EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
With 1000 US Soldiers Dead in Afghanistan, Time to Revive the Anti-War Agenda
U.S. Corporal Gregory S. Stultz, 22, of Brazil, Indiana, died on February 19, 2010 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. According to icasualties.org
This week has also been a grim one for civilian casualties as a result of NATO's Operation Mushtarak in the Marjah district of Helmand and an airstrike in Oruzgan province that killed 27 innocent people. Despite strong denunciations by President Karzai and a steady stream of "I'm sorry's" from US General Stanley McChrystal, the civilian casualties keep mounting alongside President Obama's surge in Afghanistan.
The good news is the surge in anti-war sentiment abroad, particularly in NATO countries. The most spectacular case is that of the Netherlands, where the Dutch coalition government collapsed over the issue. A marathon cabinet meeting this weekend ended with the walkout of the second largest party in the government, the Labor Party, which accused the main Christian Democratic Alliance of reversing a 2007 agreement to bring the troops home this year. The Dutch Prime Minister now says that the Dutch will be completely out of Afghanstian by the end of next year.
Public opinion against the war is forcing other governments to consider withdrawal, despite strong pressure from the Obama administration. Canada has announced it will withdraw its 2,800 troops by the end of the year. European countries are struggling to find their share of the 10,000 extra troops requested by General McChrystal to join the 30,000 extra U.S. troops. France has declined to send more forces and the German government is facing fierce opposition at home.
Here in the United States, the debate on the war has been overshadowed by the debate on healthcare and the domestic economy. While progressives have consistently tried to link the two, these ties are increasingly coming from the conservative end of the political spectrum as well. Republican Congressman Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Progressive Action Committee this weekend on a strong anti-war platform. "The constitution does not give us the authority to be the policemen of the world," he said to roars of approval from young conservatives. "We spend a trillion dollars a year maintaining an empire, but we're broke." His solution? Conserve our taxdollars by practicing diplomacy.
Anti-war sentiments are brewing within the Tea Party as well. Former Arizona Sheriff and Tea Party spokesperson Richard Mack expressed his view on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews last week. "Both parties have us involved in the war in Iraq and other wars that we shouldn‘t be involved in," he said. "There‘s no end in sight in this ridiculous war. ... It‘s ridiculous." And conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, talking on with Chris Matthews on Monday, said we had three options for dealing with our gigantic deficit: cut entitlement programs, raise taxes or cut the trillion dollars we spend on maintaining an empire abroad. "That cow is going to be on the chopping block," he said of the bloated Pentagon budget, and insisted that the anti-war conservatives are growing in strength.
Unfortunately, the anti-war sentiment lacks visibility. Gone are the days when the peace movement could turn out hundreds of thousands of people. The Obama administration not only led to a surge in Afghanistan, but it sucked the air out of the anti-war movement. United for Peace and Justice, once a vibrant coalition of over 1,300 groups with large offices in New York and a dozen staff, has become a network based on volunteers, and grassroots peace groups across the country have folded.
But March promises to be a revival of sorts. The ANSWER coalition is gearing up for the first significant anti-war marches since Obama took office, planned for the March 20 anniversary of the Iraq war. Progressive Democrats of America, along with groups like CODEPINK, have been encouraging people to gather for a brown bag lunch at congressional offices in districts across the country. With the message of Healthcare not Warfare, there are now over a hundred monthly lunches outside congressional offices. And a group called Peace of the Action is organizing a campout on the DC mall starting March 13.
As the fighting surges, the spending on war surges and the deaths surge, it's time for the U.S. peace movement to regather its energy and push the anti-war agenda back onto the national scene.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
87 Comments so far
Show AllWar, from its origins, is the murders of the sons by the fathers; as in: so few fathers murdering so many sons.
All progressives, in honor of the late Howard Zinn, ought to be in the streets on March 20 and on, to protest the war crimes and imperialism that US taxes finance - as well as the general lack of democratic accountability. Until a critical mass of people mobilize to shut the country down for a few days, NOTHING will change for the better, only for the worse.
"Gone are the days when the peace movement could turn out hundreds of thousands of people."
Re-instate the draft and they will come....
Re-instate the draft and you'll get a scared to go to war or don't want to fight that war movement, not a peace movement. The latest and last person to understand that "peace IS the way" and conducted his life accordingly died April 4, 1968. Any movement that is fueled by chronic anger and rage, regardless of horrendous circumstances, and is anti instead of for something, will be non-sustainable and it's foundation for social order non-viable.
Ah! This is a lovely, sane comment; a glimpse of the humanity within the USA that we all know must be there. Otherwise from out here it seems as of the people of the US of A have gone nuts.
Worse still, whether purposefully or otherwise, the article allows that the US aggression has its source in a desire to police the world; to spread democracy.
This cannot be allowed any space. It is piece of Public Diplomacy; of propaganda; an insane assertion to cover an equally insane programme of military aggression motivated by greed and hubris.
Keep it simple! The present politically prominent generations of US Americans must be recorded in history as defectives. The USA is a rabbleous political entity intent on holding the world down to under its low level; holding all others under as it drowns, because it cannot abide the reality that its citizens are the equal of other people of the world.
That they are not the first and will not be the last so deluded does not excuse them. But it does make the danger they pose more apparent.
Exactly! This is why I continued with the Cindy Sheen thread in this commentary: words matter and the context where words are used matter more. I have no doubt that Medea's intent was to help derail the steaming locomotive of immoral US war behavior, but she fell into the propagandist trap of separating Afghanistan and Iraq as two separate actions, and help minimize the catastrophic effect of the US's one action by placing it's cost at the lives of only 1,000 Troops -- it's one action with accumulating results, to phrase it otherwise disassociates reality.
"Keep it simple!": yes! Emphatically yes. Stay with the one conversation and renew it daily, don't try and stay up with the spin masters and fall into the trap Madea did here, let the spin masters follow the lead of one conversation.
"The present politically prominent generations of US Americans must be recorded in history as defectives." Better yet recognize the defectiveness today! And not only in the Executive branch, but in the People's House and in the somewhat cognizant leaders of The People in the streets and at the coffee table themselves. Today is a "national call in day" and I'll wager all my money that it will be the basic 5 or 10 thousand people that have been doing national call ins for the last 10 years with only a minor exception here or there. "KEEP IT SIMPLE" - the need of door to door and handshake to handshake acton is simple, carrying it out and it's result is where the complexity comes in: Simple action, one conversation, the spin masters coming to The People's story: THE TRUE AMERICAN STORY.
Anybody know the total number of civilians that have been killed by the US led invasion of Afghanistan so far?
"We don't do body counts" remember? The Empire considers the vicitims of imperial aggression as sub-human "collateral damage". I don't believe anyone can say with any certainty however estimates well over 10,000 are common.
At the end of the day, numbers are irrelevant. Imperialism, occupation, war crimes and mass slaughter are unacceptable in so many ways.
These comments reflected mine as I read this article and before I had read the comments. It leads with~:
"U.S. Corporal Gregory S. Stultz, 22, of Brazil, Indiana, died on February 19, 2010 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. According to icasualties.org, Stultz's death marks the grim milestone of 1,000 American soldiers killed in Afghanistan."
Yes, " ..any man's death diminishes me .." (John Donne) but soldiers chose to go. Nuremberg is specific that if one even thinks the war is wrong, he has the duty to not go.
Again, the Afghans, whose numbers, as ever, it is not productive to count, have no option but to be there and killed.
Ms Benjamin puts a soldier with a choice, as the lead para, above the uncounted innocent and bereaved, who have been killed in this war for a pipeline.
Are you familiar with Benjamin? You believe she is a racist imperialist that view Afghans as sub-human? Is that not a bit unfair?
Are you going to hit the streets to protest? Benjamin is only one person, if you don't like her, so be it. The larger message is: "get off your ass and organize, protest, and resist"
During the 1991 Gulf War the US media convinced Americans that collateral damage (a euphemism for killing civilians)is unavoidable and of no consequence.
It was therefore easy for the media to beat the war drum after 9-11 and a majority of Americans fell in line without questioning the consequences of occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. I felt like I was watching WAG THE DOG all over again.
Iraq went so badly that Obama succeeded in characterizing Afghanistan as a just war during his 2008 campaign.
socialist:
"The larger message is: "get off your ass and organize, protest, and resist"
Done little else apart from write about this made in USA nightmare and try to make a living, on average 18 hours a day, for twenty years.
According to the Pentagon, only one civilian has been killed since the beginning of the war in 2001. The other 129,753 were all the number 2 guy at Al-Qaeda at the time of their demise (Even the ones that were 3 years old at the time). I know this is true because the brilliant and honorable generals at the Pentagon are incapable of lying.
I have one objection to this article. Why aren't civilians being discussed in this article? Dead or alive, their lives are ruined. If I am reading correctly, the anti-war movement should be concerned about the troops but no word on civilians. Doesn't CODEPINK care for the lives of civilians? I request Medea to rewrite this essay and include civilians in the discussion.
"This week has also been a grim one for civilian casualties as a result of NATO's Operation Mushtarak in the Marjah district of Helmand and an airstrike in Oruzgan province that killed 27 innocent people. Despite strong denunciations by President Karzai and a steady stream of "I'm sorry's" from US General Stanley McChrystal, the civilian casualties keep mounting alongside President Obama's surge in Afghanistan."
______________________________________________________
"No word on civilians".
I assume, then, that the above-quoted excerpt must be from the "rewritten" version you demanded a half hour ago. Pretty quick response!
· Yr Obd't Servant
That's not sufficient for it to count. There's more to the lives of those civilians and the death of 27 of them is hardly a scratch on the surface. Is it too much to ask them to elaborate at least a little more on the civilian lives? Maybe we need to be occupied by other nations first?
Maybe we should quit bickering and get our asses into the street for some good old fashioned organized civil disobedience?
That's another great idea.
That's the ticket!
By the way: The powers that be love it when we bicker amongst ourselves. It's distracts us from what they're doing.
They also love it when we go ape sh** over teabaggers. They want to make sure we don't form some kind of alliance with them.
Absolutely right: it's not a sufficient count; the Civilian count should include all the murders, from whatever source, in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine, as well as all those maimed and displaced and intoxicated with uranium. The Troop count isn't sufficient either, separating Afghanistan from Iraq is only another slight of hand -- it's only one war, and it's not Obama's war, it's every human in the world's war -- it's how we've decided to distribute the natural resources of the Middle East...so, yeah, Civilian counts should include the despicable treatment of the humans living in America's Ghetto too.
How did the anti-war movement collapse as soon as Obama became president? He promised to ramp up the senseless invasion/occupation of Afghanistan during the campaign, beef up military spending, and yet the uninformed perception of him, the one that drowned out all others, was that he was anti-war. So many activists worked hard to get him elected, only to see him live up to his war-centric promises. Then the anti-war movement evaporated, because at least Bush isn't president anymore.
This fairly screams of how shallow and meaningless the "anti-war movement" was all along. It was really just anti-Bush, anti-Republican. Now that we have a full-fledged Democratic war president, all is well. Getting so many of these superficial activists to realize that Obama doesn't give a damn about ANY progressive, anti-war agenda, is the real conundrum. Getting them out of their mental bubble that the Democrats are more peace-oriented, is just as hard a task as getting Obama to renounce all the ways of war.
Not to mention the unprecedented corporate welfare Obama has showered on the financial industry, insurance industry, drug industry, and nuclear industry, in addition to the military industrial media complex during the past year.
In one year, Obama has done Dubya proud.
It was truly bizarre to attend an anti-war rally last year and only about 20 other people showed up! I was disgusted to realize how many so-called progressives have bought into Obama's myth of the "just war" in Afghanistan. You're right--they were really just anti-Bush.
Sioux Rose
C'mon, Ephraim. Obama has the biggest media machine of all time behind him, and getting the Nobel Price convinced a lot of people (against the evidence) that this "gentleman" and "law scholar" was all about peace! We who read the iconoclasts published on this site are getting a very different education from those who consume (and are consumed by) the mass media. Obama was marketed like a product, and while it would seem more people are NOW waking up, enormous levels of cognitive dissonance have been created in the gap between his stated positions (or those articulated through media megaphones ON his side) and actual events. And a lot of people are overworked, not making ends meet, unhealthy, on anti-depressants, or otherwise using drugs/alcohol to medicate their moods. Depression make sense now given the tone of our times; so it's difficult to fault persons for coping as best they can.
I'm not sure what your objection is to what I wrote, SR. I was saying the anti-war movement, such as it was (and I was part of it, c. 2002-2006, after which it pretty much evaporated) was really just an anti-Bush thing, and proved to be as much as soon as Obama got elected. On all the false pretenses. I know he was marketed exactly as a product, as every president has been for 35 years, but the point is the ostensibly anti-war movement FELL FOR THE MARKETING. I don't see how noticing this makes me unsympathetic with people relying on all sorts of anti-depressants for coping with present realities. I'm not faulting anyone for resorting to such things, especially seeing as how I'm floating right now on two martinis. And I don't understand why you think I would. You know me better than that.
Sioux Rose
EPHRAIM: We agree on all the important points.
GREAT ROCKY: I have not watched TV in over 3 years, so I was not aware of Pat Buchanan's views on "illegal aliens" or organized labor/unions. I did not say I agree with conservative thinking, far from it; but that I wondered if the areas where those who recognize the dangers to our nation brought on by empire-style foreign military adventures could not create common cause with the progressive left? It's going to take something unconventional to bring down the beast, and a beast it is... it is destroying our nation's future by essentially GUARANTEEING that all the weapons being trafficked across the globe, given our egregious bloody foreign policy, will find their paths back to U.S. Then there is the economic weapons of mass destruction in the form of a Wall st not roped in; and the ecocide that everywhere is destroying the ecosystems that together make for a a vast web capable of sustaining life up through the food chains. Coalitions of the NO LONGER wlling to go along with the program are necessary. We may have to compromise on some issues NOW to change the ultimate paradigm, lest the weight of its own calamitous decisions (and karma) fall on itself. Could well be.
Some of us never stopped--and that organization called
"Peace of the Action" is my new organization and we are planning Camp OUT NOW.
www.PeaceoftheAction.org
And sites like this one stopped publishing my articles when Obama was running and I was criticizing him from the anti-war left.
It is pitiful that the anti-war movement stood down and not only was 2009 the worst for our troops, but for the people of Afghanistan especially.
It's time to fight against the war machine--and realize that no matter what party the president is in or from, he is part of that machine.
Cindy Sheehan
I am glad it is not Peace Action (West) Cindy. That organization has proved, like so many others, to be self-serving apologists for the corrupt system. As Howard Zinn showed us, raising money to try and compete with corporate interests in influencing policy is ineffective. Voting for Duopoly Dictatorship candidates is ineffective.
The only way to affect positive social change is organized massive civil disobedience and history has shown this time and again.
I, for one will be in the streets; however collective action must be truly collective to be effective.
Woo-hoo! Always delighted to see you here, Cindy!
I was also part of a sizable group banned from CommonDreams, ironically just after Election Day in 2008; no explanation was provided, but all of us were appropriately skeptical of Obama.
I'm pleased to see that Ms. Benjamin has collected herself and decided that CodePink is anti-war again after all. When she visited Afghanistan last year, she seemed to buy into the treacherous and misguided notion that it might be OK to support the US imperialist military machine's Afghanistan adventure after all, because Afghan women were begging US forces to rescue them from Taliban oppression.
It might've been one of those "two steps backwards" interludes.
You had your own momentary "step backwards"-- we all have-- and I can only hope that Ms. Benjamin comes roaring back as successfully and admirably as you have!
Go, Cindy! ♥ ☮
· Yr Obd't Servant
I didn't support this "war pig," Obama which is why the movement has to be "revived" after over a year of carnage, in the first place.
Drone bombings in Pakistan--increased killing in Afghanistan and a domestic agenda that is no where near progressive--yet corporatist.
anyhoo---
there has been a lot of work to do and it has been a long and lonely year doing it.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one striking at the root" HD Thoreau
Hello Cindy, Many, many thanks for your continued speaking of the truth and taking courageous stands against the monster that this country has become in recent years. I hope that as we revive the anti-war movement we at the same time address the corruption in Washington and Wall St which has put the country at the brink of complete ruin. So many people have been conditioned into passivity here that I wonder what it will take to light a fire under them and get them to press for the radical reforms we need. It looks more and more as though the only thing that will bring about the changes we need will be some sort of revolution, a literal overthrow of the corrupt establishment. There is nothing about it worth saving as far as I can see. The Tea Party people seem to be expressing something like that sentiment from a right wing perspective. I fear martial law and an ultra-right fascist movement following the next (and inevitable) stage of the financial unraveling.
At Sioux--it is nice to hear from you again.
And sorry, but a war pig is a war pig--just like George Bush (the human being that preceded Obama)--no difference.
Peace (not from the politicians, but from us, the people)
Cindy
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one striking at the root" HD Thoreau
Of course there are different contexts of conversation, including the sympathetic gathering where words depicting the enemy and other social outsiders to the sympathetic group are expressed without much if any cortical filtering, if this forum is one of those fine, but if we're using this forum to craft the argument for world peace and for testing personal peace, then I recommend being vigilant toward the words we use; I just can't imagine or recall Gandhi or King calling anyone a "war pig" or any other dehumanizing phrase (of course this demeans our animal friends the pigs, why should we associate Human gluttony and sloth to actions that are very biologically functional in the pig world and greater biosphere?), so it would be much better to label Obama a war glutton/addict(It's easier for me to form an action or response with the perception of Human addict vs. human pig); so to me he's mostly a polititian. And since Barack is a politician he bends in the wind of public sentiment (those weren't just war profiteers giving their loudest inaugural applause to Obama's vow to militancy), so, yeah -- world peace will come from the people (all the Huamn people rich or poor, politicians or Civilians), but only when their way of being is based in and is of peace. So, the action must address the "root", but my suggestion, based in part on experience, is not to hack at the root, but prepare the surrounding soil (don't attack the politicians, culture the populous by door to door and hand to hand insightful human interactions of peace: the politicians as always bend to what's blowin' in the wind), so, nurturing the soil; sounds like we need some good compost...now, just where are those pigs...
War monger, war pig, it's all the same.
If the shoe fits.......
No...one shoe fits the foot taking another step down the path of continuing war immorality and the other shoe prepares for stepping on the path of world peace. It's all in the context: if you're sitting at the table with Barack Obama and you call him a monger or pig he'll smile, his head will tip back a little further(you must have seen this by now...) and he'll drift toward the la la land of the "parallel existence" Bill Clinton spoke of on Oprah...and your message of and for world peace will have additional barriers to overcome. On the other hand, if you recognize Barack Obama as a politician facing the concerns of his constituents (be they oil barons or mom and pop shop owners) and his current need of votes, then he'll settle into his chair a little more, fix his eyes for seeing you better, take a deeper breath and say "Let me hear more...". For it's all about HUMAN RECOGNITION -- THE KEY for personal peace and holding the vision of world peace; human recognition -- THE PLEASURE of personal peace and holding the vision of world peace; human recognition -- THE AESTHETIC GLORY of personal peace and holding the VISION of WORLD PEACE.
May you and all KNOW PEACE THIS DAY.
"I didn't support this "war pig," Obama which is why the movement has to be "revived" after over a year of carnage, in the first place." -- this isn't even "hacking at the branches", it's more like pilling up the leaves and jumping in. Why put the word peace in the name of your new organization instead of anti-war? Are you just looking for someone to scorn and yell at, or do you really want world peace? Do you ever experience personal peace? Obama is a human being who is a politician; to dehumanize him obscures the avenues available for world peace, and I can't imagine it does much for your personal peace either.
Plain and simple, he is a war pig - Ms. Sheehan is accurately characterizing his bloody actions and therefore "war pig" defines his reality. Your naive gibberish about "world peace" is embarrassing and fit for a beauty queen.
"Obama is a human being who is a politician" - no, Obama is a human being ordering the murder of innocent human beings half a planet away. Can you argue with those facts?
Very good, you take the argument a step from monger and pig into defining by your perception Obama's intention and action. To step into Obama's shoes, I'd sit back, smile, tilt head back shaking it slightly from side to side in negation then sit forward and say:
"Look, I'll be clear, and if you've been listening I've been clear about may position all along...I'm a politician and I savor votes...when I passed Hillary Clinton in the primaries and started looking toward McCain and appearing presidential I made vows to "kill bin Laden" and I gathered more votes; and when all the votes were counted and I won at my inauguration all those people who voted for me or were now supporting my presidency gave their loudest applause for my vows to militancy in facing our nation's struggles. And I've continued to carry out this armed mandate from The People by...no, not by "ordering the murder of innocent human beings", but in ordering the appropriate measure of America's full force and might for protecting the American people and freedom from the evil that is in this world. Make no mistake about it -- Terrorists mean us harm, we are in a war with Al Qeada. That innocent civilians are killed or hurt in facing this evil we did not choose to face but must, grieves me greatly. So I'll be clear, my generals Gates, McChrystal and Petraus have given me their words that the strictest measures are being used to make sure no innocent lives are lost as we strike at those that intend to do us harm."
Do you see? By taking the argument past the juvenile level of pig and monger we can get closer to the heart of the struggle. A statement like that above from Obama would solidify his poll numbers for a few days at least in this current general social climate. So to me that's the type of statement that has to be focused on in debates, arguments and other conversations, because it's the majority of voters that applaud it and thus encourage the behavior that ultimately tortuously kills and maims human beings.
Throwing insults like pig and monger at someone is like going to a Middle School pep rally, it has it's purpose and legitimate function; there's some excitement, enthusiasm, and youthful exuberance is being differentiated...all fine and good. But if there's going to be a functional encampment in DC starting this summer, if it hasn't all ready (anyone seen Concepcion?), then an adult voice has to raise from somewhere...could be Cindy, maybe Madea or Ann Wright...perhaps Vandana Shiva will show...someone to help take the American conversation to the next level.
And if there is a next level for America...wouldn't it contain world peace? In a sense I love it now when confronted by the ubiquitous "naivety" statement about world peace: a test to help strengthen my conviction and courage, and now also a conditioning bell, a bell of mindfulness, for returning to the vision of world peace, one based on my own personal peace...thus helping me to return to peace. But there's also this sweetly sad feeling, and some wondering of how can someone sustain themselves without severe depression without a personal sense of peace and a inspiring vision of what peace would mean if spread throughout the human world? I know I haven't been able to.
Thanks for taking the argument to a human level, and thanks for the challenge to peace.
From the Turning Point...article at TruthOut:
"Neither young man spoke of killing anyone, and no one from the audience asked. But each spoke of turning points when they decided they could not continue as soldiers. For Josh this was a gradual process, but for Conor it came during his second tour while conducting random searches with his squad for weapons caches in Ramadi, without adequate intelligence. They set upon a home with an exceptionally beautiful garden and proceeded to tear it apart and dig it up. "Then the man of the house came out with a tray and served us all tea!" said Conor. "He spoke English and wanted to be our friend. He showed love to us and we were terrorizing him."
Thus the seed for "The Contagious Love Experiment" was planted."
Sioux Rose
CINDY: Your courage, tenacity, and willingness to keep speaking truth to power are admirable. You are well-loved, appreciated, and respected by many of us. Thank you for not giving up the fight!
Cindy,
It's wonderful seeing you here!
Chelsea
Soldiers get paid to kill or be killed so I couldnt care less about how many imperial slaves get killed for obeying the "chain of command". Actually the more usa soldiers that get killed the sooner Afghanistan will be free...
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” Einstein.
bligh4
You are a blithering idiot.
Americans really need to wake-up and organize aganist this idoitic war that is bleeding the deadbeat US economy. This has been the worst month in casualties since the Afghan occupation began in 2001. Over 50 US troops have died in February alone and the month is not over yet. The wars are now costing around $1 a minute and that does not inculde the long-term costs for caring for the thousands of phusically and mentally wounded and thier families that will last for generations to come. It is shameful for the baby boomers who were so active in anti-Vietnam protests to become corporate slaves while the younger generation is too busy on twitter and Facebook with superficial hype to really care about their country. The sheeple really have been dumbed down by manufacturing consent.
friendly reminder to mr. globalsoul: math check time: a dollar a minute is a real deal! that'd be only 1440 dollars a day, 43,200 dollars a month, or about 1,600,000 dollars a year to fight both wars! since both wars combined cost about 160,000,000,000 dollars a year, i think you meant to say that the war costs 100,000 dollars per minute. that's o.k., as figures begin to boggle the mind after a while, especially when the u.s military gets to spending money. check my math, anybody, but these damn wars are costing us $100,000.00 per minute. so every minute that goes by, we could be fully covering 200 people with decent health insurance. now, there's something to think about. instead, we hand it over to karzai and his opium pipe toting loya jirga, where it, too, goes up in smoke.
If you want to get really depressed, go to costofwar.com. They have a running toteboard.
Thanks for the correction. I meant to say $1 million a minute, that would be the real cost if we factored in the "homeland insecurity" costs which seem to go up with every new manufactured false flag "terror incident" followed by 24/7 FOX and CNN assualt on our senses. This whole warmongerng and paranoia has to end.
The strongest antiwar movement seems to be spear-headed by the what Scott Horton at Antiwar/radio calls "Plumb line Libertarians" with the most prominent spokesperson being Ron Paul. There is a growing movement of frustrated citizens within this country against a common enemy, the Corporate elite that controls Congress, the banks, and the Pentagon.
We need to put down ideological differences of right vs left and see the common threat posed by the Corporate State. The stakes are too high to continue old arguments about socialism or libertarianism. If things continue as is we will soon have neither.
A unified front of Kucinich supporters and Ron Paul supporters could potentially move mountains.
Sioux Rose
Q: This possibility could very well be THE answer, strange as it is. It's like the right wing conservatives swung so far to the right they met the left there! (All things coming full circle.) Who'd a thunk it would be Pat Buchanan stating things we also believe! That we either raise taxes (hopefully on all the unearned wealth), reduce the military footprint, or slash entitlement programs. The Republicans (some) are telling the truth! Amazing! I remember when Pat Buchanan also said intelligent things about the idiocy of the drug war. ARMY BRAT has often pointed out that PRINCIPLED conservatives often have good solid ideas. KUCINICH, if he could walk across the aisle to join hands with someone like Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul, could potentially create a ground swell. The one negative factor is that the mainstream media would do all it could to marginalize such a development, or take messages totally out of context using its fear and disinformation powers to bamboozle folks who (if they knew the issues) would go along with them.
Desperate times call for desperate (or at least radically innovative) measures. This could well be one. I never expected deliverance to come "from the right," but when things are THIS corrupt, anyone with a brain paying attention sees what's going down. A coalition of the aware could be what saves the nation from inverted totalitarianism, efforts sponsored by the lords of greed who bought access to the gears of power by stealing the public's own money.
War is about killing people. Soldiers killing other soldiers, and along with them twenty, thirty, a hundred times more civilians. Anti war movements should be about saving the lives of these civilians - those whose numbers we do not count, and whose names we do not know. Until we are capable of revulsion at these murders and capable too of a resolve never again to kill, not even people who don't rate with us as neighbours, or even equally human, we will never be free of war.