EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bush Loses Ground With Military Families
WASHINGTON - Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year.
Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.
And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.
"I don't see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that's why they signed up," said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. "I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there."
Patience with the war, which has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, is wearing thin -- particularly among families who have sent a service member to the conflict. One-quarter say American troops should stay "as long as it takes to win." Nearly seven in 10 favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away."
Military families are only slightly more patient: 35% are willing to stay until victory; 58% want the troops home within a year or sooner.
Here, too, the military families surveyed are in sync with the general population, 64% of whom call for a withdrawal by the end of next year.
"You generally expect to see support for the president as commander in chief and for the war, but this is a different kind of war than those we've fought in the past, particularly for families," said David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland.
Today's all-volunteer force is older and more married than any before it. Facing a shortage of troops, the Army increased the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42 and called up reservists, who tend to be older and more settled than recruits fresh out of high school. The result is a fighting force that left thousands of spouses and children behind.
At the same time, deployments have grown longer and more frequent as troops rotate in and out of the war zone, sometimes three and four times, with no fixed end date in sight, a wearing existence that has contributed to opposition to Bush and his war strategy.
"The man went into Iraq without justification, without a plan; he just decided to go in there and win, and he had no idea what was going to happen," said poll respondent Mary Meneely, 58, of Arco, Minn. Her son, an Air Force reservist, served one tour in Afghanistan. "There have been terrible deaths on our side, and it's even worse for the Iraqi population. It's another Vietnam."
The survey, conducted under the supervision of Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 1,467 adults nationwide from Nov. 30 through Monday. It included 631 respondents from military families and 152 who have had someone in their family stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The margin of error for the entire sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points; for military families it is 4 percentage points, and for families with someone in the war zone it is 8 percentage points.
Other surveys have shown an erosion of support for Bush and the war among military personnel, including a 2005 poll by Military Times of their active-duty readers.
Now the disapproval of Bush appears to have transferred to his party. Republican leanings of military families that began with the Vietnam War -- when Democratic protests seemed to be aimed at the troops as much as the fighting -- have shifted, the poll results show.
When military families were asked which party could be trusted to do a better job of handling issues related to them, respondents divided almost evenly: 39% said Democrats and 35% chose Republicans. The general population feels similarly: 39% for Democrats and 31% for Republicans.
"The Democrats are not seen as the anti-soldier group anymore," said Charles C. Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University. He added that Bush's firm backing of the troops did not gain him any points because the entire country was now viewed as supportive of the military, even if not of the war. "He doesn't get extra credit for that."
"We support the troops; we don't support Bush," said respondent Linda Ramirez, 52, of Spooner, Wis., whose 19-year-old son is due to be deployed with the Marines early next year. "These boys have paid a terrible, terrible price."
The carnage -- nearly 3,900 killed and 29,000 wounded -- is contributing to the war's unpopularity, even though the number of dead is low compared with previous wars, Moskos thinks.
Medical advances on the battlefield have saved more lives but sent home more severely injured troops; for every soldier killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, eight are wounded -- nearly triple the ratio in Vietnam.
Asked about the Bush administration's handling of the needs of active-duty troops, military families and veterans, 57% of the general public disapprove. That number falls only slightly among military families -- 53% give a thumbs-down.
And most military families and others surveyed took no exception to retired officers publicly criticizing the Bush administration's execution of the war. More than half of the respondents in both groups -- 58% -- say such candor is appropriate. Families with someone who had served in the war are about equally supportive at 55%.
© 2007 The Los Angeles Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
56 Comments so far
Show AllIt's not a war anymore. It's not, it's not, it's not.
Stop giving it a status it does not deserve.
We won the war 4 years ago. We achieved our war goals. Chimpy McFlightsuit declared victory.
It's an occupation now.
Have the parades, hand out the medals and bring our people home!
Well, my friends, I've said it before..our only hope may be with a military coup d'etat to counteract the coup that took place in 2000. These families are angry. They are losing their loved ones for NO HONORABLE REASON other than to fatten the coffers of the war mongers and bankers. And, when they realize the dangers that DU represents to their present and future generations, the anger and disgust with this administration will INTENSIFY. If they are our only hope, GODSPEED! Something MUST happen soon. These creatures now running our country must be called to account and put behind bars!
The second question in this poll shows you how the mainstream media frame questions the way the political elites like them to. It ends by asking whether we want to keep our troops in Iraq for as long as necessary to "win the war". It should have posed the real issue, whether we should keep troops in Iraq permanently to garrison large bases with or without the locals' consent.
Well, yeah, of course military families might be waning in support for President Bush, since they are the ones who have disproportionately borne the burden of sacrifice for the War on Terror (and Iraq) policy since 9/11, and since they are the ones now listening most carefully to stories about how well our V.A. is (or is not) managed and funded.
If we want military families to be more supportive, we might want to consider a very large, very strong, very well-funded military that trains constantly and does not go to elective wars of preemption, with diplomacy used effectively instead (because of the known presence of that very strong military). I don't know that if Democrats were in charge they'd find the courage and foresight to do it that way, but they ought to if they get the chance.
Nobody appreciates being over-used while most of the rest of the country can remain largely unaffected as if there were no real deployments and multiple tours.
Heck, the military folks, at the least, would probably have liked to see the top 10% of the earners in America paying a special capitalism security tax to not only fund the costs in real time, but also to keep the whole thing in proper national focus. It's a total bummer to be out fighting so hard and all-the-while knowing that your own kids may even get the bill in the national debt.
It always was an illegal invasion, occupation and plunder.
An invasion and occupation of Iraq.
An illegal plunder of our treasury.
Long-overdue...(considering the fashion in which neo-Libs/Cons treat their servicemen).
Guess its almost-time for a change to 'good-cop' in this comedy-routine, then the opening of our 'increasingly-deployed' military to the poor-asses 'South of the Border' who will be bribed in great-numbers to 'be all they can be', North of same-border/'wall' (if they live-that-long).
[The prospect of training large-numbers of non-English-speaking peons (who will empty-out both prisons and mental-wards in CA/Mexico) is what motivated Gen. Barnes to quit in 2005...regardless what other-crap you may have heard related to that...he was cic of 'training'...]
"It's not a war anymore. It's not, it's not, it's not."
It never, never, never was... A 'war' requires two relatively-equal armies duking it out (and a small-thing called a Declaration, unheard of since 1941 in this-country). A hyper-Power screwing-over the simple-citizens (resisting, or otherwise) of a country long-weakened by our sponsored-war courtesy of our 1979-Puppet, Iran, one courtesy of snookering our-older Puppet into thinking he could seek 'justice' with Kuwait, and many long/painful/debilitating years of Sanctions -- is most-definitely NOT a War (it was, as Tenet said 'a cakewalk').
We 'bought it', and we're happy to keep-it (now that it's thoroughly-broken).
[And "screw the pottery", as Rumsfeld noted and Powell laughed-at...!]
These families were betrayed and their loved ones were betrayed by a commander-in-chief who didn't understand that his primary duty (yes that word) to them was never to risk a single combat casualty over something that wasn't important.
Daniel,
If we do "not go to elective wars of preemption", why would we need a "a very large, very strong, very well-funded military"?
Whoa...!, "not important"?
What was more-important than occupying Iraq (for either common American-interests, or the special-Interests involved and immediately-profiting)?
We all simply choke on the SAME damn hypocrisy and immorality everyone here does, but 'not important'? [And you wish to convey that to people who have lost a son/daughter/brother, in-process?]
I know, personally, that pain/loss/torture of losing a son...be _very_ careful what and to-whom you say something like that...
All of Iraq and all that is in it are not worth one American life.
Vinlander has it right: it is a betrayal of trust; and, those who dishonored their contract with our kids should be imprisoned for the balance of their miserable lives.
bidelo,
"If we do "not go to elective wars of preemption", why would we need a "a very large, very strong, very well-funded military"?
You need it from Democrats so that Republicans do not steal your elections and policy on everything else because they're afraid we're led too weakly. You need it for respect around the world. You need it for defense, in the event of attack from others. You need it so that every person serving in it is proud to do so, and not frustrated by lack of training or equipment.
You need it for implication it will be used to help our allies who might otherwise be bullied by one of their neighbors with a dictator. You need it so that other countries want to ally with us and have security of being on the side that can win something if need be. And you need it to appease, to a degree, the much-talked-about military-industrial complex that makes much mischief if not maintained.
All of Iraq and all that is in it are not worth one American life.
I beg to differ...
9-11/Afghanistan/Iraq was just the beginnings of a needful-effort to save ALL life on the planet, and has already 'cost' over a million-lives (regretfully).
[And what's so damn 'special' about an "American-life", in-particular?]
DD...are you being sarcastic, or is your 'neo-Lib'/DLC now-showing?
" locust December 7th, 2007 1:35 pm
It's not a war anymore. It's not, it's not, it's not.
Stop giving it a status it does not deserve.
..."
Now that is one heck of a blind, blind-sided, self-centered, etc., view.
Want to know if this was ever and remains ongoingly war? DO NOT ASK AMERICANS; ASK the Iraqis. They know extremely well that this is war alright, war against them. And Americans who aren't half-blind know that this is also war on them, by their govt, for their 'invisible' ruling elites, etc.
There is NOT only one, single, narrow way to define what constutes war, vs not, and we can't consider only a portion of one side to be right when saying that a situation is war for many others of the same side, or population, as well as the victim foreigners.
If I was Iraqi or was resident of the country, then I would consider this second Gulf War not only a wholly criminal war of aggression, but one that has not yet ceased just because jerks leading and supporting the superpower aggressor decide to pretend that this is not war for my people who are the greatest victim of all.
It's a war also on the U.S., and we definitely must not forget that what the following illustrates is again criminal war on U.S. troops by the U.S. govt and media.
"120 War Vets Commit Suicide Each Week",
by Penny Coleman, a widow of a Vietnam veteran who committed suicide after returning home, Nov 26 2007,
http://alternet.org/waroniraq/68713/?comments=view&cID=777358&pID=777019
That's on top of what I read from a credible source as being a major undercounting or underaccounting of U.S. troops KIA or killed while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're told that the number is a little less than 4,000, so less than an average of 1,000 per year, 1,000 lives of people who were LIED into (mis)believing that following the orders received was indeed justified, that the C-in-C was truthful, honest, ethical, etc. We're told this number nearing 4,000, but an article or two that I read argued that that number had to be MUCH higher. I think it had to do with the number of injured and that there's statistically a higher proportion of killed than the numbers the U.S. govt is providing.
We DO KNOW that this govt has stated truths about nothing really important, while LYING about everything else, TOO.
It's war alright, just as much as WWII was. And the whole GWoT is WW, because the ruling elites who are guilty for or in all of this have been waging war on really the WHOLE WORLD. The objective is like what former USMC Major General Smedley Butler said with his book, 'WAR IS A RACKET'(!!), so economically-driven and -based, but war can be fought economically, militarily, or with both being involved, while economics remains the nonetheless main motive.
Another motive might be a sick desire to want power over others, not even being interested in economics, but they usually are involved or included, and quite always are with the U.S. govt and its ruling elites.
Oh, this is all war, INDEED.
Takes a highschooler with little other experience in life than having spent it on school benches, in school classrooms, to pretend that what we're talking about is not war. People with significant life experience understand a whole lot more than that about what constitutes war and not.
All of Iraq and all that is in it are not worth one American life? What an absolute piece of dreck. I hope you never whine (with or without the cheese) My God? Why do THEY hate us?
Mike..."a turd, by any other name..."
Quit dignifying it by calling it a war, when it 'isn't'. Call it an "illegal occupation", call it "a mass culling of a weak and/or made-3rd-world population", or, more-accurately, try "a regrettable price to pay for our objective" -- but NOT a war (war has an honorable-aspect to its horrid-past, and is fought by soldiers on two-or-more sides -- not by soldiers grinding-up civilians like so-much meat...).
And yes, the death-toll of Americans is much-higher than most can imagine (what with loading so-many almost-cold wounded on flights to Germany/elsewhere, and mislabeling so-many 'accidental/suicidal'-deaths, I'm positive the true-count passed 9k, recently).
I've had "life-experience" more closely-resembling a 'war', Mike. [You?] In '68, we were fighting the civilian-but-organized resistance in a similarly out-gunned little Asian-nation (you might know-it?) -- trust Me, it looked/smelled/felt like a war from my vantage-point. However, even that was no-War (it was much like Iraq, only with 'wet-heat').
Our last war (but not 'in name') was Korea...and like WW-I & WW-II, that was also completely unnecessary, but served the same-Interests...
Daniel,
"And you need it to appease, to a degree, the much-talked-about military-industrial complex that makes much mischief if not maintained". So you are saying we need to keep supporting the military industrial complex that you admit makes much mischief? Wow! Surely you would want to do the opposite - to defund the military industrial complex.
"You need it for respect around the world". We spend as much on defense (offense?) as the rest of the world combined right now. How much respect to you suppose we have?
"You need it for defense, in the event of attack from others". Not at a cost equal to the rest of the world's cost combined, not even close.
"You need it for implication it will be used to help our allies who might otherwise be bullied by one of their neighbors with a dictator". Can't our allies pay for their defense themseleves? What about bullying by dictators we support? There are plenty of those.
"You need it from Democrats so that Republicans do not steal your elections and policy on everything else because they're afraid we're led too weakly." Let's spend trillions for nothing so that the Democrats can get elected! That's the same as subsidizing the Democrartic campaign with tax payer money!
The war on Iraq might seem to be only occupation, not war at all, to some naive or lying people, but while it is occupation for both the U.S. and Iraqis, it's also extreme war on the Iraqis, and still war on the U.S., with the soldiers and their families being the topmost victims among the population of the U.S.
The foreign coup d'etat on the govt of President Aristide and his majority supporters is ALSO WAR; it undeniably IS ACT OF WAR, and it's been maintained, so the war there hasn't ended.
It makes no difference at all that Bush said, in April or May 2003, that the war was over, that "mission" had then been "accomplished", for, of, by the 'invisible' ruling elites lying their souls away to hell to try to get the U.S. population to support war of totally criminal aggression.
It makes no difference what they say; they have NO moral, ethical, or legal grounds to speak from or upon, they're all hell-BENT, -BOUND fiends who spend an enormous portion of their lives LYING and trying to deceive the ignorant and morally devoid masses.
What people like that say does not matter, except to keep track of all of their crimes, for they commit new crimes just about every time they act and speak.
What idiots give credence to what such criminals say? I ... wonder.
Like another person who commented above said, the U.S. needs a coup d'etat, i.e., regime change. When the war was first being launched, I posted that what the U.S. needed was finally it's second CIVIL WAR. Well, what was really in mind was regime change, and if "just" a coup d'etat would do the "trick", then it'd be far better than civil war; else ....
Neither is going to happen, but coup d'etat would be something, a way of acting that ... hypothetically enough people to successfully accomplish this might organise among themselves, PRIVATELY, and act. Civil war involves a lot more, but maybe it would not be avoidable with "only" a coup d'etat, for, and as we have no reason for not knowing, the govt has ALL or 90%+ of law enforcement and military following the govt's orders.
That's another illustration of this being war on the U.S. and by its own govt, and military and law forces; ultimately for, of, and by the 'invisible' ruling elites.
Look for the following articles at www.globalresearch.ca .
"'Doomsday Seed Vault' in the Arctic:
Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don't",
by F. William Engdahl, Dec 4 2007
"U.S-Instigated War Brings Mass Death to Somalia",
by Glen Ford, Black Agenda Radio Report, BlackAgendaReport.com, Dec 2 2007
And the following articles in the "GULF COAST & NEW ORLEANS" index page of Keith Harmon Snow.
http://www.allthingspass.com/journalism.php?catid=75
"Baghdad on the Bayou Redux:
Disaster Capitalism and the War on Equality.
Part 1: Wasting America's Wetlands",
by Georgianne Nienaber, theLegacyOfDianFossey.com, and Keith Harmon Snow, Dec 6 2007,
"Baghdad on the Bayou Redux:
Disaster Capitalism and the War on Equality.
Katrina: 'Scattered People Instead of Bombs'.
An Interview with Tab Benoit in Houma, La.",
by Keith Harmon Snow, Dec 3 2007
READ THESE articles and then try to pretend that we are not talking about WAR.
Hey everyone, Daniel David, the friendly face of the Democratic party wants to "appease ... the military-industrial complex". Anyone feel good about voting Democrat?
The agressive and seemingly unstopable drumbeat leading to the Iraq misadventure is still fresh in my mind. Alternative views no matter how strongly put were overwhelmed with hostility and anti-patriotic rhetoric. Families were eager, even giddy, about sending their sons, daughters, fathers and mothers off to fight. American Nationalism was messianic in nature. The American psyche would harbor no dissent.
Now families are mourning the loss of loved ones whose lives were so easily spent. Lives were not lost for nothing, they were lost for the imperialist dreams of economic elites in America. Elites who failed to porovide rifles, body armor, properly armored vehicles, a legitimate war plan and an exit plan. Blood for oil is the bottom line and had people listened the lives of their family members could have been spared.
The lies have accumulated and the evidence has been vetted. The Iraq fighting was for the darkest of reasons, power and greed. Lives lost were lost in vain. Bitter bitter medicine....
Welcome to the party military. I was against it before it started. Just from reading strories on the internet I knew the reasons given for going to war were lies.
I had a few doubts when they were so vehement about the proof for weapons of mass destruction but common sense told me they [Iraq] had no way of delivering them half way around the world.
Now I don't know how to address the issue of war crimes. You [the military] have been part of it. Claiming stupidity never seems to work for us average citzens when we break laws.
Daniel David is now presenting NEWSPEAK of the highest order.
Orwell a relation dude?
Don't 'pile on' -- no one should "feel good" about voting Republican, either, or Green/3rd-Party...[all suk, lately, because conditions-suk]
And 'No', it is not a War, nor are these "Acts of War" (if illegal under the Geneva, these cannot be 'acts of war', they are just "crimes").
I'm sure it must FEEL like a war, from an Iraqi/Afghan perspective (or Palestinian, or Darfurian, or many-others).
By calling this crap 'War', however, you have just insulted the memory/honor of anyone who was ever a 'warrior'. [Suggestion, don't do it to their faces...]
"Just from reading strories on the internet I knew the reasons given for going to war were lies."
Think that a revelation...or in any-fashion different from any-War (not that this-mess is a 'war')?
A lot of "stories on the Internet" are just-that -- but, believe me, if your leaders _could_ tell you the 'truth', they would. Look at their faces, sometime -- this 'cognitive-dissonance' is driving them 'batty', also (on both-sides of aisle). It's no fun being a Leader, today; no one wants to 'look Evil'.
to bidelo and a few others,
If you think you can win an election in America by advocating that we lay down and give up the notion of being the strongest military in the world, you are sadly mistaken. The Republicans would probably beat you by at least 10 to 20 percentage points (not a Bush v. Gore "hair") and take your Supreme Court, your health care, your Social Security and all your regulatory agencies with them---for a long time.
Even Eisenhower who identified the MIC did not suggest we totally dismantle or starve it. He was, after all, a General who understood what it took to win a war and stay in peace. What he said was, we must CONTROL it. That is done by having the civilian liberals in charge and the MIC itself still functioning, albeit at a lesser head of steam.
If you do not do this, you get Ronald Reagan beating Jimmy Carter (again), and you get both the MIC and a hawk running it. Progressives need to be realistic.
To the extent we're not, we are written off by the majority, then run over. The Kucinich doctrine of "strength through peace" does not occur in real life except to the extent it proceeds from "peace from strength". But people NOT inclined to shoot first need to be in charge. It is only Democrats that can really assume this role to "support" the troops, even though even some of them may not be smart enough to know it. Republicans are too busy "using" the troops. The third party guys can only look and talk, but not touch the troops, because the third party guys are never elected.
Daniel,
I never said we could win an election "by advocating that we lay down and give up the notion of being the strongest military in the world". In this regard, you may be right. I was confused, I thought your first response to me was your real opinion, not something you made up as an election strategy. Are you a reader of history? If so, you know the inevitable outcome, don't you? The empire stretched too thin, massive military might can't even control its weakest outposts. Then the empire collapses, and we can't even begin to pay off the debt from supporting the military industrial complex all those years. But at least we would have a Democratic government!
Also, you say "But people NOT inclined to shoot first need to be in charge". The Democrats running for office, Edwards, Clinton, they voted to shoot first didn't they?
3,4, and 8% margins of error., a polling we would go, a polling we would go....
With all responding, tally gives anywhere between a 5 to 11% margin in favor of democratic leadership (3% +/- margin). Just one more general polling from mass telephoning confirming what ought to be already known by all -blue is in the lead by a length and a half.
The GOP is crippled. (Pass it on)
Looks like GOP management put the horse up wet one too many times.
bidelo,
Other than criticizing, I haven't the slightest idea what your ideas for realistic change are. If either Republicans or Democrats are going to control our military in 2009 (and they are), where are you on this?
" MeAlsoToo December 7th, 2007 4:13 pm
Mike…"a turd, by any other name…"
..."
Heh, schmuck, you think that just because of your superficial Vietnam War-era experience that you have any crediblity?! Guess again! Your experience might be good reference, and it might not be; and it sure does not seem to be.
Much of what the rest of your post says is fine, but there's nothing definite about that. Your definition of war is infantily narrow, ignorant, neglegent, and so on.
You pretend to be able to speak for ALL, but you speak only in terms that fit a tiny minority of this world's human population, among which Americans are about the least impressive of all, except with regards to their superpower'ised imperialism for, by, and of the 'invisible' ruling elites. Your words fit well with what those people prefer.
The war on Iraq, etc., are wars alright, and it's not up to the aggressors to decide.
There's NOTHNING at all to be gained by staying in Iraq, but you pretend that reality is different; and clearly without stating precisely why it'd be beneficial to stay.
Your Vienam experience is MEANINGLESS to me.
I come from ... much the streets; you'll have to do a LOT better to try to fool me.
Nope, the Iraq War IS war, and it's not ceased yet. Your stupid and extremely selfish perspective bears no weight on reality, except that you and your likes are real and constantly try to mislead others.
The Iraq War was launched in March 2003 and has NOT ceased since.
And it's war not only on Iraqis, ..., but also on the population of the U.S.
Now, if you want to know about real turds, then stand in front of a mirror.
Etc.
Daniel,
OK. What I wouldn't do is bend over backwards to be more right wing than Republicans. Military expansionism, which you have advocated, is not in any shape or form part of left wing philosophy, yet you claim to represent that constituency. How about something reasonable, such as this: We would like to NOT participate in foreign military adventures any more, and reduce expenditure accordingly. We would divert some of the savings into homeland security, which has been seriously lacking under the Republicans, and some of the savings into properly equipping the remaining troops. The rest of the savings would be spent on replacing oil as our primary energy source (most Americans now know the Iraq War is about oil). Even after the cuts, we would still be the largest military in the world, just not larger than all the other countries combined. Our military would be completely focused on protecting America and our Constitution rather than being distracted by foreign disasters. We would eliminate corporate welfare for the military industrial complex: we can demonstrate billions have been lost for this, and you, the voter, are paying for this through taxes paid now or later. We will save you this burden.
The problem with what you are advocating is that you are not only indistinguishable form Republicans in foreign policy, but you are trying to outdo them. Why not just vote Republican (the voter thinks)? Why don't you spend your energy trying to court people on the left rather than the right?
Here's your fundamental problem. You can't present this to the American people, not because they wouldn't accept it as reasonable, but it's because the people you apologize for are up to their neck in it. This is why Hillary voted for the war with Iraq and why she voted to pave the way for war with Iran. It's why Democrats keep voting to throw money at a war (occupation) which we can never win, and billions go down the drain to their corporate masters.
Daniel, it's one thing to be a pragmatist, it's another to sell your soul to the Devil.
What amazes me is that they find people who are pro Bu$h the inferior, pro the Iraq war, and pro Republican at this point.
The oil and the territory of Iraq is not worth 1 American life lost in an effort to steal them. The death of one Iraqi is also not worth the oil and land. There is also not enough value in a preemptive war to justify a death.
Iraqi and American deaths are equal to those who love them - priceless. Ironically, Bu$h the inferior and his ilk also think the deaths are equal too - zero value.
I believe locus said it best." We won the war" in a year or so.but we didn't secure the oil! Thats why were still there.
At times, things go way off topic.
Talk to one Gold Star Family For Peace. Therein lies the answer.
ALOHA !!
We're talking many thousands of deaths on both sides and $2tril spent on a "War On Nouns"! Could we get any more vague? When and where did we start fighting nouns? First it was a "War On Drugs" and now a "War On Terror"! What next a "War On Bad Stuff And Mean People"? Where will all the absurdity end? WHEN WE'RE BROKE ... Welcome to the USSA!!!!
GOVERNMENT IS ONLY AS HONEST AS ITS MONEY ...
C'mon you all...even the stupid can learn!
Capitalism.
I used to believe in it. Now, I'm pretty sure it's the problem. The root problem. The cause.
Anybody remember Adam Smith?
No-bid contracts to Haliburton is nothing to do with the kind of capitalism he had in mind.
What we have here is Corporate Communism (where all gov power and wealth rests with monster multinational megacorporations) What we have here is a totalitarian Orwellian COMPLETE ABORTION.
You phuckers built this corporate Frankenstien with your 401K's and your Walmart Superstores.
Now, what I want to know is how to kill it.
I find it difficult to sympathize with these families; these are the same folks that helped propel Bush to power and wholeheartedly supported his call to war.
At the beginning of every war the nationalistic fervor becomes overwhelming and easily drowns out the peace mongers.
I am not sure why these families did not talk their children out of joining an organization that trains you to kill fellow humans on command.
But now that the noise from the jingoistic, saber rattling has quieted down and their children are coming home, not to a hero's parade but in body bags or with severely damaged bodies both mentally and physically, they have finally turned against the man who sold them on how wonderful it is to send your children to war for the fatherland.
"Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out...and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel. ..And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"--with his mouth."
Mark Twain
Mike...that was 'unnecessary'...
When I said "a turd by any other name" (as in the line about a 'rose') I was referring only to our disagreement of what to call our 'engagement' in Iraq -- as in "war" or "illegal-occupation". 'Name calling' and the-like simply do not further the discussions here, or aid in anyone's 'understandings'.
My (and 'most') experiences also 'inform little' about the situations pertinent today. I only responded to your false-'surety' about it "taking a highschooler" to not call this a 'war' -- I am FAR from such a 'highschooler', and you really-should accord the same-respect that I do when addressing people on-line, that you know little/nothing about, including their life-experience (at least, you should if you want to be taken 'seriously' when making your points).
One such 'point' you made, after insisting this mess-elsewhere was 'just like WW-II', was advocating for a renewed CivilWar, here in the US. To that, I'll say anyone who could wish-for-such is far-closer to being an inexperienced-commentator/observer than I am -- be "very careful what you wish for"...[CivilWars are the LEAST-desirable of those experiences possibly in your future, just trust-me regards that].
Anyway, your indignation and animosity is misplaced if/when applied to me. To 'know Them', and then to describe/inform-others as to what our 'elitists' are doing, responsible-for, and/or motivated-by doesn't necessarily make me 'one-of-them' -- nor does it imply/prove my consent/approval for-same, of-itself. You (like so very-many today) are in 'shock' and confused by it. And that is no 'accident', Mike -- it is by-design, and you (and most) are intended to be-so (and frankly, for now that may be 'for best' -- as it avoids Risks in terms of unwanted 'Chaos', such as the CivilWar/coup you apparently have already advocated-for?).
Learn to relax-while-learning; more experienced/informed folks than we-here are playing this 'game' for us, and most of your life-to-date was already entrusted to this same-Care, ere-this -- give them some 'benefit of the doubt', in meantime. [And quit assuming friends-are-Enemies -- you needn't feel so isolated/challenged because of your/our 'dissonance', lately...]
Stay well...
What took them so long?????? Any idiot with a brain could tell before he went to war it was just more Republican rhetoric. He harped on it to the point I could not stand to watch him. It sickened me. He reminded me of a few magazine salesmen I have come across in my lifetime. Even without the tidbits of information that leaked out in my newspaper. I knew the b...... was lying through his teeth. It was written all over him. He was to 'hot to trot' to start a war with Iraq. Or as Barbara Streisand would say 'beating the drums of war to hard'. It's sad that there are those in this country who equate religion with morality! They are very deluded people! Look what it has brought us almost to the point of ruination. And even sadder that a lot of them don't see lying, cheating and stealing as moral sin until a Democrat does it! Then watch out!
OK Daniel,
Lets suppose your pro stronger military Dem prez gets in and says we need to borrow more money and go deeper in debt so that we will look unbeatable again... Maybe the Chinese would lend us the cash, but I don't think that they want their best customer to crash so fast.
Then the Republicans will be the peace guys and back and forth we go down towards Hell.
If the Dems or any change will do us any good it has to be to wake up to the wonderful reality that Imperialism and the war economy is good for a few rich bastards but bad for the future...
There will not be any money to even maintain the military spending we have thrown away already on our never ending Wars all over the Planet... but if you want a violent revolution, your plan will do the trick in short order.
So much 'confusion' here about Repugs and Dems, wars, lies, etc. What, exactly, is so 'hard' to understand?
NOT A WAR -- period. Call it such, if you must (but you'll then 'miss the whole point of it all').
DEMS/REPUGS -- both/all 'leaderships' (forget, for now, the 'dissenting-voices', since most of them are pulling-your-leg, anyway) in the US are PRO-MILITARY. DEAL with it...(there IS a legitimate 'real reason' for that).
LIES -- of COURSE 'they' are lying (its because the Public 'doesn't want to hear the Truth'...believe it -- so it's much easier, meanwhile, to create this division/dissonance with those lies while the real-work gets done by the 'grown-ups' -- else-wise they'll [the great-unwashed] gum-up-the-works).
Next quandary...?
bush deserves to be deserted by the military families...and the military...for putting the needs and the pocketbooks of the mercenary blackguards above our legitimate u.s. armies...impeachment and reprobate=is the only thing bush deserves...
I will be goin to a peace Rally in Florida in a few hours and I plan on getting folks too sing along to the tune of Tom Dooley... Try it yourself some time for Psychic relief:
Chorus:
Hang down your heads Bush and Cheney, Hang down your heads and cry, Hang down your heads Bush and Cheney, poor boys your bound to die.
He sat there in the white House, Dick was not around,
The names of all those that have been shot have not yet been found.
Chorus
They destroyed Iraq to get Saddam for bein real bad, and hang um for all folks he killed when Saddam was their own Lad.
Chorus
This time tomorrow, reckon where they'll be, lookin for a place where Super War Criminals can still be Free.
Killing for peace is like fnucking for virginity.
Vote for trees, not for bushes.
bidelo,
I don't disagree much with your platform, but I still don't know how you get anyone elected to implement it.
The choice is less than 12 months away, and it's Democrats or Republicans.
Jim Glover,
It's Democrats who are noted for tax and spend. It's Republicans (since Reagan) who are noted for BORROW and spend. This is precisely why we need a full slate of Democrats. The tax part is missing. If and when it is enacted to pay in real time for the wars, the wars will ramp down.
Mike Courbeil
I agree with MeAlsoToo, who says it better. Your opinion of war seems to be identical to locust's opinion of piracy. Considering that your objection is largely semantic, I thought your post was unnecessarily abusive. Save your hostility for the bad guys.
Mike Courbeil, I read F. William Engdahl's article four days ago and sent it out to friends without computers. Thanks for sharing it with other Common Dreamers, and may they read it too.
Much has been said already, so I'll just follow up with my little bit of logic. "War is gangsterism on a national level", and it legitimizes murder, torture, rape, incarceration, for whatever group of criminals are in charge of governmental affairs.It matters not what 'ism or ideology' is in place. Acts of aggressive, anti-social behavior are carried out by the people unwilling to think for themselves and go along with the easier, (but not easier in the long run) instinct of the herd and subjugate themselves to the blind belief that their "representatives" are making the right decisions for "the good of the people" and nation.It has been the same throughout recorded history and probably before.
Nobody on this planet we dwell on for such a short time has the right to harm anyone else, regardless of who told you to do it. As long as the vast majority let a very small minority think for them, the world will continue mourning the NEEDLESS death, injuries, and suffering of their loved ones.
Citizens of Planet Earth...abandon militarism and learn Peaceful Conflict Resolution Solutions to so-called "problems". Peace and Harmony, Love and Joy to EVERYBODY on our planet. Nobody is really anybody's enemy. We are all one, big dysfunctional family needing group therapy and counseling.
" MeAlsoToo December 8th, 2007 8:15 am
Mike…that was 'unnecessary'…
When I said "a turd by any other name" (as in the line about a 'rose') I was referring only to our disagreement of what to call our 'engagement' in Iraq — as in "war" or "illegal-occupation".
..."
Well, I think we can agree that you hadn't made that clear, and it's been long known that there are people who call others turds. I've certainly heard people say that about or to others, so at least some people are aware of this, too. And I've never heard of anyone referring to a disagreement of discussion as 'turd'; lousy, good, thorough, partial, etc., yes, but not turd disagreements. I've only heard the word used in reference to others, and for bird droppings.
"My (and 'most') experiences also 'inform little' about the situations pertinent today. I only responded to your false-'surety' about it "taking a highschooler" to not call this a 'war' — I am FAR from such a 'highschooler', .... ..."
My experiences growing up a frequent enough victim of gratuitous physical and psychological violence, aggression certainly are usable for when I wish to try to emphasise what such experiences can cause to or for the victims, like PTSD and how it affects some of us; as well as for trying to explain what sometimes if not often are the causes of people becoming bullies, brutal, etc.
Similarly, veterans of the Vietnam War and/or other wars can provide useful information that can, in turn, be used to try to explain what's criminally wrong about a present war or threatened war. But that's then based on only some, not all of the experiences when serving or having served in war.
I don't need their input, but it seems to me that a lot of people could benefit, if they were sufficiently intelligent, moral, and open-minded. People against war from the second it's first threatened don't need input from war veterans; our vision is quite good enough as it is. Yet, I do greatly appreciate the qualitative revisionary history veterans sometimes provide. After all, ignorance is blissful only negatively and for as long as the truth is ignored, not known; after which, when we replace that ignorance with truthful knowledge, then we realise that that bliss was not bliss at all.
Anyway, when I think of what's done to Iraqis, I know that the occupation is both fully criminal and really continued war. Others can call it occupation, but it's not, for NONE of the rules of occupation are followed, all of them are criminally and deliberately transgressed and disregarded; and the continued bombings, and massacres of innocent Iraqis, this is NOT occupational for situation, but continued war of aggression.
The U.S. continues to build the huge permanent bases, and that has nothing to do with occupation as defined in law, as well as in any other sense we may wish to include consideration for; like simply morality. The U.S. is imposing the largest U.S. embassy in the world on Iraqis, and that's not occupational matter; it's aggression and extremely so. The U.S. has not done but drip to restore potable, safe-drinking water, electricity, etc.; and that is not mere occupation. The U.S. is deliberately helping Iraqis to be extremely poor and starve, or suffer severe illnesses due to unhealthy water, and poisoning Iraqis FOREVER with DU; and that's NOT mere occupation. Etc.
It's not occupation; it's extreme ecocide and genocide.
We also know that the LIES continue without breaks from the Bush-Cheney administration and U.S. military command, about what's really going on in Iraq; such as massacring innocents, and fighting against and trying to stop and firmly control the definitely legitimate Iraqi Resistance, which has every right in the world to be attacking the foreign forces that criminally warred and continue to war on Iraq.
We know that the Bush-Cheney front regime for the real and 'invisible' ruling elites of the U.S. superpower continue to make sure that the Iraqi govt is PUPPET govt, and even if not always 100% accomplished, it's always enough to be the rule, and this definitely is not occupation to any legitimate measure.
It's still war of aggression on the Iraqis, who have not been freed of this war of aggression since it began several years ago.
Check on TomDispatch.com for a November article by Dahr Jamail, and we then get a very good illustration that what's going on in Iraq is NOT occupation in any sane sense, to any legitimate measure, but continued war. The article was posted at CD, but it always leaves out Tom Engelhardt's intros.
Iraqi males are being arrested without any acceptable bases for this, and imprisoned, en masse; arrested and imprisoned for no valid, legal, or acceptable reason, only criminally by the continuing aggressor. Many are still being insanely killed.
Etc.
It's ALL WAR; not occupation. You and some other people prefer to not call this situation war, but plenty of us won't shy away from doing and continuing to do so. Americans may prefer to not perceive the situation as war, but it's not up to Americans to make this decision; although they can and do for themselves, but only themselves, not deciding for ANYONE else, not even for all Americans. No other American does my thinking and determines my morals or ethics; NONE. I am a good listener, and will consider what others have or want to say, but I still do my own thinking and decision making.
What's done to Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Africans, Haitians, and others, it's all war, even if these peoples don't have the military power to openly oppose the guilty superpower behind all of these huge crimes of war. Just because the aggressed side consists of non-military resistance fighters, that is, not officially enrolled in a govt's military force, the fighters still resist to the best of their abilities, they still kill and get killed in or through combat, etc. They're essentially the same; just that civilians conducting resistance aren't enrolled on or in govt payroll, and many have not had military training as govt provides or requires. Minor formalities for differences; not significant enough to be justly used for determining whether or not there's a war.
I don't split hairs when defining words or using terminology; as long as it conceptually fits, then its usage fits.
Re. CIVIL WAR, it's of course UNDESIRABLE. That's trivial to understand, too. But my perspective is such that while it'd be hell for the U.S., it'd be better there than applied to other countries and peoples that have done nothing at all to harm the U.S. and don't have the power to do so even if they wanted to harm the U.S.
Iran and Venezuela, f.e., can cause the U.S. some harm by shifting trade of petroleum to a different currency, and there's news that Iran has finally made the decision to do this; but it's not with the intent to harm the U.S. It will only be a consequence of atrocious U.S. governance and pig racketeers.
"Iran stops selling oil in U.S. dollars", by Iranian Students News Agency, Dec 8 2007, www.globalresearch.ca .
I totally agree that civil war is undesirable, but it'd be better for Americans to duel it out amongst themselves, and thereby, if successful, conduct the regime change that's necessary, than it is to conduct extremely criminal and destructive, murderous, etc. wars of aggression against others. It's Americans' fault that they do otherwise, so I say let the country have civil war and get out of other countries and other peoples' lives; while far better would be for the govt to simply cease being extremely rogue, etc. The latter is all that's really needed, but the rulers that be criminally refuse to comply.
It would not be worse than what Americans have been doing to Iraq. The number of casualties might if not would be higher, but the country would not be destroyed to any extent comparable to Iraq.
Nonetheless, when I speak that way it's not to infer that I think Americans would or really should do this; they clearly won't, and clearly prefer to accept to war on other peoples, while working to keep the U.S. "nice", tidy, and [comfortable].
It would not be feasible to win the civil war if it did break out, and we know the kind of brutal power the govt has and that it would likely be applied, such as in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, f.e.
"Baghdad on the Bayou Redux.
Part 1: Wasting America's Wetlands",
by Georgianne Nienaber and Keith Harmon Snow, Dec 6 2007,
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_georgian_071206_baghdad_on_the_bayou.htm
"Katrina: 'Scattered People Instead of Bombs'.
An Interview with Tab Benoit in Houma, La.",
by Keith Harmon Snow, Dec 3 2007,
http://www.allthingspass.com/uploads/html-242Tab%20Benoit_Katrina_PART%20ONE%20%5B4%5D.htm
"You (like so very-many today) are in 'shock' and confused by it."
No, not in shock, and not confused; I know what's going on. It makes me very angry, I'm not sitting like a theatre-goer viewing the screen and getting enjoyment from it, etc.; very angry, and very frustrated. And the frustration includes the fact that the anti-war movement is awfully weak and the leaders of the large organisations have refused to LISTEN to critics who have very sound and constructive criticism to be considered. I'm not confused about pointy-headed bosses (PHBs), but do get very frustrated by their awfully narrow minds and their little-dictator nonsense.
There's a little shock, but not confusion, and the shock does not prevent being able to understand what's going on. The shock is much more like the kind we can experience when realising very well what's going on, that's it's extremely criminal, and that we have no practical way of resolving the problem or injustice. Or, when you see what's obvious, such as political candidates being UNFIT, including very, for public office, but many voters still vote for these schmucks, who are not difficult to prove to be UNFIT. It shocks me to some degree that people are so damn irresponsible citizens, callous, etc.; but there's really nothing confusing about it.
These matters are not rocket science physics to figure out.
I know it's not the Israeli lobby and AIPAC controlling the U.S. govt in its foreign affairs, that AIPAC is powerful, nationally, yes, but it's not controlling the U.S. govt with the wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan, African countries, Haiti, and economic wars against South American and other countries, particularly peoples, around the world.
It's very easy to realise that Israel and the lobby controlling the U.S. govt is nonsense, highschooler thinking, very uneducated guessing, etc.; yet a lot of people still claim Israel and the lobby have this control, all while stating this without backing it up with anything other than very superficial, erroneous, very omissive, ... arguments. If we have a good understanding of how criminal organisations operate, and how the leaders, king-pins conduct themselves in their black market affairs, then we can understand from this analogy that Israel and the lobby are NOT controlling the U.S. govt; and that's only way of the ways we can arrive at this realisation, for there are other factors which are pertinent.
I'm not in shock as much as I'm dumbfounded with respect to how awfully weak the anti-war movements are in both the U.S. and Canada, and how stupidly a lot of people pretending to be credible and therefore very respectable in their claims are really not credible, yet they have a lot of fans, unthinking, non-critical-of-mind fans.
"You (like so very-many today) are in 'shock' and confused by it. And that is no 'accident', Mike — it is by-design, and you (and most) are intended to be-so (and frankly, for now that may be 'for best' — as it avoids Risks in terms of unwanted 'Chaos', such as the CivilWar/coup you apparently have already advocated-for?)."
You tell me that neither I nor anyone else can say with certainty what you think and are like, and what your position is, and I agree with that; but you do it. You do not know that I'm in shock and confused; it's only your perspective, yours alone, as well as for others who agree with you. None of us is God; and when I occasionally err in judging affairs, these errors don't define who I am in all other respects and MOST of the time.
The unwanted chaos is happening; just ask Iraqis, Afghans, Africans, Haitians, etc. And it's all due to the U.S. and its real ruling elites, rogues, criminals, but Americans prefer to avoid chaos at home; instead applying it to innocent others.
You can also ask North American First Nations Peoples if chaos has stopped being applied to them, and the honest and sufficiently knowledgeable of them will not be able to say other than 'NO, it has not stopped, we continue to be oppressed by these criminal govts, etc.'
And I'm not advocating something or anything that I firmly believe is NOT feasible, so no, I'm not advocating civil war or a coup d'etat. What I am doing in referring to such actions is only saying what is really deserved in the U.S. right now; for it is not going to cease being the extremely rogue superpower that it is, the 'invisible' ruling elites are far from having finished their project(s).
Hence, what I'm really advocating is that the U.S. must cease being the rogue hell-on-earth BEAST or '[Whore] of Babylon' that it is. (I distinguish between whore and prostitute, for the latter aren't necessarily whores as I employ these terms. 'Whore' is more akin to hell, while prostitute can be someone who's very loving, caring, morally fine, etc., and just prostitutes him- or her-self for income; tax exempt, unless slavishly working for a pimp.)
Besides, people who would join a civil war or coup d'etat effort must not speak of it publicly. The police state can come after me for having only mentioned that the U.S. deserves unto itself what it does to others, but they would be the ones who are again lying and criminal, rogue, etc., and they could never prove that I made the slightest little effort to try to organise or participate in such acts. After all, there is no evidence at all for them to use in this way against me in any real court of just, sane, and intelligent law. Such a court would justly need to throw out the case against me, for a just court requires real evidence, or when it's circumstantial, then it needs to be inarguably strong and certain, enough.
They could never prove me wrong or mistaken in saying that the U.S. deserves unto itself what it does to others; no one can. They could claim to be right, but that does not mean that they would be.
It's not my fault the govt is as hell-bent corrupt, criminal, rogue, liar, etc., as it is; it's the fault of the criminals who make the govt this way, along with their supporters, and it's not for the victims to answer to law, but for the criminals to be made to do so. They are the ones needing to be held accountable.
The leader of the U.K. Respect Party, George Galloway I believe is the name, wrote an article perhaps two years ago and in it he did not advocate for attempts to assassinate Tony Blair, Bush, etc., but did say that given the extremely destructive and criminal wars these asinine leaders are guilty of commanding, it'd be humanly understandable, surely inferring also forgivable, if some people chose to try to commit these assassinations.
He clearly stated that he was not advocating for that; that he was only expressing his perspective on how extremely bad, criminal, hell-on-earth these so-called state leaders really are, and that it could cause some people to think of trying to assassinate these schmuck and so-called state leaders or dictators.
Similarly, I refer to civil war and coup d'etat due to the urgently needed regime change in the U.S. I understand that that is indeed and very urgently needed, overwhelmingly or broad-sweepingly so, but not that I think it's feasible, or that I'm advocating for such actions of force. Like Galloway's statement on those hypothetical assassinations, I would not be surprised if some Americans chose to try to commit one of these infeasible acts; it'd be horrible, and very infeasible to accomplish, but the U.S. still "has it coming", it's wholly deserved, regime change is urgently needed, etc.
It's like the parable of reaping from the seeds that we sow.
A distinction here is that I very much care about the lives of the Iraqis, Afghans, Africans, Haitians, and so on, as well as for righteous govt for my own country. And the only true patriotism in the U.S. can or will be found among people who realise and honestly admit that this regime change is majorly needed, and that it's crucial to defend the country against enemies who are not only foreign, but also and the worse kind, those who are within. We don't have foreign enemies, except for those the U.S. has caused to become active and validly-based actors against U.S. hegemony, hypocrisy, corruption of their govts, and so on.
As is the case for Israel, the U.S. is its own worst and most real enemy. Neither would have enemies, if these states did not commit their extreme crimes. If they acted correctly towards others, then no enemies would form among these others.
Confused, a lot of people are, and about many things; such as, f.e., misbelieving that Israel and/or the U.S. has real enemies, when what they really have is resistance trying to oppose U.S. and Israeli aggression and hell; misbelieving that Israel's right and the Palestinians wrong, when the reality is the very opposite; misbelieving that the U.S. can war preemptively and ethically, while it's really the supreme crime we can commit; misbelieving that the U.S. and other mainstream, corporate news media can be trusted on important issues; misbelieving that political candidates who provably are criminals and of criminal, or despotic mind, liars, etc., are ethically electable, when reality is that they should be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced to very long imprisonment; misbelieving that the war on the Iraqis and Afghans is over, when insane bombardments, hence destruction, and massacres of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, entire families, is ongoing, has NOT stopped yet, and very likely isn't going to be ending soon; etc. The war remains intense reality for Iraqis and many Afghans, but seems, to some Americans, to have switched to being occupation, brutal, as you say, but neglecting that this remains war of aggression for Iraqis, and a totally bogus and criminal occupation that doesn't adhere to any of the laws regarding occupation.
Now these people are extremely confused. So are soldiers who neglect to apply or forget military law, particularly the one saying that the military owes its loyalty to not the C-in-C but the Constitution, so including intl law and conventions.
Confused a lot of Americans were when around 77% supported launching the war on Iraq and while it was already and very obvious that this war could NEVER be justifiable. Around 23% of us SAW this obvious truth, so it was visible alright. I wasn't the slightest bit confused about this, or about what the U.S. was really bringing to Iraq was HELL ON EARTH aggression. I wasn't confused with respect to the war on Iraq, the one on the Taliban and Afghans, the one on Kosovo and Serbs in 1999, etc.; always instinctively knowing ... 'UNJUSTIFIABLE' and full of bs lies, etc.
There's nothing confusing about any of this, but a lot of people still are very confused about all or many of these ... matters. Nobel Peace Prize "winners", several of them, seriously supported launching the hellbent war on Kosovo, Yugoslavia, the Serbs and their govt there; yet it was obvious that it could not be justified.
People have to be atrociously confused when pretending that those "prize" winners should not be cancelled as winners, instead of honestly treated for what they really are; war criminals, propagandists, liars, incompetent as hell, etc.
I agree with you that a LOT of people are confused, but you seem to have poor judgement about who is, vs not.
I know what's going on and it angers and frustrates me; but I know what's going on and what the underlying objectives are.
I wasn't confused in the USN when they taught that military law is that our loyalty is NOT to the C-in-C but to the Constitution. I'm not confused about anything, except occasionally.
There's nothing confusing about 'WAR IS A RACKET', "politics is full of hypocrisy" and worse, while also incompetence, that we will or minimally reap what we sow, what police state means, that the U.S. does not have a real democracy, that existing pretty much only on paper, which is how Bush and likes treat the U.S. Constitution and intl laws and conventions, "just a piece(s) of paper", nothing significant or important, and ... etc.
"Learn to relax-while-learning; more experienced/informed folks than we-here are playing this 'game' for us, and most of your life-to-date was already entrusted to this same-Care, ere-this — give them some 'benefit of the doubt', in meantime. [And quit assuming friends-are-Enemies — you needn't feel so isolated/challenged because of your/our 'dissonance', lately…]
Stay well…"
What the hell are you talking about? What game, for the only one I see as relevant for game is that of criminals and liars Bush, Cheney, etc., and the 'invisible' ruling elites. who "playing" nothing at all [for] ME; for you, you say they are, but you're not me, dodo? What "same-Care",
Give who "'benefit of the doubt'", the hellbent criminals Bush, Cheney, etc.?
Etc.
If that's what you mean, then UNDERSTAND THIS; you will NEVER be teacher to or for me, you'll never pass the test, requirements to be qualified to teach me.
You say nothing worthwhile, but I hope to have been able to provide some readers with a very different and much more explained perspective than yours and yours alone.
And you make atrocious use of hyphens; only dumb people have rejected quality grammar or syntactic rules for writing, replacing commas, semi-colons, colons and parentheses, with use of hyphens, and often very poorly placed, to boot. The long-standard rules of grammar and syntax remain valid, but many people idiotically dump standard syntax and for absolutely no good or valid reason.
If you wish to be honest [and] understandable for more elaborate thinkers, and, evidently, more principled people, then you need some serious improvement. You argue in very pointless, and somewhat self-righteous, manner; self-righteous for you pretend others don't know you, so can't say what you really think, etc., but you don't live by this rule of yours for others to live by, not yourself.
You can join the "game" of the criminals Bush, etc., if that's how treasonous you are for a citizen, but don't bother wasting any second thinking that you could ever persuade me to join. The only people who can be persuaded to do that are idiots, irresponsible adults and teens, cons of the worst degree of criminality, witting and unwitting TRAITORS; etc.
After all, that IS the sole "game" presently going on. Iraqis, and so on, are not living through any "game" as far as their lives and sovereignties, so countries and govts, are the considerations; and North American First Nations Peoples, as well as indigenous peoples around the world, aren't finding the criminal oppression imposed on them to be a "game".
Only traitors and extreme criminals support such RACKET "games".
Mike...
No offense taken (I'd assumed the analogy to a common-saying about 'Rose...' (which, after all, is descriptive of the futility of arguing over the 'name of a thing' instead of regarding it's 'essence' -- the essence of engagement in Iraq being 'turd-like', imo) was plain-enough -- but one always should 'consider their audience' in communicating. [I rely heavily on literate-allusions and historic-references that often 'go over heads']
In discussions here, and on these 'topics', and to be succinct (and I attempt-such) one has to presuppose a certain shared-familiarity with topics, inclusive of History, Mythos, political/Western-philosophy, human-nature, psychology, literature, and many-others -- OR write one's opinions at book-length (which is not appreciated by the cognoscenti or educated, thus risking the loss of that-audience).
In brief, then -- "where you are, I was" [the remainder of that famous-epitaph is "where I am, you will be", btw]. You may well be 'convinced&certain', due to long-studies/analysis and/or much life-experience, that you are 'informed sufficiently' to accurately discuss virtually-anything. In a real-Sense, you are. However, minor-inaccuracies and 'major-misses' in what you have communicated here indicate otherwise. Facts -- no matter how much they may annoy/appall/contradict your reactions to broad-topics such as you attempt to cover/tie-together above -- remain, stubbornly, 'facts'. I would not, however, presume to argue with any of your derived opinions/beliefs/emotional-reactions -- those are 'yours, alone'. Do, say, and feel what you wish (and return-the-favor -- preferably without attacks upon my character or use of 'hyphens', I made no claim of proficiency as a writer). I'm saying 'your heart seems to be in the right place'.
We (all here and now) are cursed, as in the old Chinese-saying, "to live in interesting times" -- times of great-change and import. What is 'obvious', often is not. ALL of us have been treated to 'shock and confusion' by current/recent-Events (or we just aren't paying-attention).
We all deal with this as-we-can/must, no?
I have an opinion to share and inform-with (as do you). There's ample room for both POV's at CD, I suspect...