This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Prolonging the War is a "Threat to Our National Security"
Congressman Kucinich said today:
America
is in the fight of its life and that fight is not in Afghanistan --
it's here ... We are deeply in debt. Our GDP is down. Our manufacturing
is down. Our savings are down. The value of the dollar is down. Our
trade deficit is up. Business failures are up. Bankruptcies are up.
The
war is a threat to our national security. We’ll spend over $100 billion
next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the
Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our army and put more of our
soldiers’ lives on the line. Meanwhile, back here in the USA, 15
million people are out of work. People are losing their jobs, their
health care, their savings, their investments, and their retirement
security. $13 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, trillions for war;
when are we going to start taking care of things here at home?
Is he right?
Well,
the director of U.S. national intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis
Blair, said in February that the economic crisis was the biggest
national security threat to the United States. See this and this.
And - contrary to common beliefs - economists say that prolonged wars increase unemployment, shrink the economy, and cause rather than solve recessions. See this, this and this. And to those who say that deficits don't matter, please read this.
As ABC notes:
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country...
With
100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30
billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will
commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.
And TalkingPointsMemo reported
yesterday that - in addition to the troops - the US now has more than
104,000 defense contractors in the country. So that drives up the cost
per al Qaeda fighter even higher.
Moreover, a leading advisor to the U.S. military - the very hawkish Rand Corporation - released a study in 2008 called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida". The report confirms what experts have been saying for years: the war on terror is actually weakening national security.
As a press release about the study states:
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."
As one blogger commented in response to a previous essay:
If
we continue to react as we did after 9-11 then al Qaeda will win. This
primarily being a financial site, everyone here should understand ROI
[return on investment]. They invested less than a million and made us
spend 1 trillion+. They could pass the collection plate around at the
average mosque in Pakistan and bankrupt us with 1 more operation. Even
if you are not convinced that we are creating more extremists than we
are killing, we simply cannot afford to "win the war on terrorism".
Fighting fire with fire just makes things burn faster...Keep in
mind as well that most empires that have been defeated were not
annihilated on the battlefield, but rather in the bank account.
Kucinich is right.
- advertisements -
Words cannot describe how disappointed I am in Woodrow Wilson Obama. Pawn of the Banksters, Military and corporations, our one term president lead us down the garden path of make believe change and a new way of doing politics in this country. Little did we know. I did a piece called In the Land of Custer in www.beyondrealtime.com whereby I did not touch upon the economic part of the equation but rather on the fact the Taliban don't have to win, just persevere because the US cannot remain in Afghanistan forever, a fact so many so-called pundits ignore when discussing why we should be there.
As I have said before, Intelligence is a prerequisite of vision but vision is not a prerequisite of intelligence, something Obama lacks as president of the United States.
IMHO - go to war or don't. Kill'em all or don't. Decide and do it now.
Looks like the War Party is out in strength tonite. Why don't you read about asymmetric warfare, which is what Rand is worried about, before you opine about a war that "we're on the verge of winning"? Or read about the state of our troops that are sent on repeated tours to hell and back.
Again I know it is difficult for some of you to concentrate with all the conspiracies you imagine but answer one simple fucking question.
What would you have done after 9/11?
the war has gone on longer than ww2, gotten rid of talaban, brought troops to tora bora, left. The governments know if they maintian terroist raining camps in their countries with government support we will remove them. the rest is all crap.
False dilemma.
You are directing a conclusion, and committing immense logical fallacies in your argument.
911 was the siren call to begin strategic disengagement from the middle east, from Israel, and from a consumption/oil economy.
There's a reason they didn't attack fucking CANADA or BRAZIL or freaking Australia. Those nations don't have mfing bases all over the world with uniformed soldiers effectively occupying foreign nations.
You spin the entire thing into a COMPLETE false narrative, that the islamaniacs hate us "because of our freedom." They don't give a fuck about our freedom. A few of them hate us because we're the empire with a banking con system run by Israel-lovers that seems to extract economic rent from the entire world. We're occupying their stupid holy land and assisting in the oppression of their people by a bunch of degenerates called the House of Saud.
WE made this a military matter and 911 was a military operation. If we're going to be at war, we have to live with getting hit.
The answer was what to DO after 911? NOTHING. NOTHING out of the ordinary...the war continues.
You act like 911 came out of the clear blue sky for no fucking reason whatsoever, some kind of black swan event, that it had no historical precursors nor precedent, just a total surprise.
Get your head out of your ass. We've been AT WAR for decades, this was the first time the enemy got a shell onto our positions. Expecting to be AT WAR and have goddamned bases everywhere in the world with SOLDIERS and to not have the other side try to hit back is STUPID.
The Romans occupied many nations and regions. Occasionally they were attacked. The Roman people didn't sit around navel gazing about OMG WHY DO THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM SO MUCH.
What a bunch of pathological self-deceptive narcissists we are. And, then you throw the old Israel canard into it. Let Israel define its OWN "right" to exist the same as everyone else.
Don't you find it odd that the two countries that saw the greatest influx of jewish refugees from the Nazi expansion are the most militaristic and imperially postured on earth? The US and UK that is. Incidentally they are also the two with the largest moneylending finance economic ponzis. We peddle debt and war...this isn't America of 1900 anymore.
I'll ask you a question:
Why did WTC7 fall at freefall speed identical to a controlled demolition?
Why have 6 of 10 9/11 Commissioners stated information was withheld and have called for a new investigation? (along with many family members of the fallen along with a list of professionals that have weighed in - Don't we owe the family members the truth?)
Why has an FBI agent and a Congressman stated that evidence exists that this was state sponsored but that the information was classified so they couldn't talk about it. Why were many Israeli spies picked up in the weeks following the attacks (reported on the main stream news) and then quietly released? We need israeli and oil independence in this country so that we can leave the middle east, as no country should dictate US foreign policy. I have tried to share with you the truth that can only be stated in an anonymous blog and have studied these issues for years.
I was once the staunchest conservative hawk, but have since learned that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies (Thomas Jefferson). It sounds as if you are from this camp as well, so I would encourage you to explore the words of our founding fathers - they hated the bank of england and were fleeing from tyranny from the bank itself which forced the government of england to highly tax the populace and encouraged wars to increase debt service (and therefore interest to the bank). These people are not christians, they are pirates profiteering on all manner of human misery - put nothing past them.
The reason for alarm is great. Our vets are now considered potential terrorists in the leaked Homeland Security docs. They have now changed the terminology from terrorism to extremists - do you understand that Hitler used laws to accomplish everything he did? Pretty soon anybody that questioned the state could be considered an extremist that could be held without the right to an attorney as an enemy combatant. Right now you think that is great because you think it will only be applied to foreign muslims - wait until they come for you. The unwinnable war on "terror" is to enable a greater police state.
Controlled demolition???? Are you fucking serious?
You can be against banks and for killing Islamic terrorists all at one time...and there are no contradictions.
Paulians have gone very far astray...the idea that we do nothing except apologize after 9/11 is bullshit perpetuated by cowards who seek peace at all costs.
9/1 Truthers are a worse version of that same cancer. Cowards who need to believe anything except that a dedicated band of 7th century assholes wants to kill them in the millions.
I tried to reason with you, but you can only reason with someone that uses their mind. You are emotionally lashing out at any and everything as you feel threatened, you are easily frightened of an unknown threat, whether real or promulgated. You are exactly what I described in the Ceasar and Hoover quotes above (go ahead, read it again, it's worth it).
You did not address any of my questions, either out of ignorance or more likely spreading disinformation because I can not imagine anyone as inept. You lack a fundamental understanding of history (use of false flags), the exercise of power (clearly you haven't been in a leadership position), and physics.
I sense your emotional diatribe might be because you are beginning at a subconscious level to consider the other side and that you may have been lied to, and that makes you angry. That's natural, I only hope you continue to explore the possibilities as I hate seeing people so easily manipulated. Of course, that might be what the elites already know, that there are people predisposed to bloodlust and that perhaps we should just satisfy their wants by cooperatively grinding them on the front lines to rid both populations. Better to distract from issues at home by focusing on a foreign "threat".
By the way, just so you can sleep at night there really is no boogy man under the bed. "Boo" - ha, ha, don't worry you can relax that was just me joking with you.
Don't believe everything you see and hear on the boob tube, it's propaganda. You remind me of Archie Bunker, not sure we can teach this old dog a new trick.
You want to be right more than you want to know the truth. Or you are either ignorant or you know better and are attempting to influence popular opinion (are you a lobbyist for the offense/defense industry?)
Huh? The 911 hijackers were almost all college-educated. None of these guys are or were barbarians.
AN,
Amen.
Good point..extremists are the new enemy of the good.
Fascist semiotics designed to mislead; fools are misled words logic and ignore their gut feelings. European invaders speak with forked tongue.
Barry Goldwater, 1964, Senator from Arizona running against LBJ
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
Every last signer of the Declaration of Independence was certainly an extremist in the eyes of George III, who lives on in the minds of the Warmongers today.
Ron Paul has said all along: We'll leave Iraq and Afghanistan eventually. It's just a question will we do so purposefully and with dignity, or will it be because we can no longer afford to fight and our creditors demand it.
"War is the health of the state." That explains in a sentence why the statists of all political parties want to extend the war.
We will leave Iraq and Afghanistan just as we left Vietnam. When we lose.
I'm no loony lefty and it made me sick to hear aholes in the republican party call other Americans nonpatriotic because we disagreed with the US going into Iraq. I had one jackass say it to me once and I told him to feck off. What are we doing in Iraq anyhow? Looking for WMD, it was one big con job. Once we leave then what? The only thing that was keeping the Turks from slaughtering the Kurds and the Shiites from killing the Sunnis was Saddam's jack boot on their necks. Why are we the policeman of the middle east. I'm sick of the US doing Israel's bidding. I was all for US going after OBL. Looks like Obama is playing politics with this decision, will take everyone's mind off the 18% unemployment.
GW,
You have fallen very low in my estimation to have to resort to using Kucinich as a source. The man is a verified leftist loon. Legrand nailed you on this one with the facts. You want to live in a country that gives you freedom to do what you want, but you want others to pay the price for that freedom ( to live, get rich, enjoy life). If you don't face these Islamic radicals down, then they will be over here performing suicide bombings in our shopping malls, cinemas, and restaurants. When the people dying are your family members, will it be a righteous war then? But then it would be too late wouldn't it?
Just like in Brazil, right? Or Norway. Or any of several dozen free, rich countries that aren't getting attacked by the Islamic hordes.
Yes, we simply MUST maintain bases in 100 countries to "protect" our "freedom."
You're a fucking idiot, you know that?
ACT NOW or ELSE THE SKY WILL FALL.
Total bullshit.
Kucinich, Talking Points Memo, Keith Olbermann.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Kucinich (as usual) is wrong. But we are spending lots more than we should.
Off topic: what made America great (and could make it great again)
http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-f...
Off topic:
What's the difference between Obama and Hitler?
Hitler got the Olympics.
Calling something "liberal" or "leftist" is not an argumet. Ignorant tools.
You just like torturing kids and murdering civilians.
Kucinich has never been right before...
Congressman? Are you sure?
GW- keep up the good work. All you're opponents can muster is profanity and "attack the messenger". You would think they'd respond with facts if they had them. This, from a formerly die-hard, right wing, contributing Republican, who has opened his eyes.
No nitfuckwit I asked him a fucking simple question.
What the fuck would he have done after 9/11?
The real George Washington snuck up on the British in their sleep on Christmas night and killed the fuckers. Somehow I don't think any of you Anti War Types has that in you...for you freedom is something that has to be given to you or you bitch and moan like children until some adults come along and feel sorry for you.
I'd have found the guilty parties, gutted them, stuck their heads on pikes and invited the media to take video and show it around the world as an example.
What is going on in Afghanistan has nothing to do with that.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.
Ben Franklin
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
Malcolm X
Conducting a real, independent investigation of the crime would have made for a good start.
According to Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI:
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
And it seems that the rest of the "evidence" against the "terrorists" was gathered by such methods as raping people with broken bottles, torturing children in front of their parents, and boiling people alive.
Even if you believe the government's conspiracy theory, the attacks were planned in Germany and Florida, and carried out by Saudis. The people we are killing in Afghanistan had nothing to do with it.
The reality is that the U.S. war on Afghanistan was planned before 9/11 and has to do with planned pipeline routes and the containment of Russia and China. The stated reasons are simply for sheeple consumption.
We will not allow the left to give
the world another "Khmer_Rouge"
genocide. One stain on our National
Honor like that from you clowns is
enough. Even 0bama knows he cannot
and must not allow that. How about
some savings from leftist sacred
cows?
Of course, Rwanda and Sudan don't count.The whole never again on genocide is a total joke.Only oil and gas matter.Nothing else, not clean water for 3rd worlders, or food, or human beings.Just give us all the oil and gas and the pipelines to move it to market.
Or else.
Glad to see you still embrace the light gray/charcoal gray paradigm.
It was the U.S. government's secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia, setting fire to hundreds of thousands of peasants and destabilizing that country, that resulted in the Khmer Rouge coming to power. Not only that, but the U.S. government ultimately ended up supporting the Khmer Rouge both financially and politically.
Spare us the crocodile tears over the people of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. They are as fake as your concern for the people of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
+++++
Well put, bugs_
GW "kucininch is right" is one of the craziest things one could possibly say, about this, or just about anything else.
gee whiz ...
OK. Perhaps you'd prefer... is George Will correct?
Pat Buchanan - conservative enough for you? Was he and is he wrong in basically echoing Kucinich's points?
Ya ever hear of the late Col. David Hackworth? I'm confident he'd be saying we should get out of Afghanistan - get out in the sense of removing a huge standing "boots on the ground" presence.
Forget the messenger, Cap; it's the message that counts.
If you believe Kucinich is wrong, state your case. Take Kucinich's statements one by one and counter them.
I look forward to your taking up the challenge.
BILL
Dennis Kucinich == proverbial stopped clock
Now when he produces a plan to cut, or even slow the growth of, any gubmint spending OTHER THAN the defense budget, I'll start to care about what he says or thinks.
Otherwise, not so much.
Shortening the war might harm the military industrial complex -- especially makers of body bags. The war should be ended for that reason alone.
Terrorism is almost one hundred percent state-sponsored. The US and Israel are of course the only nations with clean hands.
The guilty shall be tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by CNBC.
May they live forever.
First of General Wesley Clark is a liberal and his politics get in the way of his good judgment.
Bin Laden escaped not because of the US but because the British failed to do their job in Operation Anaconda.
How can we catch Bin Laden when the US congress would not approve operations in Pakistan? This is where he is hiding this is where the Taliban base of operation. If Kucinich and his liberal friends really want us to get him then they should have no trouble approving and backing operations into Pakistan’s tribal area.
Again the staff of Zerohedge should allow someone to post counter arguments against this kind of naive out look of the world.
It's not my site, so I don't get any say in who posts what.
But you, sir, and your pro-war buddies already have the entire mainstream media to post pro-war messages.
There are four reasons that the mainstream media is worthless.
1. Self-Censorship by Journalists
Initially, there is tremendous self-censorship by journalists.
For example, several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":
Keith Olbermann agreed that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:
As former Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006:
And Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski wrote:
(page 26).
2. Censorship by Higher-Ups
If journalists do want to speak out about an issue, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.
The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said:
In fact many journalists are warning that the true story is not being reported. See this announcement and this talk.
And a series of interviews with award-winning journalists also documents censorship of certain stories by media editors and owners (and see these samples).
There are many reasons for censorship by media higher-ups.
One is money.
The media has a strong monetary interest to avoid controversial topics in general. It has always been true that advertisers discourage stories which challenge corporate power. Indeed, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.”
In addition, the government has allowed tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves during the past decade. The large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the Obama administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters their bread. So there is a spoken or tacit agreement: if the media cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to be the receiver of the government's goodies.
3. Drumming Up Support for War
In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.
It is painfully obvious that the large news outlets studiously avoided any real criticism of the government's claims in the run up to the Iraq war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government's war agenda.
Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:
And as NBC News' David Gregory (later promoted to host Meet the Press) said:
But this is nothing new. In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars.
For example, Hearst helped drum up support for the Spanish-American War.
And an official summary of America's overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950's states, "In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq." (page x)
The mainstream media also may have played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a highly-praised historian (Bob Stineet) argues that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361) .
And the military-media alliance has continued without a break (as a highly-respected journalist says, "viewers may be taken aback to see the grotesque extent to which US presidents and American news media have jointly shouldered key propaganda chores for war launches during the last five decades.")
As the mainstream British paper, the Independent, writes:
The article in the Independent discusses the use of "black propaganda" by the U.S. government, which is then parroted by the media without analysis; for example, the government forged a letter from al Zarqawi to the "inner circle" of al-Qa'ida's leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war, which was then publicized without question by the media..
So why has the American press has consistenly served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war?
One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).
Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government's imperial war agenda.
And the media support isn't just for war: it is also for various other shenanigans by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentary proves:
Moreover, "the tycoons told the general who they asked to carry out the coup that the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers." See also this book.
Have you ever heard of this scheme before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?
4. Censorship by the Government
Finally, as if the media's own interest in promoting war is not strong enough, the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they've been too critical. The media companies have felt great pressure from the government to kill any real questioning of the endless wars.
For example, Dan Rather said, regarding American media, "What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states".
Tom Brokaw said "all wars are based on propaganda.
And the head of CNN said:
Indeed, former military analyst and famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:
Of course, if the stick approach doesn't work, the government can always just pay off reporters to spread disinformation. Indeed, an expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations (the expert has an impressive background).
And famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists. See also this New York Times piece, this essay by the Independent, this speech by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this and this roundup.
Indeed, in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will not cover the real stories or question the government's actions or policies in any meaningful way is that we live in a country that is not all that free (see point number 6). Mussolini said that fascism is the blending of the government and corporate interests, and the American government and mainstream media have in fact been blended together to an unprecedented degree.
Can We Win the Battle Against Censorship?
We cannot just leave governance to our "leaders", as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson). Similarly, we cannot leave news to the corporate media. We need to "be the media" ourselves.
"To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men."
- Abraham Lincoln
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"Powerlessness and silence go together. We...should use our privileged positions not as a shelter from the world's reality, but as a platform from which to speak. A voice is a gift. It should be cherished and used."
– Margaret Atwood
"There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that [nothing] cannot suppress."
- Howard Zinn (historian)
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"
- Thomas Jefferson
Have to say having an assclown like you being allowed to post this drivel on what has been one of my favorite spots is too fucking bad.
For example, Dan Rather said, regarding American media, "What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states".
Please tell me that you are smarter than a fucking bag of rocks. You are quoting Dan Fucking Rather and you are quoting him because of his motherfucking wisdom? Muahahahaha....The guy who tried to pass off a forged document to incriminate Bush?
Tom Brokaw said "all wars are based on propaganda
And that stack of shit KNOWS propaganda when he sees it.
Now assclown ONCE again, what WOULD you have done after 9/11?
PierreLegrand / Please do everyone a favor on this partucular ZH site -- clean up your speech, STOP name calling, and act like a mature adult when responding to postings. You truly LOSE all your credibility when you act and psot in this manner. Mature men and women debate in a rational, mature way. Food for thought.
Point taken...thanks for reminding me.
ask the right questions with no reservations, and don't put compromised individuals with ties to embedded politics in charge of the investigation, for one thing.
Bingo Tony!
Do nothing...so then if you are the President of the United Fucking States 3 minutes after Flt 93 goes down you go on TV and say we are going to investigate....then 3 months later you go on TV and say "chickens came home to roost" we deserved to be attacked and we apologize to Islam that we did not die in greater numbers.
Fucking unbelievable...it is absolutely no wonder that we are losing the philosophical war with Islam. Suicidal nutjobs who apologize for being killed.
JMO, PL, but you are either very naive or something far worse. Not meant as judgement, JMO.
Sir, please take a look at this link:
http://thewakeupproject.blogspot.com/2009/03/maker-of-america-freedom-to...
Then consider these quotes:
Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. - Hermann Goering
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" -Abraham Lincoln
Never has there been a good war or a bad peace - Benjamin Franklin
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?- Gandhi
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. - George McGovern
How fortunate for leaders that men do not think. - Hitler
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses...I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. - Major General Smedley Darlington Butler
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -- James Madison
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. – James Madison
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. – Herman Goering
Fascism will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible. ~ Sinclair Lewis 1935
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." -J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI
And Ceasar himself:
BEWARE THE LEADER WHO BANGS THE DRUMS of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know ? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
I worked hard to bring you the information above, now you have to consider if you are willing to open your mind to the various possibilities, because there are various possibilities.
Primary reasons for war (always a confluence of powerful interests): Defense of israel, oil profits, defense armament profits, poppy narco profits, oil pipeline security. With the advent of WMD, the stability of a region is important, and I can see the argument for ensuring stability with Pakistan (our forces might be in the region just in case the government falls to secure nukes - this would be the strongest argument for a presence although it can be debated). I happen to think your frustration might be the cognitive dissonance the blogger of the same name discussed in his seminal work.
I would like to hear your reasoned response after considering the information above.
Never has there been a good war or a bad peace - Benjamin Franklin
You put up this quote from a man who actually FOUGHT for your freedom to be an suicidal assclown?
Do you realize the lengths these guys went to fight for freedom? The sacrifices? And they were merely fighting to gain the right to decide how to be taxed and how to lead their lives...the British were NOT engaged in wholesale slaughter of the colonists.
George Washington led a group of men on Christmas night into the enemy camp and they killed them in their sleep. They did this in what was basically an argument about the right to decide how to live their lives...and you imagine in your fevered cowardly minds that they would have sat around navel gazing as 7th century barbarians murdered their wives and children wholesale? Put the fucking crack pipe down and step away from the keyboard. They would have waded into the motherfuckers and killed them.
You should read a bit about the revolutionary war and the dedication to winning that these people some of you quote had. You would not think they were nice people.
Jefferson himself, a hero to Paulians, went and killed the same fucking barbarian religion followers when they refused to stop attacking our merchant ships.
Ron Paul is no pacifist, my friend. Bombing defenseless civilians on the other side of the planet is cowardly. Sinking pirates that actively threaten your well-being is self-defense: they started it.
Perhaps the U.S. could have ... oh, I don't know ...
gotten the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden?Well, as a start, the U.S. could have started by the Taliban to hand over
Bin Laden to be tried.