The Sanctity of Military Spending
Administration officials announced last night that the President, in tomorrow's State of the Union address, will propose a multi-year freeze on certain domestic discretionary spending programs. This is an "initiative intended to signal his seriousness about cutting the budget deficit," officials told The New York Times.
But the freeze is more notable for what it excludes than what it includes. For now, it does not include the largest domestic spending programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And all "security-releated programs" are also exempted from the freeze, which means it does not apply to military spending, the intelligence budget, the Surveillance State, or foreign military aid. As always, the notion of decreasing the deficit and national debt through reductions in military spending is one of the most absolute Washington taboos. What possible rationale is there for that?
The facts about America's bloated, excessive, always-increasing military spending are now well-known. The U.S. spends almost as much on military spending as the entire rest of the world combined, and spends roughly six times more than the second-largest spender, China. Even as the U.S. sunk under increasingly crippling levels of debt over the last decade, defense spending rose steadily, sometimes precipitously. That explosion occurred even as overall military spending in the rest of the world decreased, thus expanding the already-vast gap between our expenditures and the world's. As one "defense" spending watchdog group put it: "The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six 'rogue' states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion." To get a sense for how thoroughly military spending dominates our national budget, consider this chart showing where Americans' tax revenue goes:
Since much of that overall spending is mandatory, military spending -- all of which is discretionary -- accounts for over 50% of discretionary government spending. Yet it's absolutely forbidden to even contemplate reducing it as a means of reducing our debt or deficit. To the contrary, Obama ran on a platform of increasing military spending, and that is one of the few pledges he is faithfully and enthusiastically filling (while violating his pledge not to use deceitful budgetary tricks to fund our wars):
President Barack Obama will ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of a record $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned.
In sum, as we cite our debtor status to freeze funding for things such as "air traffic control, farm subsidies, education, nutrition and national parks" -- all programs included in Obama's spending freeze -- our military and other "security-related" spending habits become more bloated every year, completely shielded from any constraints or reality. This, despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for the U.S. to make meaningful progress in debt reduction without serious reductions in our military programs.
Public opinion is not a legitimate excuse for this utterly irrational conduct, as large percentages of Americans are receptive to reducing -- or at least freezing -- defense spending. A June, 2009 Pew Research poll asked Americans what they would do about defense spending, and 55% said they would either decrease it (18%) or keep it the same (37%); only 40% wanted it to increase. Even more notably, a 2007 Gallup poll found that "the public's view that the federal government is spending too much on the military has increased substantially this year, to its highest level in more than 15 years." In that poll, 58% of Democrats and 47% of Independents said that military spending "is too high" -- and the percentages who believe that increased steadily over the last decade for every group.
The clear fact is that, no matter how severe are our budgetary constraints, military spending and all so-called "security-related programs" are off-limits for any freezes, let alone decreases. Moreover, the modest spending freeze to be announced by Obama tomorrow is just the start; the Washington consensus has solidified and is clearly gearing up for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, with the dirty work to be done by an independent "deficit commission." It's time for "everyone" to sacrifice and suffer some more -- as long as "everyone" excludes our vast military industry, the permanent power factions inside the Pentagon and intelligence community, our Surveillance and National Security State, and the imperial policies of perpetual war which feed them while further draining the lifeblood out of the country.
UPDATE: I just saw this scary headline on MSNBC, became very frightened, and have changed my mind, as I now realize we need to massively increase our military spending to Stay Safe!!!

As for the deficit, no need to worry about that. We can just freeze programs for national parks and cut Social Security and Medicare.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
143 Comments so far
Show All"The Sanctity of Military Spending"
A brilliant title that sums up the values of a society that puts coded references to bible psalms on the sides of rifle scopes whose sole purpose is to kill people...
Sioux Rose
NC... and Jesus was morphed into Mars, god of warfare.
Jesus was not morphed into Mars. The Anti-Christ, Satan, succeeded at representing himself as Christ. Suspect all those who speak of Christ more than they speak of Jesus, for they may be followers of Satan. While I am not a true believer in the literal sense, the metaphor is valid.
This is all a good argument as to "Why Socialism".
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
Great link to a great piece by a great human being.
I grew up reading biographies, history, and all things relating to Nature. I "knew" about the american story and its heroes. Time passed and instead of reading about people, I found pieces BY the people more valuable. The realization that everything I thought I knew was wrong (lies) set in. Einstein planted the seed of Socialism in my consciousness when I wasn't even looking for it.
Well done Rick.
Now let's try to plant the seeds of socialism to the people nearest and dearest to us who fear the word because of misconceptions. Figure out a way to get past their defenses, such as references to Einstein!
You got it donnalou. I've been referencing him for years. It isn't as effective coming from a third party. I've found that if they can be persuaded to read his words it has greater effect. Einstein was a great coupling of logic, reason, spirit and heart.
Another Socialist swept under the rug is Helen Keller, who was a devoted activist known only for disabilities.
Uh huh, and give the government MORE of our money.
They've done a great job with it so far
The planet is melting,
wars rage on every continent,
2,000,000,000 people are food insecure,
thousands die daily from want of medical care,
And all you think about is yourself.
Make your case for capitalism.
I double dare you.
We've spent trillions, and they keep telling us we're still not safe. You'd think some heads would roll or departments and agencies be canned. No matter how bad their track record, the answer is more power and more money.
Hey Rick, spread this one around.
Heartfelt reason by one of the most reasonable men.
Don't forget to line up like mindless drones at the airport and have our shoes smelled, our luggage gone thru, our bodies x-rayed, our laptops confiscated and to give up all of our 4th Amendment rights to stay safe.
America give 100 Million to the people of Haiti, and then ask for 33 Billion MORE to kill the people we are at war with.
How messed up is that?
I wonder if the little aliens are watching us and laughing their asses off. And waiting for us to kill ourselves before the step in and take our planet.
Nah, they are probably smarter than that then to sit by and watch us kill the planet after we kill all other inhabitants
Absolutely let’s cut all our military, even the men and women working in the military. Why should we even have one? If we open our borders tell everyone in the world we are a peace loving nation they will stop hating us. While we are at it lets give everyone the exact same thing that way no one is an individual. After all it's different philosophies that cause war and hatred.
I am afraid it's peace that must be taught as it seems war is in our very genes.
Gary
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-- Albert Einstein
No, war is not genetic. It is societal and exaggerated by capitalism.
Ah but it IS genetic, and war is prevalent through nearly all cultures we know of in this violent world of ours. Even apes make war and we are but short-haired apes. We NEED to admit this of ourselves in order to make war no more.
See: Genetics of aggression in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_influencing_aggression
Gary
"War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military."
-- Georges Clemenceau
No, competition for survival is, but war is not. War is aggression between states. Do the Inuits practice war? How about the Yananami? Many cultures have lived peaceful along side their neighbors. The reason war is so prevalent is because some warring cultures continue to threaten others. Many are at war because they have been attacked, but otherwise would continue on the path of peace. You used the qualifier "nearly all" which in itself hurts your argument. Have they not genes? Or the Swiss?
Sorry but you do NOT disprove my contention that aggression is genetic. What is hopeful is that a (too) few cultures HAVE managed to channel that aggression into peaceful pursuits. Very encouraging. Aggression clearly (and thankfully) can be overcome by early training and good role models. But what worries me is what kind of role models ARE we providing nowadays with violence on TV, in films, comics, and in video games? What about all the homes where abuse is practiced breeding more abusers? We seem to have a violent culture which breeds war.
War is not just conflict between states but between groups of people; ie: "period of armed fighting: a period of armed conflict between countries or groups." Ever hear of gang wars?
But oddly enough I see the prevalence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in returning and serving soldiers as an indicator of the inner conflict between the peaceful and empathic (and genetic) attributes of the soldier (sailor, airman) and the destructive impulses. Soldiers are conditioned to kill but this is a contradiction to "thou shall not kill" taught by many ethical practices.
Gary
BTW Sioux Rose, I read your long, sometimes rambling, postings with great interest. I just don't believe we should lie to ourselves about the Mars element BORN within us. Aggression is BOTH genetically based and further inflamed by culture, often though its archetypes. As it usually is, it's _both_ nature and nurture.
"A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy."
-- Aldous Huxley:
Sioux Rose
GARY: The mystics believe we possess 7 (or more) invisible energy vortexes known as chakras. The root chakra, which is a part of each of us, is rooted in self-interest of the primal sort. It is this primitive area which exists in every human being... but it is also the one that EVERY spiritual teaching works to tame. The evolved soul integrates self-interest into a non-aggressive framework. Some may say the maturity that brings about that capacity is based upon the intellect, others, will say it's based on an opening of the heart. My best answer to you is that just as white light represents a compilation of ALL colors vibrating in a balanced manner, the root chakra, our personal "Red zone" can be integrated in such a way as to balance with the HIGHER drives, such as those related to the thirst for knowledge, the wish to be part of a meaningful community, the urge to Love and be loved... and so these urges taken in concert are stronger than the base urges... except in those societies that spend considerable resources inculcating members to believe in the urge to fight, to celebrate violence, and worst of all, to be taught that it represents God's will. This is a very over-condensed version of the sacred teachings of the mystics. I prefer them infinitely to the mundane observations of earthbound, non-spiritual thinkers like Freud. (I do feel his work on the unconscious and subconscious were valuable.)
I wonder if you will return here? I missed posting yesterday due to personal demands on my time.
Sioux Rose
GARY: Have you missed all the posts that eloquently elaborated on the impact of socialization, belief in the angry god(s), Hollywood's glamorization of aggressive (usually in-uniform) males, team sports and the passionate need to win at all costs, ETC? In our genes, my ass. Maybe you are new to CD (?), and missed the very long posts I shared on the influence of the archetype of Mars over modern America. I get tired of repeating myself, and plenty in this forum already know "The mantra."
Hello Sioux Rose -
I had a thought today concerning sports.
It is very important to be a "good loser".
Is this why there are no masses on the streets?
That is not necessarily true. There massive protests before Iraq but none of that made a dent. There were massive protests and contacting Congress critters before TARP passed but it didn't work. History has always shown that the chances of a massive protest influencing the governing is 50/50. I don't believe that people are feeling good to be losers but that they are unsure as to how to approach the problem. In sports, even the loser gets paid huge lumpsums but not everywhere else. Another factor to consider is to some extent the June 2009 poll mentioned in this article that mentioned that 37% wanted military spending to stay the same and 40% increase it. Military spending is way up and 77% don't mind it ! The Hollywood glamorization of men and women and uniforms and the rugged nature of sports more aligned to the war interests that Sioux Rose refers to might explain why 40% still want more military spending even more than the media scaring the people here and there. My guess is that the people thinking they are winning when they are mesmerized like that and thus don't feel the need to protest. There is a difference between one who feels good about losing versus one who thinks he's winning even when he is losing.
Sioux Rose
LAWTON: (Although I sense you posted here under a former screen name) Thank you for substantiating my position. More needs to be said with regard to the "empathy deficit" that shows if 77% still support military "solutions." In my view, the very premise is an oxymoron. What makes for this incapacity to identify with other? What allows for a population to "come and go and talk of Michelangelo" while the killing goes on as the banality of evil? The social and economic conditioning that have made America into a dog-eat-dog society, an "every man/woman out for himself" hierarchy where understanding, if it is to be found at all, comes from generally belonging to a group like a church or a family. In both instances, chances are high that these groups themselves conform to the direction the nation has been moving in. Also worth noting is the 24/7 DIS-information media that not only does not show the bodies, the senseless parade of unending carnage, the blood and lost limbs to very real people... but speaks about these conflicts precisely in the parlance of sports, so that the only thing that is ALLOWED to matter is the idea that we are "winning."
As to the poster who is either very poorly informed, or another plant, who asks "what of the women of Afghanistan?" The premise is insidious as the more troops that spend time in that land, the more the local powers assume more control to fight off this outside force. And that is indeed VERY bad news for the women in that broken land. Can someone please mention the name of that wonderful young, female activist (who also has earned a political title) from Afghanistan who explains things quite convincingly as a witness to the state of her own people? She has made it clear that women there would prefer to see the military leave, lest it build schools and do all the things U.S. citizens are told they do, when in fact, those represent paltry efforts in the face of what their real objectives are.
Malalai Joya.
A very brave individual.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/malalai-joya
Sioux Rose
VDB: Thank you for providing the name! The loser thing, well, I'm not that into sports so it's not an aspect I really identify with. It could well be a factor, but in my mind it's hardly the most important one. I still think the macho programming is a stronger influence.
there are plenty of good loser Democrats, displeased with 0 but remaining true to their school, hoping to do better at the next re-match.
Republicans are, on the other hand, poor losers.
and they cheat.
Sioux, I have seen this site before and have listened to what everyone has said before giving my own thoughts just in case there was something I might not have known before but I'm relatively new here. I started visiting this site earlier this month.
There is so much to share not only about Obama but more importantly the nature of his supporters who are responsible for not only enabling him but also creating a double standard of judging the same actions but of another individual differently. I can see where individualism and dog-eat-dog have a strong connection to 77% in favor of continuing or increasing military spending.
The poster you mentioned has a very familiar name which I think is the same one on Huffington Post. I already got banned there for discussing the double standard nature of the Obama conservatives. I believe that the name of that young female activist from Afghanistan is Malalai Joya (www.malalaijoya.com). She is a wonderful speaker that even some Obama conservatives were forced to cower in shame. I have still run into some of them who will still refuse to accept the truth she speaks without fear. Here's an outrageous statement from one of them. "Joya is a member of Parliament and she can speak because the US troops got rid of the Taliban so that she could bash Obama !" Utterly stupid in thinking, they can't even get their timings right. At no time did the US ever get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. All they did was temporary relocate them, jumped into Iraq while they slowly came back, and now they want us to believe that the Obama administration is giving them hope and feeling victory? I run into so many Obama conservatives just like that poster lots of times. Some of them were anti-war before Obama was elected and some of those I had met used to write peace speeches that would resonate well. There no longer there to be found. Poor them.
It is hard to know who to trust until that other party comes into power and then we know who's really progressive versus who was just a party campaigner.
Sioux Rose
LAWTON: Thanks for the post. You know, when I was a very young child, maybe 4 or 5, I remember watching a Candid Camera episode with my father. I remember it because my father didn't show much emotion, and he laughed out loud on this. The sketch involved people protesting with signs that were absolutely blank. The humor involved exposing how stupid people could be in not even knowing THE CAUSE, but still picking up a sign and essentially protesting something that was an utter blank (to them and others). To me, that's right up there with the allegory of "The Emperor's New Clothes."
I relate this because it helps me to understand how it is possible that the same policies of evil taken by Bush when "REBRANDED" as favored by Obama, are accepted, if by virtue of a reluctant pass. Too many are willing to march with their blank signs!
Another allusion that comes to mind involved a very funny underground presentation that was known as "Groove Tube." It was a series of parodies, and one had a priest smoking a cigarette. He said (as he puffed away), "New Testment. I smoke 'em" (and then pointing at the heavens), "He smokes 'em." I loved that... advertising will do anything, it is THE most amoral of all expressions. Obama is a product of advertising in many ways.
The original film "Bedazzled" that stars Dudley Moore opens with the devil as a modern guy and he congratulates himself on the fact that after all these centuries, he's FINALLY come to invent an 8th sign. And what is it? Advertising! Bernays and Lucifer have probably had much to converse about over the years. How many lives were ruined by the seductions of things (unhealthy) advertised? Could that reference pose as a modern equivalent of brave Odysseus crashing into the rocks due to responding to the plaintive call of the sea siresn?
my suggestion was facetious.
or was it?
I couldn't tell. But you're not necessarily wrong either. It could be a combination of those who used to enjoying losing and those who delude themselves into believing that they are winning even as they are losing.
See my reply SR below in reponse to another well-intended posting that simply ignores the science.
And common sense.
Gary
"The tendency of aggression is an innate, independent, instinctual disposition in man... it constitutes the most powerful obstacle to culture.”
-- Sigmund Freud
Sioux Rose
FREUD mistook women's lack of access to things as important as: choosing their mates, wanting free time, wishing to vote, needing to own their own $/property/personal autonomy as evidence of neurosis arising over a missing penis. Your "common sense" about aggression is as passe as your quoting that sexist, narrow thinker! And you are deluded with your military budget, too. I trust GREENWALD over you!
It is ironic that the country with the largest military on Earth, geographically needs it the least. We are boarded by two huge oceans and two friendly countries. For all practical purposes it is impossible for any other country to invade us. There wouldn't be enough ships in the world to send in enough troops to occupy the country.
How about this solution.
1) bring all our troops home and put them on the border and allow no one in or out, well we can let them out but you can't return.
2) Stop all imports and exports. become a completly organic state.
3) Take all the money in the US and give everyone the same amount. no more classes.
4) The only work you have to do is for the state, and every citizen must work from the ages of 18-35, after that you get to retire. Since money will have no value anyone who is unable to contribute to society will be kicked out.
5)....?
Pretty draconian suggestions; the epitome of Isolationism.
How about bring all troops home from every overseas base, demobilize them, but let their enlistments continue and utilize them as an infrastructure repair corp. Scrap Space Command, the Air Force, all but 2 divisions of the army, most of the navy and marines, retaining only two carrier groups and their attached marine brigades (one in Norfolk, the other in Hawaii), while slightly expanding the coast guard. Retire the CIA, NSA, the Department of Homeland Insecurity, and all the various bureaucratic agencies involved with empire promotion and maintenence (there are many sprinkled throughout the executive). That would eliminate about $1 Trillion in spending.
Depersonalize corporations and mandate they all become non-profit.
Write a democratic, open government based, constitution greatly limiting the power and scope of the executive and political parties, while reworking the election process and enabling the leveling of incomes.
Establish a non-capitalist steady-state economy that promotes forms of enrichment and fulfillment that aren't monetarilly based.
Commerce has existed since the dawn of humanity, so it makes zero sense to outlaw it. Then there are many people who would really like to make a contribution to society but cannot because of disabilities, who you favor exiling.
"...let their enlistments continue and utilize them as an infrastructure repair corp."
They contracted to be slaves to the military for fighting wars. They did not contract to become slave labor for repairing infrastructure. I agree mostly with your other ideas.
Thanks for your reply--When I was a Stormtrooper, I was required to follow lawful orders, whatever those might have been. We did quite a lot of infrastructure-related work when we weren't training for war. There's no rule/law requiring Stormtroopers to remain in their Military Occupational Specialty. The idea is to keep them out of the labor force, while allowing them to continue to earn their pay, but no effort at reinlistment would be made.
How about this solution:
Cut military spending by half.
Use the money that is saved on schools, colleges, public health, new infrastructure.
Sioux Rose
NC: It's never been about need, it's more akin to motive and opportunity. Think in terms of the facts as presented by the likes of Smedley Butler. War makes a lot of money for those whose consciences are not bothered by such an investment. So long as the vast majority are taught to bow to mammon and worship at the "love of money" altar, then Mars and its militaristic legions will be necessary to protect what's taken (or assist in the heist). America, "God shed his grace on thee" style, has been blessed with enormous resources; but due to evidence of "Insatiable Greed Disorder" in too many powerbrokers, enough has never been enough. And therein lies the problem.
Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket" should be required reading in high schools across this country. But we all know fat chance of that ever happening.
LAH,Thanks for the input.
But your analysis of the article is just plain inaccurate. It didn't say that we shouldn't have a military. It didn't say we should open our borders. It didn't say everyone should be the same.
Your closed mind has disabled your ability to take in information.
You weren't even able to read this article coherently.
You sound as if you're he victim of brainwashing! A lot of that goes on and it's not your fault. But only you can claim your right to think for yourself. Freedom has no meaning if you're afraid to open your mind. I'm sure there is something of value there. Then we can talk.
We love free-thinkers on this website.
Iowa,
Why is my “free-thinking” not an open minded response? I thought “free-thinkers” had the right to come up with whatever analysis they wish to conclude? Or is my “free thinking” not free at all? Now you have me confused, am I only suppose to think a certain way, can I not be entitled to my own view? Is it only “free-thinking” when we are all on the same page? I don’t want to be closed minded so please help me become a better “free-thinker” so can get rid of these chains that shackle me down to the brainwashing!
LAH,
I stated that you were brainwashed because you seemed to be unable to read this article accurately and attached several right-wing issues which were not even discussed.
Here are a few reasons why I think our military spending is WAY too high.
1) We need to focus on creating jobs in the US right now, too many people are unemployed. Especially jobs that will end our reliance on oil so that we can be energy independent.
2) Military contractors are robbing us blind. We need to stop the corruption and reduce the deficit that way.
3) We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. This causes other countries to think they have to spend more. It is a senseless cycle of waste.
4) We simply don't have the money. The republicans cut taxes on the rich to almost nothing. Where is this $$$ coming from. We need to stop borrowing from China. Or do you want your taxes increased to pay for this? Or maybe you want to pay $1,000,000 to send another soldier to the middle east for 1 year?
"Or maybe you want to pay $1,000,000 to send another soldier to the middle east for 1 year?"
A million dollars would build four pretty damn nice houses in many parts of the country. And spending a million that way instead of flushing it down the toilet of needless military expense, which provides NO return on investment, would provide a lot more lasting economic value.
Think what we could do with a billion. We've become so used to throwing these numbers around as if it was just a few bucks here and there. A billion is one thousand millions. That would equate to 4000 nice new homes. A hundred billion? 400,000 new homes. A trillion? Economist Joseph Stiglitz said the Iraq war alone would cost over a trillion dollars if we figured in all costs.
A trillion dollars. For one useless, needless war, with all of the accompanying human and economic destruction. A trillion dollars? FOUR MILLION new homes. SO. Iraq is costing us FOUR MILLION NEW HOMES. Afghanistan will cost us the same. That's EIGHT MILLION NEW HOMES all told that we could have built here if not for Iraq and Afghanistan. 10% of our population could be living in new homes today. Think of all the economic stimulus that might have provided.
Instead, we are choosing to bomb countries into rubble.
Ours is a psychopathic country.
We could stop it.
But we won't.
Don't forget to watch American Idol this evening.
If you count all of the other military spending, such as supplimentary bills, CIA, Homeland Security, Blackwater, etc it soon becomes apparent that the USA spends around TWICE the total sum of the rest of the worlds military spending combined. It has 250 military bases outside the USA. And to top it off, there is no threat to the USA. There is no country that could, in USA style, invade and occupy us.
Defence?!? be serious the USA is a paranoid schizophrenic who is armed to the teeth and is selling his books, clothes and food in order to buy another weapon.
Do you even have any idea how much debt the USA is in? Your public education is in an absolute morass, and you have no public health system. Its banana republic time for you and yours.
Basically, I agree, but that is more like 850 bases in 130 countries; nobody seems to know for sure.
Look at it: 741,000,000,000 dollars (combined) spending on war and preparing for war. It makes my breakfast want to return. It saddens my very soul, It angers me. No, it INFURIATES me!
Jobs are disappearing like water droplets on a hot skillet, people are losing their homes right and left, we get a health-care bill that hands out our diminishing income to insurance and pharmaceutic companies, and the list goes on and on and on.
But our precious Military Budget not only cannot be touched but has to be INCREASED! This is madness, purely and simply insane.
But our corrupt corporate Congress will pass it with hardly a whimper. They ALWAYS do.
Gary
PS BTW I am suggesting the name "The People" ("The People Party") for a new unity party to bring together the dozen or so "third-parties" that better represent the actual positions of the American people than the present duopoly. Imagine campaigning for "The People."
"Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come."
-- Carl Sandburg, The People, Yes (1936)
"That'll be the day!"
Buddy Holly
"Hello Baby!"
The Big Bopper
Terrific and most relevant article by Glenn Greenwald. This piece fits in quite nicely with the scene in the well made documentary Why We Fight when congress person after congress person attempts to justify on the House floor why his or her state supposedly cannot do without the latest fighter jet or B1 bomber. As Steven Hill points out in his well written book Europe's Promise: Why The European Way Is The Best Hope In An Insecure Age, "Europe ... spends less than 2 per cent of its gross domestic product on defense and so has vastly more resources to plow into workfare supports for its people." Will any U.S. congress person have the courage and common sense to point this out after Obama gives his speech on Wednesday? I tend to doubt it.
As for me, I will be offering my own humble rebuttal to America's idiotic obsession in building and using more bullets, bombs, and the latest fighter jets by wearing one of my buttons which points out what should be the priority of this country:
HEALTHCARE NOT WARFARE
We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined does on its. It bites at leat 51% of our tax dollars, (did I read the chart right) If we could cut it back to 41% we could afford even the bloated corrupt private health care subsidies that Obama wants. I think that for my taxes I should get Healthcare not 1984 style perpetual Warfare. We spend three trillion dollars to destroy a nation that did not attack us and directly or indirectly take a million innocent lives doing it. We better hope that there isn't a God, or at least that he doesn't care about justice because if on the off chance there is a God who does care our day of judgement is coming.
Remember that American civilian deaths should also be counted when it comes to the lack of affordable healthcare for all ...
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday."
Grabbed from: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917
The fact that military spending trumps social spending with the US government should make it abundantly clear to everyone that the excuse of "protecting American citizens from terrorism" is a hollow myth. How many 9/11s, year after year, would have to take place to wipe out the equivalent American lives as lack of healthcare presently does?
It's time to look at the real reason for the militarization of the American economy. It IS NOT to protect American citizens. It is to protect US corporate interests around the globe by launching state terrorism against other people who might want to free themselves from yoke of American imperialism.
Sioux Rose
STRUGGLE: Your point is so glaringly obvious and logical, but it will never be uttered on the MSM to allow those who haven't the capacity to connect these dots to see and recognize what the connection means (to their quality of life, or lack of same).
These are all (illegal) elective wars. Stop funding these war crimes!
Stop funding these war crimes! Stop paying your taxes!!
I'd rather see a majority of my taxes go to social programs as the Europeans do instead of the "American" military way, thank you very much. Taxes will go up and we can see where it will go: military spending. When will the people organize against this trend? After we all are living in hovels on the brink of famine?
It really is strange as to how Much a people will take. It seems they can be sleeping under a bridge, their children crying for food and many will still wave that flag and chant "support the troops".
The right wing pundits claim "welfare mothers" waste taxpayer money buying beer and cigarettes yet have no issues with spending 2 billion dollars on a single aircraft that will crash if a bird flies into it.
When was the last time you dialed the pentagon to avail yourself of any of their "armed services"?
"... If you wish to receive your drone on our next business day, press '1' now; if you wish to receive your drone on a scheduled wedding day, press '2'; if you wish to receive your drone at a funeral within the next 72 hours, press '3'...
... Thank you for choosing the Pentagon! Goodbye!"
· Yr Obd't Servant
Any politician who does not call for cuts in military spending will not get my vote. That's a simple litmus test.
Even if Mr Obama wanted to cut munitions spending...which seems extremely unlikely at this point...he knows that soon after his announcement there would be another "terrorist" attack which would make his desires moot plus make him hated even more by the bozos who showed up at the meetings last summer fighting against health care reform.
This train is rolling, folks...there's no stopping it...not by people like us. Spring is coming...plan out your garden and hope the NWO doesn't come in the shape of a mushroom cloud.
How ironic is it that the defense industry is killing us?
WAR INDUSTRY.
I would reword it: The defense of industry is killing us.
"only 40 percent think that Military spending should be increased"
An Odd choice of words. If 40 percent really believe such it is a huge number. It akin to saying only 40 percent of people do not think murder should be considered a crime.
Hums the Monty Python ditty "every bullet is sacred".
Remember, all that polls *measure* is the effectiveness or lack thereof of government propaganda. That 40% believe the party line is freakin depressing, but in many ways par for the course here in the good old USA, where few people bother to take the time to inform themselves and simply react to the color-coded MSM alerts and the related commentary that explains to them why they need to be scared and believe in their Masters.......
Sioux Rose
GWNORTH: I find this suspect, too. Lakoff reminds us that polls often reflect the WAY a question is framed. So if the naive were told in the event of a pending terrorist attack (or led to believe such a fate was inevitable), would they want the government to spend more on defense/security, naturally they would say yes. I'll bet most of these yes men and women are clueless as to how much IS spent. We hear figures like the defense budget this year being the ballpark of $600 billion, or whatever; but the "official sum" never includes the costs of the Vet hospitals and the care of the permanently wounded; it doesn't consider satellite programs in radical forms of weapons production, or the underground military, i.e. the paid private contractors, or the CIA, or black op "projects," or maybe even the costs of seeing citizens as potential enemy combatants in our very own Homeland Security Nexus. The numbers are as covert as the code to entry at Fort Knox.
If Oboma said tomorrow night that he was freezing military spending you would see a false flag of major proportions. The war budget is off the table and is the sacred cow of American politics.
MSNBC and WaPo think that Al Qaida's desire to hit the US with WMD is news?
Here's an interesting connection reported by Reuters:
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. securities regulators originally treated the New York Federal Reserve's bid to keep secret many of the details of the American International Group bailout like a request to protect matters of national security, according to emails obtained by Reuters."
If we the people can get into the inner workings of AIG, it will expose a great deal about both war and financial crimes.
Another brilliant piece about our corporate-military prison.
Here's what beats the current WMD bullshit campaign:
http://www.huliq.com/8059/90797/female-suicide-bombers-linked-al-qaeda-trained-us-attacks
And how 'bout this from ABC News?:
"White House lawyers are mulling the legality of proposed attempts to assassinate an American citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who is believed to be part of the leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen, according to two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials.
"One of the people briefed said opportunities to "take out" Awlaki "may have been missed" because of the legal questions surrounding a lethal attack which would specifically target an American citizen.
"A spokesperson said the White House declined to comment.
"Hundreds of FBI and other federal agents will fan out this week as part of a secret operation to pursue leads about Americans with connections to Yemen that were previously dismissed as not significant, according to law enforcement officials."
Not arrest, detain, interrogate, and try Awlaki -- but murder him outright.
The FBI and "other federal agents"(Blackwater perhaps?) will fan out this week? Will every U.S. citizen who ever visited Yemen be arrested? Sent to Gitmo or Bagram? Disappeared? Perhaps given the same treatment accorded by the FBI & other federal agents to Mark Clark and Fred Hampton?
I defy anyone to see daylight between the Obama/Bush Administration approach to law and that showed by the pre-1940 Third Reich. And just like 1939 Germany, needs to be violently overthrown.
"Not arrest, detain, interrogate, and try Awlaki -- but murder him outright."
no surprise - WACO.
Thanks for pointing out the ABC news report. The reader responses to the story at the following site are truly depressing (I split the URL into two lines).
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anwar-awlaki-us-mulls-legality-killing-american-al-qaeda-turncoat/
story?id=9651830
If those responses are representative, it seems that Americans are eager to be citizens of a fascist state. The responses display a dismal lack of understanding of history, particularly of the origins of the United States, and a cowardly lack of faith in basic principles of justice.
One of the largest arguments used for not decreasing military funding is that the MIC is one of the largest employers in the US. Conventional beltway wisdom states that reduced military funding would increase unemployment.
I contend that this is a fallacy perpetrated by the MIC to frighten law makers (and they have been so successful). The MIC employs graduates and other highly-intelligent people. Such people are less at risk of unemployment because, simply, they are smart and motivated. Sacking them all, and making funding available for green-technology would soak up all the ex-MIC workers. One could believe that new jobs (beyond the ex-MIC workers) would actually be created and hey, we would have an industry that is good for our country and good for exports.
The marginal value of one more destroyer or fighter jet is negative: these are simply bad investments, cash sinkholes. The advantage of gov't spending on green technologies is that these would not simply be jobs-programs (as most MIC projects are), they would be actual investments that would greatly enhance our lives and fatten our bottom lines moving forward.
The MIC and the other powers that be actually WANT America broke, misemployed, and indebted. It makes us much more docile, and increases the number of voices arguing for no cuts to MIC's budget because the alternative is unemployment.
Not to mention the fact that plenty of people could be put to work rebuilding the nations railway system, mass transit and building trains, something that would go a long way to reducing our energy consumption.
We could expand Amtrack to the standards of European rail systems and then sell it, with the money from the sale going back to the government/taxpayers.
But the elites - starting a long time ago - had a different idea for the future of this country, namely, Imperial World-Dominator and Number 1 Arms Dealer on planet earth, who would simply take what it wants by force.
We are being ruled by scum, there is no other way to say it. Sorry.
Let's see the military spending for what it is: a jobs program that enriches a certain constituency--the politically conservative. The active military, veterans, the arms industry, all of the contractors that do everything from intelligence to providing meals to the military--all of them account for a large proportion of the American economy. That is why defense spending is off limits.
Included in "the permanent power factions inside the Pentagon and intelligence community" we have generals who want the game to go on so that they can retire and become defense industry lobbyists and executives and get rich.
And in that position, they of course will be appearing on a cablenews propaganda channel near you as paid *analysts* explaining why we need to invade or bomb or surge or whatever.
Like Wall St., pharma and health-industry vampires, the MIC doesnt give a damn if they bankrupt this country financially and morally, just so long as they get theirs. They are in fact the real traitors to this country.
As for the ideological component, a psychotic brand of Islam-hating fundamentalist christianity has infiltrated the military - no doubt deliberately because of its obvious usefulness in helping to brainwash a large portion of the troops so that they will "believe in the mission."
And dont forget the psychological component: these people are living out a twisted version of the *heroic life*, and without all the war and money to be made by the Blackwater/Xe scum, they would have to become everyday human beings. For the top dogs, it's simply all about the money - big money - as usual.
The military is a "build it, and wars will come" outfit, too. Albright's question: "What is the point of having a military if you don't use it?" applies here. The Pentagon will always be hyping this threat or that, insisting the only way to deal with it is through armed response. And the dunderheads in Congress, without a blink of the eye, will hand over another foreign policy decision to the military. At this point, I can only wait until this hollowed-out shell of a country will collapse under its own weight. May it come sooner, not later.
And the people will go along as enthusiastically as the congress! Quoting Greenwald:
"A June, 2009 Pew Research poll asked Americans what they would do about defense spending, and 55% said they would either decrease it (18%) or keep it the same (37%); only 40% wanted it to increase."
I read that as "77% wanted it to either increase or stay the same." Only 18% (slightly more than 1 in 6) wanted to decrease military spending, no matter how awful the empire's crimes or how broke the treasury. Americans are doomed and rightly so. It's reminiscent of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, really.
Personally I always wondered how it got accepted Sodom and Gomorrah were sinpots when what they did was (in Sodom), after a long war, demand that Lot explain the presence of two strangers (angels) that snuck into his house one night. The neighbors got suspicious of Lot, whom I always got the impression wasn't particularly well thought in the first place, and asked him to bring the guys out so they could be questioned. For this affront the neighbors got struck blind and the twin cities got fried. While Lot, that righteous man, went on the screw his daughters while drunk.
Is that the story you were referring to?
Gary
"If God doesn't destroy Hollywood Boulevard, he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology."
-- Jay Leno
RE: Solutions to Reduce or Eliminate Your Direct Support of Military Industrial Complex
How many of the Common Dream readers are paying a lot of federal taxes of which at least 50% go to the MIC?
How many have voluntarily reduced their work hours to reduce the income that is taxed?
RE: Solution; Invest In Renewables to Lose Fed Tax Burden
Others have invested in renewable energy technologies and conservation measures to reduce or eliminate their federal tax burden.
Sure the payoff monetarily may take years but you'll have a lifetime of satisfaction knowing that you didn't support the military and US Empire Wars on top of doing something for the biosphere as well as your credit union savings account.
A solar water heater for $7 grand gets a 30% tax credit or about 2100 dollar federal tax credit.
A new qualifying heat pump gets a 30% fed tax credit.
On demand water heater that cost about $1000 gets 30% tax credit.
There are lots of other cheaper conservation measures that also get tax credits.
If you have already installed those measure listed above one could invest in a solar electric system say for about 10 grand or more and get a 30% tax credit.
Look it up on www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm
US imperialism is a 112-year old tradition. Invading, occupying, bombing, overthrowing third world countries so that our corporations can get raw materials on the cheap. Enslaving the poor people of Haiti for cheap labor for American clothing manufacturers...
Pres. Obama is the drone-murder-King. No charges, no judge, no trials, just drone-executions, murder Obama-style.
Only a "112-year old tradition"? The blatant aggression against Mexico in 1846 to steal 1/2 of its land wasn't imperialist? Or dispossession of Native Americans and their forced relocations to bantustans wasn't Imperialist and present from the inception of the United States, thus making US Imperialism a 234-year-old tradition?
Republicans = God, Guns & Greed
Democrats = WD-40 to make it slip -- Duct tape to make it stick.
Republicans = Party of the MIC
Democrats = Party of the Bankers
But since the banks and MIC work together quite comfortably, it's a distinction without a difference.
What'll take the shine off of the military is a resounding defeat by the Afghan freedom fighters, not an impossibility, considering the fact that Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires. What's more the fate of Argentina's fascist military junta after that nation's armed forces were defeated by Great Britain in the Falkland Islands War supports this premise. What happened was public support for militarism took a shark nosedive, the military junta was deposed with several of its members ending up in the hoosegaw and democracy being restored.
Sioux Rose
YOURS TRULY: I am not so sure about your recipe for taking the "shine" off the military. As it is, Vietnam has never been properly reconciled in a manner that would allow for healing, reconciliation and transcendence. the Iraqi debacle as presented to the public is OTHER than the actual profligate waste and defeat, punctuated by fields of the dead that it is; and it's plausible that the dis-information machine will feed to the public a pabulum version of actual events in Afghanistan, too. Truth hardly matters to the ones in charge; and so long as they own the megaphones, and the police are on duty, prepared to beat off other voices with their sticks, the task of creating the groundswell that would make these ungodly wars fought falsely in the name of alleged deities (when in reality, they are conducted in homage to Mars and Mammon) exposed for what they are. This exposure represents THE ultimate challenge of our times.
"Vietnam has never been properly reconciled"
caveat - Good Loserism only if beaten by a homeland team.
Are you aware that the Falklands War was a war for oil; that the Argentines sought to retrieve what ought to be theirs by simple geographic proximity?
Good point, Karlof and YT! Yes, Britain was in the wrong in the Falklands war. But also yes, Argentina's defeat was good for Argentinians, as it led to the collapse of the military dictatorship. And OUR SITUATION NOW IS SIMILAR. We shouldn't just be for "peace." We should be for defeat of the empire in every battle it brings on itself.
What a monumental waste of money, considering how badly hurt people are in this bankrupt nation. Trillions to cover WallStreet bets. What did our financiers build with all their activity? Vaporware, mountains of derivatives not worth a dime. Trillions to the MIC. What does the MIC make with all this cash? Some of it delivers death for oil. Some of it keeps Republicans employed and docile. Most of it gets decommissioned to an Arizona desert or California Bay, having done absolutely nothing to secure the nation but burn oil during its brief usable life.
What a monumental waste of money in a nation that can't afford to burn up money any more.
Sioux Rose
Mr. Greenwald states, "As always the notion of decreasing the deficit and national debt through reductions in military spending is one of the most absolute Washington taboos. What possible rationale is there for that?"
Answer: Evidence, pure and simple that Mars rules! The military gets the meat, and throws the bones to the masses.
I do not recall the poster who challenged me when I said (in a recent column) that half of U.S. spending goes to the military. Whomever you are, please take a good look at the pie that Mr. Greenwald has placed on display in living color. Hard to argue with facts so bold as these!
If ever our nation needed a political lobotomy, it is now. Such disgusting, amoral, deadly priorities (in feeding resources to the death machine, a monster) when SO MUCH is at stake! I don't think history could possibly hold up the spectre of a more wasteful use of precious resources when intelligent direction mattered so much. And was so clearly evidencing a dereliction of duty, not to mention sanity!
If you argue with Republicans they will always throw the outlays for SocSec/Medicare/etc (i.e. nondiscretionary spending) in with the discretionary spending to shrink the 'pie slice' of military spending. They do this even though they know these nondiscretionary spending items have their own source of funding. They will then combine all the spending items that could be termed 'social spending' (including SocSec, etc) and point out what a huge slice of pie that is.
The unspoken context of their argument, of course, is that SocSec is 'discretionary' (which I'm sure it is, for them). But its the appropriate retort when they do this: "so you think SocSec should be discretionary, renegotiated each year by Congress?" That usually puts a sock in it.
The biggest item on the pie chart is labeled "Current military spending and cost of past wars", but unfortunately there's no indication of which past wars it includes, or why they include the costs of past wars in a chart showing the allocation of US 2009 taxes. The chart was copied from at http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#USMilitarySpending, which attributes it to Friends Committee on National Legislation, but I couldn't find the chart at their website, www.fcnl.org.
I agree with the thrust of Glenn Greenwald's article, and with your comments, but it seems that he could have chosen a better source than that pie chart.
The perversity of the United States of Global Domination.
If the Trillions of dollars spent on the Pentagon in the past twenty years had gone instead to universal health care, education, environmental restoration, green technologies, higher Miles per Gallon efficiency vehicles, better mass transit systems, and improving infrastructure, - the U.S. would be the the target of emulation and admiration.
Instead, both dominating political parties have put their faith in Greed, Wastefulness, a police state, and warmongering.
Millions of people around the world have been displaced, denied human rights, and murdered because of the arrogance and smug disinterest on the part of republicans and democrats who both INSIST on feeding the lying military monster. There is NO good ending as long as this nation believes in military force more than human rights.
Imagine a household where they spent at least half of each month's income on weapons. Then, imagine that THEY went around telling all the neighbors how the neighbors should run their households and forced many of the neighbors to house THEIR extended family and weapons. Then, imagine that THEY controlled the police and the courts. Would you even want to live in the same county?
As bad as the above scenario sounds, the reality of U.S. global brutality is worse. So, naturally, the democrats and the republicans both lie and say they are doing it for "freedom" and "democracy".
Sioux Rose
BIRDBRAIN: Bravo! Bravo! You really brought the truth home! Well-done!
Any bird brain would admit that we are living in a military dictatorship with O as commander-in-chief.
Why are we spending 15 billion to fortify Guam? Perhaps to intimidate China?
Close foreign military bases and stop pandering to Israel, and the so called war on terror would fade away.
Military, military, everywhere! We are but minnows in comparison with the soldiers and their generals marching hidden in front of us all.
I cannot doubt the insincere nature of this administration to mimic the previous administration but Obama is not alone. The culprits are his loyal supporters, aka Obama conservatives, who made it very easy for their chosen candidate to do anything he or she wants and not be called out for it.
But before I get to that, first I think that it is necessary to say why the double standards in spending. We have two major parties in America and the one out of power will complain about wasteful spending of the other side but when the complaining side gets into power they will act as if they never complained about it while the now out of power side will suddenly complain. One side complains about wasteful spending on social programs while the other complains about wasteful spending on military related matters. To be honest, both sides are getting their spending wrong and here is why. Both sides believe in throwing enormous money wherever they please but neither side gives a thought to making a bigger bang for the buck a high priority. Let's take health care and education spending. Money gets thrown at school and insurance companies on a faith based basis that they'll produce better students and by loyal to their customers respectively. There is little accountability for insurance companies and depending upon the nature of the school(s) little accountability there too. Similarly, on military spending enormous amounts of money get thrown with the fallacy that this is the best way to keep America safe. Military contractors are not required to uphold the oaths and people in power can invent lies and exaggerations about theoretical threats becoming very likely without having to prove their allegations.
Getting back to the Democrats and military spending, here's what I suspect has been happening. The Obama conservatives who would otherwise rail against the Bush administration on spending cuts on domestic programs and increases in military spending turned desperate after losses in 2002 and 2004. They figured that if the Republicans could get away with winning at all costs, why not the Democrats. From there, they started out by getting into the habit of tolerating conservative practices. The unfortunate consequences of this strategy was finding ways to defend spending cuts on domestic spending and spending increases on military related matters. Ask the Obama conservatives to defend this failing health care plan and why they opposed single payer and their responses are outrageous. One person told me "well if the conservatives hate it, then Obama is doing the right thing". Another would say "Obama is making the incremental move to single payer" even though the current legislation is geared to keeping single payer further out of reach. Ask the Obama conservatives why they suddenly stay silent on Obama's plan to continue the wars that they would loudly oppose during Bush's presidency and again the responses are outrageous. One person would say "we can't pull out overnight. We need to send in more troops or those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will be stuck !". This kind of fallacious thinking is what the neocons can count on to continue their long term plans to increase military spending and indefinitely prolong the occupations. Here's another outrageous statement from a pro-war Obama conservative. "Democrats are always called weak on defense and Obama must prove that he's strong on the war on terrorism. Evangelical churches are very kind and helpful while Muslims and atheists don't care about the poor ! Obama is trying to win the war on terrorism and all you want to do is use him for scapegoating! You want Obama to fail don't you ?!?" I had gotten into a nasty argument with that person when I tried to correct her on her misunderstanding of Muslims and atheists but it was no use. Try to tell the Obama conservatives about Obama's refusal to be the change he sort of promised to be and they turn hostile and throw tantrums. They have not only sunk into the Reagan/Bush conservatism but they have also regressed in ways never heard of. This is the serious political illness of the Obama conservatives that I suspect Obama is basing his entire agenda and presidency on.
Here is what I predict of the Obama conservatives:
2010 - Obama conservatives beg voters to elect more Democrats on the basis that the Republicans will block Obama's agenda.
2012 - Obama conservatives cry "He's only had 4 years to clean 8 years of Bush's mess. Give him some more time !"
If Obama loses, watch for them to turn very hostile and possibly violent against anyone who didn't vote for Obama, Republican or Independent.
2014 - Assuming Obama won his second term, the Obama conservatives will make excuses that Obama did his best "but for those pesky Republicans".
2016 - Again, assuming Obama won a second term, prepare to be thoroughly disgusted as the Obama conservatives canonize Obama as "Saint Obama" and try to frame him as a progressive icon. This could get interesting since Obama would have to be at least twice as unpopular as Bush was in 2008.
P.S.: I apologize to Common Dreams if what I said is unacceptable but I want to state the obvious and make a connection. I already got banned on Huffington Post and most likely Alternet for discussing this. Please forgive me if what I said was offensive.
Don't worry too much, don't get heavy with the f-word or use all capitals (though it's nice you use some unlike certain posters) and you can Obama-bash all you want at CD. We really dislike him here.
This idea of a freeze while bumping up defense spending is a good example of WHY we dislike our President. He's a toady of Wall Street and large corporations -- especially insurance companies, big pharmaceutics, and defense contractors (including those supplying armed thugs).
See, I'm still here.
So vent my friend, vent.
Gary
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."
-- Mark Twain, Following the Equator (1897)
I don't hate Obama personally but I don't like most of his actions or for that matter the way he sometimes justifies doing them. But more than Obama, his supporters are much worse. It is not unpatriotic to question a leader's actions when necessary. His loyal supporters will often insist that he is not responsible for his own actions and then divert attention from Obama by using their "Well what are you doing about it? Change starts with you.". I have seen conservatives misuse Gandhi and MLK but never to the extent that the Obama conservatives do so ruthlessly. I believe that Obama's poor leadership comes from both wanting to appease his conservative opponents and assuming that his supporters will care less about what he does as long as he does not change his party label.
When you're asked "Well, what are you doing about it", reply that you're trying to get people to stop voting for Democrats, who have betrayed their supporters at every opportunity. Ask them to join you in refusing to vote for Democrats or Republicans, in an effort to return power to the people.
Be prepared for vacant stares in response.
That sounds like a fantastic idea. I shall try that out but I will probably say Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats. My congressman Alan Grayson is one of those somewhat exceptional Democrats though he could be better.
Welcome, Lawton!
There's nothing offensive at all about what you said.
Obama certainly has his defenders who refuse to criticize some of his very Bush-like actions and continue to blame the Republicans only for everything that is happening. I think there are many people who are disappointed though and just not vocal about it. The enthusiasm is certainly not there anymore. Hence, the recent Massachusetts election.
Let's not forget that the two party system is designed to make us believe we have a choice. They keep the facade going to keep the people riled up. They play the game so gazillions of dollars from corps come in for their benefit and from the gullible public to their eventual dismay. But the entire purpose is to continually ESCALATE THE WAR CHEST, kill off more civilians, maintain the outrageous MIC that Ike warned us about, and make the very very rich more in control and the peace and justice people are barely listened to because we have a small niche in TV land. Thank God for CD, but have you noticed how small the percentage of viewers is? Those creepy imperialist bastards are 1%. We are 99%, and yet we remain ineffectual, can't get near a president or congressperson to save our necks, get no where rattling cages all over the place, and bleed out our souls in blogs...and nothing changes. In fact, if you stay here long enough, you'll recognize the escalation of all the bad things is now exponential, and we have no where to hide.
Dr Emoto wrote a wonderful book, The Hidden Messages in Water. It is proof positive that with our thoughts we can shift something. There was a time when people all over the world participated in daily timed vibrational medicine to heal the planet. If evil is what we are seeing in the demise of humanity through the testosterone saber, then maybe we should take a stab at good through some sort of light work, I don't know. Just a thought. As long as we are angry they have us by the proverbials. We can do what needs to be done, General Strike, marching, with a sense of being above their dark ways.
I would like to ask you all to read the Wikipedia on Ron Paul, all of it. If you have an issue with a couple things, so be it, but he is, along with Kucinich, the place to start to fix this God awful mess.
Says author Greenwald: "As always, the notion of decreasing the deficit and national debt through reductions in military spending is one of the most absolute Washington taboos. What possible rationale is there for that?" --The "rationale" (rationalization) is fear, the advertised raison d'etre of National Security State; mentioned by Greenwald himself in his penultimate paragraph. The systemic reason is the historic circumstance that the USA is the preeminent contemporary empire, aspiring to "full spectrum dominance" of the globe in perpetuity; a collectively insane leviathan (a la Hobbes) whose priorities are those of the corporate capitalist elite, sponsors of front men such as Obama. (It is highly informative as to the severity of the capitalist crisis that our corporate masters feel that they have to bleed what's left of the New Deal concessions; a course that courts a quantum leap in the political chaos.) Only "liberals" (reformists), who peddle the lie that We The People can have human priorities under the aegis of empire, can be surprised by the "news" that Greenwald reports. Is Greenwald a liberal, i.e., was (or is) he an Obama supporter?
This is What I imagine my grandson's life is going to be like: After we clean out anything left of value here in national garage sales to China, India, Brazil, or whoever has the bucks, then bloody revenge will be enacted here on those whose crime was not being born soon enough to stop us.
What's a WMD again?
We God-blessed Americans killed, what, maybe a million Iraqis and Afghans since '02? Injured maybe another 2 million? Destroyed most of both countries?
Doesn't that make us one giant f**king WMD?
Is there a WMD Al Qaeda could set off that could cause that level of death and horror?
I'll worry when there is and they have a f**king prayer of getting their hands on it...
That's really unfair.
The rule is: they go to Home Depot and buy a set of box cutters for 9-11. And then WE spend several trillion tax dollars 'securing the homeland' with nuclear bombers, nuclear submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers, recordings of every American engaging in kinky s*x at home, bombed-out oil-rich nations, Supreme Court justices 'defending' America by handing it over to our corporations, and military bases in Timbuktoo.
And, the moment you suspect you've been had: they go to Home Depot, and buy a set of box cutters...
Thats fUNNY...
Okay, let's say we do leave. Who will help the women in Afghanistan/Pakistan??
Since 1994, Ms. Bukhari has documented 7,800 cases of women who were deliberately burned, scalded or subjected to acid attacks, just in the Islamabad area. In only 2 percent of those cases was anyone convicted.
When will Afghanistan and Pakistan evolve beyond that? Does Common Dreams and the people who oppose the war have a plan to protect these women?? Do you care? Really care?
I'm sorry but I just can't support abandoning the women and the girls. I am willing to pay anything to help that part of the world get beyond patriarchal domination that destroys both men and women. We have a ways to go still in this country but just reading Nicholas Kristoff's column in the NY tImes entitled Terrorism that's Personal, I am demoralized to think this sort of insanity exists in the world and goes unchecked and without prosecution.
It's easy to criticize the war--nostalgic even but what is the Left doing to rid the world of customs, religious and otherwise, that sanction violence against women in Islamic countries?
This is exactly the kind of fallacious thinking I run into from Obama conservatives. If Colin Powell or Ralph Nader were in office doing this to Afghanistan and Pakistan, would you be saying what you said? It is inexcusable and morally reprehensible to justify sending in more troops and mercenaries by dragging women and children into this. The militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan are the result of the US and NATO meddling with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. The Afghan/Pakistani women and children have enough on their plate but the last thing they need are troops and mercenaries showing up and giving them more hell. Your last sentence is totally foolhardy. Each nation has a right to its own customs and religions as the people wish. It is the people's responsibility, not our meddling, that can humanely improve or change traditions and religions. You cannot bring democracy to a nation by occupying it and lying about it benefiting women and children.
So you support "Humanitarian Imperialism" and the killing of thousands in its promotion. In a word, you are DAFT.
please consider:
Malalai Joya, Afghani MP
A very brave individual.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/malalai-joya
Due to western occupations, overthrowing governments and bombing etc, the middle east is culturally where we were 5 hundred years back. And you want to bomb them back further, more primitive - more barbaric. Clearly what I have said runs contrary to our propaganda, so pehaps you doubt this:-
* Iran had a secular democracy. You overthrew that democracy and installed a brutal dictator - the Shah. So we have now pushed them back to the state of a semi democratic theocracy. What sort of state will they have after we bomb the shit out of them.
* Iraq had a secular state with the best education system and health system in the middle east. Now look at what you have done. Look at the state of Iraq now. Are you genuinely concerned about what we have done?
* Afghanistan had a society with free education and medicine, before we funded the Mujahdeen including Bin Laden, and the Taleban with 20 billion dollars of weapons, and the Taleban filled the gap, and we did not help at all, despite promises. So now look at them - what have you done then. And now we are bombing them village by village, becuase the insurgency against the US occupation lies within every free Afghani. Want to really obliterate the resistance? - then you have to kill everyone.
If your concern for women and children is genuine, then please campaign hard against the use of depleted uranium alone is doing in the middle east. The rate of cancers and birth defects is going through the roof.
http://newilluminati.blog-city.com/death_by_slow_burn.htm
Also, no doubt you are outraged at the daily slaughter of of villagers by drone bombs and by air bombing. And so you should be - after all - were are there to help arent we?
P.S. Did the New York Times article lament all of the terrorism that we are committing around the world. Or was it kind of coy, referring to terrorism in a way that implied that it was something done by people in the Muslim world - and not by us - never once referring to blown up women and children in Pakistan by our drones as terrorism. Never once referring to the 1.3 million dead Iraqis as the result of our terrorism. Do you doubt it? Take a look at the official FBI definition of terrorism:-
"Terrorism: the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." - FBI.
Lets take a closer look at that:-
* the unlawful use of force or violence against persons - (That would be us)
* to intimidate the civilian population (thats us)
* in furtherance of political or social objectives ((oil) - thats us)
This is the definition of terrorism that is used to identify ALF and ELF as terrorist organizations.
How about someone throwing a shoe at a press conference and/or public demonstration? Are these individuals terrorists?
How about showing up at a public demonstration openly carrying a semi-automatic weapon? This is clearly intimidation. Terrorism maybe?
Clearly, the definition as it stands is open to interpretation by our conservative police and judicial systems.
Bring America Back !!!!...!!!!Vanessa: The lesson of Vietnam is that we cannot
be the Policeman for the World !!! Persecution of women is not an element where
we can commit our Military, or an instance of OUr National Security.
***Persecution of women is handled diplomatically, as did Hillary Clinton when she was our First Lady==appeared before the China Govt Assembly and castigated them
for their unequal treatment of their women. That took guts !
***Here in good ol USA, there is a women's movement to get the amended Equal Rights Amendment passed==for the sake of women's rights !! People who live in glass
houses don't throw stones.
-***Our Economy is busted because of the Trillion $$$ Wars==illegal, immoral.
war crimes and illegal pre-eminent invasions. The USA needs to get out of Iraq,
Afghan, and stay out of Iran.
Why are you confining your attention to the plight of women in AfPak?
Kitchen fires, AKA wife burning, has been a consistent, albeit illegal, part of Indian culture for centuries.
Pick up any Indian paper and a significant mumber of the obituaries are of wives who died during a kitchen fire "accident".
The Indians, or course, are our friends. Pay attention to them and don't isolate AfPak; you may be accused of bias.
Ok. so let us see how much the Nato/Us alliance has helped the women in Afghanistan. first, they initially birthed the Taliban after removing the most women friendly govt that Afghans ever had. then, they supported the northern aliiance whose civil behaviour was just a shade better. Then, the countries infrastructure has been turned to dust. That really help the women in daily life, when you have to cook on wood and light oil lamps because the power stations made good bombing targets. Also, in the past 9 years, a tremendous amount of monies and effort (or is it lip service) has been spent in improving the lot of women?
As for PAkistan, it is news that US is there to improve the lot of women. Neither the president, the sec of state, the ambassador or Mcchrystal have ever mentioned it. Where did you read it?
Hillary Clinton is doing an interview with Tavis Smiley tomorrow, January 27. And Gayle Tzebach Lemmon's reports from Afghanistan tell a different story of women's empowerment in the country today.
According to many is that the constitution allows us to spend as much as we can on military to protect ourselves. We are going to end up like the Soviet Union and go broke doing it. Opps, we are already broke.
This [spending freeze] is an "initiative intended to signal his seriousness about cutting the budget deficit,"
If he were serious he'd cut the "defense" budget.
This is a joke, right? They are going to cut Medicare to buy more bombs?
I must have fallen through a worm hole. This is not the country I grew up in. I'm not in Kansas anymore.
I wished this were a joke but I'm afraid not. Wait until his supporters come out defending him.
To me, socialism is the next step in human evolution. A step away from violent competition and a step toward living in a peaceful, sustainable community that prioritizes equality, justice and real freedom.
I think we need to take that next step, and relatively soon, as a strategy for survival. It's been on hold for way too long. McCarthy made socialists fear who they were. We still haven't recovered from that. I think MLK and Malcolm would have taken us a ways down the path but they were taken.
And then so many from my generation, the baby-boomers, who started out with real promise, have been bought off with a little piece of the pie. Material success waylaid the revolution that many thought we might achieve.
However, Bush followed by O-man may be the perfect storm. The emperor stands naked. The times they really are a chagin'. Even though the deck is stacked magnificently agaist us, we have real opportunity.
And real responsibility to work hard and smart and as if our lives depended on it. I think they do.
If the disgust and anger can be channeled to overcome the apathy and complacency of the media and mis-education propaganda and the rat-race of their lives, then we have a slim, but real, chance.
A social democracy in our time. There is a positive goal.
Gary
PS BTW I am suggesting the name "The People" ("The People Party") for a new unity party to bring together the dozen or so "third-parties" that better represent the actual positions of the American people than the present duopoly. Imagine campaigning for "The People."
"We have learned to say that the good must be extended to all of society before it can be held secure by any one person or any one class. But we have not yet learned to add to that statement, that unless all [people] and all classes contribute to a good, we cannot even be sure that it is worth having."
-- Jane Addams
questions for all: what is the total u.s. budget for the current fiscal year? what is thedod budget? what is the homeland security budget? is it part of dod? how much is the department of energy's budget? what part of the d.o.e.'s budget is military related? need we add anything else? let's get a total. and then, let's figure what is the true percentage of the budget that the military takes.
Total U.S. budget (outlays) for the current fiscal year (2009): $5,198,000,000 (22.8% GDP)
DOD: $533,700,000 (including war budgets $75,500,000)= $609,300.000
Homeland Security (separate): $40,100,000
Department of Energy: $39,000,000
DOE Military Related: unknown (no breakdown) let's say 10 billion for nukes
Total (estimate): $645,400,000
percentage war related budget of total budget 12.4%
Gary
see: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/browse.html
Z1, perfectly stated and said in few words "stop paying federal taxes."
Here is my wimpy formula.
Federal spending 50% spent on military. Military = Defensive 25% / Offensive 25% Deduct and withold @ least 25% of your Federal income tax to defund these illegal, immoral, offensive "wars of aggression. Simple. When you are poor and destitute or almost the government will finish the financial picture for us. Totally broke = no TAXES??
All this cognitive dissonance is causing my brain to explode.
I need a Big PhARMa pill to deal with all this MIC stuff.
We don't have a culture anymore. We're lab rats. Who's the cleverest rat in the lab?
Alert Alert: anthrax attack imminent.
Er, excuse me, I don't mean to be impertinent, but who's the smartest rat in the lab?
Alert Alert: anthrax attack imminent. Imminent. Indefinitely Imminent.
Through the Looking Glass, Darkly. Oh no, my friend, all those looking glasses have coded biblical references to Jesus as the LIGHT.
Oh Mah God! Pop another pill. Don't you see? Gog and Magog! God told me to do it. Geopolitics: "He tried to kill mah Daddy."
Pop another pill. Overdose paradoxical effect. Valium. Can't sleep.
Alert Alert: anthrax attack imminent.
I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date. No time to say...Hello???
-30-
The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! er...I mean the Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!
"... The U.S. spends almost as much on military spending as the entire rest of the world combined..."
Just as, in its day (the 16th Century), as the military arm of the Papacy, Spain spent most of its revenues on its armed forces, while neglecting the economic infrastructure at home. That led, in 1936 to civil war.
Is history now repeating itself?
Bring America Back !!!!
****President Dwight Eisenhower, also a 5 Star Army General,
warned us way back in 1962, of these dangers of an out of control military industrial complex. "They" control way over half of our USA Budget.
****The party line of 9/11 gave Them the shock and awe to
renew the old Sacred Cow of the Defense Budget !! The Pentagon just used to play the budget game of asking Congress for more than they needed, then when Congress cut their request back --it was still plenty of big bucks for them. Now, they dont even play the Game, the Sacred Cow
gets all the American Taxpayer bucks they want, and our so called Legislators ask them if they need more !!!!!!!!!!!!
****As long as the American Sheeple keep allowing our Legislators to pour the Billiona and Trillions into the Five Sided Puzzle Palace--The Pentagon==then our economy, healthcare, infrastructure, drug problems, and internal security will take last place !!!
Email them, Call them, Fax them, Write them==tell them we are fed up and wont take it anymore. Get out of Iraq,
Get out of Afghan, Stay out of Iran !!!!!!!!!!!!
"Sacred Cow gets all the American Taxpayer bucks "
To slay the cow, withhold the bucks.
Stop paying tribute.
In today's America, Eisenhower would be considered a leftist LIBERAL!
Kitja said-
"As for the ideological component, a psychotic brand of Islam-hating fundamentalist christianity has infiltrated the military
-a no doubt deliberately because of its obvious usefulness in helping to brainwash a large portion of the troops
so that they will "believe in the mission."
True true and also true of a large majority of the Amerikan people Puppets.
Their strings are attached subliminaly by TV programming designed to gram and clog.
The elites who type set the disinformation are really stupid also.
Because they have chosen to believe in Rich will always be richer and the Poor are poor because they are stupid.
It is a tragic waste of creativity that could lead to communal prosperity for many more people: Who might even save the Planet for all living creatures.
And yet it is all a chance and Life seems to always find a way.
With or without us!
Muh daddy was a rocket scientist for NASA (the Brits would write Nasa).
He did gas diffusion studies on chimps in space capsules, dealing with such questions as What would happen to the atmosphere in a space capsule if the plastic insulation of the electrical wiring caught fire.
One of his chimps escaped! He showed up in a suburb of Kansas City, tapping on the kitchen window of a suburban housewife, asking to be taken in.
My father never understood how that chimp escaped.
-30-
I have for years wanted us to shut down all overseas military bases. Everyone not on American soil. I want the bases reopened here in this country. The goal of our military is supposed to be the protection of our country. Instead we seem to wish to be the world's police force, and we pay heavily for that privilege.
Israel gets 6 million a day, month, whatever, Eygpt not too far behind...from the US taxpayer. Figure 5, so that is roughly 10 plus how much more daily to who? Allies? Saddam was once an ally. The Bin Ladens are an ally. When the figures for military spending are put out there, the government does not include the TRUTH. We are never told how much the government really spends.
Plus the demise of education is to create more soldiers, loss of jobs, the same. We are bombarded with shoot em ups on tv and constant fear mongering directed at the less informed who watch F*& so people want more guns and bombs, more nuclear bomb plants in Oak Ridge (a $3.5 billion plan right now), more children killed by private corporate militias overseas...sick bunch of creeps.
It's so disgusting what we claim to do in the name of democracy. It is all a lie and too few people know it. Get outraged. PLEASE
To actually significantly reduce the size of the military and all its redundancies would require a decommissioning and conversion plan (e.g., re-employment in green technologies production and site placement).
Any evidence of such a plan?
-30-