese fleet maintained strict radio silence, he shows that several Japanese naval broadcasts, intercepted by American cryptographers in the 10 days before December 7, confirmed that Japan intended to start the war at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett convincingly demonstrates that the U.S. top brass in Hawaii--Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Husband Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Walter Short--were kept out of the intelligence loop on orders from Washington and were then scapegoated for allegedly failing to anticipate the Japanese attack (in May 1999, the U.S. Senate cleared their names). Kimmel moved his fleet into the North Pacific, actively searching for the suspected Japanese staging area, but naval headquarters ordered him to turn back. Stinnett's meticulously researched book raises deeply troubling ethical issues. While he believes the deceit built into FDR's strategy was heinous, he nevertheless writes: "I sympathize with the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom." This, however, is an expression of understanding, not of absolution. If Stinnett is right, FDR has a lot to answer for--namely, the lives of those Americans who perished at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett establishes almost beyond question that the U.S. Navy could have at least anticipated the attack. The evidence that FDR himself deliberately provoked the attack is circumstantial, but convincing enough to make Stinnett's bombshell of a book the subject of impassioned debate in the months to come.-
100%
BB641 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You really have a few things wrong. First, the suggestion that a naval force would attack Hawaii from the north of the island and destroy the entire base wasn't very secret. There was a series of war games conducted in the early 1930's. The carrier's made the run in, did the fake attacks and won the war games exercises.
Reply
You're also forgetting the whole thought process back then concerning Pearl Harbor and the Fleet. First, the battleship was still the Queen of the fleet. Even though planes were proving themselves regularly, the battleship was still thought the key ship of the fleet. With that in mind, America in 1941 thought of the Pacific Fleet as the deterrent, the main target.
As to the war itself, FDR and any savvy politician knew there would be a war between Japan and the USA. Most assumed it would mean an invasion of the Philippines with the US Navy eventually leading a fleet of battleships and crush the Japanese. As the claims of provoking, Japan and US were both acting aggressive. FDR claimed to be enforcing a quarantine on Japan because of their invasion of China. Japan continued to build up and prepare for war with the USA.
The US knew of pending attacks but they didn't think it would be at Pearl or even include the USA. Japan actually attack British interests several hours before. Another concern was that the Japanese recalled all of her merchant fleet to home waters and changed all codes. Always a sign they were preparing to attack someone. FDR knew war was coming but not what was going to be attacked.-
100%
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tiredofwhiners ~
Reply
For condemnation of the Roberts Report - which found that both, Admiral Kimmel and General Short, had shown a lack of preparedness and reached arbitrary conclusions in conflict with advice from Washington -
you need look no further than, "On The Treadmill to Pearl Harbor"
(Department of the Navy, Navy History Division, 1973) pg. 453.
Per Vice Admiral, James O. Richardson - former Commander-in-Chief,
United States Fleet, "It is the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government Printing Office. I cannot conceive of honorable men serving on the commission without greatest regret and deepest feeling of shame."-
-
100%
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reason this should still be an issue under review today
Reply
is because of the credibility it gives to statements made every
time a perceived threat is discussed. I have heard MANY times
recently - that we mustn't allow another Pearl Harbor to happen.
The "Pearl Harbor" they invoke didn't happen. There were cryptographers all over the Pacific, from Corregidor to San Francisco that KNEW exactly where the Japanese fleet was and where it was heading - most shockingly, they knew WHEN they would arrive.
That info was restricted from our commanders in Hawaii and went straight to D.C.
My father served as a Chief Boatswain's Mate on the U.S.S. Fuller
in the Pacific. He was proud of his service and so am I - but I am
glad that he never had to know how those men at Pearl Harbor
were used. Their lives were at risk - and they knew that - but they
had every right to expect to die fighting the enemy - NOT being
sacrificed for spin. I will never hear the "Day of infamy" speech
without shame and anger that WE used them so deviously.
You should read the book - and there is actually MORE info
that was included by the time it went to the softbound publication.
-
-
-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
11%
hneal981 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is absolutely not true. It is the perspective of those who hate the military who say it is offensive. Without the offensive moves that were performed recently, our homeland would be in danger. But perhaps that is what is wanted here? Perhaps some want a weaker country?
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Always have,and me living in a country that is bigger than yours but has a population of less than California, this will happen, so what is your thoughts on the country with the biggest war chest and the same happens, only on the ground, not airspace.
Reply-
Neutral
hneal981 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know, it is a proven fact that if the citizens of a country are allowed to carry firearms, there is less crime, mainly because the bad guys are afraid of getting shot.
Reply
The same holds true of having a country with the greatest military on the Earth. A strong military is not a bad thing unless used to take away the freedoms of other people. That is not what the US does.
-
-
-
-
100%
kobzikov1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are dead wrong on this, hneal98. First of all, US is weaker now that its military has been overextended on two fronts, both militarily and economically. See what happened when Katrina hit or the record deficits and massive debt which are being run up by US government and its effect on the currency.
Reply
As a matter of fact, US has been weakened so much that now most of the support for its Georgian ally is purely rhetorical.
And what concerns being in less danger now then before beginning of the two wars, then the notion is purely fictional. Invasion of both Afghanistan and especially Iraq has created wide discontent and produced even more fertile ground for terrorist recruitment then has existed before the wars. Fertile ground that both Taliban and al-Qaeda are taking advantage of in American nuclear ally Pakistan, which is the current residence of bin Laden, Wahabists and AQ Khan, under the watchful eye of our good friend Musharraf who's got himself in a bit of trouble lately.
The Middle East has been destabilized across the board by US policies and is less stable now than it has been in a long time. These are effects of not only US presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, massive refugee inflow from Iraq into neighboring countries, but also of US policies toward Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian territories and our longtime "peace" partner Israel.
US plan for democratization and bringing security to the whole region worked so well that now US is giving billions in arms contracts to the most democratic regimes in Middle East, like Saudi royal family, King of Jordan, and the Egypt's Mubarak's one-party "26-year emergency" regime.
And what concerns people in US feeling safer then before one can only look at the increasing hate crime statistics against Muslims and immigrants in general. I'm sure the increase is a testament to widespread feelings of increased safety. Then again, maybe Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping fill you with the sense of security too, but I can tell you that in Soviet Union the knowledge that government was listening in on your conversations, could grab you off the street and call you the "enemy of the people", enemy combatant here (tomato, tomahto) did not make people feel any more secure, quite the opposite.-
Neutral
hneal981 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry, the military was weakened by the previous president who's infinite wisdom suggested he close down many of the military bases. Had that not happened and had the military continued to get the respect it deserves, it would not be weak in any form now.
Reply
Having said that, I still do not believe our military is weak. Having the greatest technologically equipped military has proven to make up in many areas for a lack of personnel.
I am not sure where you are getting all your info, but I don't agree with most of it.
-
-
-
-
-
88%
rightfromwrong1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what is killing the USA of it's freedom is the apathy that the general public has towards an illegal and contrived war. The pathetic elected officials who are just self-serving and do whatever the fascist corporations want. The USA is a right-off as far as having freedoms. It is all an illusion!!!
Reply-
-
-
-
89%
TheRealizer1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The world will never know how much Black Ops Money was pumped into weaponizing the Taliban while Russia was trying to take control of a certain Middle East country. I am certian that Russia has NOT FORGOTTEN. This could bode ill for us in the near future!!!
Reply-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7
Reply
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
-
-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TheRealizer ~
Reply
No fooling!And all that heart-wrenching babble from Bush
about the mistreatment of women in Afghanistan. Give me a break!
Neither the Bush administration - NOR the Clinton administration -
gave a hoot WHAT the Taliban did to women and girls while we were courting them for the pipeline deal - right up to August 2001.
No one saw any soccer stadium executions then - well, Jay Leno's wife, Mavis, had organized a human rights campaign about the quality of life
for women under the Taliban - but nothing from our government.
See: "Forbidden Truth", by Jean-Charles Brisard & Guillaume Dasquie
Same goes for Saddam Hussein. You would have to think we had the most inept intelligence service in the WORLD to not know what HE
was doing to his people.................WHILE he was our good bud.
But when the threat of WMD's wasn't catching on as soon as
Bush/Cheney had anticipated - what spin campaign did they
switch to? "He tortures his own people"! Yup, then we needed
regime change for the good of the poor Iraqi's.
Think they REALLY care about the people of Iraq or Afghanistan?
Not on your life. Want to scare yourself? Ask yourself if you think
they really care about US. They want your vote first and then they
want your tax dollars. Then they need a little cannon fodder and
a few people to carry out menial jobs - after that? We have NO
usefulness to them at all.
Grab hold of your Rights and exercise them vigorously while
you still can - because OUR Rights are not in THEIR best interest.
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
DoctorTruth1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is very easy to say that a war is illegal and contrived, from the safety of the Monday morning armchair. The war was sanctioned by the BIPARTISAN vote of Congress, with the most-noteworthy support of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry,et al.
Reply
The decision for military intervention was based upon all the information available at the time This intelligence was based on Intelligence from virtually every intelligence agency; in fact, the only countries that objected to military intervention AFTER 17 U.N RESOLUTIONS WERE IGNORED, were countries known to have huge financial dealings with Saddam Hussein at that time; France, Germany, and Russia. The U.N., being spinelss, toothless, and severely corrupted could do nothing. Based upon intelligence understood as FACTby the likes of Bill Clinton's administration, and continued through the 9-11 disaster and thereafter, the Bush Administration made a judgement call based upon the REALITY that existed at that time (judging events only by the reality of the time is the only fair way to sanely assess events). Incidentally, doesn't it seem odd to anyone that the Iraqi leadership had over a year, and the assistance of those who would be later SEARCHING for WMDs, to potentially eliminate all signs of WMDs; it's like letting the Stanley Kaplan people administer the SATs, while they're prepping people for it. But no matter, people see what they want to see, and they find a way (and materials to support) whatever they wantt to believe. It's easy to believe the gov't is always up to something sinister, because we've been marinading in the swill that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the NY Times wants us in for several generations.
It's as true for the world as it was for the sandbox; pacifism and perceived weakness are invitations to bullies. No war ever started because we were too strong.-
100%
willottica1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But argument still runs under the assumption that the US is not the bully. If you reverse that assumption, and consider an assumption that the US is the bully on the playground, then a lot more pieces fall into place -- like why smaller players would attack the much larger US when they know they can't possibly win.
Reply
Bullies don't pick fights they expect to lose... but sometimes those that have been bullied start to fight back even if they think it's futile. -
100%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It is very easy to say that a war is illegal and contrived, from the safety of the Monday morning armchair."
Reply
--To my way of thinking, the very same thing can be said of those who are cheerleading for the war. What's not to love about a scenario in which you risk and sacrifice nothing while others die on your behalf for a cause you claim is worth risking thousands of lives and spending trillions of dollars? You get to continue on with your life insulated from the carnage and violence and costs associated with the war while accusing others of supporting the terrorists or being "weak" or being "unpatriotic." What's not to like about that?
Like you and I and the other more than 99% of America, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry aren't sharing the inconveniences and sacrifices associated with our current military operations so when cons remind us of what the Democrats did or didn't go along with, they totally miss the point. If the "global war on terror" is as all-important as you people insist that it is, why aren't you behaving accordingly instead of going on with business on the homefront as usual? If this is so important, what makes you think we should be borrowing trillions of dollars and paying the same handful of people over and over to risk their lives while the vast majority of Americans are kept in the dark about what's actually going on?
Btw, it's also easy to claim we have an "all volunteer" military just because people a small handful of people are willing to make a career out of war and allow their children to grow up without a mother or father but just because people are willing to do this doesn't mean it's the best thing for them, for our military or for our country.-
100%
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mesodude ~
Reply
Great comment!
I get the creeps when I see how the recruiters zero in on the
ecomonically hopeless youths in high school. So many of
the young people "volunteering" are those with no future
prospects. That it must be a VERY difficult job to sell going
overseas in an on-going war as the ideal career choice -
is a given. We need a military - so we need recruiters - but
watching the "hard sell" in action - knowing that these guys
have quotas they must meet for their own performance reviews
is an uncomfortable experience.-
100%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks. I just think for people to parrot "we have an all volunteer military" sidesteps the fact that if our military involvements are supposed to be as vital as those on the right insist all the time, it would seem to me that as a country we should be sharing the sacrifice. That isn't happening, and it isn't being encouraged which is why I don't believe our motives are pure.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
67%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you trying to say government is good? Isn't that what the hated "liberals" always say??? maybe there's a wolf in sheep's clothing here.....
Reply
Me, I'm more of a fan of what George Washington had to say:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."-
Neutral
hneal981 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You can't generalize the government like that. The government is made of people. Some people are good and some are not. And yes, the liberals do tend to want bigger and bigger government. 2/3s of the government now we could have done without in the first place and been a lot better off.
Reply
-
-
100%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks Chief, under the Bushies you are correct! I would say he was right to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban... but he let OBL escape Tora Bora... then he left before the job was done.... and then said he (Dumya) didn't care if he got OBL or not!
Reply
We hanged Japanes and Natzis after WW2 for preemptive war and Dumya's water torture; yet, Dumya called this an ideological war... and gives away the high moral ground, our former values!-
Neutral
hneal981 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and everyone of those statements are taken out of context so you can try to make Bush seem dumb. The liberals tend to do that a lot. They don't like him so they try to make him seem stupid.
Reply
There were specific reasons for each of those things that happened.
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly...Notice how you and your fellow war cheerleading cons keep glossing over the fact that you're sacrificing nothing while waving your pom poms for OTHERS to die? No matter how you try to paint others as anti-American, you can't change that fact. You ain't being inconvenienced in any significant way so why *wouldn't* you enjoy watching others march off to die on your behalf. Pretty good deal, huh? ;-P
Reply
-
-
100%
AnteUp1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Doc? You need to give yourself a dose of truth.
Reply
You think because I'm a progressive I sit back and think only the USA
is an evil and abusive power and all other nations a just real sweethearts?
Get real! Even progressives wondered if possibly the administration
KNEW something we were not privy to. I would say that might account for SOME of the Democrats voting to authorize force. Don't forget, the fact that the
intell was cherry-picked (and it WAS) was not common knowledge at that
time. It would be assinine to think that liberals wanted us to be vulnerable
to attack. There were, however, some Dems who were deeply distrustful
of the validity of the evidence that was presented to Congress. They obviously knew something WE didn't - like maybe there was reason to question the evidence presented. That is why I think they chose NOT to authorize.
Also, for those Dems who did vote FOR it - I would not rule out the possibility that there was some degree of political calculation factored in to their decision - and that is shameful.
But the vote was to give Bush the ability to act IF NECESSARY.
The IF NECESSARY decision was left to our President - who abused that
power and took us to war on phony intelligence to fulfill some agenda
that few in Congress - and fewer still of the populace - knew anything
about.
-
-
-
89%
berkeley1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the best books on the consequences of militarism are the trilogy by chalmers johnson: blowback, the sorrows of empire, and nemesis.
Reply
if you think this is a new issue, go back and find "war is a racket" by smedley butler. he was the marine corps general who saw how his troops were being used for corporate gain in the early part of the 20th century. -
91%
TheRealizer1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The partition of Europe at the end of WW2 was designed for the benefit of the military industrial complex. It enabled the two primary forces in the world to maintain a state of military readiness for 50 years, greatly enriching the coffers of those suppliers.
Reply
Nothing will change until control of the purse strings are monitored by peacemakes rather than sabre rattlers......-
-
-
100%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I mentioned Tocqueville down below. He predicted that the United States and Russia would partition the world.
Reply
The United States would subdue nature and bring freedom.
Russia would subdue man and bring slavery.
Are we on to the next epoch beyond the division?
-
-
-
-
88%
Natureboy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
beyond that, "privatization" has guaranteed that much of the money taken from working individuals in the form of taxes is handed over to businesses in the form of government contracts and corporate welfare. Thus, the apparatus of government has been subverted to become an appalling Robin-Hood-in-reverse, using the might of the state to take from working people and give to the rich.
Reply-
80%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
good point. That's just what happens with excessive power, influence and money in government. Politicians take our money under the threat of force and turn it over to their corporate friends and backers.
Reply
Robin-hood-in-reverse is a great way to put it. If we "strike-the-root" of the problem, we need to look at the power they have to take and give.....and eliminate what they abuse.
That's my opinion. -
-
-
-
-
-
90%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The military is for politics through other means.
Reply
It cannot safeguard liberty.
Liberty comes from an interested public active in civics. When a society's aspiration is liberty, then there will be liberty.
Tocqueville's "Democracy In America" covers the point quite well.-
-
86%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"a great book! for any era...."
Reply
First part written in 1835.
Second part written in 1840.
Still the best book on Democracy AND America.
When Clinton and Hypocrite of the House Gingrich were at each others' throats, they both quoted Tocqueville.
-
-
83%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Liberty comes from an interested public active in civics.>>>>
Reply
When the public has been inundated with the shenanigans of the neocon movement, which sets the dialogue through the media, bombards people with fear of their fellow Americans (gays, liberals, progressives, etc), & there is no counter voice, It's rather difficult to engage oneself in civics. Many people are too busy being in the despair caused by one voice.-
83%
ConsAreNonGrata1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's what Cons are COUNTING ON.
Reply
We have to remain vigilant.
Start a political club with some friends. Canvas the community about its existence. Have various meeting times and a website with announcements to keep members active and informed. This provides those who have to work a lot just to get by a viable option for voicing their opinion.
Work on LOCAL issues first. Understanding democracy and civic duty begins locally.
Expand and move up the scale to state then national issues.
It's not easy, but unless we spark a grassroots movement, the Cons' oligarchic paymasters will have their way.
Don't despair. We haven't lost yet.
-
-
100%
ChefEOD1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is true to a point. Liberty does not exist in a vacuum. "The people" can aspire to liberty till the moon falls from the sky but history has proven time & time again there are always plenty around who aspire to brutalize and enslave any others that they can.
Reply-
100%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
right. they're from organizations called governments.
Reply
While, at best, they're a necessary evil, we must realize that they will always oppress unless strictly limited in function.
I can't think of a federal program out there - including the massive US military - that actually exists as the Constitution dictates.
But, no politician really wants to limit their own power, do they? So, instead, they find hordes of eager bootlickers out there to preach their mantra....power, power, power........ -
-
-
-
-
82%
Natureboy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One of the troubling but yet unspoken aspects of militarism is the mental and emotional consequences for those who participate. Bootcamp brainwashing followed by four years in an atmosphere of complete authoritarianism tends to produce people who, even years after having left the military, often appear unable to question authority, let alone disobey it when conscience dictates.
Reply-
100%
fsev411 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've mentioned before about the militaristic attitude that you can see in a number of regular prop posters who admit to or brag about their military background. Though not 100% true they do tend to be more bellicose and to support republicans. Mr McCain has that attitude and that concerns me.
Reply-
100%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that's something that the author was getting at here....bascially saying that in a militaristic society, the aggression spills over into civilian attitudes and life.
Reply
FTA:
"It soon begins, as well, to transmit its coarse and vulgar character out of its barracks and army camps into the general population, which, unwittingly, begins, too, to slowly acquire deeply fascistic or dangerously nationalistic attitudes that reveal themselves in such things as the efforts to smother free and entrepreneurial spirit, endeavors and ambitions. This growth also leads to the idolization and elevation of national symbols (e.g. national flags, national anthems, and war presidents) over rights and private individuals, and the regarding of military service as the highest social value or the most admirable profession commanding respect and deference"
-
-
-
10%
automan9091 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If Obama has these same views that you libs are taking he will be eaten alive at the debates.
Reply
I haven't seen sooo many anti-Americans in one place since Obama threw his long time friends Ayres, Wright, Pflagher, and Farakahan under the bus with Grandma.
That's ok though. Us Right Wingers will keep America free weather you like it that way or not.-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
-
-
-
100%
splitrch1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From Automan:
Reply
"If Obama has these same views that you libs are taking he will be eaten alive at the debates.
I haven't seen sooo many anti-Americans in one place since Obama threw his long time friends Ayres, Wright, Pflagher, and Farakahan under the bus with Grandma.
That's ok though. Us Right Wingers will keep America free weather you like it that way or not."
I think you right wingers should learn how to spell before making such grandiose pronouncements. Your 3rd grade mentality is matched by your 3rd grade education. -
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
50%
rimbaud1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Your grandchildren will live under Communism!" -- Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
Reply
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa102497.htm -
100%
quackpot1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You be looking in the wrong direction for the enemy, ihoward.
Reply
Check out the state of the U.S. Army that the Commander in Chief has stretched too thin in his quest for Iraq oil.
Check out the state of the weapons that the Army needs which have been put on hols while the Commander in Chief gives more profits to those making Star Wars Fiascos.
Check out the state of the economy that the Commander in Chief has rape, pillaged and plundered inorder to provide more for his Arms manufacturing friends
Check out the state of the Bill of Rights that the Commander in Chief has torn up under the guise of let no call go untouched. -
100%
bigG1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They also have a name for people like you.
Reply
Sheeple.
If the U.S. and our "freedoms" were truly threatened it will be people like the ones on this thread that will win the war, not people like you.
You are cordially invited to visit your local recruiter and go fight in Iraq so some already wealthy mofo can buy a bigger yacht.
-
-
100%
CORVIDIVS1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
... i think an undercurrent of liquidity is the determining influence whether or not freedom will prevail.Where there is at least an appearance of division of wealth,freedom's expenses are not viewed as exorbitant... Modern serfdom is credit cards and affordable travel at least to & from work,cd players,expensive lawyers {for only the richer} as the warlords find newer,better ways to justify their role...
Reply -
-
0%
lhoward9141 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess France and the rest of Western Europe magically freed themselves in 1944/45. along with all the nations in Asia and the Pacific.
Reply
This did not occur because their people desired it, or even demanded it. It occured because the citizens of this country made a choice to become Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines and chose to stand up and fight for
You are the same people who will stand up and say that Iraqi's chose a totalitarian state ran by a dictator and castigate the US for interfering with that choice. And you believe it. You believe that people can choose dictators.-
100%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ooooooh...you're referring to that war where the US sided with a bigger killer - your good buddy Joe Stalin, right?
Reply
That was reallllllly successful.
It was fought to prevent a mad dictator from taking over Europe, and it resulted in an even worse dictator taking over half of Europe...with our help.
Hmmmm, with all the money taken from Americans to fight the "cold war" , maybe that's just what they wanted in the first place.
McCarthy would've had your number, commie. -
100%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This did not occur because their people desired it, or even demanded it. It occured because the citizens of this country made a choice to become Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines and chose to stand up and fight for"
Reply
--Actually, I think the "choice" was made for Americans in the form of a military draft and by a President who declared that we had to share the sacrifice--that is, put our lives and the lives of our loved ones on the line, ration, drive less, do without tax cuts, eat less meat, plant victory gardens and on and on. These are facts which war cheerleaders routinely overlook. "We" sacrificed as a country then. Now "we" can stay safely at home and while risking nothing, sit in front of our computers and accuse others of being weak willed or unpatriotic. Big difference. If you want to reference WWII, cons, reference ALL of it and not just the parts that suit your argument. ;-( -
100%
tradermb1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whether or not the Iraqis chose Hussein or not is irrelevant. CONGRESS (not the president) declared war in 1941 because we were attacked (by Japan).This was done according to the Constitution.We chose to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation which had not attacked the US for reasons which were later proven to be at best,highly doubtful and at worst,deliberately concocted as an excuse.President Bush had NO authority to invade Iraq (a warlike act).
Reply
What has been the outcome? Another 3 trillion added to the national debt,thousands of our military killed or maimed and a definite worsening of our prestige arounf the world. Do YOU fell safer. I surely don't.
-
-
-
100%
Lurch1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Isn`t this what the Japanese used to say before invading another country pre-WWII?
Reply
Greater East Asian Economic Prosperity Region sound familiar to anyone?
We insist on invading you and probably kill or rape or torture or otherwise injure you or some loved ones for your own good.-
-
-
-
100%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No difference other than how much the media convinces you now to abrogate your values! The Geneva Convestions haven't changed since WW2 !
Reply
Right wingers wanted Patton to continue WW2 by leading his tank corps against the russians... today, Repugs want to "bomb, bomb Iran!
You can chose to be an American with true American values or not!
We need the truth in Telecommunications Act and Fairness Act that Repugs oppose or have vetoed in the past... to make sure America turns away from the polarization the repugs want! -
-
-
-
100%
markmawn21 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WHat you are asking of people is to think, or self-evaluate a common thought pattern. If you are to follow through with the concept down to a laser fine point, you would arrive at the very core of something called creature fear. If you were to ask an insomniac to explain why they cannot sleep, they cannot answer. They will provide many answers that circle the core, but they will never enter the core, at least alone. If you trace any fear to its source, the closer you get to it, the scarier it gets. It is more comfortable to stay outside and follow the crowd. However, if you are the true warrior in search of truth and meaning in all things, you will realize that the Core is your salvation. And once there, you see through the societal illusions and assumptions and understand how meaningless and senseless they are.
Reply
Acceptance should not be an easy road. It must be an explored and evaluated road so it is safe for ALL to follow.-
100%
populist1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And taking a stand for peace and liberty.....instead of for militarism, tyranny and death....is not something that's too common in our culture these days.
Reply
But I do have hope - an article like this just a few years ago would like have had a totally different response.-
100%
TheRealizer1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I too have hope, hope that we will quit our adventurism and Empire building and come home to rebuild the U.S. We are Empire Building on money borrowed from people we villify. We practice grandiosity in a world in which we are becoming increasingly irrelevant. If our friends? decide to stop buying our treasury notes, the dollar becomes as valuable as used toilet paper.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
sanyi_oradea1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obviously Bush had been out to lunch for a very long time, and someone in the Kremlin is just coming back , after a long vacation... probably lost his/her virginity.
Reply
I will never trust anyone in politics again, or perhaps simply anyone, period.
As far as the TV commentators stating that this is not 1968, the problem with them is, that they don't see themselves in the mirror, they are tottaly under some sort of spell or control, my blood pressure is going up when I hear them commenting, the world idiots indeed fits them. -
100%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Remember that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was written by Repugs just after WW2 to allow the military chain of command to name the judge and conduct trials totally within itself to protect itself! For example... how many convictions for the greatest killer of US soldiers on the battlefield... fratricide by the Air Force? NOne! The Abu Ghraib soldiers tried at Fort Hood were told by the judge at the start of the trial that their chain of command would not be available to testify - so no links up to Dumya's torture memos or Rummy's direct involvement in torture at Gitmo!
Reply -
100%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, first president in history to cut taxes while at war... go figure! You'd think the rich would want to pay more to say they are doing something while other fine young Americans are dying and being maimed... other than war profiteeering where the Bushies let them!
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.