Seven Ridiculously Practical Recommendations For Curbing America’s Addiction To War
Seeing John McCain and David Petraeus talking about the Iraq debacle this week is a frightening reminder of how easily we Americans are able to slip into war. And how frequently we do. And how hard it is to get out once we’re in. Assuming, of course, we even want to get out.
Recently, I catalogued the unfortunately ample, and the amply unfortunate, evidence that America has a serious jones for war. It would be nice if this were not so. Then again, it would be nice if George W. Bush was not sitting in the White House right now, too. But sometimes you just have to face difficult truths, no matter how unpleasant they are, and both of these are, verdad, muy mal.
But the unfortunate fact of the American appetite for destruction leaves still unanswered the question of whether there’s anything to be done about it. In fact, there is. Indeed, I see seven ridiculously practical recommendations that, if adopted, would dramatically reduce American proclivities toward institutionalized violence, which is a fancy way of saying that they would cut or eliminate entirely the number of our wars. I’m not saying these would be easy adjustments to make. In fact, they would not be, especially where mass cultural change or constitutional amendments are concerned. But they are also philosophical and moral slam-dunks. And that will help get over the pragmatic obstacles, when we’re ready.
So let’s roll up our sleeves and get busy. Here are seven fundamental changes we could make in order to end virtually all American war-fighting except that which is absolutely necessitated by the most dire and otherwise insoluble external conditions.
ONE: Imagine there was this guy, and he was a Republican and a much-admired two-term US president. Imagine that he had graduated from West Point and then had one of the most celebrated military careers in American history, including serving as commander of NATO and being one of the few Americans to ever wear five stars on his shoulder. Now imagine that this fellow made it his business upon ending a long and distinguished career in public life to give a farewell speech warning of the dangers of a growing military-industrial complex that would distort American values and priorities in pursuit of profits and power. Are you with me so far?
Guess what? You don’t have to imagine any of that. The guy’s name was Dwight David Eisenhower, and he did all of these things. It wasn’t some long-haired Berkeley professor of French Literature with bad teeth and the overpowering odor of pipe smoke who said this, wearing the same hounds-tooth coat he bought at a thrift shop in 1972 for the one interview of his entire life. No, it was Dwight-freakin’-GOP-freakin’
But, in fact, Eisenhower’s warning was ignored, and war has become the biggest of big businesses in America. Can you say ‘Halliburton’, for instance? ‘Raytheon’? ‘Lockheed’? ‘No-bid contracts’? ‘Military-industrial complex’? Of course you can.
Now let me ask you a question. Would you like the judges who hear criminal justice cases to get paid according to how many folks they put in jail? Do you think that might corrupt the system a bit? Should Social Security Agency workers be compensated by the number of claims they deny? Should we privatize Congress and pay them on a piece-work basis, for the number of laws they pass? I don’t think so.
We don’t even pay our soldiers by the number of enemy soldiers they kill, so why is it that the task of arming them is a major profit-making enterprise? Why is it that people are getting very rich off of national security?
It’s way past time for that to end, and a simple law passed by Congress could end it forever. Better yet, a constitutional amendment. Either way, we need only make it the law of the land that no profits shall ever be made on war. Period, full-stop. Sure, the government can hire out private contractors when it really needs to (which would be a whole lot less than it does now), and these folks can be paid a fair, market-value wage for their labors. Loyal patriots that they are, I’m sure they’ll find that compensation entirely satisfying, and will be happy to contribute to America’s national security by foregoing profits from war. Indeed, they’ll recognize that by taking the profits out of the equation, America can massively increase the amount of weaponry it buys to therefore more effectively protect the homeland. And, of course, I’m quite sure these great patriots are already anxious to forego their astonishingly lucrative profits from defense contracts because of the shame they feel knowing that base pay for an Army private is now a whopping $15,282. (’Course, I should mention that the Army will also pay for your funeral when you get killed in action, so the contrast isn’t quite as bad as it seems at first glance.)
Sure, it would require some effort and thought to fill in the lines and determine what is allowed and what isn’t. But this is hardly the first time we’ve ever had to take a fundamental constitutional principle from broad idea to specific implementation. Anyone ever heard of “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”? Pretty general statement, isn’t it? So let’s just get it out there, plain and simple: No profits for war. Something tells me that this alone would seriously cut down on our tendency to go fight in conflicts which we have no reason to engage.
TWO: It’s obscene that the people who make wars don’t fight them, and that’s never been more true than since the GOP chickenhawks came squawking into town. How ’bout that macho Bushie Boy in his flight suit and helmet, eh? Too bad he was AWOL on top of his AWOL during the Vietnam era. Or Cheney with his five draft deferments, or Ashcroft with his seven? Or Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz, or Perle, or Feith, or… Starting adding up all these tough guys whose toughness only seemed to kick in after their draft eligibility kicked out, and pretty soon you’d have enough to outfit another division or two. Hey, maybe we could have won in Vietnam after all with a little help from these guys. I guess they had “better things to do”, as Cheney has actually said. Like perhaps making plans to send other less heavily engaged kids off to fight another war for them a couple of decades later.
Screw that. From now on, anytime there’s a war there’s a draft. No exceptions, and no favoritism in assignments either, on penalty of treason. Maybe Ol’ George might have decided differently if his own partytime twins were in jeopardy of getting whacked in Iraq, eh? Maybe Laura would have put her foot down and denied him his war like she once took away his bottle. I don’t know, but I bet it woulda helped. Again, the details would need to be worked out, but the principle is sound. Kill the free ride of the wealthy and powerful and you’ll kill the wars.
THREE: No more wars without congressional approval either. Not that these wimpy punks in Congress can be particularly trusted to protect people from bogus adventures, either, but they’ll be better at it than power-hungry presidents operating on their own. The Founders screwed-up when they gave the power to declare war to Congress in order to check against president ambitions. Nobody bothers to declare war anymore, so it’s about as useful nowadays as having the exclusive license to manufacture powdered wigs.
Congress realized this after Vietnam and passed the War Powers Resolution, but every president since has rejected it on principle, and the relevant part of the law has never been tested in the courts. Maybe a better bet would be to amend the Constitution, giving Congress the sole power to authorize war, not just declare it, with some provision (as in the War Powers Act) for allowing the commander-in-chief limited latitude without congressional approval only for very short and very small-scale emergency deployments.
FOUR: War should never happen except when absolutely necessary. Once again, this principle is already legally enshrined, though you’d never know it. The United States is a party to the United Nations Charter treaty, which is emphatic on this question. According to the Charter, aggression is only permitted in cases of self-defense or as part of a UN-sanctioned multilateral collective security force responding to someone else’s aggression against someone else. And since the United States Constitution makes treaties the highest law of the land, these provisions absolute apply to the United States government.
You’d hardly notice though, would you? Perhaps another constitutional amendment is in order here, incorporating exactly such language in the Constitution, declaring that the United States may never go to war except under one of those two circumstances. Of course, constitutional language can be bent or broken, just as the Bush administration has done with nearly every single provision in the document. But it makes it harder to do and more obvious when it’s happening if you have it set down in black and white in our core governing contract.
FIVE: Anyone who violates these provisions should be punished. Once again, as in so many of the cases above, the remedy for this problem already exists. It’s called the International Criminal Court, and it’s been in existence since 2002. Meanwhile, for just as long, the United States government under the Bush administration has been at great pains to undermine the Court in every way possible, with the effort initially spearheaded by that beacon of international justice, the lovely John Bolton.
Given that to the rest of the world there’s little distinction between Bush’s invasion of Iraq and, say, Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, it isn’t real hard to figure out why the administration has worked so assiduously to destroy the Court, including by unsigning American participation in the treaty and by arm-twisting every other country in the world to sign bilateral agreements exempting Americans from the Court’s jurisdiction.
One way to end needless American wars is to give those who make such policies a very personal reason for some serious and sober second thought. The next president should re-sign us up to the ICC, push for Senate ratification, and rip up all the bilateral exemption agreements. Then it might be time for an arrest or six to be made. What did you say is George Bush’s address in Crawford?
SIX: Americans have a reputation for being the most blinkered nation in the developed world, and we got that the old-fashioned way: We earned it! We’ve tried hard not to study history and geography, and damned if we aren’t ignorant as hell as a result. And proud if it!
The darned thing is, though, it turns out that ignorance is expensive. I know, I know - who’d-a-thunk-it? But it’s true. When you’re dumb as a tree (and my apologies to all those trees out there - I know you have feelings too!), your government can do lots of things to you, like turn you into cannon fodder, steal your money through taxes for the purpose of killing people you’re not even angry at, or ruin your reputation among billions of people you’ve never met.
Painful as the whole notion of education might be, it turns out to be a lot less painful than the alternative. I know it’s a radical idea, but these are desperate times. Anyhow, what if we actually taught our children a little history, a little geography, and a little truth? Might we not avoid a war or two in the future?
It was good to see MSNBC dump that little bow-tied twit, Tucker Carlson, off the airwaves not long ago. If seeking a better educated American public is our goal, getting disinformation-wielding, Rove-programmed, little weenies like this guy off the air represents a small but promising start. Please, sir, may I have some more?
SEVEN: God help us if there actually is a god. What an amazingly twisted little culture we are, eh? If judgement day ever does come I hope I’m not the one called upon to explain American (would-be) morality to the really pissed-off dude with the long white beard. I don’t even know how I could. Something tells me that he would be a lot less concerned about who’s been diddling whom, Mr. Falwell, than about our unfortunate tendency to countenance the murder of millions in bogus wars fought in our name.
Yeah, I’m afraid the ugly truth is that we think nothing of bombing the snot out of third-world countries, with all the “collateral damage” that entails, but can’t seem to stop obsessing about which sexual organ happens to go into which orifice while people seek a little pleasure in the privacy of our own homes. If our moral priorities were any more twisted they would look like the entrails of a million dead Iraqi civil… Oh, never mind.
I don’t know how we get from here to there, but somehow we have to learn the lesson that war is almost never the right answer. We have to follow the path of the Europeans who, at enormous first-hand cost, have figured this one out and have by-and-large adopted a more thoughtful and just position on this question. We, as a society, need a morality befitting the twenty-first century, not the first (and not even the twentieth).
Altogether these seven ideas for curbing the American propensity for militarism are not the entire solution to the problem. Even so, neither would they be easy to implement. Some of them would require constitutional amendments. Some of them would require a sea change in American political culture. I’m not sure which of these would be more daunting to accomplish.
But accomplished they must be, and America’s addiction to war must be curbed somehow, and soon. The costs of continuing on the current path are enormous, which is also why they are so carefully hidden from us at… well, all costs.
It certainly takes courage to go to war. A lot more than it does to camp out in the Situation Room and order other peoples’ kids to go. But given the culture we live in today, it may take nearly as much courage to make war prohibitively difficult. Standing up for peace and sanity in an asylum of militarism has never exactly been an easy ride, either.
This country fancies itself as the home of the brave, but I wonder if it’s ready for as scary a challenge as making itself peaceful.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers’ reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
“We have to follow the path of the Europeans who, at enormous first-hand cost, have figured this one out and have by-and-large adopted a more thoughtful and just position on this question.”
What planet is David Michael Green from?
The Europeans have been sitting under the American nuclear umbrella for 60 years, and if an American army hadn’t met the Russians in the middle of Germany in 1945, there would be nothing but “Peoples Republics” all the way from London to Moscow.
The Europeans “figured out” that the United States was going to pay for their defense for 60 years, and now that this charitable enterprise is grinding to a conclusion, if Europeans don’t “figure out” how to pay for their own defense, they will have to “figure out” how to speak Russian instead.
The Russians lost at least 20 million dead in WW2, and the rest of us Europeans had the “snot” (as DMG quaintly puts it) bombed out of us in London, Berlin, Rotterdam, Dresden, Caen, Coventry and many more places. We have learned about modern war the hard way, by having our continent shattered by it.
As for sitting under a US umbrella for 60 years - well, thanks, Mission Accomplished (no, really), you can go home now.
I was with DMG until he raised the commonly raised and always idiotically naive proposal of a universal draft as a way to stop war. The theory always seems to be that during Viet Nam there was a draft, it led to protests etc. But guess what there was a draft and there was a war and the protests didn’t stop it. Oh, but that’s right, it’s gonna be “universal”. Never happened in the history of the human race, in any place on earth; that’s not just difficult, that’s impossible. But sure it could be written down that way; then the faux warriors get all the cannon fodder they need for their war games. Spreading the pain does not end the pain; supporting a draft because it somehow seems more just is like saying, fine, if someone has to die, let’s all die. Or, short of that, a little dose of PTSD for everyone. That’ll stop ‘em………..
Bear in mind that DMG is a writer who needs to write a big “something” regularly—so he did here (again.) If he really wanted to be “ridiculously practical”, he would have started (after mentioning JOHN MCCAIN in the first three words) by adding “ESPOUSES A MILITARISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE SOUNDLY DEFEATED BY VOTERS IN NOVEMBER.”
That is the single ridiculously practical thing “we” can actually do. The rest is too long, too over-written, and in #7 too willfully revealing of no wisdom.
Secretarybird’s comment is typical of the gratitude Europeans feel to the United States for 60 years of protection; which is to say, none whatsoever.
The only real army between Washington and Beijing belongs to the Russians, and the under-equipped militias with no air cover that pass for “armies” in Europe can’t keep Putin and his friends from adding a new domain to their version of “state capitalism,” whenever they want it.
Jacob, I won’t even get into the fact that most of Europe is part of NATA. Instead I’ll just mention that Great Britain and France are members of the nuclear club. Russia would commit suicide by invading Western Europe and its leaders are aware of this fact. Instead Russia will use its energy resources as a bargaining tool.
I tried to read all of this article but I do not like being talked down to. I sometimes write this way when I write a blog or a sarcastic email and it often bothers my friends. They think that I’m talking down to everyone who is reading my thoughts.
I also read nothing practical.
The comments so far seem to have been written by Rovians. My take on the article is that there are to many people making gobs of money on the death and destruction of war. That the people making the money are not the ones fighting and/or dying in war. The people who fight in the war are not the ones who so vocally support it, you know all those yng repubs out their who are fighting terrorism by getting their MBAs, etc. The draft of Vietnam predominatly chose middle and lower class peoples(the monied bunch got out of it). Like Rove lets once again change the basic message, new talking points, into a rehash of European bashing re: their perceived ingratitude.
The Professor is stating something that is only too obvious. However, if miraculously the people found the strength and insight to fight and succeed in killing the American War Machine for Profit. Wouldn’t it find another host government to support its business? I think so. Then, the good people of these United States would see what it really looks like from the business end of the barrel of a WMD. The US is the number one seller and distributor of warring technologies in the world. The American government also actively supports and employs individuals and groups to promote military and political conflicts, present and future. Of all the countries with a US military presence there is not a single nation that would try to stop them from leaving. Even Iraq wants the Yankees out. This beast, the Military Industrial Corporate Civilian Complex has grown out of control. It will seek out whatever resource it requires to continue feeding. It affects the entire world, and will require a global effort to stop it. Humanity will have to deal with this. Americans going to the polls is not the answer. That only works for getting unnecessary stop signs here in Chicago.
Ridiculously Practical Recommendations Nos. 8 and 9.
8. Pay as you go. No more borrowing and passing the debt on to future generations. If cash is needed, cut appropriations in other areas to make up the difference.
9. Make it part of the budget. No more off-budget, out-of-sight appropriations.
How to stop the US war machine.
Dump the US dollar. Stop shopping. Stop buying the ‘American Dream’.
No more imported fruit in December. No new car every year.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
Grow a peace garden to feed yourself.
Introduce yourself to your neighbors, get to now them.
Read a book instead of watching TV.
Demand the abolition of the NRA, and the end of concealed carry for citizens. BAN HANDGUNS!
And most of all…LEARN ABOUT WHO YOU ARE ELECTING! What is their personal history? Any mental problems? Criminal activity? TOTAL revealing of ANYONE who runs for public office, from dog-catcher on up. Their ENTIRE personal history. Sex is okay. Who cares who you boff as long as they are above the age of consent, and gave their consent? And what business deals they are involved in. EVERYTHING!
Jacob Freeze,
I hate to be the one to tell you this (OK. I don’t mind at all) but Russia dropped out of your little protection racket years ago. They disbanded the Warsaw Pact and allowed US military personnel into their country to help in dismantling much of their nuclear arsenal. To the extent that it ever existed, any Russian threat to Western Europe has gone away. The fact that NATO still exists after the other side dropped out provides pretty good support to the claim that the Cold War was just an excuse for armaments manufacturers to profit off the US taxpayers all along.
As a US citizen I can assure you that I have absolutely no gratitude for the “protection” you and the rest of your war profiteer friends have provided throughout my life and wish you would just go away. Cyanide smells sweet, acts quickly and shouldn’t cause too much pain. Give it a try. Failing that. If you fire a pistol into your mouth don’t aim high. Aim for the back of your head. You’ll die more quickly while still leaving a pretty face for your funeral, if anybody shows up.
Phenix: If you ever bother to check the details of the French and British “nuclear deterrents,” you might realize that these small and easily located “deterrents” are critically vulnerable to first strikes from Russia.
My premise is that the United States can’t afford to continue to protect Europe, and without the United States, NATO is a “paper tiger,” listing armies of hundreds of thousands on paper, and nuclear deterrents on paper.
But the Russians have a real army, and a real air force, which suffer in comparison to analogous American forces, but in a conflict between Russian and European armies, as they exist today, all that paper would just blow away.
America’s militarism also stems from a cleverly, perpetuated culture of war via the MSM, Hollywood and corporate America. Generations of well-cultivated brain washing won’t disappear overnight. The ‘reprogramming’ of America will be a long and arduous affair that will be vehemently resisted by many rich and powerful interest groups.
Even with the election coming in November, intelligent debate and been absent as this nasty invasion continues to be framed in `a win or lose` context while avoiding any discussion of the basic immorality and illegitimacy of the entire debacle
I must agree with ‘longingforinsanity’ in that this idea of a universal draft is not a practical solution to militarism. It is not only madness, but it inadvertently promotes warfare as the government is given more tools to wage war with! A more practical suggestion would be a universal draft exemption for those earning less than $100,000 per year.
One solution to reversing our addiction to war would be for American communities to mandate their local schools to teach courses to their students in how to decipher MSM propaganda, recognize rhetoric, resist militarism, promote international student exchange programs and finally debate basic philosophies and ideologies. The re-education would be directed to everyone regardless of age. Also by excluding religion from such a community program, it would make the education program all-inclusive while uniting people towards a common objective.
Two things I’d like to point out that seem to be overlooked at least explicitly. On point one by DMG (no profits) should we take this a bit further and ask why does the US spend so much on the military industrial complex (profit or otherwise) and why aren’t more Americans concerned where their taxes are going. Yes the Europeans and Canadians and many other countries could spend a greater percentage of their GDP on the military so that US doesn’t feel compelled to protect them (as Jacob points out). But the US now spends more than ALL countries on earth combined (yes including those evil Russians and Chinese). Maybe things like Education, HealthCare, Levees, roads, would be better funded (kind of like they are in the rest of the world) if so much were not spent on land mines and cluster bombs.
The second point I’d like to make is that why do so many Americans think (like Jacob points out) that America is simply protecting Europe simply out of the goodness of their own heart. Come on, we don’t give a shit if black Africans kill one another as long as it’s in Africa. Usually we sell arms to both sides (that is unless the Chinese offer them a better deal). We didn’t seem to care that Indians and Pakistanis have nuclear weapons pointed at one another so long as they can’t reach us. We protect Europe so we can sell them our stuff and maybe because their mostly white.
I digress; I think Americans can think of war and war making in the abstract better than any country not just because of our crappy education system but because we’ve been geographically blessed to be (mostly) removed from its horrors.
Peace out.
!)The only reason for US troops and hardware in Europe or anywhere else is purely selfish and that includes ww1 and ww11,Korea,Vietnam and you get the picture.
2)The draft back in the day (I’m 72)did not have a full set of teeth in it and if it got the full set a politician would have to think long and hard because his ass would be out there too and I would put that requirement right at the top.
3)People sacrifice?Company and corporations sacrifice first.
4)Peace is cheaper and morally heads above any other options that exist on this planet for us and the planet. Tony
Unlike other commenters who merely vented, “Bruce” sent me an email:
“I am curious about what exactly we were protecting Europe from with our nuclear umbrella?”
Okay, Bruce…
In 1968 a large army marched into Czechoslovakia and
overthrew the very popular government of Alexander Dubcek.
Why didn’t the same thing happen in France? (Hint: It wasn’t because the Russians were afraid of croissants.)
Rule 10.
The Commander in Chief and all his Cabinet who so love war must be dressed in colorful uniforms and paraded daily up and down the front lines to show their personal commitment to war.
Jacob Freeze
The USSR could’nt even get a handle on its satellite East European nations. Could’nt get a handle on China. Could’nt get a handle on Afghanistan.
The last thing they needed and wanted was some more rebellious nations under them.
They were just understandingly paranoid after what Germany had done to them (a tiny fraction of their 20 Million dead would have driven America insane with brutal self-pitying paranoia).
The USA is doing itself in right now with its grotesquely bloated useless military 50% Plus budget spending exactly the way the Soviet Union did itself in a couple decades ago.
Fixing this country’s problems with war and corruption is gonna be like trying to flip a HUD house.
The more you tear away the worse it’s gonna get.
If our government and media are trusted to take charge of the project, they’d just paint it, throw some bark dust over the contaminated soil and call it renovated.
“Look, we put a shrub in the front yard!”
To deal with America’s Addiction to war will require a Department of Peace. This should be staffed with full circle veterans who understand the true cost of war to our society. We are killing ourselves trying to maintain a rapidly declining empire. What a waste.
Hoa binh
Jacob Freeze - Yeah, the whole world is really missing out on America’s defining folk tale of us versus the commies. Does Europe’s lack of gratitude not tell you something? We’re protecting the holy shit out of Iraq right now, and they’ll be mighty grateful too in the future.
Pay attention Freeze.
France had it’s own nuclear deterrent in ‘68.
What was it Prof Green wrote?
“SIX: Americans have a reputation for being the most blinkered nation in the developed world, and we got that the old-fashioned way: We earned it! We’ve tried hard not to study history and geography, and damned if we aren’t ignorant as hell as a result. And proud if it!”
here’s some pertinent history:
The American government has always maintained the right of its citizens to ship arms to belligerents. President Washington, through his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, took this position when France protested against the sale of arms to England in 1793, the answer being that “the exporting from the United States of warlike instruments and military stores is not to be interfered with.” - Theodore Roosevelt’s “Fear God…”p.160
Gun runners from the getgo!
YIKES!
I have a really bad headache today, I have 57 indoor & alley cats to feed, and I’m skimming through the posts and comments, so forgive me if I have just several disjointed reactions which I would normally put on hold, think through, flesh out into something coherent, and then start typing. Today I don’t feel well enough to do that, and I have much more pressing demands on my time (meow).
1. Jacob: did you ever stop to think about what the situation was really like when the Russian army met the Allied army on the banks of the Elbe? The Russians were on a roll. By arrangement, they took Berlin (at considerable cost). They could have kept right on rolling. They could have kept all of Berlin for themselves.
I’m not making any excuses for the brutality of either Stalin or the Russians who were getting some pay-back against all Germans, especially the women who had not committed the atrocities in Russia that had so fired up the Red Army. I am saying that they pretty much kept to the “big 3″ agreements and that, post WWII, it was American/NATO “adventures” of intervention and regime-change, overthrowing democratically elected governments, political subversion, teaching torture, and imperialist attempts at “conquering the world,” not Russian, that so destabilized the world.
2. I’m torn between D.M. Green and longingforsanity re: a universal draft. I know I’d feel a whole lot safer if the military forces were filled by people (men and women) who didn’t want to be there. Then, the very notions of either a military coup or professional mercenary forces (aka Blackwater) grow a whole lot dimmer. For people philosophically or morally or (reluctantly) religiously opposed to military service, there could be National Service-type alternatives. Combine this with things like free, single-payer, government-run health care and free, government-funded secondary education, and I humbly think we would have a more-educated, more-involved, more-progressive, more-active population.
The cats are waiting.
Does he really need three names? Does everybody call him “David Michael”?
If you really think drafts are the answer, come on over to San Francisco and see all the vets lying in the gutter.
We could just refuse to kill, couldn’t we? We could call our enlisted men and women what they are - hired killers. We could make joining the military a horrible thing - harassment, etc. They aren’t your friends, they aren’t your neighbors. They’re international hit men for George Bush.
That would stop the killing far better than a draft - how dare you offer up people to die?
longingforsanity
“I was with DMG until he raised the commonly raised and always idiotically naive proposal of a universal draft as a way to stop war….”
Sorry, you are dead wrong on this one. The uber-wealthy elites who run the US can do the things they do because they are not forced to pay the costs for their decisions. The Bush tax cuts guarantee that they pay no economic burden. The all-volunteer force ensures that they don’t pay with their son’s lives.
Until the elites are forced to live with the consequences of their decisions, we will continue to have these disastrous conflicts and all the misery will be suffered by the people bearing the burden in this country and whichever one has the misfortune to be labeled “enemy”.
TWO(A): Children of the President and any Congressperson/Senator who voted for war are automatically the first conscripted.
“The US, UK, France, Russian Federation, and China are the 5 biggest arms exporters in the world. They are also the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council.” –Lord of War (c) 2005
Change this law and that indeed! That’s not the solution, Mr Green. The thinking of the American people needs to be changed.
I’ve just written a post that puts the blame for America’s penchant for war and violence on its Constitution. Yes folks, the very document that most Americans worship is the source of its never-ending militarism and violence.
It needs an urgent rewrite if America is ever going to become peaceful!
P.S. Check Dangerous Creation if you have time.
Jacob Freeze: Maybe others aren’t as foolish as you are and would not do what you think they would do, because they are not you. You are typically American. Most of the world is not. Europeans are brighter and wiser than Americans, don’t expect them to act like you would, they have experience, history and class. These you lack.
Russians have absolutely no reason to first strike Europe, it is their neighbor and source of income. What they want is to make money, live better and have peace which they need because, unlike the US, they have been brutally attacked with great destruction often in the near past. The US has suffered nothing, hence has learned nothing. This way of thinking is American, and it is Americans who act this way. Guess what? Others are better, impossible as it may be to accept.
I like David’s article but I would have written the article a little differently than David did. His #6 recommendation says what I say all the time. It’s the voters fault. We have to stop shifting the blame for war on to Bush and Company. The Congress has the responsibility for declaring and funding war. BUT the ultimate responsibility falls on the voter - and I bet that the voters will again vote 98% for a war party candidate. (I’m sure that I don’t have to remind anyone here the the repubs and dems are both war parties.)
I think it would be more accurate to say the average American is addicted to quick, clean, easily-won wars. They have less patience for long, drawn-out, morally ambiguous conflicts like Vietnam or Iraq.
As for European ingratitude, perhaps they felt that the U.S. military installations in their countries would just invite Soviet nuclear attacks if a conflict broke over a completely Europe-unrelated matter, i.e., Cuba or Vietnam. Nothing like getting stuck in the middle of someone else’s war. NATO was also a convenient way for the U.S. to keep an eye on the Germans and make sure they didn’t get out of hand again, maintain peace among the powers in Western Europe and prevent a return to the traditional rivalry between France and Germany. So our goals in “protecting” Europe weren’t just altruistic.
This is a fun thread! Crowds of teenage bloggers who think the history of the world began in 2001, and a few Old Progressives who can’t quite remember that KGB alumni like Putin still control the second-best army in the world!
And they wonder why official Washington just laughs at the blogs!
Make war profiteering illegal. Won’t need to do anything else.
From Ike’s first innaugural address:
In pleading our just cause before the bar of history and in pressing our labor for world peace, we shall be guided by certain fixed principles. These principles are:
1. Abhorring war as a chosen way to balk the purposes of those who threaten us, we hold it to be the first task of statesmanship to develop the strength that will deter the forces of aggression and promote the conditions of peace. For, as it must be the supreme purpose of all free men, so it must be the dedication of their leaders, to save humanity from preying upon itself.
In the light of this principle, we stand ready to engage with any and all others in joint effort to remove the causes of mutual fear and distrust among nations, so as to make possible drastic reduction of armaments. The sole requisites for undertaking such effort are that–in their purpose–they be aimed logically and honestly toward secure peace for all; and that–in their result–they provide methods by which every participating nation will prove good faith in carrying out its pledge.
2. Realizing that common sense and common decency alike dictate the futility of appeasement, we shall never try to placate an aggressor by the false and wicked bargain of trading honor for security. Americans, indeed, all free men, remember that in the final choice a soldier’s pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner’s chains.
3. Knowing that only a United States that is strong and immensely productive can help defend freedom in our world, we view our Nation’s strength and security as a trust upon which rests the hope of free men everywhere. It is the firm duty of each of our free citizens and of every free citizen everywhere to place the cause of his country before the comfort, the convenience of himself.
4. Honoring the identity and the special heritage of each nation in the world, we shall never use our strength to try to impress upon another people our own cherished political and economic institutions.
5. Assessing realistically the needs and capacities of proven friends of freedom, we shall strive to help them to achieve their own security and well-being. Likewise, we shall count upon them to assume, within the limits of their resources, their full and just burdens in the common defense of freedom.
6. Recognizing economic health as an indispensable basis of military strength and the free world’s peace, we shall strive to foster everywhere, and to practice ourselves, policies that
courage productivity and profitable trade. For the impoverishment of any single people in the world means danger to the well-being of all other peoples.
7. Appreciating that economic need, military security and political wisdom combine to suggest regional groupings of free peoples, we hope, within the framework of the United Nations, to help strengthen such special bonds the world over. The nature of these ties must vary with the different problems of different areas.
In the Western Hemisphere, we enthusiastically join with all our neighbors in the work of perfecting a community of fraternal trust and common purpose.
In Europe, we ask that enlightened and inspired leaders of the Western nations strive with renewed vigor to make the unity of their peoples a reality. Only as free Europe unitedly marshals its strength can it effectively safeguard, even with our help, its spiritual and cultural heritage.
8. Conceiving the defense of freedom, like freedom itself, to be one and indivisible, we hold all continents and peoples in equal regard and honor. We reject any insinuation that one race or another, one people or another, is in any sense inferior or expendable.
9. Respecting the United Nations as the living sign of all people’s hope for peace, we shall strive to make it not merely an eloquent symbol but an effective force. And in our quest for an honorable peace, we shall neither compromise, nor tire, nor ever cease.
By these rules of conduct, we hope to be known to all peoples.
By their observance, an earth of peace may become not a vision but a fact.
This hope–this supreme aspiration–must rule the way we live.
*****************
We must be ready to dare all for our country. For history does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. We must acquire proficiency in defense and display stamina in purpose.
We must be willing, individually and as a Nation, to accept whatever sacrifices may be required of us. A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
***********************
How much has been lost in the last 50 years.
Jacob Freeze, you’re blind nationalism concerns me. The Soviet Union was a threat to Europe but nothing Europe couldn’t handle. To begin with, the Russians were the ones exercising the ‘deterrent’ after the USA made no secret of ‘wiping out the commie bastards’ and certain American leaders suggested continuing the Second world War to ‘take out the Russians’ while they were still war weary. The USA was the protagonist after the Manhattan project and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are you suggesting that without USA ‘protection’ the USSR would have invaded or decimated Europe? There is no evidence of this. There is evidence, however, that Russia would never have built up it’s forces or engaged in a finacially crippling arms race had a beligerant USA not done so first with the USSR in it’s sights.
Good posts: GENERAL LEE, GYRO, SINCE 1942, MCTHFG
CANUCKELHEAD: I really don’t think MOST Americans recognize the degree to which the treasury is being sacked for make-war productions. It works the way the magician uses sleight of hand, in this case, on ideological fronts. The public is too busy being heated up about “illegal aliens” getting THEIR good jobs; or the welfare mom who buys decent meat with her foot stamp allowance. They have NO idea of the subsidies to bit oil, or the no-bid contracts to the big military companies who have delivered piss poor services (that is, when huge sums have NOT disappeared) in Iraq.
AS others have wisely noted, the PROFIT must be taken out of war, and barring that, any who slip slide around that provision should be tried for treason… starting with those currently in charge.
POET: Thank you for posting those words… if that was what Republicans were about today, I’d change parties!
POET: I think Eisenhower saw the insidious underbelly of potential war profits like a true PROPHET. After the US rebuilt Europe, it became the leader of the world on many levels, including financially and industrially. This set up an analogy between war and profit that has been abused over and over again. Using astrology as my basis for making this pronouncement, it’s clear to me that what appeared as a license for impunity has just about run out. There are evident signs of this– in our financial dire straights, in how the world regards our nation under Bush the madman, in weather events and disparate incomes… from the celestial planes, the planet that represents all forces that TEAR DOWN in order to eventually resurrect, the forces of death and rebirth, soon will OPPOSE the U.S. July 4 Cancer sun, and the sun represents the HEART of a nation and where its energy is solidified. Coming apart at the seems… as well as seams, the process gets rolling in late 2009 and big time in 2010.
Jacob Freeze April 11th, 2008 12:14 pm
“Phenix: If you ever bother to check the details of the French and British “nuclear deterrents,” you might realize that these small and easily located “deterrents” are critically vulnerable to first strikes from Russia.”
Suppose Russia destroys 90% of the British and French arsenals in a first strike. Well, 90% sounds pretty good in theory, but that would leave about 50 warheads to rain down on Russia’s cities. The first strike ain’t gonna happen.
How about starting with this simple one step?
STOP SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS!!!
They make war, they volunteer to go to war, they kill innocent people, they commit war crimes.
STOP SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS!!!
Great point, citizen1. We should stop honoring people who put themselves in a situation where they are legally obligated to unquestioningly obey all orders. The tiny safety valve they have is in practice stifled into uselessness.
Many people are inclined to give a break to the naive kids who sign up. All right, what about the soldiers who are still doing it at 25? At 40? Who’ve made a career out of it? Normally, we require all adult citizens to develop and use ethical compasses and rational thinking. But seemingly, those in the military are given a pass.
nonsense said: “Ridiculously Practical Recommendations Nos. 8…
8. Pay as you go. No more borrowing and passing the debt on to future generations. If cash is needed, cut appropriations in other areas to make up the difference.”
Absafickenlootly!!! The average American sadly could give a rats patooty who dies in Iraq or how much it costs… UNLESS, he’s actually taxed directly to PAY for it. As with the draft, this is just a way of asking THOSE who advocate war to PAY for the war they advocate. Without that, war advocacy is a form of predation: you take a stance that only hurts those you don’t really care about: (perhaps your poor neighbors who’s son will join to ease the families poverty, or the next generation of Americans, who you don’t like because, frankly, they’re young and full of life).
If you want a war… FIGHT IT!!! Too many American chickenhawks KNOW they’ll get out from under that burden (and that includes CHENEY, the ultimate chickenhawk).
BTW. I think Eisenhower would join Lincoln in becoming INCREDIBLY ashamed of whats become of the Republican Party under Bush/Cheney. DEBT as far as the eye can see. No welfare unless you’re a farmer, a defense executive, or rich.
We can toss ideas around until we are dizzy and none of them will stop this insane war and occupation.
The only thing that will stop it will be an event beyond our control, such as our coming depression with accompanied chaos, or possibly Siouxrose`s July 4 Cancer Sun (I like the sound of that, it sounds powerful).
How many times have we seen that unforseen events will change the course of a nation? For example, the 9-11 catastrophy that wrecked our country, thanks to leaders that took advantage of it to become dictators.
Pearl Harbor and Hitler`s conquests also changed us because the people of our country rallied to the cause, and put up with rationing and much hard work, as the soldiers were gone to Europe or the Pacific. Except for the tremendous loss of life, our country recovered, thanks to some leaders that had the good of the nation in mind, and our citizens that sacrificed along with the fighting men and women. We also paid for all previous wars instead of keeping them off budget and charging them to grandchildren.
It does look pretty grim. The next president is going to have to clean up after W while under a withring fire for whatever gets tough or unresolveable. I don’t think we can get there without attaching consequences to misdeeds, and using the apparatus of state for personal ends is the grossest of misdeeds. We cannot afford to protect those who have betrayed their oathes. It’s one thing to be sympathetic to the plight posed to teenage soldiers, but another to exonerate those who have betrayed us. Those folks are all adults, held themselves out as the best of us, and swore on what they claimed was a sacred oath. I don’t know what else might restore credibility. Very scary — all that power in the hands of someone nobody believes. And being required to take such steps only puts us in line with the Stalins and Hitlers as we have been taught to know them.
I suppose we can muster hope from anywhere. What else?
.
I’ll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
.
Nader Issues:
A definitive military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;
Single-payer, expanded Medicare-style health insurance for all;
Labor law reform and repeal of the anti-union provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act;
A solar-based sustainable energy policy;
and,
An end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions and jobs.
.
The problem with the author’s suggestions is that they are rooted in the actions of the politicians–the people who profit most from war.
More likely tactics would place authority in governments other than the US federal government, or directly in the people.
1. The UN could establish a rule that establishes trade embargoes against any country that starts a war, and kicks them out of the security council (yes, I recognize that the US’s veto power would make this a tough one to start with.)
2. Many municipalities have signed resolutions against this war. They should take it further: divest of all corporations and funds related to war or crimes against humanity.
3. Adjust the rhetoric: Without a draft, the tyrants have to persuade people to go to war. They do this with College educations and rhetoric that promotes our side with words like “honor” “hero” “noble” and dismisses the other side with racist words. At all levels we should correct this. When describing the other side, refer to them as ordinary people with families to support who are just trying to feed themselves and survive day-to-day. No “insurgents” no “terrorists” no “suicide bombers”. Refer to our soldiers as “the people who do the killing” or “the support staff for the people who do the killing.” Refuse to print honorable obituaries or hold parades. No exaggeration is necessary, just, as Confucius said, “rectify the names”.
4. All these private universities that supposedly do not support the war should refuse to admit anyone who ever served as one of the people who do the killing or who serve on the support staff of the people who do the killing.
5. GO TO WAR: If every person in this country who opposes the war signed up to go to war, with no intention of fighting or carrying a gun, but simply to collect pay (and perhaps work for peace) the war would be completely obstructed. When kicked out of the military, they should publish their records of the horrors of war
Vote for the Green Party. The Greens want ALL of our troops out of Iraq NOW, not just “combat” troops. They also want to reduce defense spending and adopt a noninterventionist foreign policy.
A vote for Nader makes a statement, but a vote for the Green Presidential candidate builds a movement. Go Green:
www.gp.org
www.runcynthiarun.org
America’s addiction to war is explained in a book written 80 years ago by Marine Corps General Smedley Butler called WAR IS A RACKET. Read it and you will see who and what we fight for.
Hoa binh
What a spectacular meditation!
“…in fact, Eisenhower’s warning was ignored…”
I contend, and go so far as to declare - this “warning” was not ignored. There’s a statue in downtown Detroit of Hazen S. Pingree with a placard extolling the same warning well before the Civil War, and Lincoln made the same warning during the time frame of the Civil War.
Remember: “feelings come first” - Breaking The Code - Thom Hartmann.
I contend that Pingree, Lincoln and Eisenhower’s warning has yet to be integrated into the feeling realm of the American People; if touched by it the predominate response is still one of undifferentiated cringing fear and other feeling muting behaviors - excessive consumption/actions with myriad forms.
Look at how Green’s article spins out into a vast intellectual realm instead of maintaining focus and parrying with a context, that includes feelings, around the “warning”. The general discussion here follows the same pattern, hitting a few crescendos of moralistic shouts. Why? Feelings are muted and separated from thought.
Look at Green’s marvelous example of this muting. He has the courage to momentarily move beyond the military industrial congressional complex’ rational feeling muting phrase “collateral damage” - with visceral stimulating words, “If our moral priorities were any more twisted they would look like the entrails of a million dead Iraqi civil…”, but then abandons that tact with “Oh, never mind.”
No! Do not “never mind” the entrails of a million dead Iraqi (humans!) or those “mindlessly” slaughtered in any war (yes, it’s not a matter of mind over feelings or feelings over mind - it’s a matter of recognition and harmonizing the two; just as it’s not a matter of destroying war itself but a matter of transforming the how of war - closely related to our argument here, but for another time).
The argument here is to stay with the feelings that entail mindfulness of the military industrial congressional complex - feelings of those enmeshed in the mainstream and those in the tributaries. This is a huge point. The Detroit Free Press published my letter to the editor today (4/12) calling for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney, but it edited out the part that brought into mindfulness the fact that the Detroit area has a large challenge in facing the facts of economic gain through the likes of GM and Ford and Halliburton’s Cost Plus program…and thus the splattered entrails of thousands of US Troops and innocent civilians - the Detroit area has a large part to play in overcoming economic fear.
Thus, do we need a 7 point plan including constitutional amendments for reconciling today’s tragedies? No. What we could do, that I feel would be exponentially more profound in the pursuit of Happiness, and much more immeadiate, is to stand with courage so as to alleviate the fear that grips our brothers and sisters of America.
And we can stand in courage today through the call to impeach. We don’t need a new constitution, we just need to continue perfecting the one we have. Sure one day that may entail a new amendment, but for today Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution is more than enough.
For in America, and in this world, there is more than enough to culture all our pursuits of Happiness. What we need is for those who can to stand with the Constitution, to stand with the knowledge that the truth of the universal laws of Abundance can produce something far greater than our current military industrial congressional complex.
Yes - alleviate fear and further the pursuit of the American Spirit - call for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney.
The military industrial complex: what are your feelings now? Impeachment: what do you now think?
A book which goes a long way in describing how Europe has managed to live in peace, for the most part, since the end of the Second World War is Where Have All The Soldiers Gone? subtitled The Transformation of Modern Europe by James J. Sheehan.
PUCK TWAIN: Feelings are associated with women, and for a MAN to be a “pussy” or “Girlie man” is probably the greatest insult when patriarchy, and its preference for HARD cold logic prevails. I have often spoken of the intended interplay, and irresistable attraction between forces of Yin and Yang. In my view this polarity expresses in our own brain functions, as one hemisphere is more likened to rational processes of thought, the other more given to diffusive analogies, these closer to our “feelings centers.” Until mankind HONORS the Divine Feminine, and provides women with equal voice, this FEAR and repulsion to the soft side of sentiment, the capacity to feel empathy for others will maim us as a species, and allow the killing fields to be the thing championed.
I am glad to read throughout this thread, the increased awareness, introspection, and consideration given to the present militarism and violence.
In the MIC we have a tiger by the tail, who owns most of the pols directly or indirectly, and the “tail” is the slender franchise (the vote) if it is counted.
These are survival times. Dire times, in my opinion, which is why I’m pleased most of the people in this thread are focusing on it as the problem…Prof. Green included.
To the critics of this article:
1. Any voice raised against war is a voice to listen to and support;
2. Any voice proposing war is anti-life, pro-corporate, and working for the destruction of humanity.
~
Siouxrose, you and I disagree on “feelings being assoiciated with women.” They may be associated, but I think it’s a fallacious association, used for various reasons none of which are particularly useful or true.
The exclusionary notion that women alone have such feelings and the implication “that men have none” implicit in such statements is a mythical idea that has no basis in fact and is quite discriminatory as it denies men the capacity to feel and express emotion and there are so many songs, poems, books scripts, written by men honoring women, expressing love and sensitivity and so on that it’s simply unfair and untrue to claim that “feelings are associated with women” as if it is the exclusive domain of the feminine gender.
Emotions are not and never will be the exclusive domain of women. They never were. They never will be.
The ideas that men have no feelings or that feelings are a feminine thing are simply cultural programming and part of the myth that polarizes gender and creates another artificial conflict. Buying into such ideas and forwarding them is about the same as buying into the propaganda: “Saddam Hussein has WMD in the desert.”
Men, who usually spend most of their formative lives with women are taught initially by women and then by culture not to express their feelings or emotions, nor to express pain, or loss that is perceived as weakness and which can, in real life-and-death conflict be perceived as an advantage by those who would exploit such a perceived disadvantage in order to deliver real or metaphorical death.
I’ve seen reports by women that indicate women are more prone to conflict than men and that a world ruled by women would be more conflicted and violent than our current world.
We meet on so many issues, but not on this one.
Instead of wars, we should have duels between heads of state. Imagine if Bush and Saddam had each been given a pistol and told to shoot it out. Whatever the outcome, the world would have been a better place (unless they both missed).
ENN: I know that men have feelings! I am speaking for what’s culturally advocated and/or programmed. Some anecdotal “evidence” follows:
1. Academe completely disavows FEELINGS and makes LOGIC and cold reasoning its only criteria for evaluating whatever sits before it.
2. Pollack’s book, the title eludes me, something like “Real Boys Don’t Cry,” and his contention that the ultimate societal pressure for boys NOT to be allowed to emote (it’s considered “sissy” behavior) leads to all-out pent-up repressive responses best satisfied through discharing bullets.
3. A friend of mine took her husband for counseling, and the psychologist presented many scenarios to which the husband could only identify one emotion: ANGER
4. U.S. celebration of macho sports, macho entertainment, near-worship of the gun and/or oily muscle. The fear/hatred of homosexuality, the FACT that religions offer God as a MALE entity, and this diminishes the Divine aspect of the female/feminine.
5. MARS rules in U.S. society, and by that I mean the notion of Deity has been shifted into a more suitable version of Mars. This then allows for the constant promotion and investment in war, weapons and the means to MURDER others.
I believe the SOUL carries both male and female characteristics. I believe human beings are multi-faceted. What I was speaking about and referencing were cultural norms which over CENTURIES have programmed very specific traits into both genders and up until relatively recently, savagely punished those who did not conform to these “norms.”
That Daniel David repeatedly sounds the single note of giving the Democratic Party total control of the government is mildly interesting. That he tries to turn almost every conversation into that direction is a bit more problematic, but both could be the result of some kind of an obsessive neurosis.
What’s really damaging, and perhaps revealing, is that he actively discourages all other forms of action. He has criticized protesters for supposedly giving the Republicans some kind of ammunition. He has insisted Democrats not be pressured to do anything progressive during our increasingly long election seasons. Worse yet, in his comments above he has dismissed six logical, moral proposals for turning this country away from militarism. Daniel’s answer to everything is to vote for Democrats, and only Democrats, as often as possible, and to do nothing else. It seems he would have us leave all political decisions up to the leaders of the Democratic Party. It may not be his conscious agenda, but he is actively trying to funnel all dissent into a single channel that is acceptable to the American power elite.
Good Post Kernel. I’ll back you up this time.
since 1492 - right on!
Support the troops? - Look I’ll say the same thing that I’m sure most of Europe would say. Go home! I’ll defend my own freedom, thanks.
Freeze - Sorry, most of the people who disagree with you are not teenagers, but do probably have some nuanced view of history rather than the indoctrinated view of our military and our public school system. Your learn’n ain’t as good as you think.
The article goes beyond what is necessary. Item 1, is probably sufficient. None of the chicken hawks who go to war would have reason if there was no profit in it. On military mobilization the country should go into immediate “war” status and throughout the duration of that war all wages at home should immediately be frozen at the level of the lowest paid soldier and no profit on any investiment should be allowed by any individual or corporation. That would put an end to any “war” that was not absolutely necessary for defense.
The truth about war and soldiers - I’ll leave that to Schmedly Butler:
The following is an excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. At that time Major General Butler was the most decorated soldier in the history of this country:
War is just a racket ………I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big-Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers (1909 – 1912). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
THE TRUTH ABOUT WAR THEN………
THE TRUTH ABOUT WAR TODAY
I’ll add this. If we were truly interested in the fate of Europe during WWII, we would have entered the war during the time Spain was fighting fascism. We didn’t enter WWII until it suited our financial interests, plain and simple.
Alexlawyer: good point, that’s why we should have Jesse Ventura for president - “my president can beat up your president” is a better and much more peaceful pre-emptive war strategy than my gigantic war machine can kill your women and children and destroy your country.
Retaliate in ‘08 - Ventura for President
Also if you’ll remember Saddam actually did challenge Bush to duel - Of course the Chickenhawk dismissed it.
Far too many Americans think that killing people who never threatened or attacked them is unfortunate but OK in war because, well that’s what happens in war.
Until Americans recognize that these deaths are premeditated murders, America will continue to kill for ‘prosperity’ and create millions of ‘terrorists’ in the process.
Jacob Freeze:
“And they wonder why official Washington just laughs at the blogs!”
First of all nobody gives a rat’s ass what “official” Washington thinks about these blogs. As you can see people here do not respect Washington or any of their subordinates like you.
Now coming back to your assertions that Europe should be grateful to America for all the protections we are offering them from the Communists: unless you’re as uneducated in history as a white-trash redneck from Tennessee you know its a big joke. People above made reasonable points so I won’t harp on it any further. So please read instead of laughing away when you have nothing substantial to offer.
Even if one assumes that Europe (and the US) indeed was under threat from the Communists, isn’t that befitting for a people who plotted to destroy them through a crazy Bolshevik hater? Did you ever read the history of pre-WWII diplomacy in Europe when UK, France AND US thought they could use Adolf to level the communist threat against their capitalist profits? Fast forward thru the next 60 years and Russia has stuck to their promises of disarmament as much as US and Europe have to their commitment to world peace. Nobody is supporting the Communists but the fact remains that we are no different than those crazy left-wingers who want their entire population to walk lock-step in rhythm for the good of the motherland. I smell patriotism here which was he basis of the Nazi movement as well.
This article wasn’t intended to be offer technical solutions to the problems the world faces because of this country. It took sarcastic jabs at US foreign policy through unreasonable responses to those problems which the author admits would require “a sea of changes” to be implemented.
At least the author posted an article which was based in humor. You try to put forth your most serious response and turn into a joke.
Americans in general do not have an appetite for war; we generally are dragged into war kicking and screaming. What has happened recently is the theft of the Presidency by a counterfit president, his henchmen, a complacent Congress and a complicit Supreme Court. Also, the arrogance that allowed this theft of the rule of law to occur also allows for misplaced sacrifice by others. No one in the inner circles of the Presidency has really ever gone to war or served in the military; nor has any member of their family or will they ever be likely to - that is just for you and me and our families to endure.
What we need and hopefully be getting after November, is a new President who will respect the rule of law, not lie to the American public and get us the hell our of Iraq asap.