EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Price of 9/11
NEW YORK – The September 11, 2001, terror attacks by Al Qaeda were meant to harm the United States, and they did, but in ways that Osama bin Laden probably never imagined. President George W. Bush’s response to the attacks compromised America’s basic principles, undermined its economy, and weakened its security.![]()
The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable, but the subsequent invasion of Iraq was entirely unconnected to Al Qaeda – as much as Bush tried to establish a link. That war of choice quickly became very expensive – orders of magnitude beyond the $60 billion claimed at the beginning – as colossal incompetence met dishonest misrepresentation.
Indeed, when Linda Bilmes and I calculated America’s war costs three years ago, the conservative tally was $3-5 trillion. Since then, the costs have mounted further. With almost 50% of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans’ medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health-care costs will total $600-900 billion. But the social costs, reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups, are incalculable.
Even if Bush could be forgiven for taking America, and much of the rest of the world, to war on false pretenses, and for misrepresenting the cost of the venture, there is no excuse for how he chose to finance it. His was the first war in history paid for entirely on credit. As America went into battle, with deficits already soaring from his 2001 tax cut, Bush decided to plunge ahead with yet another round of tax “relief” for the wealthy.
Today, America is focused on unemployment and the deficit. Both threats to America’s future can, in no small measure, be traced to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Increased defense spending, together with the Bush tax cuts, is a key reason why America went from a fiscal surplus of 2% of GDP when Bush was elected to its parlous deficit and debt position today. Direct government spending on those wars so far amounts to roughly $2 trillion – $17,000 for every US household – with bills yet to be received increasing this amount by more than 50%.
Moreover, as Bilmes and I argued in our book The Three Trillion Dollar War, the wars contributed to America’s macroeconomic weaknesses, which exacerbated its deficits and debt burden. Then, as now, disruption in the Middle East led to higher oil prices, forcing Americans to spend money on oil imports that they otherwise could have spent buying goods produced in the US.
But then the US Federal Reserve hid these weaknesses by engineering a housing bubble that led to a consumption boom. It will take years to overcome the excessive indebtedness and real-estate overhang that resulted.
Ironically, the wars have undermined America’s (and the world’s) security, again in ways that Bin Laden could not have imagined. An unpopular war would have made military recruitment difficult in any circumstances. But, as Bush tried to deceive America about the wars’ costs, he underfunded the troops, refusing even basic expenditures – say, for armored and mine-resistant vehicles needed to protect American lives, or for adequate health care for returning veterans. A US court recently ruled that veterans’ rights have been violated. (Remarkably, the Obama administration claims that veterans’ right to appeal to the courts should be restricted!)
Military overreach has predictably led to nervousness about using military power, and others’ knowledge of this threatens to weaken America’s security as well. But America’s real strength, more than its military and economic power, is its “soft power,” its moral authority. And this, too, was weakened: as the US violated basic human rights like habeas corpus and the right not to be tortured, its longstanding commitment to international law was called into question.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and its allies knew that long-term victory required winning hearts and minds. But mistakes in the early years of those wars complicated that already-difficult battle. The wars’ collateral damage has been massive: by some accounts, more than a million Iraqis have died, directly or indirectly, because of the war. According to some studies, at least 137,000 civilians have died violently in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last ten years; among Iraqis alone, there are 1.8 million refugees and 1.7 million internally displaced people.
Not all of the consequences were disastrous. The deficits to which America’s debt-funded wars contributed so mightily are now forcing the US to face the reality of budget constraints. America’s military spending still nearly equals that of the rest of the world combined, two decades after the end of the Cold War. Some of the increased expenditures went to the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader Global War on Terrorism, but much of it was wasted on weapons that don’t work against enemies that don’t exist. Now, at last, those resources are likely to be redeployed, and the US will likely get more security by paying less.
Al Qaeda, while not conquered, no longer appears to be the threat that loomed so large in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But the price paid in getting to this point, in the US and elsewhere, has been enormous – and mostly avoidable. The legacy will be with us for a long time. It pays to think before acting.
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...


83 Comments so far
Show Allthey frickin' won
re: "The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable"
Stick it, Stiglitz
re: "In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and its allies knew that long-term victory required winning hearts and minds. "
Why, CD, Why?
DITTO....
This type of thought process ten years after is obscene. As is the focus on financial costs taking priority over all the unjustified dead!
You read Stiglitz after Phil Rockstroh and realize, the former has a heart of steel. Nothing lives there...
My reaction was that the logic flaws were ironicism. And wonderment why Prof. Stiglitz wrote the article. There's nothing new hear. He usually writes with great clarity and resonance. Which perhaps explains why, in the public sector, his services are no longer required.
You said:
"There's nothing new hear."
Translation: There's nothing new here.
And there is no such word as "ironicism." Ironic or ironical will have to do.
When a "new" name shows up and tries to sound intellectually astute, but can't spell, I am suspicious of the post and the poster. With good reason...
you wrote:
"you said"
translation:
"you wrote"
:O)
(how about "irony"?)
Rued Pane
Antes knot fare
Know profit their
Own lee sear
Ok. One last to sound intellectually astute:
*Excuse* *me*.
Honestly, it's alarming when readers of CD start complaining that an author does not share ALL their views and therefore should not be posted at CD. The desire to create an echo chamber is not particularly healthy.
It's not as though CD is posting Newt Gingrich's love poems or paeans to Friedrich Hayek, etc.
Stiglitz is one of the world's most prominent economists and a fairly lively critic of official policies. When you consider how debased the coin of modern economic thought has become by access to power and privilege, you should give Stiglitz some credit.
Naturally, Stiglitz would focus on the economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- that is what economists do. He is not a moral philosopher--he is an economist. He does cite, however, the immense human costs for Iraqis of the invasion -- including the possibility of a million dead & the huge numbers of refugees. So his criticisms are hardly limited to economics.
Most of us would agree that the U.S. military empire and its endless wars are bankrupting Amerika. It is helpful, is it not, to have those views substantiated by the research of a Nobel Price winning economist?
There are very, very few prominent intellectuals who will share most or all of the more radical views of readers at CD. (Not that there is uniformity of opinion here either!)
Stiglitz would not have been Chief Economist at the World Bank or a Nobel Price Winner if he shared -- or at least articulated -- many of the more heterodox views voiced at CD.
One should also consider the intended audience of an essay. Project Syndicate appears to be a fairly liberal -- not radical -- forum for major academic thinkers. Peter Singer and Naomi Wolf are listed as "public intellectuals" -- but cheek by jowl with Bjorn Lomborg (an important apologist for 'business as usual' in response to climate change) and Stephen Roach (of Morgan Stanley notoriety).
You are probably not going to see en economist such as Michael Hudson posted there, and no one is going to claim that Dick Cheney ran 9/11 at of the White House basement. (These are respectable intellectuals.)
So critical questions and reactions are appropriate but let's not throw the Stiglizt out with the bath water.
You are perhaps replying to the wrong post? I was offering a counterpoint to the thought that Stiglitz was doing a Robert Reich. I was basically saying that, although his department head is a douchebag (reference the movie "Inside Job"), for a mainstream economist, Stiglitz - and his work - has retained a respectable amount of integrity. And, that any "legiimate" critique of this piece can be attributed to irony and parenthetical thinking.
I'm agreeing with you. Thank for the names you mentioned. I've read Michael Hudson. And heard of Stephen Roach, but corporate economists are susceptible to the Henry Blodget effect. The others, I will check out... Definately.
False premise ==> jingoistic drivel.
Exactly, Brian. I couldn't get past the mythological first paragraph:
"The September 11, 2001, terror attacks by Al Qaeda were meant to harm the United States, and they did, but in ways that Osama bin Laden probably never imagined."
Since when does a supposedly intelligent man like Stiglitz take unproven assertions as reality? Is it so important to be part of the power elite?
The devil take them all.
When I'm done puking I may read the rest of the article.
Strange, I thought the Afghanistan war was illegal.
Final sentence, "The legacy will be with us for a long time. It pays to think before acting." I'd maintain that's EXACTLY what they did.
Eek.
This well-meaning article is a chance to walk one of the abiding bees in my bonnet: over the years, I've become more and more conscious, and wary, of giving universal credit to savants who are justly respected as authorities, and brilliant, in a given field or discipline.
For instance, well-regarded academics like Paul Krugman and George Lakoff have sterling reputations based on their expertise, even genius, within their respective disciplines. But they're both banal, mediocre political thinkers.
I find that some awed and dazzled by their academic authority and/or the perception that they are in the minority of public "good guys" are disposed to uncritically accept their pronouncements, and are unwilling or unable to notice or admit shortcomings outside their areas of expertise.
To illustrate the point: I had an uncle, long-deceased, who had a brief professional association with Arlen Specter when Specter was a young assistant DA in Philadelphia. Over the years, my uncle unfailingly praised Specter as a Very Smart Man.
Years later, confronted with Specter's preposterous "Single Bullet Theory" presented to the scurrilous Warren Commission whitewashing the JFK assassination, my uncle loyally insisted that
Specter MUST know what he's talking about-- after all, he's a Very Smart Man! Case Closed!
Stiglitz is also a Very Smart Man, and in other respects vastly superior to that time-serving weasel Specter.
But his blithe recycling of the 9/11 received narrative, and the passing observation that "The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable..." is unfortunate at best.
The moral of the story is that one should never read political articles without a tub of rock salt handy-- and when the 9/11 anniversary is at hand, it's probably worth investing in an entire salt lick.
Obedient: Perhaps the reason why Krugman and Lakoff are considered very smart guys, is that their voices express the extreme perimeter the alleged Left is allowed to speak publicly. Since their views DO depart, often substantially, from the MSM right-wing noise machine, they stand out by reflecting a certain contrast. Ultimately, they act as gatekeepers; but we should remember that most people get their "news," or sense of "reality," direct from the MSM and its anointed experts. Here on C.D., between what a poster recently referred to as the "brain trust" seen on the threads, and the more radical perspectives of the likes of Chris Hedges (and a handful of others), we have situated ourselves to see outside those perimeters (or should I say, parameters). We therefore have a higher threshold for truth, penetrating insight, and the general level of discourse.
The figures you reference ARE smart, when compared to the neutered mainstream nexus in which their voices depart slightly from The Chorus.
Good point OS: He did indeed state "The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable." Wanting to attack might be understandable, but actually doing so is not, at least not for grown ups. Like you, it's not the place I wish to have my mindset at.
Afghanistan set the template Option A - US invasion by Proxy. It features lots of bombing by air, letting the muslims on the ground do the dying. A weak puppet government is installed and the US spooks get the capability to snatch, grab, toture & kill, and are even assisted by the local goons.
Weird Al has it down with Party in the CIA, off his recent release entitled Apocalypse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz7k4wGsGWo
WARNING Wierldly simple but GRAPHIC animation of disturbing CIA abuses..
I agree with you, as usual, Obedient Servant. Any political article is going to be bullshit, 99.9 percent of the time, and for those who think that CD is not part of the propaganda machine, think again. Those who stand in awe of academics obviously don't know many of them. Commonly, the further up the academic chain, the more you know about one small thing and the less you know about the rest. Lakoff still can't seem to figure out that maybe Obama and his handlers DO know something about rhetoric, and what he sees as Obama's mistakes aren't mistakes at all.
If you want an intelligent opinion, ask a five year old. Most haven't had their minds destroyed yet.
How, at this point, anyone could say that the attack on Afghanistan was understandable is beyond me, unless you think it a good thing that the CIA is the premiere opium dealer in the world.
When Reagan was elected a SECOND time, despite clearly showing signs of Alzeimer's in his debates, I stopped listening to politics. I stopped voting. It was clear to me that politics is nothing but a bizarro circus of blather and showmanship, and took half my advice from the dadaists and the other half from Voltaire (tend your own garden). It took the torture issue to get me to start paying attention, and man, sometimes I dearly wish I'd blown that off too.
Sociopaths and barbarians are in full charge. Best to keep under the radar the best you can. That was my theory for years, and maybe I should go back to that, because when I read an article like this, my blood pressure goes up, and I don't have any health insurance.
re: "If you want an intelligent opinion, ask a five year old. Most haven't had their minds destroyed yet."
That made me laugh. Nevertheless, I can't claim to agree. Strange as it sounds, there's a comic book out written by a five-year-old, and drawn by his 20-year-old brother, called 'Axe-Cop'. It reads like basically a mixture between The Punisher, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and the pursuit of 'Justice' taken by the Bush Administration. We should now know from ample experience, giving the world over to effective moral 5-year-olds is *not* a good idea, and frankly, I've had more than enough ; )
Cheers
Salusa Secundus, Celebration, Clovis and any others: Let us collaborate on an article for CD to use, use in countering this type of article. I agree with all of the comments so far- I believe we need an article for all of us to rally around- not react to. There are far to many Journalists Who Value Employment rather than Value Truth- let us undertake to write articles based on the love of truth, not the love of power and money. If you do not trust me enough to work on this exercise, what can we collaborate on?
Sounds like a good idea, PSA. Which is not to say CD doesn't already publish articles respectful of the truth. There are plenty of these; they just usually shy away from dealing with the Big Lie. I think the CD author who comes closest to displaying a passionate, uncompromising devotion to the truth (as he sees it, of course) on ALL issues is Linh Dinh, who hasn't been heard from here lately. I hope to see something by him soon on CD to cut through the already deafening noise surrounding the 10th anniversary of 9/11, to which Stiglitz here adds his own cacophonous horn-blast.
Clovis-Good Point! Pardon the pun. Actually I am sure it has been used before. I do not recall Linh Dinh- can you recommend by article Title? Although Glenn Greenwald is demonstrably disengaged about discussion of the actual events of the Mass Murder of on Sept. 11th, I still find value in everything he writes. Perhaps we can start with recommendations of writers for CD to use/pay, and I still assert that there is enormous talent found every day in critical thinking,writing, and education on these threads. Let us weave them together, and restore the fabric of our lives and society. I assuredly can provide some flowery language, and at the very least engage in petty bickering as my contribution to editing.
How about a rating system for CD-ers, based off our opinions of articles, and limited to a a set of factors like, 'Objective Truthfulness', 'Useful Framing for the Opposition', 'Usefulness as a Philosophical Premise', etc.
Might look something like this (though should be better conceived... I'm just throwing this out there as a starter for brainstorming)
This article
O.T.: 75%
U.F.O.: 50%
U.P.P.: 75%
We could also thrown in a few pejorative measurements as well, like 'Supports Imperialist Frames', 'Tows Out the Old Canards', 'Ignores Human/Ecological Cost', stuff like that. Nice thing, is this doesn't require any of us to trust one another. We all know who posts here the most, and what their general reputations are. So anyone here could use such a 'ratings system', and we all know who's opinions we each place trust in. Same system, different (informed) opinions. Eventually, unworthy articles could get a quick run-down of their merits/lack of, and would require less valuable time and effort debunking.
As far as collaborating on an article, I'm not honest sure what this would entail. I think it could be constructive to isolate solutions and methodologies we all can agree with to a large degree. Regardless of the wide ranging opinions on CD, I think its more than worth the effort to find out exactly how much common ground — and Common Dreams — we really share. I'd expect more that we may previously think, IF we're willing to seek that common ground, and as you mention, our love of truth (scientifically, empirically, and intuitively understood) must surely be a good place for us to begin.
Ps, I don't trust, or mistrust people (and their promises and claimed commitments) so much as their actions and the fruits of their actions. I will work with anyone who has not already shown themselves to be a bad actor, acting out of bad faith. So far I have no reason to personally attribute that to you, PostScarcityAna, if that question was at all directed to myself...
SS: Interesting basis for evaluation. And it would be just as interesting to send it to F.A.I.R.
For instance, many of us respect Amy Goodman, yet she falls short on the 911 matter.
And quite a few writers published by CD offer interesting commentary, but then they turn around and cheerlead for the "home" team (The D's!)
Fisk supposedly is into climate change denial, along with Alexander Cockburn.
So you could be onto something.
There could even be a higher overall "Truth Ratio" or score, for the writer who does not show ANY of the typical blindspots.
And maybe even a category for "Evolution of beliefs" for people like David Michael Green who's come a long way in realizing how powerfully seductive the two party illusive duopoly really is.
Maybe a dumb bell award, affectionately offered to someone like Michael Moore... as per: why don't you GET IT about the D's yet? That type of thing...
How would the vote (from the forum) operate? And there is also the problematic matter that some people post here with access to more than one sign-on name, and therefore their vote (count) is unfair. This dishonest element would prejudice the ultimate score(s)!
Feedback?
Oh there definitely has to be a Democrap apologist meter. For example, an author like Thom Hartmann might get a great score on sanity in regards to the Fed, and he gets a fair to good rating on 9-11 skepticism, but on being Dem apologist, he deserves award of the Day. How long can the man maintain the 'Obama under siege' narrative, when the obvious truth, is 'America under siege, by Obama'?
This brings me to my next idea: We set up an average CD rating of different authors, not their articles. We could separate the ratings of each of their articles, to illustrate how it affects an author's 'overall CD rating'; their ratings as leftist bastions/mouthpieces therefore would be tracked over time, and that would be the purpose of the project: To establish an average CD 'authority index' .
We would tally the results only of CD-ers who have been posting long enough to ensure their 'relative' CD bona fides. We would have to ensure that total newbies don't try to show up and tilt the results. Requirements for inclusion into the averages could be established by a CD vote system — you must have at least 4 invites by currently included members for example.
Kudos and thanks to all CD commenters for shining a light on the authors presented, and calling BS on them when appropriate. Even when I don't catch a hypocrisy or lack of insight, the sharp people here always do. Reading your comments helps me rate the information and opinions presented (including those of other commenters) and that's a good enough rating system for me!
"We would tally the results only of CD-ers who have been posting long enough to ensure their 'relative' CD bona fides. We would have to ensure that total newbies don't try to show up and tilt the results." >>>This sounds EXACTLY like the cult of personality I warned posters about 2 or 3 years ago. Since then, I have posted less although I still read and enjoy most posters' points of view. And regardless of what anyone who posts here may say, I have only posted here and on other sites as "skeezyks."
Who ever said anything about 'cult of personality'? The only idea I ever expressed was to include everyone's/anyone's opinion, as long as they're not just some recently created sock-puppet. Not that there are any of those posting here...
'Acceptable' ideological perspectives are not a prerequisite as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I don't even know if I represent an 'acceptable' ideology here on CD.
SS- I have been belligerent and that leads to distrust from many people. I really have enjoyed our discussion of economy and Ayn Rand, of which you were an interlocutor and participant. But the questions were rhetorical, and meant to initiate a dialog- which you and others have already taken far beyond what I could envision. I want to participate, and like the ideas presented so far. In seeking this dialog, I already knew we have almost everything in common, including our fears. In choosing to love I seek to be fearless, or rather: in choosing to seek love I have less fear. And that is what I would share. Let us build together some thing.
Thank you PostScarcityAna for your sentiment here, which I hope we can both be true to. These boards can be a place to trade ideas, or trade barbs, sew suspicion and scorn, or maybe even spark a world ranging and restoring revolution (but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves).
I prefer cooperation and a shared effort towards better understanding, long-term survival, overcoming tyranny, undermining imperialism and outlawing monopoly, and the struggle for perpetual ecological sustainability... easily over petty squabbles over ideological territory. But that's just me...
Or is it?
SS- You are Legion. Or is it just me, I think we are on to something, lets coordinate the rating system- I like your original idea of categories and percentages of - any other suggestions out there? As for geting ahead of ourselves- I often say that in politics (that is to say everything)- The end result is the original intention; as in: the WTC mas murder was intended to destroy the constitution, the rule of law, place all power in the executive.
re: "SS- You are Legion"
: )
Hi PSA,
busy at work again today, but got your follow-up and have every intention of trying to streamline/enhance the idea as originally conceived (stay tuned.. by this weekend, I should have a thorough presentation of my idea). My current preference is now a short personal rating system, without overall averages (unless someone wants to keep track of them), where readers can get a quick low-down of what their most respected posters opinions are on standard considerations like use of 'weasel words/helpful neologisms', use of 'unifying/splintering frames'... keeping it down to about 5-7 criteria, and short and sweet at the end of a posted comment... I also think a smaller scale, say -10 — +10 works better than a 1-100 scale.
re: "I often say that in politics (that is to say everything)- The end result is the original intention; as in: the WTC mas murder was intended to destroy the constitution, the rule of law, place all power in the executive."
Very well said, and I agree completely. So let's get the revolution going, now!
Hi VP,
I would certainly look forward to seeing *some sort* of ongoing reflection of CDers' opinions that we can add to our responses. Busy at work today and can't get into much discussion at the moment, but very pleased to see both you and SR showing interest. That's a very promising sign, as you both are prominent and respected posters/thinkers here.
But everyone's feedback welcome!
POST: Why not a collage of already expressed views? Best quotes? Or even taking it Live to You Tube. I wish I had more computer savoir-faire as a lot can be done with the existing technologies. The spark of revolution, even, in places like Egypt and Tunisia. Of course now that it's football season in our Occupied Land of the Free, it'll be a bit harder to summon the necessary levels of testosterone, or stir the multitudes away from The Field.
Who said the Roman Arena's days ended?
I like these ideas, and I don't follow football or commercial sports. And fewer and fewer people are, for the iron is getting hot- I am saying the Roman day is turning to night, and we have a most beautiful dawn ahead.
The seldom seen reality is that a war in Afghanistan was avoidable and we could have exacted sufficient revenge on the Taliban for supporting bin Laden and al Qaeda. The more important point is that the invasion of Iraq was totally unjust and completely unrelated to the damage America sustained. The result was many deaths and terrible injuries to our own people and horrendous crimes against humanity perpetrated upon the Iraqi. There was no reason for that and the excuse was a horrible exercise of power by American leaders. This is how empires destroy themselves. It is interesting that intelligent articles on Commondreams are responded to by angry, ignorant, small-minded persons all very sure of themselves with no credentials whatsoever.
"It is interesting that intelligent articles on Commondreams are responded to by angry, ignorant, small-minded persons all very sure of themselves with no credentials whatsoever."
Who espouse which views? The views that run counter to 9/11 Orthodoxy?
" Increased defense spending, together with the Bush tax cuts, is a key reason why America went from a fiscal surplus of 2% of GDP when Bush was elected to its parlous deficit and debt position today. "
When exactly was Bu$h *ELECTED*??? He was illegally appointed the presidency in 2000 by the SCOTUS (a non-violent and silent coup?) and in 2004 he won the election by election fraud (Ohio.)
He was *NEVER* legally elected, which makes him the biggest criminal to ever walk the face of this planet. It would seem that if we had an honest legal system, his two terms as president would be nullified, along with all legislation and SCOTUS appointees approved during his tenure. Further, with a very thorough investigation of 9/11 and the wars he started as a result...well it would seem that this bastard and ALL of his cronies, from Dick Cheney and KKKarl Rove on down, would be in one great big heap of trouble.
But no...instead he successfully pulled of the biggest scam in the history of the world and is now living high on the hog in Dallas, compliments of we the taxpayers.
Righton Aussidawg!!
You are the closest to getting it right so far....with just one exception. Bush's handlers "pulled off the biggest scam in the history of the world". Cheney was the evil Mad Scientist who was in charge for at least the first four years (the only thing that functions in that mechanical heart of his....is his lust for power & money)! Bush was busy with lessons on putting his thoughts into complete and decipherable sentences...."you're doing a heck of a job" trainers!! The "non-violent and silent coup", if we ever have any real history in the future, will be looked at as one of the Democrats and the voters' most shameful moments! By the way, I hope most of you commenting have come to realize that the terrorist attacks were at least approved of, if not orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al. It is my firm belief that getting them into power under such ridiculously obvious tactics was so damned important!!
SCARRY to think of how much organization all that took!!!
Does CD ever publish articles that directly attack the negative effects of religions on politics? As I see it, a progressive website should challenge the connections between church and state. I’ve never seen an article (at least an in-depth treatment) that calls out the priestcraft for its contributions to the world’s problems.
Is Common Dreams a religious sympathizer? Are they religiously affiliated like some of their regular contributors? Is the glaring omission some kind of policy?
I question the motive behind your allegation, as it seems like an insidious way to plant mistrust where there is no cause for it. CD has posted articles about Erik Prince as a purported Christian; and it's posted articles about the Christian Evangelicals influencing Air Force recruits; and it's also published an article or two, on the religious insignia etched into the sighting devices seen on certain target weapons. It's had plenty of articles mocking Bush's purported faith, as well as that of the new evangelical pretender, Perry.
If you prefer a right wing, or libertarian site, by all means go to one.
I have tried 5 times to get CD to publish one of my articles about the negative effects of religion on politics. Failed every time. I’m frustrated is all. Here’s a snippet from one.
Judaism: They believe they are God’s favorite. The leaders of the Mosaic religion had a history of commanding their people to slaughter entire nations, even the babies. After 1,800 years without a country of their own, they emigrated to Palestine en masse and then refused to grant a homeland to the people who were there first.
Christianity: They believe they are God’s favorite. When Christian leaders came to power they plundered the entire world in the name of God. The people of every non-Christian country on Earth were slaughtered, enslaved, or treated as savages and barbarians, while colonialism destroyed the majority of their ancient cultures.
Islam: They believe they are God’s favorite. Though they lag behind in civil rights, their violence is right on par. Citing the delight of God to see infidels die, which is any non-Muslim, they commit mass murders by bombing the general public. When infidels are in short supply they are happy to please the Almighty with the deaths of each other.
These are the worst examples, but it demonstrates how the seeds of conceit, which these religions sow, eventually bear the fruit of crime and violence.
Imagine if someone said to you: “You are inferior to me!” This is precisely how churches, temples and mosques are subtly training their followers to think of other people. Such conceit cannot be avoided, after all, they claim to possess the actual “Word of God.” Attendees nod their heads and hearts to what the preachers are selling, and the gist of it is: “God is pleased with us” and “God is not pleased with outsiders.” You hear that just being there makes you a better person than others. And if you join them (bring money) and follow obediently (stop thinking) then you’re even better. People love to have their egos stroked and some will pay almost any price – body and soul, to those who do it well. Priestcraft is the oldest men’s profession.
End snippet.
Okay, Dave, as a writer, I certainly know the pain of seeing one's work rejected. If you elaborated with historical documentation, and suggested that point (about each thinking their group The Chosen) without drumming it in, maybe it would become a more comprehensible piece of writing that CD would consider.
Thank you for taking the time to explain. Sorry if I was hard on you.
Here's another snippet.
In the United States these wars secretly give the general public a sense of pride. Israel is nearly euphoric about them. On the surface it may not appear that way, but it doesn’t take much digging to see this. Talk to almost any Christian or Jew about the wars and you can see the gleam of satisfaction. They’re ashamed to admit it, but their delight becomes obvious very quickly. They just can’t talk openly about what their hearts know is so morally wrong. Their dark hidden attitude is that the Muslims can go to hell.
Plain and simple, religion is the main reason we don’t have a real anti-war movement. The proof of this is easily seen by remembering the public attitude against the Vietnam War. The protests had become so widespread by time we quit, that not only were millions of people in the streets rallying against the war, but there was a multitude of churches speaking out. This is not the case with today’s conflicts that are raging all over the Muslim world, but then, we never heard bad things about Buddhists when we were growing up.
These wars in the Middle East were based on reports of threats we knew were lies in the first place. And they have been spilling blood for nearly a decade with very little progress, but very substantial tears. Meanwhile, we’ve wasted a trillion dollars and ruined our economy. Where are the protesters? Nearly 1,000,000 people have died. Over 3,000,000 people have fled their countries. And they haven’t returned home either. Do they prefer refugee camps? Almost every Iraqi citizen has dead friends or family members. The churches are silent. The temples are silent.
I read everything you have posted- thank you. I suggest reading Dr. Shlains work The Alphabet Versus The Goddess. Your work has merit, and while I think it still needs more context and more work the premise needs to be drummed into people's heads, do not succumb to dismay.
And one more section...
Not only is there no end in sight, we’re expanding our attacks. In addition to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are now bombing four other Muslim countries. That’s war against six nations and not one of them attacked us. None of these people wanted us there. None of them want us there now. They may dislike us, but how is that God’s permission to kill them? Government reports, leaked by employees with a conscience, show us that covert projects are working to destabilize almost every Muslim country in the world. Public outrage ended the Vietnam War. Private delight expands the War on Islam.
What happened to the golden rule? Christianity, Judaism and Islam all pretend to speak for God, but only one is being murdered. Behold! Christians and Jews are in complete agreement for the first time in history!
Here's the problem, Dave: You paint with too broad a brush. You can't throw every Jew or Christian or Muslim into your "formula." And while I agree that religion has been used to fuel the flames of holy war, largely by deceiving followers into believing that God is behind these bloodbaths, that insidious ideological device was put in place to anesthetize the consciences that OUGHT to be operating. Still, not everyone goes along with this crap (which I term Mars Rules), and all followers are not guilty; nor do they necessarily subscribe to these atavistic beliefs. Your generalizations weaken your commentary, although you do raise some points worthy of consideration.
That post, wasn't even an effective speed bump, much less a preemptive thread re-direct.
Try harder.
I always like to separate the Religious from the Spiritual.
To me they are totally different things. Religion hi-jacks spirituality in order to promote the earthly power of the few over the many.
It very much like science is hi-jacked to create weapons to kill one another again giving people power over the other. Science is also being used to do harm the World over. (See Mosanto)
Politics is more of the same. It becomes corrupt on its own and does not needs Religion to make it so. Again the pursuit of power over the other.
The desire of one group of people to dominate another wherein the latter is exploited to enrich the former can take many guises and one should not focus on just religion. It was not Religion that created this desire.
the invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before the demolition of the WTC.
THIS is understandable - it's how the USers work.