Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Not A Peep About President's Praise for War
The grades for the president’s State of the Union are in and the critics have been kind. In fact, it's chilling to see just how few hits the president takes for couching his entire address in unqualified celebration of the US military.
Speaking of the troops, President Obama began: “At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations.”
Post-show pundits on cable news praised the president’s comfort with his commander-in-chief role but none saw fit to mention recent news -- of marines urinating on Afghan corpses, say, or Staff Sgt Wuterich walking free after participating in the killing of 24 unarmed men, women and children in Haditha, Iraq. Accompanying Obama's next phrase, “Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example,” no one thus far has played vile viral video. The critics have been kind.
The president chose to celebrate the US military; the press chose not to raise a peep about the spread of US militarism. Yet US targets proliferate -- abroad – with unmanned drones assassinating unconvicted suspects in innumerable undeclared wars. And militarism spreads at home. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act makes indefinite military detention without charge or trial a permanent feature of the American legal system. It’s kind of the critics not to mention that – or the president's four-year-old pledge to close Guantanamo, and to restore the “rule of law.”
“They’re not consumed with personal ambition… They work together,” continued the president (again, speaking of the troops.) There are surely plenty of troops who would disagree. The tally is long of commanders and pigeon hawk commanders-of-commanders who’ve dodged responsibility, fingered underlings and permitted rank-and-file “bad-apples” to take the heat for US war crimes.
“Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn a thing or two from the service of our troops,” the president concluded.
There are indeed things we can learn; things that many US troops have begged us to learn. That war dehumanizes the killer and the killed, and that war tactics have a habit of spreading from the war zone to the home. Successive generations have told us that military recruiters lie, and that “rules of war” exist only in legal minds. (Ninety percent of casualties in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were civilians.) Troops have begged us to learn just what we are celebrating when we celebrate “winning” and war.
As far as I can see, Ralph Nader on Democracy Now was the lone voice of disgust on national TV.
Clearly we have a lot to learn.
134 Comments so far
Show AllAfter a a brief period of US citizens realizing the horrors of Vietnam the Pentagon horrified by anit-war sentiment set out it Make America a Man Again program. They developed video games for recruiting, assisted movies like Rambo and Top Gun. It was working and then of course came 9/11 the shock that anyone could attack the "indispensable"USA and it was all military all the time. Even the peace movement couldn't have a rally without first paying obeisance to "supporting the troops" even if they added bring them home. A peace movement so bound to militarism is not a good sign. We really need to challenge militarism and the masculinism that supports it in a thorough way. It is killing masses of civilians and the very earth we live on. And I am so sick of so-called progressives giving Obama a pass for his taking us ever further down that path.
You are absolutely correct, artemix. Militarism, and a phony sense of manhood, have been pumped endlessly into a populace that now is insensibly drugged with them.
Heavily-militarized societies usually don't end well, as evidenced by history.
The US' time will come.
The time is now ! The empire has 3 years max; its burden of blood is too much to overcome. The biggest obstacle to World Peace is done for. May a peaceful nation rise from the ashes.
You, Ralph Nader, Laura and others are absolutely right. Failure to take responsibility for the mistakes of the past, does not ennoble, but denigrates our military. Of course to take this level of responsibility takes a level of courage rarely seen in history unless forced by tribunals. Also, it implies that the practices of the past have stopped- which they clearly haven't. Yet, only by taking responsibility and remembering our mistakes, can we avoid future ones.
If you said to Obama- or almost everyone else in government- to include in the SOTU, a condemnation of the Iraq War-even if they believed it, they would laugh. They would say, "That would be political suicide and disrespectful to those who served." It would also delegitimize their leadership. Again, they would only probably acknowledge these mistakes and take responsibility for the carnage they caused, if they faced a war tribunal. However, assuming they are unable to rewrite history to their making- the only tribunal they are likely to face is that of history-to which they will be relegated to the dustbin.
artemix
Good points. I would also add that the most excellent book The Hollywood War Machine: U.S. Militarism and Popular Culture [2007) by Carl Boggs and Tom Pollard educates the reader concerning how the military assists and aids in the propaganda of movies that are made in this country. This indispensable book notes how very few Hollywood producers ever think about challenging and going up against the image of American militarism that is so endemic in this country.
Beyond movies, there is now infiltration of "military is good" memes via advertisements for the National Guard that talk about how wonderful it was to help flood victims. The Navy now touts itself as a global force for peace, or some such rot.
Military jet flyovers are becoming obligatory at certain sporting events and at large summer fairs.
Callers to talk shows are routinely accorded reverent genuflections for "their service".
When you are from a poor neighborhood, such illusions carry weight. Particularly when alternative paths include things like drug-running and gang membership. The military is seen as a somewhat straight and honest, even "religious" alternative. It affords one a certain amount of self-righteousness. Alas, although joining the service may be one of few paths out of a dire situation, the eventuality is often more dire, and not a worthwhile path in any event. In this writer's opinion, of course.
I agree totally with the previous five posts. Let's try for an even half dozen.
Another excellent resource on the history of the Hollywood and mainstream television media's roll in furthering the masculine military warrior ethic after the debacle of Vietnam is Andrew Bachevich's book "The New Militarism." Along with Top Gun, Rambo, GI Joe figurines for kids, Tour of Combat video games, ritual fly overs before the games at our sports colesiums, and endless military recruiting ads, I nominate for a sign that the cultural apocalypse is upon us those beer company advertisements (beer being the penultimate macho man food) urging can and bottle cap contributions be saved up and spent in to raise money to support our heroic returning war veterans. Now there is the nexus of Pentagon psy ops and male-oriented consumer capitalism at its essence.
Laura Flanders does an excellent job in this piece. As a veteran who was part of the GI antiwar movement during the Vietnam era, I too was appalled by how President Obama's SOTU address started with militarism, ended with militarism, and had yet a third accolade for militarism (Special Ops variation) sandwiched in the middle. Surely we have now come full circle. From about 1966 through about 1980, you would be hard pressed to find any significant American political figure of either major party publicly declaring how the US military establishment should be the model that domestic civilian society should emulate.
The glorification of renewed militarism that started gradually in the early 1980's was accompanied by a parallel media campaign broadly villifying the peace and love and antimilitary, antiwar movement culture of the 60's. John Kerry was a part of that peace movement, and he ran away from that credential like it was toxic as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. 2008 nominee Barack Obama took pains to say nothing whatsoever about the controversies and lessons of the Vietnam era. Look only forward, or if you insist on historical context, then leapfrog back to World War II instead, our current Nobel Peace prize laureate president says.
Few candidates for public office today talk about peace, or nuclear disarmament, or international human rights, or the need for civilian institutional restraints upon military adventurism abroad. The silence of the media about the dangers of militarism that Laura Flanders comments upon matches the silence from the candidates' stump speeches about how to build a peaceful world, while they bloviate endlessly over who patriotically supports the sacrifices of our soldiers and spies for the killing of evildoers wherever they may lurk.
In the interest of fair and honest media balance, maybe we could start with a national Super PAC which targets negative ads against selected jingoist sabre rattlers whenever there is an opposition candidate opponent on the ballot unafraid to speak up for peace.
Bill from Saginaw
Member
Veterans for Peace
Bill
Very well said.
Thank you, excellent comment. And, thank you, too, for another excellent article Laura Flanders.
"From about 1966 through about 1980, you would be hard pressed to find any significant American political figure of either major party publicly declaring how the US military establishment should be the model that domestic civilian society should emulate."
But not after 1984!
End Militarism
End Imperialism
Overthrow Capitalism!
These so called progressives I had on Facebook, ALWAYS had something witty to say about Bush and the republicans, they always had a link to John Stewart or some other "smart" critic of the republicans, but when Obama raped Libya, they had not WORD ONE to say about it. I committed facebook Hari Kari, and deleted my account. I had no real friends.
The worst type of imperialist propaganda comes from self-proclaimed "progressives" who try to dress up criminal, aggressive wars (like Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq) as being "humanitarian." The "humanitarian interventionists" are, in actuality, Neocon war criminals for playing a major role in brainwashing Western populations into supporting illegal wars that kill millions of innocent people. If new Nuremberg Trials were held, the "humanitarian interventionists" would get strung up.
I don't give Obama a pass on war and glorifying battle. I'm a progressive-Democrat. Was. I reregistered as an Independent and voted for Ron Paul in our state's primary. He is anti-war, anti-imperialism, would close WWII-relic military bases. Sure, he has social programs that, broad-brushed, sound repugnant. But as Commander-in-Chief he can bring home ALL the troops. The rest he has to do with Congressional agreement. I think he's worth the chance at a period of peace and recovery from war and spending on war with borrowed money. Besides, the broad-brushing of his social program ideas usually leaves out his effectively stated / explained nuances, if people would give him an ear.
It makes me sick in that photo on Common Dreams, to see Nancy Pelosi clasping her raised hands in admiration of her President. She's the one who was given information initially on waterboarding as an interrogation technique and kept it to herself. WITH THE NEW PRESIDENT, she said that Bush-Cheney would not be made to answer to their lies that led to war on Iraq. Both Pelosi and Obama wanted to "put that all behind," despite logical, reasoned, impassioned calls from good Democrats to understand and record history before we swept away its facts.
Speaking of the troops, President Obama began: “At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations.”
thanks for chirping up, laura!
in our home every time the prez of the moment offers the heartfelt, obligatory praise for our "altruistic" teens who do the noble deeds (serving the nobility) you'll hear lots of peeping, but.....
that all gets drowned out by the squawking chicken hawks!
☮
"At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations." We expected them to kill and destroy; yes, they did exceed those expectations.
Don't forget torture. Expectations were exceeded in this category also.
well said.
I don't know. Maybe if others of our institutions were as well funded, autonomous and opaque as the military, our perception would be that they too "exceed all expectations." Though in reality, I expect most of them are meeting the real, unspoken expectations of being overburdened, underfunded and paralyzed by bureaucratic micromanagement, thereby providing anecdotal justification for their elimination.
By juxtaposing the competence of the military with the incompetence of every other American institution, Obama is laying the philosophical groundwork for a military dictatorship. We already have military commissions that have taken the place of courts, and with the NDAA we have mandatory indefinite detention by the military for terrorist suspects. The military is taking over the core functions of the judiciary, the executive, and has long since controlled the legislative branch. In any other country we would call this a military dictatorship. What Obama is doing is to make us think that this is all normal, right and justifiable. Imagine everyone across TV Land nodding their heads, saying, "yeah, the military is the only institution that functions properly, we should put them in charge of everything." We're not that far off....
Spot on. But also include the Company, which now runs the most of the bloody show in Afghanistan.
Obam is a pawn of the CIA as were his mother and maternal grandfather. He is well suited prepared for his role as apologist in chief for militarism.
Obama, like the 3 presidents before him, is a murderious enemy of the people! Complete scum.
"“At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations.”
Abu Gharib, pissing on corpses, taking body parts as souvenirs, gunning down Pat Tillman, shooting innocent civilians, the missing millions of dollars in Iraq etc....yup they certainly have exceeded expections.
"As far as I can see, Ralph Nader on Democracy Now was the lone voice of disgust on national TV."
You know, it always seems like Ralph is alone. He must think at times that he dropped into America from some other planet. Everyone says they support these values but he obviously missed the wink and a nod. He stands up for what people pretend they believe in and finds himself alone time after time. I am amazed he has as much energy as he does. I think I would have given up long ago if I were given those shoes to wear.
Ralph has what my grandma called the "strength of his own convictions". He's one of those rare people that can't go contrary to what they know is right and wrong just to belong or be accepted. His personal integrity means more to him than possible celebrity or power.
Another with convictions and principles is Ron Paul. I just wrote a letter of support for him in the Florida primary voting: I sent it to quite a few newspapers. I like what my nurse-friend Cathy said about him. She (also a Democrat who voted for him in our NH primary) said, "He's not in it for professional satisfaction. Dr. Paul already has professional satisfaction as a doctor. He's in it because he believes he has answers that are needed for our problems." After our vote she left me a phone message: "Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who is anti-death-penalty." He doesn't pose. When something is humorous he laughs, unstaged on-stage. When something is not funny, he's appropriately stern. In the Florida debate tonight he charged the MC with, potentially, age-ism, for confirming his 76 years. Then he lightened it with challenging any of the other candidates to bicycle ride with him in Texas heat. He's very, refreshingly human, observant, bold, listening.
Seems like Ron Paul has said a lot about how these wars are illegal, immoral and wrong.
Rocky Anderson has also said those same things. But this being the United States, this then means that the corporate media will do everything they can in order to enable the two major political parties while ignoring any third party candidate like Anderson who dares to challenge those who are in power.
Paul never said wars were immoral. If he is anti-war from a moral standpoint, why does he have nothing to do with anti-war movements? (unlike say, Kucinich, or Nader). Paul opposes foreign wars because he mistakenly believes that militarism and wars are another kind of "big government" imposition on "market-freedom" - in foolish consistency with his opposition to all other big-government market impositions like wage-and-hour, health and safety, environmental, sucurities and financial regulation.
Of course, the whole purpose of war is a attempt to preserve "market freedom" by temporarily escaping the fundamental contradiction of capitalism and free markets - that the growth imperitive leads to oversupply and saturation of a market, leading to market collapse and/or resource exhaustion. So, wars are needed to open other lands for expanded markets and resource exploitation. This behavior, of course, was first described by Marx, and verified by history again and again.
In the latest twist - war itself becomes a manifestation of free markets - the lucritive free market for ever more sophisticated and deadly weaponry. These weapons need to be used to maintain the market, so war itself becomes a free-market business imperitive or the economy collapses. The design and assembly of sophisitcated weaponery and military aircraft are the only growing capitalist industry in the US - just drive around the DC beltway or visit the only relatively economically thriving parts of the US - tidewater Virginia or the DC area, Atlanta, Seattle, Orange County, California, and San Diego And indeed, if the military-industrial complex were dismantled tomorrow, the US and much of the world would be plunged into economic depression.
A hypothetical President Paul would very quickly learn this within weeks of entering office.
"Paul never said wars were immoral."
... so it's better to have a candidate in office who makes war and says it is moral..?
"A hypothetical President Paul would very quickly learn this within weeks of entering office."
This is becoming a common meme on CommonDreams (hey I'm a poet!) - 'No president could change anything,,, but that won't stop me from being against one particular candidate!' I see no internal logic there.
You apparently did not read my post. You call yourself an actual leftist, but you seem to be unfamiliar with the basics of Marxian theory.
So, here is a different argument:
Proposition:
One cannot support something right, for the wrong reasons, and expect the desired outcome in the end - except by highly improbable accident.
Proof:
1. Paul's opposition to war is based on his opposition to "big government" restricting "freedom of markets" not the moral concern for social welfare. This has to be the case, becasue it is the only way his opposition to war is consistent with the rest of his anti social-welfare philosophy.
2. The dismantling of the MIC, including the wars the expanding MIC depends on, would plunge the economy into a deep depression.
3. The only way to avoid such a collapse would be to redirect the enormous productive capacity of the MIC to other government programs - clean energy, transportation, perhaps British-style healthcare for all, a package of expanded social wage.
4. But barring an improbable miraculous conversion of Ron Paul to democratic socialism, he would be even more apalled at such "big government" replacement programs.
5. But deep economic depresion would not be an option either.
6. Therefore, we can conclude, that Ron Paul would stop worrying and learn to accept the MIC - or perhaps move it toward an even more privatized and mercenary-based and even less democratically accountable version of it.
Q.E.D.
"Paul's opposition to war is based on his opposition to "big government" restricting "freedom of markets" not the moral concern for social welfare."
This is where you begin to be wrong - Paul has stated any number of times he's opposed to these wars because it's bad for Americans. I don't give a toss if he means that in a collective or an individual sense; both are correct. In case you missed it, Ron Paul and Karl Marx are not the ones running for president.
My father got pretty screwed up after being drafted to Vietnam. Intervention was bad for him. Intervention was bad for him personally. Intervention was bad for our family.
If you had any concern whatever for, say, the Bolivarian revolution you'd be very happy to have a selfish anti-interventionist in the White House. If you had any concern for avoiding another war with Iran you might see merit in this:
""... the danger is really us overreacting."
"You're trying to dramatize this that we have to go and treat Iran like we've treated Iraq," Paul said. "You cannot solve these problems with war."
The audience booed Paul, cheering on Bachmann.
Bachmann pointed to a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that suggested Iran could be nearing nuclear capabilities. ...
"There is no U.N. report that said that," Paul said. "That is totally wrong on what you just said. That is not true. They produced information that led you to believe that. They have no evidence."
---
This is precisely what a leftist candidate would have said on this issue. QED that. You really sound like an undergrad who found out about the radical bookstore near campus a few months ago.
actualleftist
You note that: "My father got pretty screwed up after being drafted to Vietnam. Intervention was bad for him. Intervention was bad for him personally. Intervention was bad for our family." As a Vietnam veteran who suffers from PTSD I was particularly struck by the fact that your father was apparently more concerned for his own personal welfare than that of the Vietnamese people who were being routinely slaughtered by the United States military. It should not take too much imagination to wonder what American intervention felt like to the Vietnamese.
If you are as anti-war as you claim to be you may wish to check a couple DVDs called Vietnam: American Holocaust and the Oscar winning 1975 documentary Hearts and Minds as these two exceptional films do something that is unique among American films and that is that they give voice to those who had been the victims of American imperialism, i.e. the Vietnamese people.
First off you're conflating my words with his. I'm the one pointing out that the war was bad for him personally, which is objectively correct. Are you contending that the war WAS good for you personally, or for him?
Beyond that I'm not following why wanting to avoid death or PTSD for Americans and therefore steering away from intervention would not be good for the Vietnamese nor Iraqis nor anyone else. Had America acted in a way to save 58,000 of its own then millions in SE Asia would have lived. Not wanting to get your own face blown off is a perfectly valid reason not to want to blow someone else's off so far as I'm concerned.
It's not either/or, one is concerned for the welfare of Americans at the expense of others. In the case of war one saves both sides by not intervening. Beyond this I might point out that there's a great deal of suffering in the US indirectly caused by war, through cutting social budgets and reordering monetary policy to pay for it.
I'm a bit curious as to why you think a working class kid raised in the '50s and '60s in the US and drafted into a war as a teenager - and fairly early on, I believe in '66 - should have spontaneously developed an awareness of currents in Third World politics. You seem to be suggesting that a young person's impulse to self-preservation is selfish..?
Finally I'm too young to have been in the war but I have been to Vietnam, including to what was called the "Museum of American Atrocities" and the Hanoi Hilton and so forth. I've met plenty of people missing limbs from that war on both sides. I've been active in anti-war and anti-intervention stuff since the mid-'80s... SANE/FREEZE, Central American solidarity, numerous Middle East related marches (against wars THAT RON PAUL VOTED AGAINST ENTERING) and so forth. I also did some work in Bosnia in the '90s. While I appreciate the input we don't have a difference of opinion because of my ignorance of US imperialism. (And I apologize for not getting involved earlier, but I was busy with elementary school and previous to that learning how to use the potty.)
actualleftist
You start off by claiming that "First off you're conflating my words with his." No, I was not, as I quoted verbatim what you had said concerning your father. If you had actually paid attention to what I had written you would have discovered that my comments were directed at the thoughts of your father and what had happened to him and your family and not, as you bizarrely believe, toward you.
I never said that "... wanting to avoid death or PTSD for Americans and therefore steering away from intervention would not be good for the Vietnamese nor Iraqis nor anyone else." This leads to your fourth paragraph where you wonder why "a working class kid raised in the '50s and '60s in the US and drafted into the war as a teenager and fairly early on, I believe in '66 - should have spontaneously developed an awareness of currents in Third World politics." One does not have to have had a degree in political science at that time to have realized that killing a people who had never threatened anyone in these United States was an immoral and wrong thing to do. I, also, came from a working class background during that time but I certainly questioned what the United States was doing in Vietnam.
I should have also added in my previous comment that while many in the military such as myself did indeed foolishly obey the orders that we were given we also had had regret and sorrow about what we had done those many years ago. But what you omitted in your comments is whether your father has or had ever expressed regret for taking part in that most unnecessary conflict. There certainly is not a day that goes by that I do not do that.
If you are actually interested in this subject then you may wish to see the searing documentary Sir! No Sir! which chronicles the story of the GI rebellion that took place at or near military bases both at home and abroad during the Vietnam War. Those soldiers who are featured in that riveting film should be considered, in an ideal world, to be the true heroes of this country as opposed to those who carry out, without question, the illegal and immoral orders that they are given by their commanding officers.
Erroll -
I have no idea what you're arguing with me about.
You and my father did the same things and at no point have I indicated that he didn't feel bad about it later. I haven't in fact indicated any opinion of his on any topic at all, merely that *I* am stating that it's obvious that the Vietnam war was bad for him, and bad for our family. For some strange reason you have an issue with that statement.
From there I'm quite fine with people using "war screws up American families" as reason enough for a politician to oppose same. That's a fair and decent position with the side benefit of not killing people abroad either.
"If you are actually interested in this subject..." Jesus Christ, dude, I've been living with "this subject" for 40 years, as has my entire family. Did you see that bit where I, yknow, WENT TO VIETNAM? Thought it would be good for one of us to visit and not shoot anyone. But I'm happy to see the documentary too.
actualleftist
Do try to make an attempt to calm down, "dude", as all I was doing was attempting to address in a civil manner the comments that you had directed toward me.
I'll confess that I haven't followed the nuanced exchanges within the Republican primary debates (I could never actually vote for a Repug now), but my impression of Ron Paul's position on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was this: we should end our involvement and bring the troops home as soon as possible because it is simply "none of our business", and we "never had any business" invading those countries in the first place.
I find this statement of Paul's opposition to war simple, concise, all purpose, comprehensible, and fully acceptable. There is absolutely no reason that more candidates for public office having conservative, centrist, liberal, or left wing progressive political views could not say exactly the same words, and simply move on to the next topic unless they wanted to elaborate further.
It works for Ron Paul, and look at the base constituency that he has to contend with.
Bill from Saginaw
That train of thought was not one that had occurred to me, but now that you have pointed it out, I can see that it is true.
Ron Paul has said a lot about it! The left should read his book end the Fed, he also writes biting critiques about the so called one percent. The same media that gives Obama a free pass has smeared Paul with lies.
On Dec. 1 in Laconia, NH, with an overflow, standing-room-only crowd, I heard Congressman Paul say, "We should run foreign policy according to the Golden Rule." He also said, "I don't like it when we call people we kill accidentally in war 'collateral damage'." He said, "Freedom comes with tolerance and nonviolence."
He is more anti-war than our incumbent President, who has sucked up to the worst aspects of militarism. Having Navy Seals go where directed to kill our targets - on military / Presidential say-so --what happened to rule of law, trials, evidence, defense?
Now Presiden Obama is also called, by Alexander Cockburn, "The Man Who Shot Habeus Corpus," for signing quietly on January 1 this year, the National Defense Authorization Act. With his strong and steady interest in freedom, a President Ron Paul would not have done that.
When you think about it, if the military have exceeded the president's expectations...what exactly was he expecting from them in the first place?
gardenernorcal -
He may have expected a descent into renewed sectarian bloodletting in Iraq once American combat troops departed. He may have expected a Dien Bien Phu level catastrophe for the ground troops in Afghanistan with their supply lines through Pakistan suddenly severed. He may have expected Osama bin Laden to be gone forever, or else perhaps he expected Osama bin Laden to pop up again tomorrow on U-Tube, gleefully taking credit for another successful attack on American soil during President Barack Obama's watch.
Who knows? Maybe the President spoke too soon. Maybe that passage from Obama's state of the union address will come back to haunt him, rather like Bush's infamous Mission Accomplished speech.
Bill from Saginaw
An excellent article. Barack Obama and each of the other candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, is not a man of peace. Too bad that Ron Paul is such a looney on other subjects. Being a man of peace should be the main requirement for anyone seeking the presidency.
America has become a nation of warmongers, and this is the historical development that will, sooner or later, end it.
If I were to say that Athens would destroy itself by invading Syracuse, most people would think I was talking about a basketball game. Of course we never were Athenians although we had a good speaker or two.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama showed his true colors when he made his war-mongering speech in front of The Nobel Peace Prize Committee. And he has done everything he could ever since to ratchet up fear. And loves to gloat over "taking out" Osama Bin Laden. And concludes his 2012 State of the Union Speech by recalling watching this taking of life on TV with Hillary and Bob Gates (as if nonpartisanship is the important subject here).
Symbolism, not realism, is always the marker of the bellicose. Many experts doubt that Bin Laden even was the mastermind of 9/11 . Me, I don't know. But I sure would have liked to hear some better evidence.
Show, all show-- that's how it is with those who prefer war. Where is their humanity? How did it go sour?
Killing people indiscriminately will not make this country into a stronger place. We can do better. Or is it too late?
http://bottle-booksandstuffbyjohnescher.blogspot.com/
Please note: Ron Paul is anti-interventionist, NOT a "man of peace". That would be Martin Luther King, Jr., assassinated exactly a year after his most important speech challenging U.S. violence and warmongering.
Ron Paul supports a "strong defense" and is not opposed to war, per se. He only opposes illegl wars of aggression. See this article: The Misadventure of Ron Paul | Dissident Voice http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/01/the-misadventure-of-ron-paul/
"Ron Paul is anti-interventionist, NOT a "man of peace"."
How terrible! I'm glad you're willing to make this distinction and that it's important to you. It would be tragic if a Pashtun family were to avoid being killed by a drone strike if the cause were simply indifference. Fortunately we now provide death from above with motivation and interest, and one can only hope that the unappreciative bastards become thankful for the time, energy and money we've expended on their behalf.
Here again the "Actual Leftist" in convoluted language speaks on behalf of the right wing Ron Paul.
If you want to use the word WE continuously, in your inverted rationales for war, then join the MSM. What part of the 1% owning & controlling the 99% don't you get? What part of the way the MSM manufactures consent through a planned dissemination of lies?
Laura Flanders, like so many WOMEN paying attention, noticed the uber: Mars rules conditioning expressed by our "Nobel Prize Peace Prez." THAT is the subject, and how the pro-war/pro-military hero worship infuses our culture.
You are about as genuine as a 3-dollar bill.
PDJ: Good post
No, I'm speaking "on behalf of" not murdering people in Asia. Paul and I happen to be on the same page on that one, and you for some reason are opposed to this fact.
Yeah, Paul is right wing. So what? He's an anti-intervention conservative, which is preferrable to pseudo-liberal mass murderers and neo-con mass murderers 100 times out of 100.
My wife is a reading specialist at a public school. Why don't you let me know what portion of my post you find to be "convoluted language" and maybe she can give me some pointers on working through your reading comprehension blocks.
It's a good thing we've had WOMEN like Maggie Thatcher and Condi Rice and Maddie "Price We Think Is Worth It" Albright and Hilary "It's Funny When Gadaffi Gets Stabbed in the Ass" Clinton and Nancy "Weapons Contractor Money Bought My Dresses" Pelosi making decisions instead of a bunch of nasty MEN. or else the world might be all screwed up.
Maybe you and the girls can go out and talk about how wrong it is that man-cock-oppressor Ron Paul doesn't want to bring Democracy and Freedom to the brown people via high explosives.
One has to be part robot to deal with this site. It's amazing how often deeply etched out points have been made--and documented--only to move into the equivalent of a cognitive black-hole, whereby one is forced to repeat them.
As an astrologer, I do not view the world through any of the following:
1. One size fits all
2. Life's deep questions (and events) boiling down to "either-or" proclamations
3. Might makes right
4. Winners and enemies
With that being said, I have ENDLESSLY explained that the premises that make for the Mars rules (our own) society, also operate in ways that socialize (or should I say program, just like computer chips on the basis of elaborate systems of rewards and punishments, the worst being those akin to shaming--to the point of social exile--the ones who do not conform) both genders.And this process socializes all citizens to adapt to a Mars-ruled nation and its particular MIC-oriented ethos.
There is the archetype of the "Green man," the male who identifies so closely with nature that he is a champion of The Goddess, or Earth Mother. (Evo Morales, and most Indigenous males qualify). And, in a reciprocal way, there is the archetype of Athena, posing as the female who supports war and battle.
It's no accident that Athena is purported to have been born through her father Zeus's head. In other words, she thinks like men and therefore is invited to join the boys' clubs. When these old power elites need a female token player... who do you think will fill that role? A true feminist, which is to say, the woman (or man) who understands the need for an egalitarian society, what Riane Eisler terms "The Partnership Society," or women llike those you've mentioned?They happen to represent the same token handful drawn out of the hat by other male posters who simply cannot take in the FACTS of how society, or civilization became MAL-formed by only allowing input--down the centuries--to one gender. So the canard is to say, "Mark these military ladies! They're just like men. You see, there IS no difference based on gender. Women are just as violent as men." Since when did the exception MAKE the rule?
It is a fundamental asymmetry which has thrown all other equivalences off. The long rule by males (generally white Christian ones of means) is the core historical design flaw that makes all other hierarchical relationships possible. As Eisler put it, it establishes a ranking system whereby one gender out-ranked the other. And religions that established a punitive MALE god as head honcho, reinforced this catastrophic imbalance in ways that have led to a similar disrespect for Nature, the Great Mother. So now huMANity is in a place where endless sums of $ go into war, training would-be killers, AND weapons' systems, while so little goes towards ameliorating, off-setting, or preparing for climate change.
Because lies have built our civilization, and a great many of them go unchalllenged, it is easy for superficial thinkers like yourself to find surface examples to make the case for a status quo that is killing us all. The decimation of the female side of the equation has effectively shut down the entire society's capacity to FEEL... especially disabling genuine empathy and compassion.
Not long ago this forum held discourse centered around Bush as the "Unfeeling President" as someone named Doctorow (I believe it was) framed it. Yet a society where millions self-medicate with sugar (glaring obesity rates), and millions more are closet alcoholics, with still millions more consuming anti-depressant drugs... what we see is the NET effect of repressing feelings. Every one has to be In Control! manly!
Any male who shows feelings, or as seen in the advice from a nation like France in suggesting that Amerika scale back its martial impulses (after 911) is turned into an effeminate sissy...and to the Mars rules, macho-muscular militarist culture, nothing feminine in the way of feelings is respected... or even tolerated.
This mindset of boots marching has brought much of the world to ruin, and now it's pressing down, with quiet fascism, on our own citizens' once prized liberties.
It's useful to see the big picture, not just a crumb...
"As an astrologer.." is where I left off reading. After that I figured continuing would only subtract points from the ol' IQ. As a phrenologist I declare that you have the sloping brow and protruding jaw of a charlatan. As a wizard I'm going to make myself disappear from this conversation.
Well Done, Ms. Sioux Rose, you explained your point quite well and correctly. The question remains, with all of what you say being true, what is the way forward? How do we go and who goes first? How long will it take? Does Time have any place in all this.