Can anyone tell me WHY we are still at war?

Saddam = dead, Osama = dead.... why are we STILL there??????? I hear people complaining about their tax dollars helping the poor and going to healthcare BUT I hear very few IF ANYONE complain about a NEEDLESS FUCKING WAR THAT HAS NO FUCKING END TO IT.

Do you know the vast majority of enlisted men over there that have families here, are on food stamps? That base housing cannot accommodate all the families, so they either rent or buy houses they cannot afford, thus creating an environment where they feel the need to re-enlist because there are no jobs here at home that would allow them and their families to live a decent lifestyle?

These men and women are coming home to houses foreclosed, credit shot and MAYBE, MAYBE they can qualify for a VA Loan that doesn't truly help because it is not enough, the are no jobs that would help them make the payments and if they have bad credit... aw well. Even the Education help they get isn't enough to cover the ever rising cost of books and tuition. VA med centers are being closed down, the help for them when they come home should be embarrassing because it is a fucking joke.

BUT we have f'n BAIN CAPITAL OWNED CLEAR CHANNEL AND FAUX NEWS supporting a TREASONIST for president. A selfish pig who hides his money overseas so he doesn't have to pay taxes, while we are at WAR. And yet that Son of a Bitch, Mother Fucker claims to support the troops?

It's unbelievable.

Listen to the egocentric Right and Tea partiers: "I support the troops, but fuck you, I ain't paying taxes and Obama wants to raise MY taxes..... What? we have men and women fighting in a war with outdated weapons because our government can't afford the latest technology? Fuck, that.... I still ain't paying more in taxes... the war is all Obama's fault anyway."

 

that's the joke, there is no anti war vote for president. 4 more years of war no matter who wins.

the notion that the troops dont have the best equipment because the rich dont pay enough in taxes is absurd. the government spends what it spends regardless of how much tax money comes in via the federal reserve printing of currency. if the government got a few hundred billion extra in taxes it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

romney isn't the exception, all the politicans in washington hoard their millions while claiming to be for the troops or the poor or elderly. it's a joke.

 

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 01 that was authorized by Bush's first Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and approved by Congress. The outcome might have been different had Bush not diverted the bulk of forces and resources to invading Iraq, but then again, maybe not, given that no foreign invader has accomplished much in Afghanistan in hundreds of years. In terms of Afghanistan today, the sooner we are out, the better.

The second Bush AUMF (and approved by Congress) to invade Iraq, a country that posed no threat to the US and no ties to terrorists groups acting against the US, was a travesty against both the American and Iraqi people. the geo-political result was to strengthen Iran's influence and power in the region so I am not terribly upset with the remaining non-combat forces in Iraq any more than I am with having US forces in other Arab countries, Germany or S. Korea.

I also supported the manner in which the US participated with NATO in the regime change in Libya.

Closing Gitmo was never really a possibility w/o Congressional support; the treatment of prisoners there and in Afghanistan is marginally better. The use of drones is Obama's worst policy decision to-date.

 

Even though defence budgets have been cut under Obama, because the two wars weren't paid for after 2001, the defense spending costs are still going up.

The next issue is, even though I could cut the budget to Cold War levels (or lower), what do you do with all of the people who are out of work now? Or their homes have lost a lot of value because the base shut down? These are the good people that you are paying. There needs to be a major transition program to find good stable private sector jobs.

 

this is from eisenhower's famous 1961 farewell address.



why are we still at war? it's not hard to figure it out.

 

Kind of spells it out.

 

Just because Congress has not declared it a war (nor did they for Vietnam or Korea) does not mean it isn't. Try telling someone who has had their son/daughter die or come back mentally or physically different, that their child wasn't in a "real war". That's semantics that mean absolutely NOTHING.

Again, semantics. It's a political question mark as to how a congressman (moreso a Representative than a Senator) should handle it or vote.

Ok , a political hypothetical, so say you close Gitmo and one of the "prisoners" gets back in the States somehow and kills a lot of people, what are people going to say? It would be political and partisan suicide for all concerned.

I don't think there is a lack of it, I think that being an election year sadly he tries to avoid the issue. We can however take solace in the fact we aren't carpet bombing and using agent orange and napalm as we did in Vietnam nor is there a draft YET.
--- merged: Aug 16, 2012 4:20 AM ---

Therein lies the political/socioeconomical albatross. How do you stop a war and discharge troops to come home to no jobs? Here in Mansfield, Ohio, we had our Air Guard base close (it is the second longest military runway in the state of Ohio, housed the 179th and was a major C-130 base). It cost many jobs. And yet, when Obama was here recently, he flew into that base and praised it causing many supporters to just shake their heads and laugh at his huge mistake. That added a nice arsenal for the GOP in this area. Obama quite possibly could have carried this area handily, but after that, he may have lost some support. (He did out draw Romney, who was here the same day.)

A major transition? Where would the money come from? It's not like the 70's where government subsidized businesses to train men to help them achieve a professional status. (My dad took advantage of a program and achieved getting his Professional Land Surveyor's license and Civil Engineering license without having to go to college, just take the state test, after which he became a well respected project manager, ho had offers from companies all over the country. Mom just did not want to move.) Today BOTH of those professions require a college degree. Some of my dad's friends who returned from Nam received similar opportunities and were able to get into franchises when they were still affordable and growing. One became the Stanley Steamer franchisee, the other was able to buy his own Sunoco.

Programs like those today would be guffawed at by GOP Faux News and Clear Channel talking head followers as a waste of government money, colleges who worked so hard to make sure EVERY PROFESSION needs a degree (HELL, not too long ago someone in recovery could take a few counseling classes pass a test, then "hang a shingle out" as an addictions counselor, NOW you need a Master's degree and so many hours in the field to get a license to treat, this is causing the whole field to be in chaos and have fewer counselors due to the fact MOST recovering addicts who want to go into the field, don't have the money to go to school and get a Master's Degree in a field that WILL NOT pay enough to cover the loans they had to get in order to get that Master's degree.)

Looking back those programs helped the 80's become as prosperous as they were. I would even argue that THOSE programs did more for our 80's economy than Reagan did, as those programs and the participants were reaching their peaks in the 80's. Reagan actually did MORE damage by cutting those on-the-job-training programs that helped so many become professionals WITHOUT having to have HUGE college loans to pay off. The colleges made sure the states required college degrees and thus we are in the situation we are in. Soldiers coming home, NO jobs, GI Bill isn't enough to cover college and books for 4 years (because tuitions keep rising and the Bill amounts don't).

Obama COULD look back to some of those programs, reinstate them, work with states to ease back the requirements to license people and we'd see a rise in employment and college tuition lowering or holding steady.

In the short term it would cost taxpayers, BUT in the long run it would increase the working force and tax base, plus give those vets pride when they come home to major opportunities. BUT the GOP would harp on the short term cost and refuse to acknowledge there would be positives in the long run.
--- merged: Aug 16, 2012 4:31 AM ---

True, BUT the GOP morons either use that as a conspiracy plot or laugh it off and claim Ike had no idea what he was talking about. (Or both.)

Personally, I think those "Military industrial complex (MIC)" days have gone by the way side. Reagan pretty much destroyed it with "this hammer cost $1,000 and this screwdriver cost $5,000". There was a reason why. Westinghouse, Boeing, GE and so on that WERE the "MIC" used that excess to pay their workers. It's funny how when all of a sudden we cut back the "overspending" and some of those that relied on that excess ended up going bankrupt, merging to other companies or laying off hundred/thousands of workers and closing factories down.

Don't get me wrong "MIC" is still huge, it just does not benefit the American worker like it did in the past. NOW it just pads some rich guy's wallet and bank account more.
--- merged: Aug 16, 2012 4:38 AM ---

The TAX REVENUE alone would not make much of a difference, HOW it is used is the issue.

I beg to differ here, ROMNEY is running for president, none of those others are. What happens in October IF it can be shown that Romney's overseas tax shelter banks have used his money to help finance Al Quida or Iran/North Korea's Nuke programs? Obama wins handily because of Romney's greed.

I would not be surprised IF someone out there is NOT trying to follow Romney's money to prove something along those lines for a massive October surprise.

Call me foolish, BUT they would be idiots NOT to.

 

While I dont agree with Obama's foreign policy as much as his domestic policy, one thing I do appreciate is his understanding and application of diplomacy as a foreign policy component as important as military might and intelligence. This is a far cry from the previous administration or a potential Romney administration currently advised by Bush/Cheney and Project for a New American Century neo-con retreads.

 

Is Citi Engaging in Criminal Abuses of Servicemen Student Loans? | Occupy.com

So, JP Morgan settles and Citi doesn't give a damn. Yeah, protect those bankers, fuck the servicemen who went to a WAR. Fucking bankers.... WE gave them bailouts so they could keep their multi million dollar jobs, their mansions, their yachts, their private jets and their luxury cars. WHILE allowing them to personally take advantage of the recurring BUSH tax cuts. And YET, the GOP talking heads want US to believe it is the poor wanting class warfare. The "poor" and even the middle class stand NO CHANCE in a class war that the RICH and GOP seem to truly want.
--- merged: Aug 16, 2012 at 4:09 PM ---

Give -Meals- for -Homeless Veterans- with a free click!

PATHETIC. Not that Romney would be any better. So sad, they DESERVE better treatment. Then again people want to keep bitching about their taxes and how government needs to make cuts.....No war on the poor, though right, Faux News, fat ass Limbaugh, Mr. Beck, idiot Hannity, treasonist Romney?

 

We all know that War is big business - but the time to end this thinking is NOW.

Let's take care of our homeland. I think that can be achieved if Obama gets elected. The USA wastes billions on weapons and military might and lives. The lives lost to winless wars is unsufferable and wrong.

If the Republicans win this upcoming election, we're in for at least 10-20 more years of war somewhere/anywhere in the mideast. That's their motto because they are invested in companies like Raytheon, Lockheed and several other war-making entities.

 

Very depressing. I truly believe people don't think about it or worst case scenario care, UNLESS it affects someone they know (a family member, a friend's family member, etc.).

I think the powers that be learned a hard lesson during Nam. They televised Nam, had reporters there giving a story EVERY night, so they don't cover it at all. Since there is no draft and the people are mired just trying to make ends meet, sadly, no one is paying the attention they truly should.
--- merged: Aug 16, 2012 at 8:12 PM ---

I agree wholeheartedly. I think IF the GOP wins the presidency AND both houses, that we'll see massive cuts in social programs and veteran's care, while we see MASSIVE buildup of armaments and the war mentality (MIC).


The money used for war could easily be moved over to space exploration and deep sea exploration. Those 2 industries that we have pretty much given up on could lead to MAJOR job creations and technology. The MIC could then invest in NASA and manned/unmanned space craft and technologies. I truly believe THAT was JFK's meaning when he invested us heavily into NASA. Just my opinion. In order to do this we would, much to the chagrin of the Faux news/Bain owned Clear Channel talking heads, we would have to reinvest heavily into education primarily the sciences and mathematics.

I truly fear, that even with the tech we have, we are being driven back into the Dark Ages, where the Christian Right Churches and the very rich GOP want the masses. Wars allow the extermination of the poorer, (since they are most likely to serve and be on the front lines), out of control healthcare costs allow the poor to die of diseases that were supposedly thought conquered (such as sinus infections that get out of control and into the brains, TB, I've even heard polio is making a comeback. To make sure they truly get rid of the poor they feed us poison in "Teflon" pans and lots of cheap easy foods with no nutrition. IF the GOP wins they cut away all our safeguards the EPA, the FDA and so on and put that money into the MIC and the extreme rich.

I am not a conspiracist, but they are making it too easy these days.

 

I think you are overstating the nuclear threat...at least to the US.

Yes, their nukes need to be contained and kept out of the hands of the most extremist elements in the country, but Pakistan's missile launch capability is limited. And suitcase nukes and the notion of "an insane militant walking it down the streets of the US" is more Hollywood fiction than reality. The same applies to Iran and N. Korea. In all cases, the threat is to the region, which is certainly not in our interest. But an extremist nut with a nuke? Not in the interest of those regimes as well so I would suggest they have more control over their own stockpile than you might suggest and the nuke bluster is simply that.

But I dont disagree that it is part of the fear campaign that has become the "war on terrorism" in order to continually fund the defense and national security establishment at ever increasing levels.

 

the bretton woods arrangement marked the ascendancy of the american empire. the national-security state doctrine transformed the imperial political structure so that it need not tarry in the face of the fuss and muss of that democracy business in the execution of its tasks with respect to its evil duplicate.

the cold war was fundamental to the american economy of the 50s. of course it was far from the only reason the 50s and 60s were relatively stable economically. alot had to do with the high-wage heavily unionized nationally centered manufacturing base that, along with the revolution in consumer credit that combined to let working-class people get access to debt and things like houses and the efficient machines required for the smooth operation of the domestic happiness factory. lots of consumer goods helped.

somewhere along the line it seems that the hooverite set, the brain of which is housed in a large penis that lives on stanford's campus, grafted itself with the cold warrior set and saw in all this stuff that made american social life something a bit more stable by making it a bit more equitable something that got in the way of their comic book warrior worldview and the feudal social structure that great warriors in comic books lived in. besides, there is ayn rand. but i digress.

television was a nice consumer good. you got to be scared together about the cuban missle crisis (good) and sad together about the kennedy assassination (not so much) and horrified over tv dinners by footage from vietnam (which along with the draft is the explanation for the "troubles" it caused domestically still current amongst conservatives...no imaginable problems otherwise. note the effects of that on more recent wars. but i digress). your views by degrees acquired the same dynamic as everyone elses and by degrees a similar set of reference points. and you got to be sold things. because selling things is important for that whole consumption thing. and over time more and more things got to be things that you were sold. politics for example became something you are sold. there's a funny thing about politics when it's reduced to a consumer good---there's circulation of items within a system. but the system itself is never in question. just like if you go to a store and there are no dresses you like, you do not burn down the store. that way.

why are we still at war. well, that whole cold war thing was sorta beautiful from a bidness viewpoint. paul virillio in a moment of lucidity called it pure war---procurement and logistics and obsolescences without the need for those pesky messy events. so all the good stuff of war---orders and moving the things ordered from place to place and the fact that those things wear out or are declared to be worn out---without much of the bad stuff (unpredictability)....so what if among the commodities were all these nuclear weapons---they're expensive and they're pretty and they require lots of shiny machines to carry them around. vietnam from this viewpoint was a secondary matter. that's reflected perhaps in the idea that one could fight a war and it not exist from a budgetary standpoint. conservatives in particular like that idea. all the good stuff of a war without the fuss and muss of looking like you're spending anything on it.

the problems for all this came....well the oil shock and the profit crunch and the pinching of shareholder values and that lunatic worldview which would have you believe that shareholder value is all that matters----then the evil duplicate imploded. THAT was bad for business. bad bad bad. but somehow the status of the cold war military system never really came up. fortunately for business there were soon other evil others. a bit of racism is a small price to pay for profits and their stable growth, isn't it dears?

war is intertwined with the entire structure of the american empire.
empire is war. what else do you imagine it to be?
even strange cases like austria-hungary.
war and empire are the same.
war is carried out by many different means from shiny weapon systems to pointless actions based on racist ideology to structural adjustment programs which tie crippling debt to opening markets for american corporate agricultural overproduction...

why are we still at war? because for 70 years now the american empire has been war. because empire is war and the united states is an empire.
we are war.

of course it doesn't have to be this way.

 

I thought and think the same way to some degree. Pakistan does have nukes, BUT as Redux points out the arsenal and carriage would not reach the US. Same with Syria's WMD's IF they truly have them. HOWEVER, (there is always a BUT), just because they may not be able to reach the US, does not mean that the use would not affect us. IF Pakistan used their missiles (which from what I always understood was just far enough range to reach India), India would react and then everyone with missiles would go apeshit crazy and IF the atmosphere could survive it, we'd be blown back into the stone age. Same with Syria's WMDs, they use them on Isreal, Isreal retaliates, Iran get involved and the clusterfuck and damage gets out of control.

That's all worst case, BUT IF you pull troops out and Pakistan does indeed fall apart or you do nothing about Syria and one of the above scenarios plays out.... it's ALL over. There's no "he'll never be re-elected". There's no, "why did you leave knowing this could happen". There is just sheer panic and insanity and people going crazy.

In that aspect it is much like Gitmo but 1000's of times worse. With Gitmo, one of the detainees that gets released blows something up or kills a lot of people, it's a simple yet very sad, "why did you allow them out?" political suicide. With the above scenarios with Pakistan and Syria, there may not be anyone left to ask the questions.

I would, personally, much rather lose drones than lives. Nuclear missiles and WMD's have NO morals or conscience, they do not care who is innocent or guilty their sole purpose is to kill and maim AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. The people crazy enough to use them, probably have no conscience or morals either just the belief in every fiber of their being, that by starting the destruction of civilization and the world as we know it, is in someway justified to them.

 

A warhead w/o a delivery system is just a really, really, big paperweight.

 

They have airplanes in that part of the world I assume. If you don't care about landing, flying a plane isn't too hard.