Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Troops Die Because of Their Country, Not For It
US admiration for its soldiers may be deep and widespread, but interest in what they are doing is shallow and fleeting
Most of the stories told about Benjamin Moore, 23, at his funeral started in a bar and ended in a laugh. Invited to testify about his life from the pews, friend, relative, colleague and neighbour alike described a boisterous, gregarious, energetic young man they'd known in the small New Jersey town of Bordentown since he was born. "I'll love him 'til I go," his granny said. "If I could go today and bring him back, I would."
Grown men choked on their memories, under the gaze of swollen, reddened eyes, as they remembered a "snot-nosed kid" and a fidget who'd become a volunteer firefighter before enlisting in the military. Shortly before Benjamin left for Afghanistan, he sent a message to his cousin that began: "I'm about to go into another country where they hate me for everything I stand for." Now he was back in a flag-draped box, killed by roadside bomb with two other soldiers in Ghazni province.
The church was packed to capacity and at least a couple of hundred waited outside. The procession to the cemetery began with firetruck horns and was lined with well-wishers. He went under the ground with several military medals and the posthumous titles of chief of Hope Hose fire company and the "honorary mayor" of Bordentown.
There is a reverence for the military in the US on a scale rarely seen anywhere else in the west that transcends political affiliation and pervades popular culture. On aeroplanes the flight attendant will announce if there are soldiers on board to great applause. When I attended a recording of The Daily Show, John Stewart made a special point before the show of thanking the servicemen in the audience.
But while the admiration for those who serve and die may be deep and widespread, interest in what they are doing and why they are doing it is shallow and fleeting. During November's midterm elections it barely came up. In September just 3% thought Afghanistan was one of the most important problems facing the country. When Pew surveyed public interest in the war over an 18-week period last year, fewer than one in 10 said it was the top news story they were following in any given week, including the week Stanley McChrystal – the four-star general commanding troops in Afghanistan, was fired. The country, it seems has moved on. The trouble is the troops are still there.
"The burden for this war is being carried by such a small slither of society," explains Professor Christopher Gelpi, who specialises in public opinion and foreign policy at Duke University. "Unless you know someone in this war, live near an army base or know of someone who has died, then it is possible for the public to ignore it. People are very disconnected from it."
And when they do pay attention, they do not like what they see. Polls in December reveal that 63% oppose the war, 56% think it is going badly (with 21% believing it is going very badly), and 60% believing it was not worth fighting. Indeed opposition to the war is now on a par with Iraq.
This statistical data chimes with Gelpi's qualitative findings about people's attitudes towards the war. In a study he conducted in last spring, he found that people know very little about the war but "view it through the filter of Iraq". "Those who have made up their minds about Iraq," he concludes in the paper, The Two-Front Homefront, "appear to extrapolate these views to Afghanistan and are reluctant to attend to new information on the conflict."
But while that popular elision is understandable – no sooner had the war in Afghanistan been launched than the war in Iraq was being touted – it is problematic. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Indeed, in many ways, the lessons from Afghanistan are more profound, ingrained and urgent. Globally speaking, opposing the war in Iraq was not even remotely contentious. Significant majorities in almost every country, with the exception of the US, were against it. Before it was inept it was already illegal, and before it was illegal it was already illogical. It was wrong on its own terms, and its own terms were rooted in a lie.
But there were relatively few lies told in the selling of the Afghanistan war. This, remember, was the "smart war." Both George Bush's war and Barack Obama's war. A war supported by Nelson Mandela, Muhammad Ali and Susan Sontag. A "war of necessity", which had the backing of almost the entire political class on both sides of the Atlantic.
A war only a single national politician in the US dared oppose. In her speech to the House of Representatives on 14 September 2001, after which she received numerous death threats, Barbara Lee warned: "We are not dealing with a conventional war. We cannot respond in a conventional manner. I do not want to see this spiral out of control … If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children and other non-combatants will be caught in the crossfire … Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes."
This, in no small part, is why it has not become an electoral issue This was a bipartisan effort – and all the worse for it. When it was launched, many claimed parentage; in its failure, it is an orphan. "It's not become a political issue because the Republicans are more supportive of the war than Obama is," explains Gelpi. "So all he has to worry about is a rebellion from his left." The potential for such a rebellion certainly exists. But its likely potency, at this stage, remains suspect.
But to engage with what went wrong would demand a sharp reckoning with why so many thought it would was right to begin with. The country would have to interrogate its militaristic reflexes and proclivities, and face the fact that while there were few good or certain options after 9/11 (ranging from the diplomatic to containment) this was one of the worst – and the others were never seriously considered.
For as the principal retaliatory response to the terror attacks of 9/11, it has failed. It hasn't brought liberty, democracy or stability. It has killed untold thousands of civilians: untold because they are regarded as expendable. And not only has it not captured the perpetrators of the terror attack, there are far more acts of terrorism globally today than there were in 2001, in no small part because of the chaos wrought by the war on terror.
Back at the Trinity United Methodist church in Bordentown, the minister ended the service with the hymn Let There Be Peace on Earth and Let It Begin With Me.
Elsewhere in the country, small communities like this weep every week without respite as bodies from a global conflict return to become a local tragedy without, apparently, altering the national mood. Like a stone thrown into a pond the ripples go only so far and then fade away.
Back in 1971, during the Vietnam war, John Kerry famously testified before the Senate foreign relations committee. He put the question: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Forty years later, the answer appears to be that you simply stop paying attention to their deaths.
It seems American soldiers are not so much dying for their country, but because of it.
123 Comments so far
Show AllChristian Viewpoint: Thou Shalt Not Kill
I've made this comment before, but it sounds like it needs saying again: If you join the armed services, what are you if not a murderer for hire? How can there be "good men and women" in the armed forces?
Do good men and women really offer to kill for others? I really can't see it. How many people did Hitler kill? One, that we can be reasonably certain of, since it is general knowledge that he committed suicide.
As for millions of other deaths generally attributed to him, as in, "Hitler killed six to ten million Jews," it robs so many others of proper credit and is thus unfair, since Hitler did not kill those millions--other people did it for him. In the same vein, George Bush did not kill anyone, nor did Osama bin Ladin, as far as I know. They have others do the killing for them.
If you are willing to kill another human being, what business have you on this planet? If you want to kill someone, I say kill yourself. I won't even get into the opportunities lost, because we squander over half our taxes on the military (which, incidentally, can't catch a cave man after almost five years).
I do not support our troops. I support our conscientious objectors, and other thinking people. I support nurses, doctors, teachers, construction workers, garbage men, laborers, cooks, waiters and waitresses, writers, inventors, organic farmers, architects, scientists, engineers, computer programmers, landscapers, and all those who choose to actually do something with their lives.
To the destroyers I say: Why don't you get a life? Far better to be a prostitute, even, than to be a military person. You are at least hiring out to bring pleasure to others, not misery and destruction. If you can't bring yourself to kill yourself, and you still feel a vague need to kill someone, at least get to know a great many people first. Then pick the one you like the least. It will probably be a Republican.
Then you may have some real personal reason to kill, rather than doing so because politician wants others killed, but can't seem to do it him or herself.
And then there's this, from a higher authority:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/
Good honest post. I wish everyone could hear points of view like yours. They may disagree with it, but at least if they hear it some people may stop fawning over our military in a way that only the Spartans could understand.
Only by the luck of the birthday lottery, I came of military age at the end of the vietnam war, and didn't even have to register for the military, which knowing what I know now makes me one very happy person.
Wow, thanks a lot for writing that
Very well said. I've been thinking as much for some time, though in much less eloquent terms.
"daniel geery"
While I share your overall assessment, your opening line is not accurate.
Thou Shalt Not Kill is not a "christian" viewpoint.
Certainly, it would be good if more people followed that dictate, but those words preceded, are not limited to "christian" religions, and those words do not represent the accepted behavior of the majority of people I have met who consider themselves christians.
"Christians" are just as likely to kill as any other religion.
You may be the kind of christian who does not support killing, but that does not make your assessment accurate.
I think, not too sound too harsh, that your comment sounds rather bizarre. When Daniel Geery states that Thou Shalt Not Kill is a Christian viewpoint he is, of course, correct as that is found in the Ten Commandments. At the same time nowhere in his comments did I read that only Christians and no other religions in the world believe this dictum to be true.
Of course Christians are as likely to kill. His point is that they are hypocrites for not obeying the dictates of their religion.
"Errol"
I stand, sit, corrected.
Sorry to intrude here, but the Ten Commandments are not, and should not be, the basis for Christian action. Christ gave his followers a new commandment (called the Great Commandment), one that supercedes all others, and the only one which need be kept: Love one another.
THAT is the Christian viewpoint. Christ also told his followers that many people would claim to be his followers who weren't, and the way to tell the diference: By their love.
Enough of my mini-sermon. Someone who wants to put up the Ten Commandments--not motivated by Christian viewpoint, maybe Jewish or Islamic, but not Christian. Someone who wants to engrave Love One Another over the court's entrance--could be just about any religion, might even be a Christian.
That might not change the post much.
He also said: " LOVE YOUR ENEMIES ". Not many can do that.
I concur with your otherwise excellent post but I was disappointed when I read the Onion article. It says:
"The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior."
A higher standard of behaviour is not only possible without a belief in God, any standard of behavior based on a belief in God is based on irrationality and thus is suspect. I'll trust a clear-headed Buddhist any day. I have learned to fear the God believers. They are the ones who stir up trouble because they are so damn certain they are right.
As humanity evolved towards its modern incarnation, numerous societal structures and models emerged, many to be washed away by the tempests of history... Agrarian based, peace loving societies were able to flourish here and there, but those which focused only on peace-loving activities and not on a sufficiently strong defense, found themselves sadly unprepared when marauding invaders such as the Vikings, or the Huns or the Vandals arrived.
Who cares that we judge these barbarians to be immoral animals... They raze our towns, and have our women and children for dinner as we bewail their fates and ours face down in a field with an axe in our backs. Defense of what is precious is necessary if you don't want to see what you love plundered before your eyes.
And so we come to the reason progressives, socialists and liberals are all enduring such a pitiful scenario right now. We haven't, as this thread illustrates, appreciated and extolled the virtues of good defense, and at times a strong and deadly serious defense, of our most precious values nearly enough.
Being war-like is not a trait to admire during times when cooperation and the necessary information for understanding is available. Such are the times we live in. I believe every major conflict we have seen in the last 40 years could have been resolved by consensus, communication and coordination of harmonious goals, had there been fair intent in world politics, and not the continued sham of the powerful known as Realpolitik.
But Realpolitik rules the day; the 'mongol hordes' are still amassed on the other side of the horizon, ready to descend on our 'peaceful villages' (all our principles and values). Leftists and all those who believe in peace, justice and egalitarianism must be more serious than ever about our considerations of both defending our own causes, and about how we think and speak regarding actual issues of war and peace, and international security.
Acting like we eschew all considerations of aggression, of national defense, of fighting (i.e. in a non-symbolic way) for what is right, or standing up in a show of force to intimidate or demonstrate lack of intimidation to aggressors is a sure way of undermining our capacity to take a stronger leadership role in America. Like it or not, the majority of the US electorate feels a sense of well-earned paranoia about the state of world security, and our need to defend ourselves against aggressors, real or imaginary.
Of course, our role is to dispel those illusory hobgoblins, but not to deny that real monsters exist and need to be dealt with. That being said, our true battle is against false doctrines such as the horrific 'preemptive strike' doctrine – or the waging of 'security operations' without need of congressional approval, or the use of effective police and investigative tactics, instead of warfare.
We must strongly support an ethically guided military, but not pipe-dreams, and dangerous or disempowering memes that identify all leftists and liberals as weak and potentially vulnerable victims in waiting.
Well said. Thank You. BTW I am a pacifist.
Thank you sivasm. I am also a pacifist (or at least a believer of the doctrine of non-violence as espoused by Mahatma Gandhi) wishing only for a world safe enough for pacifists to flourish within it.
I also find myself able to sympathize greatly with another set of idealists, tied to our own political legacy:
"My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth."
–George Washington
"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
–George Washington
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."
–George Washington
As with Gandhi, he said a few things I don't agree with 100%, but for the most part, the above are sentiments I can wholly support.
1793 policy statement - apparently still in effect - from Washington's adminstration:
"the exporting from the United States of warlike instruments and military stores is not to be interfered with."
(in response to a French complaint at the supplying of arms to Britain by the US)
Yes, he apparently had some antiquated notions about the value of a well-armed populace.
I'm no anti-gun advocate, but the following quotes are examples of why I mentioned that I don't agree with Washington on all fronts:
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
–George Washington
I think I'll disagree with ol' George here. We've become a nation of gun-nuts.
He also had some ideas on religion I think most here would find distasteful:
"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
–George Washington
I know I find that position problematic. But Washington was not easy to caricature – like myself, he was a man of many apparent contradictions, which only resolved themselves in a complete and balanced portrait of him. But based on the entire record, I think there is much that we can dwell upon and which deserves our continuted admiration:
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."
–George Washington
Salusa Secundus
I changed after Dubya and even more after Dubya2. I always believe "Civilization" is a curse to mankind. What is good with all these modern electronic and gadgets, when they are use to destroy mankind?
And of course we should work to send all the war mongers to Salusa Secundus. Love the moniker.
No need to send anyone to a far flung planet...
Without a miraculous change in the direction of human evolution, Earth will soon become indistinguishable from Salusa Secundus.
(ps, To those who may be confused by what we're writing about, the sci-fi novel 'Dune' is a must-read. And seeing the movie(s) just won't cut it.)
Good point I've only seen the movies, and didn't have a clue what you ment.
Thanks
>^^<
daniel geery
Most excellent post. Thank you for sharing.
However, with this sentence, which I believe to be correct, "If you join the armed services, what are you if not a murderer for hire?" you request the young man to examine the results of his labor as murder.Most certainly so unless, in my opinion, that service is too your countrymen at the threshold of their homes to protect your and their family from death and destruction.
Further along you state "George Bush did not kill anyone, nor did Osama bin Ladin, as far as I know. They have others do the killing for them." This establishes authority that gives the order. The order can be for defense or for murder. Certainly not hard for the foot soldier to determine if he/she kills for defense or not.
There is then a responsible authority giving the order at the top and the soldier at the bottom that accomplished the killing. There are, though, others in this conspiracy. There are those that profit from that killing and spend money to lobby for it and this would have to include the reporter that jazzes up the facts in support that killing. Are they any less capable of understanding the difference between killing in self defense and murder?
Lastly and the part that bothers me the most are those that pay for the killing.In criminal court the persons paying for the murder are just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger.Who does not know this? As April 15th rolls near it would seem clear to all, including the 60% or so of Americans that wish the war to end, that 50 cents of every dollar paid in taxes goes to buy the gun, the bullets, the flack jacket, night vision glasses, the helmet, and pays the salary of the killer.
Bush and Obama, that I know of, have not personally killed anyone nor have those that voted for 107-40, nor those that paid for the killing but they are all guilty. What a fine conspiracy. If you feel a bit uncomfortable about where your tax money goes that would be called shame.
I like your post, except for two small points:
1) I know you meant this as a joke, but even Republicans don't deserve to be killed by someone feels "a vague need".
2) I would be open to a National Guard, if we could have LAW establishing that they will be deployed ONLY to protect the homeland... you know, Florida, New York, Montana...
Here is what I tell my daughter from time to time: "Are you going to do your homework, or will you just join the military when you grow up?" (Please give me credit if you use this sentence)
--Amir Dread
I joined the military at a time when, if I hadn't joined, I would probably have been drafted. But I also believed then that I was serving my country. Only later did I have second thoughts about all that. We can be easily fooled when we are young, and it keeps going on and on. It doesn't necessarily make young people who join into murderers. When I joined, it was a "cold war", and I never used a weapon while I served. Many who serve now may want out, but it is not easy to get out once you're in. Then there are the national guard folks, many of whom already have families, and probably joined long before they ever thought they'd be sent overseas.
Thanks,Daniel, for having the courage to say what a lot of us believe. Christian Soldier is an oxymoron. And the Onion parody is hilarious, one of their very best. That it was originally posted two weeks after 9/11, with God giving his press conference from near Ground Zero, is priceless. Apparently Chimpy and his pseudo-Christian legions weren't listening.
Mr. Geery, I agree with everything you said. I had the good fortune to flunk my draft physical during the war in Viet Nam, but later saw real war and mass murder as a civilian in another country. War means dead children with their heads, arms, and legs blown off. The American way of war means droppings millions of tons of bombs onto civilian populations in an effort to break the morale of the victims. H.G. Wells wrote presciently at the beginning of the 20th century that he thought air warfare would become the greatest source of horror in the coming years.
War attracts sociopaths and turns normal people into sociopaths. Read Lethal Warriors by David Philipps, a tale of soldiers committing heinous violent crimes on their return to home base in Colorado Springs. About a year ago, American soldiers handcuffed 8 boys and shot them all in the back of the head. The US punished not one of these soldiers. Every day Barack Obama shoots drones into civilian villages in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, and then claims it has killed the 2nd in command of Al Qaeda (the most dangerous job in the world). Drones and other high tech weaponry make killing impersonal, but even more deadly. And remember Obama joking about sending a predator drone after any boy who would date his daughters. That is the humor of a sociopath.
But we must stand up and speak out. Instead of remaining silent when a friend, relative, acquaintance, or political ally supports the war, call them the baby killers they are in their complicity. Don't support war by silence. Speaking out may cause you to lose friends, but if they really are your friends or allies, they will respect your view. If they don't respect it, then are they your friends and do you want them as your political allies?
I agree. Your logic is flawless and a great many paid propagandists work overtime trying to convince the people and the young men that state sponsored killing is okay through pretty colors, parades, spiffy uniforms, flag waving, lies about defending mothers and children for God and country and, when all else fails, charges of cowerdice and threats of prison.
I figured all that out back in 1968 but I joined the guard rather than take a principled stand against the system. I apologize for my cowerdice. I was young. My father was a military asshole. I'm sorry I didn't become a conscientious objector then. To anyone from Viet Nam reading this, I'm truly sorry I didn't actively reject those murderers in DC that made that war possible. If I had shown some real courage instead of opportunistically dodging the draft, perhaps less useless deaths would have occurred and my country wouldn't be the police state it is today.
re: "[his] logic is flawless"
People who eat meat demonstrate to their children, their society, and themselves that killing is ok, and good.
Ok, its not 'state-sponsored' killing, so I'm not trying to be cute by ignoring the distinction, but its the essence, and beginning of the acceptance of killing as a part of the natural human order.
I understand your logic but it is a tad on the obsessive side. Consider the thousands of nematodes you may destroy the next time you eat some wilty lettuce. You will kill many tiny life forms just to get your veggies.
And what about meat? Where does killing start and where does it end? There are several levels of vegetarians. It gets complicated. Can you eat a bromelia or a venus fly trap? Both those plants feed on decayed insects.
I respect all attempts to limit killing other life forms. But we are not talking about predation for survival here (although propagandists attempt to justify war with that false premise). We are talking about killing another human being for business profit.
I might kill somebody that was physically attacking me and trying to kill me. I like to think I would just disarm the guy but I'm probably kidding myself. Killing in self defense or for food is a long, long way from murder for Wall Street. State sponsored war is horribly wrong and serves to perpetuate an evil system which will destroy all of us.
re: "But we are not talking about predation for survival here...We are talking about killing another human being for business profit."
In this regard, I'll certainly agree. But as you mention, the line between the two is so often blurred by the ethically challenged, or by those seeking intentionally to manipulate others, that it is a dangerous line to rely upon, nonetheless I think.
I take is as a given that violence is always wrong if pursued in malice, or from prejudice (towards facts in general, racism incl.). But violence is not always wrong – it is simply an extreme form of human activity that may have positive or negative intent and outcomes. Same thing with killing. I do not accept killing as wrong, in of itself, as something *will* kill us all. I simply have extremely narrow, and strong opinion of what I consider to be ethically justifiable killing.
I just think trying to sanitize the human experience excessively with all this talk of the evils and anti-Christian values of killing is somewhat of a fantasy and self-delusion.
Even Jesus has been falsely assumed to be an emasculated feminine man.
Matthew 10:34
"Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth?
No, I tell you, but rather division."
Matthew 10:34
"I have come not to bring peace, but a sword."
Luke 19:27
"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them,
bring them here and slay them in my presence."
* * *
re: "Killing in self defense or for food is a long, long way from murder for Wall Street. State sponsored war is horribly wrong and serves to perpetuate an evil system which will destroy all of us."
By all means, I concur.
I just wanted to add a little 'gristle' to the discussion. ; )
and i have the obligation, moral and political,
to do everything in my power,
in order NOT to enable this voluntary army to do what i so diametrically oppose,
in my name and on my dime,
slandering my humanity and risking my freedom and safety,
and the obligation to do everything i can
in order to support those, like Private Manning,
who follow their conscience against the order and risk their safety for humanity.
From the article:
"I'm about to go into another country where they hate me for everything I stand for."
Wow! I wish this young man could have talked to some people that were not co-diners of the Amerikan propaganda banquet, it could have literally saved his life. The adults in this young mans life are directly responsible for his death.
IMHO it should be required by law that every military recruiter should give every potential recruit the book "War is a Racket", and give them a day to read it, so the can at least they can hear from SOMEONE what they are really getting themselves involved in.
I had similar feelings when I read this, but from the victims' POV, I wished the young man could have met some Afghan people first, before going over there to kill them. If he had gotten to know some of them, he would have realized that they stood for a lot of the same things--friends, family, God, country....
yes, it should be illegal to brainwash someone in this way...
the young are so impressionable...
and so driven by hormones and ego to 'be somebody'...
those that take advantage of these immature people deserve precisely what they force their ensuingly-twisted charges to dish out...
Besides the book,they should also have to tour a VA hospital. See what could happen to them. I was their age once and felt immortal. I think most people really do not understand the concept of death. I thought if I was in a car that rolled, all I had to do was put my arms on the roof and ride it out. I didn't know the car could pancake.
But dismemberment, burns or TBIs could open their eyes. And the parents.
I too do not support the troops. I work by an air force base with many spouses and mothers and dads who have people in the military. It is very hard for me to keep my mouth shut.
I support the people we are killing. I do not feel bad at all when a US soldier is killed. He was murdering for profit. I don't like all the pomp that goes with a soldier's death. Where is the pomp for the people that were blown apart by a drone?
Excellent article on CD. THe war is 7,000 miles away, but 18 inches for the drone pilot.
IMHO it should be required by law that every military recruiter should give every potential recruit the book "War is a Racket".
Sound's like a good project to do with some other activists. As far as I know, you can legally reprint Gen Butler's speech and hand out copies in front of recruiting centers, or the nearest MEPS processing station.
As I travel around the country on my vacations, I have noticed many small towns erecting monuments in there town squares honoring the lost veterans, flags flying high, faded yellow ribbons, folks trying to remain supportive of the "Troops". It seems like the more honorable ceremonies you start to see, Parades, Events, Funerals etc. normally indicates a soon to be lost war. Look at Berlin and Hitler honoring the youths about to go to battle in the Spring of 45. The Soviet Union in the Late 80's honoring there returning vets and lost ones during Afganistan, and in reality the Soviets were losing on the battle front in Afganistan and getting demoralized.
Where do you think the money comes from for those monuments? They are mostly government funded PR exercises using our tax dollars to help kill our children for business profits. Don't believe the hype that little old ladies and widows raised the money to build the monument in order to 'honor' their dead kids. That's just more lies to give the monument the veneer of respectibility. It's pro-war PR disguised as patriotism.
Those monuments are poison to our young and mother's milk to Lockheed Martin et al. The monuments are props for Wall Street's goon fest celebration of social darwinstic human predation over weaker humans. Those monuments remind the bastards that gamed us into that war that they are still here (unlike the rubes that died) and they made a lot of money out of it. It's 'in your face' predator motivation.
Nations with lots of war monuments are dead nations.
- Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target..." (Barbara Lee) -
Public Law 107-40 caused this DAFT Forever War.
This horrible legislation is the fault of our feckless and contemptible lizard-brained Congress (except for Ms. Lee).
What a stupid semi-declaration of war. It's idiotic. Historically, it's criminal. It's almost as if it was meant to cause unstoppable wars to start anytime and anywhere that the President chose to do so.
---------
- "I'm about to go into another country where they hate me for everything I stand for." -
He was wrong when he said that.
He was about to go into another country where they hate him for everything that those before him did. And if he is unaware of the terrible horrible awful things that have been done to the peoples of Afghanistan by people that looked like him, well then, he's misinformed, ain't he?
The military along with America is trapped in a forever war.
Trapped by the media, trapped by the politicians.
Its naive to think they have lizard brains, it isn't a bunch of low IQ subnormals. Its a carefully scripted fog of war to lead us bravely into the 21st century of the MIC.
They know very well what their doing. Don't trust one of them. Ever.
Egypt is right.
Contract killers will get no sympathy from me. That's what American troops are. There's no draft, if you volunteer to kill, you deserve what you get. Let's not forget what Muhammad Ali said, and he never had the benefit of the vast resource of information that the internet is:
“I ain't got no quarrel with the Vietcong. No Vietcong ever called me Nigger.”
“No, I am not going 10,000 miles to help murder kill and burn other people to simply help continue the domination of white slavemasters over dark people the world over. This is the day and age when such evil injustice must come to an end.”
“Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?”
it's a damn shame that we the people in the hegemonic center largely have learned nothing. all the evil has just been wasted on us.
we call north koreans "belligerent" if they raise their rhetoric after our 60-year-long constant provocation and intimidation rubbing their nose. don't get me started about what the UN did under the US leadership to korea during the bloodest war in history.
Some interesting war stats from Wikipedia,maximum estimates: the Korean war was the 20th bloodiest war at 3.5 million, following:the French Wars of Religion(4M), Deluge(4M), 2nd Congo War(5M), Vietnam(6M), Napoleonic War(6.5M), Yellow Turban Revolt(7M), 13 Years War(9M), Crusades(9M), Russian Civil War(9m), Dungan Revolt(12M), Sino-Japanese War(20M), conquest of Timor(20M), Quing vs. Ming Dynasties(25M), Taiping Rebellion(30M), An Shi Rebellion(36M), Chinese Revolution(Mao,40M), WWI(50M), Mongol Invasion of Europe and Asia(60M), and WWII(70M). Percentage of world's population lost range from Korea at 0.1%(tied with the Mexican Revolution) to 17% for the Mongol Invasion. WWI and WWII were both around 3%. China's total losses over the years is over 130 million. Quite a history we "modern" humans have...
I remember someone saying during the Vietnam War, "the white man sends the black man to kill the yellow man to protect the country he stole from the red man".
brilliant
yeah, I gotta put that one down on my list.
I wish you had an attribution.
You heard this yourself, while stationed there?
This quote sounded vaguely familiar to me, so I looked it up.
I found it attributed to James Rado and Gerome Ragni. According to wikipedia, they co-wrote the rock musical Hair.
http://www.quotegarden.com/war.html
They co-authored the musical Hair.
I guess I should have posted thanks here too, since you were first to clear that up!
The draft is white people sending black people to fight yellow people to protect the country they stole from red people. ~Gerome Gragni and James Rado, 1967
Thank you!