Well, they found thirty three fucking billion for the president's war

[Stinky The Clown]

That's right. Obama owns this war now, even as it was George Cheney who started it. Obama wanted this funding bill to pass and he got it.

That's hard to spin.

Meanwhile, here at home, we have to FIGHT to get unemployment extensions. We get an insurance bail out instead of a real fucking health CARE bill. We get fucking CRUMBS. The government gets its war hardon all firm and ready to shoot.

[stranger81]

1. Jeebus.

I just don't recognize this party any more.

Today is an exceedingly frustrating day.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I am so angry at this development.

This is one place where we did not get the change we looked for, or deserved.

:nuke:

[BeHereNow]

34. Ah, but remember, we are just a "focus group." Or is that a "Fuck us group."

I'm sure the latter is what they call us behind closed doors.
BHN

[leveymg]

219. I think the term used was "veal pen" to describe the small circle of netroots activists

that actually has access to the White House. MoveOn.org and some others. When Rahm Emmanuel found out that they were talking about running ads against some of the Blue Dogs to move HCR along, he called them "Fucking idiots", and shut the meeting down.

Rahm is also known for the famous line, "Have you pissed off a liberal today?"

Pretty close to the "fuck us group."

[bdamomma]

353. we the people are not a priority, second class or third class

citizens they take us for.

[Divine Discontent]

110. spot on post, CP. its the one issue that makes me have a hard time not rolling my eyes when he

mentions anything about the war. This is not what I voted for. The war is a farce, and Obama HAS to know that, I don't wanna believe he supports this disaster in the sand, but damn, what are we to think? There are so many people who are let down by this situation (Afghanistan), because it is now HIS war, and Afghanistan's not known as the Empire Killer for nothing....

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Naturyl]

206. He's gone, give it up...

Vote your CONSCIENCES in 2012.

[davidwparker]

339. +1

... though I still hold out for someone seeing the writing on the wall and be in Iowa by 2011.

Some names (Dean, Gore) don't need much startup time. Gore can run on saving the planet; Dean on real health care reform.

A lot of us would be (how does it go) All fired up. Ready to go.

[Naturyl]

365. Dean could probably get my vote

I was never a Deaniac, but he's been making a good case for himself the last few years...

[Recursion]

199. This is different from the flip-flops: this was a campaign promise

I don't agree with this decision, but nobody should be surprised by it. Obama campaigned on expanding the war. He said "elect me, and I will put more resources into the war in Afghanistan". In as many words.

[Naturyl]

207. I know, and that's why many of us opposed him in the primaries.

No disagreement, though. He promised this centrist (right wing) shit and delivered.

[Recursion]

236. I supported a force level increase 2 years ago

And I support a high force level for as long as we're there (I'm a "go big or go home" proponent). The danger is that the buildup will lend itself to inertia about the withdrawal timeline next year. It's non-trivial to withdraw 35,000 soldiers from a country (even just logistically, let alone from a security standpoint), and it gets even harder now that we've doubled that, and it gives all kinds of mid-level functionaries all kinds of excuses to delay.

[quakerboy]

358. Then again so was

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

How are we doing on that one?

[Recursion]

366. Better than I had expected

2 US deaths by enemy action in June, 1 so far in July. Our combat mission is closer to over than I had thought it would be at this point two years ago.

[SoxFan]

309. My dear CaliforniaPeggy, did you pay attention?

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly, and correctly, stated that the war in Afghanistan was justified and deserved to be waged properly, not reduced to an afterthought.

Anyone who thought that they were getting a Kucinich-style pacifist in an Obama administration clearly wasn;t paying attention.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

329. I must not have been paying attention.

However, I DID know that he wasn't going to be a Kucinich-style pacifist.

I do not agree about Afghanistan.

It is not being waged properly, and that money is being wasted. Just MHO.

[davidwparker]

341. Wasn't that 9 years ago? Personally, I don't feel threatened

by nomads.

[monmouth]

3. What the hell happened to that man? This was such a great

opportunity to say no and let's get ready, right friggin now, to bring these soldiers home. Signed, Disgusted.

[AnArmyVeteran]

177. I'll say the same thing I said when bu$h was in office.

Send your two daughters to the front lines of battle until the war is over. Obama might consider the people he is sending to their deaths then, and only then.

[monmouth]

221. Well said...n/t

[Triana]

298. Yep. When Sasha and Malia are sent to Iraq or Afghanistan...

..ONLY THEN would he 'get' it.

Or, if THEY had to fight to get damned health CARE (not freaking insurance - CARE) - or unemployment extensions....the utter indifference of Obama is disgusting.

[bdamomma]

354. oh boy strong words but you do have it right.

[Tailormyst]

246. We were punked. We were all punked.

They let us believe he was who we wanted him to be. He isn't, he never was.

[Deep13]

271. not all of us.

:(

I voted for him because the alternative was Geezer and Psycho.

[Carolina]

292. Exactly

Next time I won't bother...

First vote was for McGovern 1972
Always voted Democratic
Now, what difference does it make

[lillypaddle]

300. SUPREME FUCKING COURT

is the difference it makes.

[Ken Burch]

321. And he's now made all the nominations he's going to get to make.

No Republican SC justice will stand down 'til he leaves.

And even THE COURT doesn't justify billions for what we all know is an unwinnable right-wing war.

[Carolina]

345. Really?

Souter, Powell and Stevens were Republican appointees!
And our Dems went along with Roberst, Alito and Slappy Thomas!!!!!

[bdamomma]

355. we would be worse off if mc cain and palin got in

:scared:

[Grinchie]

275. It was a grand marketing campaign for an "Any Craps" bet by the DLC

Hillary was too tainted, too hawkish, and too DLC. They saw her crashing in flames against Caribou Barbie and McLame because of her mean spirited mindless chatter. So, why not run another just in case, and Voila, we get Obama. Suave, well spoken, groomed as a charismatic figurehead standing for change, but wholly owned by the DLC machine, which firmly seized control starting November 2008.

I was doing some research on Michael Taylor the other day, and discovered that he was part of Obama's transition team! That sure didn't make the headlines during the Honeymoon of getting real change elected, did it?

Instead of being punked, we've been screwed, and the whole world will suffer for it.

Never again.

[kenfrequed]

299. Actually...

The Fix was Obama Versus Hillary. It was a win-win for the DLC who had influenced both candidates quite a lot. The other candidates were systematically marginalized and undercut at every turn. Kucinich was ignored by the mainstream despite a massively popular debate held by the AFL CIO wherein he recieved more time than most other debates allowed him. The Media played its role by going with the 'inside favorites' and covering the living hell out of Hillary and (now president) Obama.

Biden and Richardson were given more time by moderators at some debates despite the fact that Kucinich continually out polled both of them.

SNL assassinated Gravel's character because he had the temerity to call out those candidates who voted for authorization of force in Iraq.

The Plain Dealer, a right wing rag of a paper, razored out Kucinich from the debates for supposedly not having an office there, meanwhile they invited in Allen Keyes the following week who didn't have an office anywhere.

[davidwparker]

343. +1

However, the DLC did cast all the primary votes to get him the nomination. Anybody Hillary (and now Edwards) could have won it.

Next time, pick who best represents traditional democratic principles and vote for that one in the primary, rather than deciding who "can't win."

I was taken in by Edwards. Next time, it will be someone with a long record of voting for left of the left principles.

Your assessment about Obama is correct.

[Ken Burch]

320. "Rorschach You Can Believe in"?

n/t.

[davidwparker]

342. Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure you can find

video of Obama taking a wide variety of positions during the campaign.

I could have sworn he was for the public option.

[EFerrari]

4. These people sure sure "find" and "lose" tax money easy. n/t

[phasma ex machina]

50. The powers-that-be own printing presses and they can print as many greenbacks as they want.

The old joke that "I can't be out of money, I still have checks left" is not a joke for the powers-that-be.

Actually, the powers-that-be find it easier to forgo printing and just diddle the bits of computerized bank accounts. They call that Quantitative Easing (QE).

[Naturyl]

208. Not to mention Fractional Reserve Banking

They are all on the same team - the so-called "winners." Guess who ain't on that team?

[Grinchie]

281. Good thing I don't really use money anymore

While I do occasionally use what I have in reserve, I no longer work for money. I work for myself, and I love my work. I shoose what I do each and every day, and have all of the free time I need to provided for myself and my family with the fruits of my own labor.

I am no longer chained to the rat race and a wage that is supposed to provide for me.. It never did, even when I was making 6 figures before the IT Industry was shipped overseas and dismantled in America.

The benefits of abandoning the greenback as a reason to work is the most liberating thing in the world, but breaking free of the rat race is a challenge, simply because we have been trained like rats to depend on slave wages, taxes, insurance and debt as the only means available to us. It isn't, but it takes conscious effort to rediscover an older, simpler way of life, that is healthier and more enjoyable than being trapped in traffic, cooped up in a cubicle, threatened by office politics or career advancement, and then stagger back through traffic to a huge mortgage, insurance, utilities, crappy food choices, etc..

People wonder why there seem to be so many "Ethically Challenged" people these days. It's simple, they are cheap and eager for any stipend or trickle of cash to augment their pitiful, unhappy little lives.

[Grinchie]

277. It's the MIC's version of Economic Stimulus...

Nothing like pissing away lives and resources in some far away land with no accountability or care.

[quiet.american]

5. And who did we have to fight for UI? For every bit of HCR? Republicans.

Should the troops be left out to dry with no funding for food or supplies? With faulty equipment? With cuts in pay, and cuts in resources for their families? Is that what you refer to as a "hardon?"

If you read the 2010 and 2011 federal budgets, you'll find a lot more than "crumbs" in it.

[Bobbieo]

9. Take the 34 bllion to bring the troops home, now!

[quiet.american]

98. Sure, and leave the Afghan people to the same fate as Bush left the Kurds.

How is that better?

Obama always said during his campaign that he would end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars responsibly.

The combat mission in Iraq ends next month, August 31st.

The drawdown for Afghanistan starts next July.

[NodQuestion]

125. Thank you

finally some reason.

[liberation]

133. You mean the same Afghan people who are fighting us to get us to leave out of their country?

riiiiiiiight.

[quiet.american]

169. Bring yourself up to speed, please. nt

[tomp]

257. elaborate, please. nt

[Naturyl]

209. "Responsibly," lol

Way to buy into the right-wing paradigm.

[midnight]

227. You are under an impression that is not credible. That the U.S

cares about the fate of this countries people. The wealth that has just been announced is that the Afghan people have just been told they have trillions in minerals. We want those resources and our intentions are not for the betterment of the Afghan people.

[truth2power]

303. And the pipelines. My blood pressure goes up every time I hear

about how we care about the Afghan people.

All these "wars" we're fighting come down to one thing...control of resources.

I'm sick of having my intelligence insulted by politicians saying our young men and women have to DIE so that Afghan girls can go to school. All the while supporting Obama and Arne Duncan in dismantling our own education system. :puke:

[sasquuatch55]

336. You have both nailed it!

nt

[sasquuatch55]

338. Oil rich Iran will be next; thus the demonization of that country!

nt

[tomp]

256. right, not until he fully engages pakistan....

....we're just not ready to start the next war yet.

[bkozumplik]

294. I dont think you get it

Have you been to countryside areas in poor countries, where there is very little infrastructure, and a heavily armed populace, mineral resources, and religious and ethnic tensions?

Let me spell this out for you: There is no victory to be had here. There just isn't. No matter what, we wont be riding out of here and leaving behind a functioning anything, for more than a few months. Its not possible.

We could stay there for 10 more years at who knows the cost in blood and money, and it will still be the exact same situation, the day we leave.
Theres no reason to stay beyond resources and geopolitical chess. The only one who can keep that area is China, because they could afford to keep cheap troops on their borders, and they can handle the body count. We cant.

ya get it?
there is no "responsibly" ending this. Thats just marketing.

[Ken Burch]

324. When it comes to next July, he'll find an excuse to escalate!. And YOU will defend it.

Why are you defending a war that can ONLY be good for the American rich?

There's no positive side in Afghanistan, and it doesn't matter who wins in a war between the slightly different. Slight differences CAN'T be worth human life.

And if all non-Kabul Afghanistan is exactly like it was under the Taliban now, we know it always will be.
Nothing there can change if it HASN'T changed by now. It's over.

You know this war is only still being fought to make a Democratic president look "tough". If that was bullshit when it was JFK getting us into Vietnam, why can't you see that it's STILL bullshit?

"Toughness" is no longer of any value for this country.

[EFerrari]

11. Like that would ever happen.

The only sure way to bring them home is to cut the funding.

But you never know. The Pentagon might just find that 8 BILLION dollars they lost.

[Township75]

12. Are you saying hte 33 billion was to feed and pay troops?

I bet we could pull them out today, feed them better and pay them better than they were in Iraq and still come out ahead. That was 33 billion to fund OBAMA's war, not 33 billion to make payroll!

[quiet.american]

99. Glad you asked.

The funding also includes:

$13.3 billion to provide payments to Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange and about $3 billion for relief efforts in Haiti.

The bill also initially included domestic spending that was stripped out by the GOP and Blue Dogs:

When the House passed an earlier version of the legislation this month, it contained a variety of domestic spending measures, including $10 billion for a fund to avoid layoffs of teachers, $5 billion for Pell Grants for low-income college students and $1 billion for a program to help teenagers and young adults get summer jobs.

Senate Republicans, joined by 11 Democrats, stripped the money last week and instead passed the pared-down bill that the House approved Tuesday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072704655.html

[Patchuli]

179. Fund relief efforts in Haiti and pay for more war!

Just fire American teachers, close educational opportunities and dump a work program to for young people to learn how to work. I'm sorry for the situation in Haiti but I wish we could put Americans first for a change! Change? Change? Where did I hear that word before? :sarcasm:

[lib2DaBone]

184. Oh Yes. And wwhen the kids get into trouble because there are no jobs and no place to go...

..You get the Evangelical Republicans to go on TV and blame the kids for not pulling themselves up by the boot straps.

When people are old and tired from years of work and they have acute arthrits.. you raise the retirement age.

When families are hungry... you cut food stamps.

When there are no jobs you cut funding for research and development.

For all this.. they pay you a minimum of $174,000 a year in Congress with full benefits and solid gold health care.

[tomp]

258. and you get kids signing up for "service" 'cause they don't see a better way out....

...until it's too late.

[Mimosa]

368. ^ True ^ K&R your reply lib2DaBone

[judesedit]

335. Thank you for the information. The republicans, and reddogs, screw the American people again.

What's new? Vote the bastards out of office. How about the Pentagon not being able to account for billions of dollars supposedly going to the Iraq war effort. Check Cheney's and Haliburton's pockets....I bet you'll find it. Or better yet. Look in their Swiss bank accounts where they launder their money and get out of paying their fair share of taxes.

[Raineyb]

231. Don't let Democrats off the hook. We had to fight DEMOCRATS for UI

too. Neither party gives a tinker's damn about us.

[Ken Burch]

322. The troops should be brought home.

We all ALWAYS KNEW it was wrong for any American troops to ever fight in the Middle East. We all always knew that is a region no outsiders have any right to try to have a say in, especially through brute force.

We all know this war is just about imperialism and greed, and that it's beneath us as a nation.

[BootinUp]

6. Just being anti-war in this situation

is not good enough. Come up with some real alternatives with regard to dealing with terrorism. The country elected Obama to leave Afghanistan/Pakistan more stable than it was when we invaded it. Got to finish the job, or hand over the job to the other party if we are not up to it.

[Oregone]

19. "with regard to dealing with terrorism"

This war is about fighting terrorism? How many Al Queda people have we killed recently? What is the cost per terrorist head?

[BootinUp]

23. This is about leaving a paraiah

state to be used as terrorist training ground again, and with no kind of modern government in place.

[WinkyDink]

27. Welcome to 1968. Give it another six years.

[BootinUp]

43. Comparisons to Nam are lazy, and

not worth much serious discussion imho.

[WinkyDink]

51. Santayana.

[Hannah Bell]

61. yeah, but you think afghanistan is about "terrorism," too.

$33 billion = $1000 for every man, woman & child in afghanistan.

and that's just for a "surge", it's not even the main budget.

we could bribe them all cheaper.

[liberation]

136. Not really, but reframing the debate whenever you find yourself in a logical cul de sac is dishonest

Wanna play this game?

[BootinUp]

138. No. nt

[liberation]

145. LOL...

I thought so.

[AnArmyVeteran]

166. Both are the same. Conventional armies fighting unconventional enemies we can NEVER defeat!

[BootinUp]

174. There are plenty of lessons learned from Nam

But as far as I can tell, Afghanistan is no where near as intractable as Nam was. I can sympathize with many of the feelings expressed here and admit to occasionally feeling similarly down on this issue, but we are on a track to ending this war as far as I can tell, just like we are ending the Iraq occupation.

[AnArmyVeteran]

182. I understand what you're saying but I believe it's a totally useless endeavor.

It takes two months to train a US person to fight in the infantry and another month or so for advanced basic fighting techniques. We've been in Afghanistan for almost ten years and they are still not able to defend themselves. I understand the illiteracy rate there and communications problems bit that argument that we can leave when they are ready doesn't hold water. A great percentage of the money we are spending in Afghanistan is going to an elite few corrupt thugs. Our forces will never make any headway in the rugged terrain there. And the moment we leave the country it will go back the way it has been for thousands of years. Nothing will be accomplished and we will have left countless dead US soldiers and dead innocent Afghan men, women and children dead.  

The current leaders of Afghanistan are all corrupt and as soon as we leave they will continue to extort billions from our treasury by saying they will stop fighting the Taliban if we don't send them billions of dollars and a never ending supply of weaponry. It will always remain a huge burden on the US for decades to come. 

Unless we stay in both Iraq and Afghanistan with sizable military presences any small accomplishments will all be erased and the countries will resort back to control by their tribal and religious factions. Nothing will have been accomplished. Nothing. It was an idiot's decision to use conventional forces to fight an unconventional enemy. We couldn't 'win' in Vietnam and we will never 'win' in the Middle East. There is as much chance of turning those countries into democracies as it would be to turn the United States into a theocratic Islamic system. 

We need to cut our losses and get the hell out. President Obama should have issued orders to begin withdrawal the day he became president. No war on terrorism can be fought with armies. That is playing right into the hands of the terrorists. 

We should have used unconventional, covert attacks against any terrorist instead of having two standing armies in two different countries. The day Obama fired Gen McCrystal he said we were fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I'm willing to bet there are more members of Al Qaeda in the US than in Afghanistan but does that mean we should begin sending drone missiles to 'suspected' terrorist targets in the US? 

The entire war on terror has been one blunder after another with very few successes to justify sacrificing 5000+ dead US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans. With all the carnage we caused we only increased the number of terrorists and the number of Muslims who hate us. How would Americans feel if everyday their neighborhoods were destroyed and their relatives were killed by an invading military? 

No matter who was occupying us or what the reason Americans would be fighting back out of revenge and hatred to avenge the losses of the relatives or friends killed by an occupying military. 

It's a lost cause and the longer we stay there the more soldiers we will lose for absolutely nothing. I wouldn't want to be the person to tell the parents of the last soldier killed in Afghanistan that their son died for absolutely nothing. 

[tomp]

260. you got it! nt

[Raineyb]

234. Plenty of lessons to learn from Vietnam and apparently this country has learned NONE of them

Either that or we're so arrogant that we think we'll succeed where EVERYONE else has failed. We're not on track to end a damn thing there. We'll be there for fucking ever at the rate we're going. And there will always be money for that but we can't afford to fix anything in this country.

BP is treating us like they would any other third world nation. When the hell are we going to get the hint and start cleaning up our act?

[tomp]

259. we're going to have a sizable presence in iraq for the foreseeable future. nt

[eridani]

198. Sure you can. Just obliterate the population and replace them with US military bases

--and mining camps. We are fully capable of that. I think what you meant to say was that we can't defeat them in any way that would be consistent with our self-image as a nation.

[Oregone]

28. Oh, we don't want to give them a jungle gym so lets keep spending billions

Right. Because there is no where else they can setup their monkey bar training courses

[Hannah Bell]

58. bullshit.

[Skittles]

63. how is that bullshit?????

[Telly Savalas]

149. Isn't that pretty much what we're already facing outside the major urban areas there?

And is there any evidence to suggest that increasing the length of stay of our military operations there by another 18 months or so will really lead to any long term stability? We've been there 8 years already. What sorts of things are we expecting to happen that we haven't been able to accomplish thus far?

Moreover this "terrorist training ground" talking point we hear so much doesn't make any sense. Terrorism isn't rocket science. Strap some explosives to yourself and find a crowded area. Not too sophisticated, and strangely enough the presence of a modern government won't stop such "training" from happening. I'm pretty sure that hillybilly fucker Timothy McVeigh learned the complex nuances of loading explosives into a Ryder truck here in the U.S. And did not the bastards that murdered several thousand people on 9/11/2001 take flying lessons here in the U.S.?

[BootinUp]

163. Well at least you ask some tougher questions than most

Can 18 months make a difference?

Assuming this war has priority and a better strategy yes. For years the war in Afghanistan was very poorly run and insufficiently resourced. The situation was agravated by other political factors namely the Cowboy in chief's ways of doing things.

Terrorist training ground is shorthand for a safe haven to recruit and build extremist groups. I am not suggesting that the threat of attacks would be eliminated just reduced significantly. To just let Afghanistan immediately revert to what it was in the late 90's would not be acceptable to a majority of Americans or to other countries either.

There are 30 million Afghanis. Start getting some of them on board with policing their own communities, keep the pressure on the Afghan and Pakistan governments to improve things for their people etc.

Yes things can be stabilized.

The other piece is improving relations with the Muslim world long term. Part of this is hey we are going to leave in relatively short time frame.

[tiny elvis]

216. let's stop killing children

you have a lot of nice ways to say shoot more people

Start getting some of them on board with policing their own communities, keep the pressure on the Afghan and Pakistan governments to improve things for their people etc.

policing sounds nice
does that mean shoot the bad guys?
keep the pressure on
what sort of pressure is that?
is that the kind of pressure that kills?

not suggesting that the threat of attacks would be eliminated just reduced significantly.

reduced how?
something to do with bombs?
why don't you just say it?
do you think it sounds bad?

[kurtzapril4]

164. +1 brazillion!!! That is all n/t

[Jakes Progress]

168. Oh noes. It's the dominoes.

I thought he was a chess player.

[eridani]

197. So what? Where are their flight schools?

The 9/11 terrorists learned to fly right here in the USA.

[Enthusiast]

241. We won't have modern government in

Afghanistan no matter what we do. It simply will not happen. And anyplace in the world can become a terrorist training camp. We can't be everywhere.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

272. That's a good point. We can't be everywhere. BUT......

Isn't it an amazing coincidence that we can find the troops and money to be wherever a country needs to be "liberated" AND has something that this country needs. Isn't that the exact type of thing that PNAC espoused at the cost of the "have nots"?

Meanwhile we create more terrorists than would be possible otherwise. We insist on putting puppets into power whether the people of the country want it or not. Why do some people still think that by some magical display of "American Style Democracy" the tribal countries will adopt and love our form of government just because we say so.

This is insane and criminal to keep trying to force feed this farce to Americans and the people in the countries that we're supposedly "protecting and liberating".

[Enthusiast]

332. Insane and criminal...yup. nt

[Ken Burch]

327. It can't ever be anything but that no matter what we do.

We all know Karzai will never be supported by the Afghanistan people and will never be anything BUT "the Mayor of Kabul".

The election was a rigged joke.

[IndianaGreen]

115. Emmanuel Goldstein is everywhere!

Taliban has row boats which they intend to use to cross the vast oceans and land on Malibu beach.

Big Brother will protect us!

[valerief]

117. War is peace, baby! Uh-huh. And up is down, like our future. nt

[Diane R]

22. Thank goodness for intelligent and responsible remarks like this.

[Oregone]

26. Agreed. We need $1 billion per each terrorist left in Afghanistan

That's a good way to fight terrorism

[WinkyDink]

25. I don't agree with your "leave'em stable" assertion as to why Obama was elected.

I recall "ending the war."

[BootinUp]

38. True, he didn't exactly say that

BARACK OBAMA: THE WAR WE NEED TO WIN

“It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11. . . .
When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive
strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in
Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take
out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up
support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient
homeland.”



http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/CounterterrorismFactSheet.pdf

[Oregone]

47. True, and he also said he supported the notions of unilateral strikes in Pakistan's borders

That one made waves. He followed up on all accounts. This is not out of character of candidate Barack.

That said, its tough for voters to differentiate between tough-on-defense electioneering from a candidate creating a contrast, and a true conviction. Obama also said he would renegotiate NAFTA with opt-out threat leverage, but will not do so.

[WinkyDink]

48. Well, I'll tell ya: If there's a worse area to wage war than Afghanistan, it's Pakistan.

And Obama isn't stupid, so what is his deal here?

[BootinUp]

64. There is a broad strategy that is more than just waging a war.

I posted one paper that covers part of it in the Ed/Articles forum, long document you have to go to page 30 to find Afghanistan, but the whole document is about changing world perceptions toward America. Its important stuff and should improve situation in Muslim countries over the long term. In the short term, we need to support Pakistan and Afghanistans government while pressuring them to pick up the ball.

[Oregone]

"changing world perceptions toward America"

Which is possible to do while waging war?

[BootinUp]

76. Read it if you want.

Not much point in trying to summarize the document here. Of course it only covers the engagement piece, but I found it to have a lot of relevant information analysis.

[Oregone]

80. Im still in the middle of "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES"

I just love the influence Wolfowitz had on the tone of the 3rd chapter.


Anyway...sorry to go on a tangent. Ill get to this one when I finish up. Thanks for the recommendation. Ill pass it on to my book club too!

[flyarm]

180. great answer!! eom

[BeHereNow]

357. "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES"

The rantings of madmen.
Don't you just love the Wolfowitz plea to
develop "Bio-Genetic Specific" chemical weapons?

BHN

[tiny elvis]

217. let's stop killing children

improve situation in Muslim countries

pressuring them to pick up the ball

what ball?
what kind of pressure?
what's wrong with muslim countries in general?
you are speaking inhuman politispeak

[WinkyDink]

232. Here's the deal: Muslim nations WILL NOT change their "perceptions of America." This is an ASININE

goal, a FOLLY of Western blindness to HISTORY, to RELIGION, and to CULTURE.

"Change their perceptions"?? We purvey pornography. Every place we have invaded, the women and girls become our prostitutes to survive. We kill innocent villagers. We steal their resources. We destroy their neighborhoods.

Bush said "crusade"; he meant "crusade"; Muslims have not forgotten the Crusades.

IN SHORT: The Muslim nations will NEVER "change their perceptions" of the DECADENCE and VIOLENCE they NOW "perceive" all too well.

Their hearts and minds are not ever going to follow.

[BootinUp]

252. What is asinine, is to suggest

things cannot change, especially in this day and age. Maybe you think I meant long term to be 3, 4 or 5 years. No, I am thinking more like 10-20 years. Perceptions will change over that time if effective strategies are employed. To what extent? Hard to say. I guess we should just give up.

[tomp]

264. no, what is assinine to suggest is...

...that the world's perception of the u.s. can be effectively changed from within the corporate/imperialist system.

that system needs raw material, labor and markets, and it needs it all on the cheap.

that system is inherently incapable of making the change you speak of.

american forces litter the globe for one reason only--to make the world safe for imperialist plunder.

[BootinUp]

266. You rely on ideology a little too much

There are opportunities for improvement that are worth pursuing without some kind of leftist revolution needing to occur.

[tomp]

282. imperialism is an undeniable material reality which carries its own ideology.

it would seem you've bought in.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. From a post of mine, earlier today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8823722#8825163

[nashville_brook]

32. maybe we could ask Russia for some pointers on how to "finish up the situation"

[Oregone]

39. The only possible solution is to move their magic soil to a secure area of our choosing

But under no circumstances do I suggest dumping the magic terrorist soil in the ocean. If this reached our water supply, everyone could become a "spliterismist"

[BootinUp]

45. Maybe,

you should educate yourself about the strategies being employed before spouting off bullshit?

[frylock]

82. comparisons to russia are lazy, and

not worth much serious discussion imho. :sarcasm:

[Blue_In_AK]

53. Terrorism is a tactic and the people who engage in it are criminals.

From the beginning, the criminals responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks should have been hunted down through cooperative international investigative police work and brought to justice in a court of law. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan with our armies was overkill. The civilians who have suffered did nothing to justify the horrors that have rained down on them over the last 10 years. And our soldiers, though well-meaning, have done more harm than good as far as reducing the numbers of insurgents.

How would we feel in a similar situation? What if some whacko from the United States had gone over to Iran, for instance, and blown up a hotel? Wouldn't we be pissed off if Ahmadinejad invaded us with the full force of his Army? Wouldn't we all become insurgents pretty darn quick?

These wars are insane.

[WinkyDink]

60. Exactly! Except Bushco wanted this excuse. Somehow the Baader-Meinhof Gang was arrested, among other

European terrorist groups.

[BootinUp]

73. If you recall

before we invaded we attempted to force Afghanistan to deal with the criminals. They had no intention of doing anything but protecting them.

You make up little narratives that have no basis in reality.

There are Afghanistans that do not want to return to the Taliban nightmare. There are Pakistanis that do not want extremists to have free reign right over their border or in border, and want to work with us to resolve.

[Blue_In_AK]

83. We could have dealt with the criminals

without outsourcing their capture to the Afghani tribesmen. Big mistakes were made.

I'm sorry that the Afghans have the Taliban in their midst, and I agree they're not nice people, BUT they're not the only bad guys in the world. Where is the outrage in our government towards the Janjaweed in Darfur, or for that matter, what about Al Qaeda in Indonesia or Somalia? You can't honestly believe that our armies can eliminate all the evil in the world?

Millions of innocents have perished because of our invasions. Yes, 9/11 was bad. A lot of people were killed, but I'm NOT okay with all these other people dying in my name. If you're fine with it, then more power to you, but I'm not.

[bring_em_home_bush]

194. you are the one making up little narratives with no basis in reality

The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden at least twice, if he would receive a trial in a neutral country. Bush didn't need no stinkin trials, and certainly not any held outside the U.S.

Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden
Some Contend U.S. Missed Its Chance
By David B.Ottaway and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 29, 2001; Page A01

Over three years and on as many continents, U.S. officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

Talks continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.

<...>

In interviews, U.S. participants and sources close to the Taliban discussed the exchanges in detail and debated whether the State Department should have been more flexible in its hard-line stance. Earlier this month, President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-486256.html

What credentials do you possess that you believe enable you to pose as an "authority" on this topic?

[BootinUp]

213. You are more convincing than the Taliban ever were.

alas.

[bring_em_home_bush]

347. Damn, historical facts are so inconvenient, aren't they? I'm certainly not convinced by you

Or the imperialistic bullshit that postures as "pragmatic" foreign policy at that very interesting little think tank full of neo-liberal and neo-con hawks, i.e., "The Center for a New American Security."

I'll repost this in case you missed it:

Established in 2007, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is widely considered one of the Barack Obama administration’s key outside think tanks on national security and defense policy. CNAS describes itself as an “independent and nonpartisan research institution” that aims to engage “policymakers, experts, and the public with innovative fact-based research, ideas, and analysis to shape and elevate the national security debate.” <1>

CNAS’s leading role in Obama-era policy-making was confirmed when in 2009 the organization’s cofounders—Michele Flournoy and Kurt Campbell—and several other CNAS scholars were tapped to serve in the administration. <2> Flournoy became the undersecretary of defense for policy, the same post held by the controversial neoconservative figure Douglas Feith during the first George W. Bush administration. Campbell was tapped to serve as the State Department’s lead Asia expert. <3>

Several CNAS principals were also named to the Defense Policy Board, <4> the in-house Pentagon advisory board which, under the leadership of former chair Richard Perle, played a role in promoting an expansive “war on terror” during the Bush administration. <5>

A largely centrist think tank with liberal-hawk tendencies, <6> CNAS leadership as of mid-2009 included a range of moderate Democratic and Republican leaders, as well as several high profile corporate leaders and policy wonks. John Nagl, who replaced Flournoy as CNAS president, is a retired army officer who specializes in counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. The Inter Press Service described Nagl as “a poster boy for COIN enthusiasts, including influential neoconservatives who featured Nagl at the March kick-off of their newest think tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).”(emphasis mine) <7>

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/center_for_a...

Hmmmm, now where have I heard something that sounded like the name of this think tank before? Oh, I know, that would be the Project for the New American Century! http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Project_for_the_New_American_Century.

And curiouser and curiouser -- it was established just about the time that the PNAC went dormant, in 2006.

[BootinUp]

356. The facts as presented by the other post

were extremely limited as to the events preceding the invasion. But if people around here want to defend the fucking Taliban, have at it. No skin off my nose so to speak.

As for the material I linked to, you can use it however you wish. If all you want to do with it is create a new conspiracy theory to rile up partisans than do that. The information is more meaningful than any of that nonsense, but again, have fun with it.

[newspeak]

290. thank you, I remember!

I also remember that after 9/11, Little Boots had a lot of political capital with the world, including Iraq. I remember on MSM, Saddam, stating that he stood behind the US against the act and was willing to help. But, I believe, for Little Boots and people like Cheney and Rummy, it was "how do we start a war with Iraq?" I believe it was already in the cards before 9/11. When fifteen of the nineteen alleged terrorists are from SA, when you have some members of the House of Saud financing terrorists, when you have Little Boots basically doing OBL's wishes (closing a base in SA and attacking Iraq who was no friend of Al quaeda or SA, I think we are basically down the rabbit hole.

Instead of enlisting help from countries and doing strategic strikes against AQ (at that time there were not as many) instead of bombing the shite out of a country's infrastructure and killing innocent people in an illegal act of aggression, also when your main goal is to secure the oil ministry before any other position, that includes weapons, one can see the writing on the wall.

This country is being drained, and our image has been damaged. It seems that Little Boots and his merry greedy men have been played by OBL or they're in the boat together. I mean, OBL just happens to put out a video before the election on how he doesn't want Little boots to get elected-oh no, he wants Kerry, and some of the american people (reverse psychology) buy into the shite. What perfect timing-who's helping who?

[bring_em_home_bush]

350. hey, newspeak, great nick! We remember so many of the same things

that others have very conveniently forgotten.

Great reply, just wish more people would read and remember, too.

[Ignis]

283. Yeah, and "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs" worked out so well.

:eyes:

[Carolina]

297. uh, the criminals responsible for 9/11

went down with those planes! And there was not a single Iraqi among them (15 Saudis, the 4 others from Yemen, Egypt and UAE, think Dubai).

Our initial response to 9/11, bomb Afghanistan (10/7/2001) and then invade Iraq (IWR 10/2002, Shock and Awe 3/2003).

As you said, terrorism is a tactic, but the US is a terrorist nation and our leaders are the supreme terrorists CRIMINALS. Obama included.

[grahamhgreen]

134. This war has nothing to do with your spin. It is a foolhardy war for profiting off of death.

If it were really a war on terror, we would have gone after the funders of terror - the Sauds, and their business partners, et al.

It's a joke, a screw job and everyone knows it.

That we funded Bin Laden is a known fact. The incident was either blow ack from other foolish misadventures in the Mideast or complicity.

[BootinUp]

139. I don't find your argument convincing either. nt

[Cleobulus]

143. The only way it will be stable is if it were a dictatorship with a U.S. leaning...

dictator in charge. Good luck with that, I would give the sorry bastard about 5 years after being established before he is removed, forcibly, after we leave.

[jeffrey_X]

239. Whatever....

You can't!!! All this money is doing nothing but building more hate against American and funding corrupt factions that are working against building a better Afghanistan. THIS ISN'T WORKING!

[Raineyb]

242. How can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously if you insist on

talking about waging war against a tactic. It's ridiculous and un-serious.

[BootinUp]

250. In the netroot world

its so common to just spew out the accepted talking point. I didn't even phrase my post in the way you suggest. I am sure you have some other talking points that will work better. Or try to actually engage in the debate, that would be more impressive.

[Raineyb]

261. So you have no rebuttal to my point about waging war against a tactic?

In other words, you can't back up you argument, such that it is. Actually I'm not really surprised as you haven't one. At least not one that doesn't make you look clownish.

As to what you think about "debate", you're not going to get a one from me. I don't waste time trying to have a conversation with people who do nothing but spew out right winged talking points for the same reason I don't debate parrots. Parrots repeat things but they don't actually THINK so there's no point.

I am merely settling for pointing out your clownish talking points.

Thanks for playing Polly.

[ProudDad]

318. Don't go fucking up their countries

and they'll have no reason to come fuck up yours...

How about that? :eyes:


The whole phony "war on terra(tm)" is bogus bullshit!

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I am damned proud of my rep, Elijah Cummings. He voted no, against our state delegation

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/roll-call-house-passes-579723.html

Cummings and Donna Edwards voted no. Everyone else voted yes.

Here's the list, apparently in vote casting order, more than state order. Is your rep a good one or a sorry sack of shit?

Voting yes were 148 Democrats and 160 Republicans.

Voting no were 102 Democrats and 12 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House.

Democrats — Bright, Y; Davis, Y.

Republicans — Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Griffith, Y; Rogers, Y.

Republicans — Young, Y.

Democrats — Giffords, Y; Grijalva, N; Kirkpatrick, Y; Mitchell, Y; Pastor, Y.

Republicans — Flake, N; Franks, Y; Shadegg, Y.

Democrats — Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y.

Republicans — Boozman, Y.

Democrats — Baca, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Chu, N; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, N; Farr, N; Filner, N; Garamendi, N; Harman, Y; Honda, N; Lee, N; Lofgren, Zoe, N; Matsui, N; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, N; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, X (the speaker by tradition often does not vote); Richardson, N; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, N; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, N; Stark, N; Thompson, N; Waters, N; Watson, X; Waxman, N; Woolsey, N.

Republicans — Bilbray, Y; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, N; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, Y; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, Y; McClintock, Y; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, Y; Radanovich, Y; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, Y.

Democrats — DeGette, Y; Markey, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, N; Salazar, Y.

Republicans — Coffman, Y; Lamborn, Y.

Democrats — Courtney, Y; DeLauro, N; Himes, Y; Larson, N; Murphy, N.

Republicans — Castle, Y.

Democrats — Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, N; Castor, N; Deutch, Y; Grayson, X; Hastings, N; Klein, Y; Kosmas, Y; Meek, X; Wasserman Schultz, Y.

Republicans — Bilirakis, Y; Brown-Waite, Ginny, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, L., Y; Diaz-Balart, M., Y; Mack, Y; Mica, Y; Miller, Y; Posey, Y; Putnam, Y; Rooney, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Stearns, Y; Young, X.

Democrats — Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, N; Lewis, N; Marshall, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans — Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, Y; Kingston, Y; Linder, N; Price, Y; Westmoreland, Y.

Democrats — Hirono, N.

Republicans — Djou, Y.

Democrats — Minnick, Y.

Republicans — Simpson, Y.

Democrats — Bean, Y; Costello, N; Davis, N; Foster, Y; Gutierrez, N; Halvorson, Y; Hare, Y; Jackson, N; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, N; Rush, N; Schakowsky, N.

Republicans — Biggert, Y; Johnson, N; Kirk, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, Y; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y.

Democrats — Carson, X; Donnelly, Y; Ellsworth, Y; Hill, Y; Visclosky, Y.

Republicans — Burton, Y; Buyer, Y; Pence, Y.

Democrats — Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.

Republicans — King, Y; Latham, Y.

Democrats — Moore, Y.

Republicans — Jenkins, Y; Moran, X; Tiahrt, X.

Democrats — Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, Y.

Republicans — Davis, Y; Guthrie, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y.

Democrats — Melancon, Y.

Republicans — Alexander, Y; Boustany, Y; Cao, Y; Cassidy, Y; Fleming, Y; Scalise, Y.

Democrats — Michaud, N; Pingree, N.

Democrats — Cummings, N; Edwards, N; Hoyer, Y; Kratovil, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans — Bartlett, Y.

Democrats — Capuano, N; Delahunt, N; Frank, N; Lynch, Y; Markey, N; McGovern, N; Neal, N; Olver, N; Tierney, N; Tsongas, N.

Democrats — Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, N; Levin, Y; Peters, Y; Schauer, Y; Stupak, N.

Republicans — Camp, Y; Ehlers, N; Hoekstra, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y.

Democrats — Ellison, N; McCollum, N; Oberstar, N; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans — Bachmann, Y; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.

Democrats — Childers, Y; Taylor, Y; Thompson, N.

Republicans — Harper, Y.

Democrats — Carnahan, Y; Clay, N; Cleaver, N; Skelton, Y.

Republicans — Akin, X; Blunt, Y; Emerson, Y; Graves, X; Luetkemeyer, Y.

Republicans — Rehberg, Y.

Republicans — Fortenberry, Y; Smith, Y; Terry, Y.

Democrats — Berkley, Y; Titus, Y.

Republicans — Heller, X.

Democrats — Hodes, Y; Shea-Porter, N.

Democrats — Adler, Y; Andrews, Y; Holt, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans — Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, Y; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Smith, Y.

Democrats — Heinrich, Y; Lujan, Y; Teague, Y.

Democrats — Ackerman, Y; Arcuri, Y; Bishop, Y; Clarke, N; Crowley, N; Engel, Y; Hall, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, N; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maffei, N; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; McMahon, Y; Meeks, N; Murphy, Y; Nadler, N; Owens, Y; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Tonko, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, N; Weiner, N.

Republicans — King, Y; Lee, Y.

Democrats — Butterfield, Y; Etheridge, Y; Kissell, Y; McIntyre, Y; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Shuler, Y; Watt, N.

Republicans — Coble, Y; Foxx, Y; Jones, N; McHenry, Y; Myrick, Y.

Democrats — Pomeroy, Y.

Democrats — Boccieri, Y; Driehaus, Y; Fudge, N; Kaptur, N; Kilroy, Y; Kucinich, N; Ryan, Y; Space, Y; Sutton, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans — Austria, Y; Boehner, Y; Jordan, Y; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Schmidt, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, Y.

Democrats — Boren, Y.

Republicans — Cole, Y; Fallin, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y.

Democrats — Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Schrader, N; Wu, N.

Republicans — Walden, Y.

Democrats — Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Carney, Y; Critz, Y; Dahlkemper, Y; Doyle, N; Fattah, N; Holden, Y; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Patrick, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, Y.

Republicans — Dent, Y; Gerlach, Y; Murphy, Tim, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

Democrats — Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.

Democrats — Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.

Republicans — Barrett, Y; Brown, Y; Inglis, Y; Wilson, Y.

Democrats — Herseth Sandlin, Y.

Democrats — Cohen, N; Cooper, Y; Davis, Y; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y.

Republicans — Blackburn, Y; Duncan, N; Roe, Y; Wamp, Y.

Democrats — Cuellar, Y; Doggett, N; Edwards, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, N; Johnson, E. B., N; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, Y.

Republicans — Barton, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; Gohmert, Y; Granger, Y; Hall, Y; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, Y; Olson, Y; Paul, N; Poe, Y; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

Democrats — Matheson, Y.

Republicans — Bishop, Y; Chaffetz, N.

Democrats — Welch, N.

Democrats — Boucher, Y; Connolly, Y; Moran, N; Nye, Y; Perriello, Y; Scott, N.

Republicans — Cantor, Y; Forbes, Y; Goodlatte, Y; Wittman, Y; Wolf, Y.

Democrats — Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, N; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, Y.

Republicans — Hastings, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

Democrats — Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y.

Republicans — Capito, Y.

Democrats — Baldwin, N; Kagen, N; Kind, Y; Moore, N; Obey, N.

Republicans — Petri, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y.

Republicans — Lummis, Y.

___

July 27, 2010 06:45 PM EDT

[Bryn]

46. Arkansas' (R) Rep. John Boozman finally voted YES

Woo Hoo Woo Hoo! He had always voted NO until now.

:sarcasm:

[KamaAina]

68. That list is broken out alphabetically by state

Alabama first, Wyoming last.

edit: of the four reps from my county, all Dems, three did the right thing; the fourth is in a competitive district that the repukes have targeted for a pickup. :scared:

[TBF]

84. It's a sad day when I have to agree with Ron Paul. My rep

of course voted for it.

[tabbycat31]

90. thanks for the list

I am glad to see my rep (Frank Pallone) voting no.

[Stinky The Clown]

95. Did you have a link?

[City Lights]

81. No surprise Melissa Bean voted for more war.

She never met a corporation she didn't like.

:puke:

[kurtzapril4]

127. She's my congress-thing, too!

Never saw a war she didn't like, never met a corporation she didn't want to give a tax break to. She's a third way POS.

[w8liftinglady]

8. how to we find out WHO gets the 33 billion?

which private companies benefit while our kids are still dying?

[WinkyDink]

66. Halliburton, GE, Bechtel, Unocal, ......

[w8liftinglady]

77. exactly...and how much do the soldiers,their survivors,and veterans get?

[WinkyDink]

229. Aside from filthy VA hospitals?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Another Glorious Victory for the Pentagon and MIC!!

[Owl]

97. Exactly.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

14. Yeah, the Dems FOUGHT for UI. And won. And the money covers

what the troops need to stay safe. They are still there, like it or not. I would prefer that they weren't there, btw. But they are and they need food, supplies, equipment, etc., until they come home. Which I hope is sooner rather than later.

You always knew his policy on Afghanistan. Always. Just like the rest of the country.

[Oregone]

18. "what the troops need to stay safe"

What may actually guarantee their safety is not being in a war zone.

Sweet talking point though (where did you find it?)

[Stinky The Clown]

36. Don't play that tired old "you knew" card

Yeah, I knew. What the fuck could I do about it? Not vote? Vote for McCain?

Knowing it doesn't make it right and that canard is BANK fucking RUPT, pallie.

[stranger81]

75. This is a nice shell game they have working here, isn't it?

(1) Lecturing anyone to the left of Holy Joe that they must vote for the Democrats because there is no other option;

(2) Lecturing same folks who voted for the Dems as a lesser evil that they knew what they were voting for and have no right to question the policy now.

In other words, STFU and get in line.

I, for one, am fucking done with this game.

[Ignis]

284. +1, thanks for summing up the Rope-a-Dope strategy.

It started out old, and now it's just stinky.

[Catherina]

363. Me too. +1 n/t

[liberation]

140. And now they are using the "safety" and well being of the troops, just like Republicans did. Yay!

Some people in this site use it profusely in order to justify the false choices they present. Because, just like the Bush acolytes loved to remind us when this was Bush's war: apparently there is no better way of keeping kids safe and sound than keep them in as an invading force in a fairly aggressive hell hole.



The more things change....

[dflprincess]

154. They used it during Vietnam too

It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.

[liberation]

306. Thus making the average American troop in the past half century the ultimate cannon fodder

The lives of our soldiers were and are wasted as they are being used by monetary interests, and the same interests then use the risk our troops are arbitrarily put in, in order to justify the arbitrary risk our troops have to face in order to further those monetary interests.

See, the war that we started should continue not because we have to win it (how does one win a war against a ill defined "concept?"), but it must continue because we have to protect our soldiers. Thus making the war, not a means to achieve victory, but an end onto itself. Which is exactly the profit proposition of the military industrial complex, and people actually not only think that is a rational proposition but they support it out of their own accord.

It is a line of argumentation so circular, it is so morally bankrupt and dishonest, that the fact that it has become a common and "valid" argument in our country makes me weep. This should not be an acceptable frame of mind in any developed society in the XXI century, period.

Any game of chess needs proper peons, I guess.

[sabrina 1]

176. How much of that money actually goes to the troops?

How much goes to pay the huge mercenary army we have in Afghanistan? Last I read it was bigger than the regular army. The War Lords, the Taliban 'for protection'?

Where is the accountability for all this money? Billions are missing, unaccounted for. This whole venture has been rife with corruption, with billions of dollars going to corrupt contractors. KB&R, Halliburton et al. Ask Alan Grayson about that. That is what he was doing before he ran for Congress, going after corrupt War Contractors to try to get some of that money back.

And the troops do NOT get what they need. Ask them. Their families have to send them supplies.

This whole war is a huge corrupt money pit for greedy, immoral criminals and the troops have to fight for everything they get, especially when they come home.

[TheKentuckian]

188. If the President will not order the troops home then Congress is obligated to kill funding

That money is better invested in the 99ers that we are flushing down the toilet than pissed away on foolhardy bushshit.

[alterfurz]

349. Exactly right. And here's how to start: H.R. 5353

Rep. Grayson introduces a bill to cut separate funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and uses the money to eliminate federal income taxes on every American's first $35,000 of income:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0_TtYQEDTo

[Raineyb]

248. What the troops need to stay safe is for them NOT TO BE IN AFGHANISTAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

And there were Dems who fought AGAINST UI so please spare me the "Oh Dems are doing so much for us." line of crap. Because it's simply not believable anymore.

[Oregone]

15. Oh come on. There is no other reasonable solution

If they denied it, the Republicans would run the weak on defense line, and Democrats wouldn't hold office to keep passing these war funding bills. We need our people in office!

[AnArmyVeteran]

173. Would you send YOUR child to death for a democratic 'win'?

Would you? That's what you're asking other mothers and fathers to do. That's what you're asking husbands and wives to do. That's what you're telling the children of our soldiers to do. And everyone who dies or gets hideously mutilated there is being killed or injured for absolutely nothing. If we stayed there 1000 years it would all turn to shit the moment we left. Would you send your child to die for nothing?

Sorry about the heaviness of this post but I lost a dear friend in a useless war.

[Oregone]

193. Im just being a sarcastic twit

The point being, if you continually elect a party that pursues right-wing policy (to stay in office), their occupancy of that office has no value.

[AnArmyVeteran]

255. Right, we have the presidency and both houses of congress and republicans are still in charge.

The number of elected democrats with guts can be counted on one hand. The rest are cowards and corporate whores.

[tomp]

267. but this is exactly the essence dem party campaigning every fucking time.

and a good half of du doesn't get it.

is there any hope, i ask?

[madinmaryland]

16. Yes. Obama did say as a candidate that the war in Afganistan was

the neglected war. I don't know what to say Stinky. We all voted for him knowing that he would probably continue the wars for at least another year or two.

Tell me what can be done about the party of NO in the Senate that has made any progressive legislation nearly impossible. Let's face it, the douchebags won and the Democrats and THE AMERICAN people (us) have lost.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. As I said upthread, knowing he was gonna keep this war going doesn't make it right.

It was WRONG then and even MORE wrong now.

And what choice did we have? Vote for McPalin? For no one? Face it, we got had while knowing we were getting had.

[madinmaryland]

104. Yes, Stinky, we are suffering from buyer's remorse.

It is just plain wrong (the war).

I remember watching in NYC at lunch at a local deli every day from late 2002 through the mid 2003's watching Leslie Blitzer with a fucking hard-on talking about the war. EVERY FUCKING DAY.

We still have a half million troops in the mid-east and god fucking knows how many contractors over there.

[liberation]

302. The funny thing is how the roles have flipped

in '68 it was the Republican candidate who won by among other things promising to end the war, yet he did not only extended it but escalated it. And now it is the Dem president who won by among other things the dissatisfaction with the current war, and he is not only continuing it but also escalating our involvement in the middle East.


For all intents and purposes there has not been a real choice for American voters for over half a century, at least. We need to be honest enough with ourselves to grasp that without ideological choice, there is no possibility of a democracy. This may be a democratic republic at the local and low office level, but it stops being so at the federal level.

[WinkyDink]

17. He should have said, "First, find the missing $8 billion. Then we'll talk."

[BeHereNow]

29. Exactly! The disconnect is mind bending.

The same day the missing 8.7 is reported, they give them
MORE money!
Un~fucking-believable....

BHN

[sendero]

Exactly... The Pentagon..

... gets a blank check even in the face of negligible results.

Everyone else can go fuck themselves.

[phasma ex machina]

158. Banksters get blank checks too. nt

[humbled_opinion]

20. Dear Mr. President

Get us out of Afghanistan now or I will actively support your ouster in the 2012 primaries.

EOM.

[Prism]

21. War is the most bipartisan American tradition

President Obama finally got his wish when it comes to getting along with the Republican Party.

Bringing unity to Washington with the blood of the innocent.

Change.

[alsame]

42. Sadly, you're right. War is as American as apple pie. nt

[tomp]

268. exactly. nt

[BeHereNow]

24. And not a peep about the missing 8.7 billion unaccounted for by the Pentagon...

Hell no, just keep pouring our blood and coin into the abyss.
BHN

[bdamomma]

352. right not a word about that money disgusting just

pissing billions of dollars and lives. crap

[Dappleganger]

31. Have we reached the bottom of the elevator yet?

How many more floors??

[Blue_In_AK]

33. It's sickening.

There's always money for war, ALWAYS. Nothing has changed.

[treestar]

35. So the war should be abandoned solely because of its cost?

It's one thing to be against the war and that's fine, but if the war is on, the troops should be provided for. Objecting to the funding is just silly. Object to the war itself.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. No, the war shoudl be ended because it is wrong. It is pointless. It is unwinnable

Next question.

[treestar]

291. In the OP you are expecting to end it by de-funding.

What's the point of that? End it for real and the funding goes away with it. But if it's on, it must be funded. The troops need it.

[alsame]

295. Yes, it ends with de-funding. See my post #65 below, that's how

the Viet Nam war was ended by Congress.

[WinkyDink]

54. I do believe the Pentagon has shown itself incapable of accounting for its monies.

[alsame]

65. "How Congress Ends Wars"

How Congress Ends Wars
It always comes down to money

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congendswar.htm

--snip--

Following Cooper-Church, and even after the Paris cease-fire agreement, Congress literally dropped the hammer on the Vietnam War with its passage in 1973 of a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 636) prohibiting any further appropriation or expenditure of any funds for any "combat in or over or from the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia."

[w8liftinglady]

69. I just want to know who gets the money..

is it any of these?(more at site)
http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=15134

The Top 100 Private Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan

by Bill Buzenberg, PublicIntegrity.org






KBR, Inc., the global engineering and construction giant, won more than $16 billion in U.S. government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 to 2006­far more than any other company, according to a new analysis by the Center for Public Integrity. In fact, the total dollar value of contracts that went to KBR­which used to be known as Kellogg, Brown, and Root and until April 2007 was a subsidiary of Halliburton­was nearly nine times greater than those awarded to DynCorp International, a private security firm that is No. 2 on the Center's list of the top 100 recipients of Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction funds.

Another private security company, Blackwater USA, whose employees recently killed as many as 17 Iraqi civilians in what the Iraqi government alleges was an unprovoked attack, is 12th on the list of companies and joint ventures, with $485 million in contracts. (On November 14, the New York Times reported that FBI investigators have concluded that 14 of the 17 shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, and that Justice Department prosecutors are weighing whether to seek indictments.) First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting, which immediately precedes Blackwater on the Top 100, came under fire in July after a pair of whistleblowers told a House committee that the company essentially "kidnapped" low-paid foreign laborers brought in to help build the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad. First Kuwaiti and the U.S. State Department denied the charges.

[harun]

88. Unfortunately the only way to end "wars" these days is to pull the funding.

Just like we had to do with Vietnam. Executive never decided to end it, Congress pulled the funding.

[IndianaGreen]

113. How about a war tax to pay for all 75 wars we are fighting today?

U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role

By Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 4, 2010

Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.

Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

Commanders are developing plans for increasing the use of such forces in Somalia, where a Special Operations raid last year killed the alleged head of al-Qaeda in East Africa. Plans exist for preemptive or retaliatory strikes in numerous places around the world, meant to be put into action when a plot has been identified, or after an attack linked to a specific group.

The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the other side of the national security doctrine of global engagement and domestic values President Obama released last week.

One advantage of using "secret" forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304965.html

[liquid diamond]

185. I can't believe people here don't support the troops. They seriously

believe the best way to end this war is to CUT OFF their funding. Yeah, that's the ticket. Lets starve our soldiers and make them even more vulnerable by not providing them with adequate equipment! :sarcasm:

I don't support the war, but if our troops are there, we need to equip them properly.

[Bluebear]

196. ' I can't believe people here don't support the troops.' - GOP bullshit.

[liquid diamond]

359. How profound. n/t

[Raineyb]

253. Bullshit strawman and hiding behind the troops is a really pathetic way of making your argument

especially when you make your bullshit arguments from the safety of your keyboard.

The only way wars get ended is by cutting off the funds. If you ask the generals they always want the same fucking thing, more money and more troops because their bread and butter depends on it. Cut off the funds and the politicians running the war will end it. Keep funding it and they keep the war going and their contractor's pockets filled.

[liquid diamond]

361. If our troops don't eat, how will they be fit to fight?

If they don't have ammunition, how can they defend themselves? If they don't have body armor, how can they be protected? Can any of you people provide an intelligent response without resorting to childish insults?

[Ignis]

286. Please name those DUers who "don't support the troops."

Enough of this mealy-mouthed, RW-talking-points bullshit; if you're going to question the patriotism of DUers, you'd better be prepared to name names and support your bullshit claims.

:dunce:

[alsame]

296. +1. Thank you. nt

[liquid diamond]

362. Read this thread. Anybody that wants to cut off their

funding in the MIDDLE of a war does not support them. I want them home too, but I'm not fucked up enough to deprive them of their means of survival!

[Ignis]

367. So any DUer who doesn't support another $33 billion for a bullshit war...

1. Doesn't support the troops.
2. Is fucked up.

Do you have to send away for these RW talking points, or do you find them at the bottom of the cereal box? :freak:

As a member of a military family--close & extended, multiple veterans & actively serving--let me be the first to say your argument is full of shit.

:hi:

[liquid diamond]

370. So your plan is to:

1. Deprive the troops of food.
2. Prevent them from receiving ammunition to fight the Taliban.
3. Cut off supplies for medical treatment that could save their lives.


That's what funding provides, but you would deny them that.

I'm done with you. Have a nice night.

[Ignis]

371. My plan is to stop Erik Prince from building ANOTHER one of these:

Your plan is apparently to keep America mired in these bullshit wars for ANOTHER decade.

:puke:

It didn't work for LBJ, and it's not going to work today.

[Ignis]

369. Here's the house of someone who REALLY wants us to $$$upport the troops.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3474025

[liberation]

304. "I don't support the war, but if our troops are there, we need to equip them properly. "

Then you DO support the war.

Seriously, it seems some people are under the impression that attempting to be even remotely intellectually honest would cause them to self combust or something

[superduperfarleft]

311. Wasn't that line the same one used against Dems back in 04 (I think?)

when several of them (I seem to remember Kerry among them) were holding up $87 billion in additional funding in order to tie Bush down into setting a withdrawal date?

[Ignis]

351. Still waiting for your list of "people here {who} don't support the troops."

Since this is the worst sin in America today, you'd better have some support for this specious claim.

[Skittles]

201. you really have gone off the deep end now

the FUNDING is what KEEPS THE WAR ALIVE

[liquid diamond]

364. The deep end? Did you listen to Obama's 2008 campaign?

He said he would focus on the war in Afghanistan. We aren't just going to leave anytime soon like you want. You people knew this. What's with your delayed outrage? I did not see this kind of anger during the general election.

[JonLP24]

204. In 2007

Obama voted against funding for the Iraq war because there was no time-table and he was opposed to the "surge". I agree with him and I was actually there in 2006-2007 and those headlines "All Active Duty Army Units To Serve 15-Month Tours" scared the hell out of all of us and certainly brought morale down. Luckily I was in a joint logistics task force that had Air Force, Navy, National Guard, and Reserve units that had set deployments--6 for Navy and Air Force and 12 months for NG and Reserves Army. So I only did the 12. If I was in a RA JLTF I would've had to do the 15. :scared:

Anyways what I'm saying it is ok to object to funding without a timetable or draw-down in troop levels. Obama thought it was ok in 2007 and so did I.

[spanone]

37. fuck war and fuck the funders of war. fuck 'em all.

fuck every man and woman who voted to keep the killing going.

[Jackpine Radical]

49. Maybe if they were all getting fucked more

they would be less interested in war.

[liquid diamond]

186. Where have I heard this shit before? Oh yeah...n/t

[spoony]

87. And fuck the chickenhawks defending it all. nt

[Sta au]

224. So... the Taliban should still be in control?

You know shooting women who don't have any family left because they need to take their child to a doctor? Oh! Or Rwanda? Where you post things about how horrible it is on the internet yet don't want to stop it? I think this is definitely a type of racism.

[WinkyDink]

235. So, we are there to destroy the Taliban? The very same Taliban WE CREATED

to battle the Soviets as our proxy?

[Sta au]

269. Yes

Unless you get off on the torture of women in some strange way. The point is, I think most people here as in america only care about injustices inflicted upon other people if they're white.

[superduperfarleft]

313. Oh lawd.

:rofl:

[xocet]

310. Actually....

The USA did not create the Taliban - the Pakistanis created and fostered the Taliban:

Washington D.C., August 14, 2007 - A collection of newly-declassified documents published today detail U.S. concern over Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban during the seven-year period leading up to 9-11. This new release comes just days after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, acknowledged that, "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil." While Musharraf admitted the Taliban were being sheltered in the lawless frontier border regions, the declassified U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

You are conflating the Taliban with the Mujahideen which we armed to fight against the Soviet Union. Here is an interesting document that lays out a lot of the history of the region:

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v25/d187

[WinkyDink]

373. Hmmmm....I think the "conflating" was actually history:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-wawro/afghanistan-the-end-is-ne_b_661467.html (Paragraph 6)

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

[Ignis]

372. False Dichotomy

Try a book, or the magic Google, to save yourself embarrassment next time.

[Cerridwen]

41. Chess strategies for beginners

• Make highly effective use of your pawns. Don't just use them as sacrifices and don't just try to get them out of the way. Keep your opponent's power pieces threatened or "clogged up" with wise pawn use. At the same time, capture your opponent's pawns ruthlessly--don't tell yourself "oh, they're just pawns". Make it a point to wipe them out. link for more strategies for beginners

[WinkyDink]

55. Lesson 2: Know when you're the pawn.

[Cerridwen]

67. I am neither knight nor King, bishop nor Queen, but I'm pretty

sure I've been rooked...which is how they treat pawns.

[Ignis]

287. !

Well played. :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

56. The facts can be disturbing to one who wears a cheerleader avatar.

Deal with it.

[Individualist]

57. +1

[BeHereNow]

62. +1

bhn

[Canuckistanian]

70. +10

[valerief]

74. +33 billion

[rhett o rick]

78. Hey hey! I am so disappointed with you Stinky.

Why denigrate cheerleaders because of this nitwit poster? Cheerleaders arent so bad. Some of my best friends are cheerleaders (in my dreams, literally).

[howaboutme]

96. The real battle is not between ideologies

It is between caste and class.

The higher you are on the pecking order of the totem pole of caste and class, the more you will gain as a result of our perpetual war mongering corporobanksterfascist policies. Conversely the lower you are, the more you lose. This is about the redistribution of American wealth to the over class from the middle, lower and under class. Politics and Parties are there to make you think you have control. You don't and Carlin nailed it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[rhett o rick]

109. Huh? I think you responded to the wrong post. nm

[howaboutme]

112. Thanks

for the heads-up.

[Oregone]

59. How would you prefer we assign responsibility for escalating and funding it continuously?

Any special language you won't have an issue with to convey the same point? Or is this overall point taboo?

[rhett o rick]

71. LOL. You are funny. Do you think that method of arguing will get you anywhere?

You explain why Pres Obama doesnt own this war? Give us a good argument instead of that crap of calling someone you disagree with a reich-winger. It was a bad war when Bush started it, and it's still a bad war even if Obama is your friend. Read my lips: WE NEED TO END THE WAR. Enough of the bullshit promises. Get us out.

[QC]

181. Sadly. that really is the best he can do. n/t

[frylock]

124. take over payments

[valerief]

72. Well, as long as it doesn't add to the deficit is all that counts.

:sarcasm: :crazy:

[harun]

89. Funny how that doesn't come up with war funding.

[valerief]

103. Yeah, just like tax cuts for the rich. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

170. Hey, deficits don't count!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Autumn]

230. Certainly not in a time of war.

And they love that perpetual war. The whole thing has become a fucking farce.

[Octafish]

79. Gee, Stinky. Doncha know there's NO MONEY IN PEACE. Relatively speaking, that is...

Some relatives.

[Cerridwen]

114. That's it, isn't it? The bottom line; "there's NO MONEY IN PEACE".

In the world in which we've created, there is no money, there are no profits, in peace.

"Money trumps peace."

[TBF]

85. If you fire all the teachers & cut social security it doesn't take long -

hey maybe we could start another couple wars if we cut congressional salaries.
:patriot:

[Patriot 76]

86. There's always money for war!

Everyone knows that.

[Ishoutandscream2]

91. Just so damned sickening

And Rome continues to burn. Shit.

[piratefish08]

92. excuses are now gone. he fucking owns it.

[bvar22]

93. What are the Anti-WAR Demopcrats goimg to do?

What are the Anti-WAR Democrats going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[jeanpalmer]

202. That is their calculation

Nothing will move them until people actually take their vote away.

[NorthCarolina]

331. Personally, I'm hoping for a primary challenge

Dean maybe.

[Fuzz]

94. There's always room for jello, deadly jello.

[OHdem10]

100. Did they put an IOU in SS. Or did they call China and ask for

a loan??????

Being a little sarcastic.

[Stinky The Clown]

101. +1

*very* little sarcasm!

[Mojeoux]

102. Spend the Money to Bring the Troops home. Bring them Home. Yankee come HOME!!!!!!!

Fuck War
we've GOT to evolve past this violent shit.

[KoKo]

105. Come On "Stinky"....did you really think they would vote Differently?

I know..."Hope Springs Eternal." YEAH!

[w8liftinglady]

106. Mike Malloy is kicking ass tonight-listen if you can

[NorthCarolina]

107. Of course the "nation" will need to make the Hard Choices

with respect to Social Security, Medicare and the like as the funds simply are not there. Thank you DLC New Dems for leading us into the light, and showing us the folly of our ways. :mad:

[Scruffy1]

108. Now you know the difference in the two paties

Time for a real change.

[IndianaGreen]

111. What the heck is Obama doing in Costa Rica?

US warships cause anger in Costa Rica

Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:25:56 GMT

Costa Rica has allowed 46 US warships and 7,000 Marines to enter the country despite objection by the opposition parties, which describe the move as "illegal."

Costa Rican opposition parties denounced the decision of the Legislative Assembly, describing it as "illegal" and "in violation of national sovereignty," Prensa Latina reported Saturday.

The decision grants US troops permission to stay in Costa Rica from July 1 to December 31 to fight drug trafficking.

The Costa Rican government, however, argues that the combat capability of the US warships, helicopters and marines is disproportionate to the threat caused by drug trafficking.

The permission is tantamount "to giving a blank check" to the US forces, Luis Fishman, deputy of the Unidad Social Cristiana said.

"We cannot support an illegal act, we won't allow the Constitution to be broken," Fishman added.

Frente Amplio legislator Jose Maria Villalta expressed his opposition to the decision, saying it allows US troops to "enjoy freedom of movement and the right to carry out the activities needed to fulfill their mission."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=133377§ionid=351020706

Bush's obsession about Iraq allowed Latin American to break loose from US hegemony. Obama has promised to fix Bush's mess, and that includes restoring American imperialism in Latin America, and the oligarchs that were thrown out of power.

Obama already staged a successful coup in Honduras.

[GreenArrow]

116. Well, honestly,

did you expect anything different?

[Peregrine Took]

118. And to think my friend has to close her library due to lack of $$$ for staff.

Sickening - and all the cash goes right into the pockets of the contractors/defense folks. Just cut them checks directly and end the war.

[rhett o rick]

119. Pres Obama: No public option but billions for war. Not change, this is not CHANGE. nm

[asdjrocky]

120. Small change. nt

[slay]

121. This is why I have such a hard time with all the "But we have to vote for Dems no matter what" posts

But I ask myself:

How can I vote for people who want escalate this insane war-for-profit when NOBODY can tell us why we are REALLY there (reminds me of Iraq).

How can I vote for people who do such a thing while this country is facing its worse financial crisis since the great depression?

How can I vote for people who won't even CONSIDER a public option for everyone, much less a single payer solution?

How can I vote for people who care so little about the needs and wants of the people who got them elected?

How can I vote for people who cover-up the crimes of the Bush-Cheney years to the point where they won't even have an investigation?

If the Dems know they will blindly get support from me, from you, from us, even though they do such things, why should they stop? This is why I can not just blindly support Dems. This is wrong, what they are doing is wrong, and the really bad part is - we have no opposition party to these things - because the Republicans would have done the exact same thing!

End this war NOW Democrats! It's been going on longer than Vietnam and it's way past time to leave, and I'm starting to not recognize yall much these days. :mad: :grr:

[NodQuestion]

122. So what

Yeah, he own's this war and the bill got funded. This isn't a new development and the outrage doesn't seem that needed. Yeah they need to set up better oversight of were the money goes and sure they need to develop how we'll be out of both places by 2011's end, but to be mad the a war funding bill that had to pass passed is ludicrous.

The fact is that we're all signed onto these wars be virtue of being Americans. I don't know how this will all end, but not giving this our best shot is probably a good way to ensure that some sort of future terrorist attack happens and it wont be you old hippies that have to worry about it, it'll be all of us young people who keeping getting the screw job by your generation. These wars need to end, and soon, but to pretend that anyone should deny this funding and strand a bunch of young scared guys over there, knowing full well that the cost to leave each country is around a trillion dollars (and all the weapons we'll have to leave over there) is absurdity.

Let's work on how to get these things done, but lets not pretend that we can just stop funding this war out of the middle of nowhere and nothing happens. There's a lot at stake here and in a just world we would pass these benefits and not be in wars at all, but we don't live in that world and the decisions we make have consequences that shouldn't bend at will to the mob just for some short sighted political victory.

[asdjrocky]

126. Do you really think having troops fighting in two middle eastern countries

keeps terrorism "over there?"

Is that what we are doing, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? Are you really pulling out that weak assed crap?

[NodQuestion]

128. way to read

No I don't. I think strategic black ops, ala Clinton years, that attack funding and networks is the way to fight. But I also don't think there's a magic lever that just lets us leave. I wish I lived in a world word you could just bring all the troops home, but you can't. It would cost trillions, RIGHT NOW, and would not be a responsible way to end this. Letting terrorist and Taliban run over native populations right after we leave, all because we couldn't decide on a sensible strategy, isn't the American way of doing business and it would engender the same anger the soviets left, only with more terrorist that were better trained and with more money.

All this liberal buster doesn't take into account the reality of the situation, that we need to have the courage to finish what we start.

[asdjrocky]

130. Since when isn't it the "American way of doing business?"

Are you not capable of historical reference at all? Look to Vietnam.

As far as me reading, you clearly played the terrorist card.

And as far as populations being over run, we're doing that just fine now. It's the American way of doing business.

[NodQuestion]

137. actually you didn't read it

you merely interpreted what would allow you to be indignant and antagonistic towards and opinion that differed form yours.

While this war does resemble Vietnam, it is not. We were legitimately attacked should have responded in a different way. Historical reference was my statement about what happened following the exit of the soviets, notably the rise of the mujahadeen. Also, saying that leaving a hot bed of terrorism is bad and advocating that we stick to a timeline that is only a year away isn't playing the terrorist card.

[asdjrocky]

141. We funded the mujahadeen.

In fact we were funding them right up to the 9/11.

Actually I did read it, and reading between your lines is embarrassingly easy.

You are full of rw talking points and you don't even realize it.

[NodQuestion]

155. nice try

When I referenced the mujahadeen, I wasn't saying anything other than they became a larger movement after that war. I was extrapolating that it probably is a bad idea to give them free weapons, a burgeoning drug market (also funded by us), and a lawless country. They don't like us now and go by a different name, so it would probably be good to plan an exit that minimizes how much we leave them. that's the base of my argument. read what you want.

[asdjrocky]

157. Nice try, but I've heard all of your talking points.

I'm done, have a nice day.

[NodQuestion]

159. thanks

cool story hansell

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slay]

131. Did you really just say "So What" about this war and "We have to finish what we started"???

Read my post below about how I disagree with you and why. You sound like a warmonger. WAR IS A RACKET.

[NodQuestion]

142. ha

I'm a warmonger because I think we should attempt to not leave the country a steam pile of crap for terrorist to ravage because WE decided to invade and manage a war this way. The world doesn't see democrats and republicans, they just see Americans. That is how they judge our actions and name calling because some mentions the notion of reality, that it might be more difficult to leave than we conceive.

Think about logistics, the money required to leave, and what we leave behind before you attack someone with a slightly differing opinion.

[liberation]

148. Appeal to victim status how predictable....

... running on empty in the excuse department I guess. LOL.

[NodQuestion]

152. what

how is it appealing to the victims status to say w should plan, ie use the year we have before the 2011 deadline, before we leave.

[slay]

150. Since when are we the world police - and why only in Afghanistan?

WAR IS A RACKET. It's not about "terrorists", it's not about the people of Afghanistan, and it's not about how the world sees us. It's about money. It is ALWAYS about money. Again, if you refuse to educate yourself on this, there is no point continuing this discussion.

[NodQuestion]

153. good one

throwing out a your own theory and then telling someone to get educated on it before arguing with you is a straw man argument that doesn't actually address the point I made.

[Raineyb]

247. Anyone who thinks we can stop terrorism by bombing the shit out of a country

is not dealing with reality.

Psst! That leaves you out.

[slay]

129. I disagree. This so called "war" has been going on longer than Vietnam!

I mean I STRONGLY disagree. "So what" my ass. I suggest you read "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler.

Here is an excerpt: "War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, in which Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests have commercially benefited from warfare."

~snip~

""War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

[NodQuestion]

132. true

I never said this war isn't stupid, but there's a right way to leave and there's a wrong way to leave. Reality dictates that neither way includes "just leaving." I don't need a book suggestion, I read FOI's on the stuff they do over there all day, I just don't live in a fantasy world we push magic button and pull everyone home. Especially considering we're set to begin leaving next year.

Calm down, pray for the unfortunate souls putting their lives on the line for this, and stop getting mad when people suggest that leavign isn't as easy as it sounds.

[slay]

135. Wow. You don't need a book suggestion huh? Well don't tell me to pray buddy

I don't believe in some magical man in the sky. You know when this "war" will end - as soon as we quit funding it. I have a real problem with Obama ESCALATING a war. But you know what, if you won't educate yourself about what war is really about ($$$$) and why it really happens, then further discussion with you about this is pointless.

It IS easy to leave. We leave. The end.

[NodQuestion]

151. You just don't stop funding the war

You have to ask how we get all those people back, what equipment (GUNS, TANKS, ECT) we leave behind, how much that will cost and how to begin a draw down. Don't pretend to be educated about military logistics, I know I'm not be any means super knowledgeable, but at least I acknowledge that there are variables that need to be accounted for before people come home.

Not mention that this all will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. This also requires planning. You know what a good time frame for planing a mass exodus is: a year. That sounds a lot like the 2011 July deadline. I'm not advocating war, I'm advocating planning. We stuck it in like a drunk frat boy, doesn't mean we should pull out just as haphazardly.

[slay]

156. You're wrong - that's exactly what you do.

Now they are talking a 2014 deadline. This is bullshit and we can't afford to waste money over there while a few get rich. I'll gladly fund a one-time withdrawal cost to get the troops home. Do you REALLY think things will be different in 2011? Or 2014? You know the history of Afghanistan right - graveyard of armys? Bankrupter of entire countries? These "timelines" our so called leaders have put in place are to try and keep people pacified while the elite rake in tons of cash. I saw today that another 8 BILLION is missing from Iraq. I'll say it one last time WAR IS A RACKET and none of your pro-war disguised as anti-war propaganda will ever change that fact.

[NodQuestion]

161. yeah

I'm a propagandist for saying that we need plan, grow up.

[TheKentuckian]

192. There is no plan whatsoever to end this war in a year

What we have is an assertion that if conditions permit that we will begin to draw down at that time.

Maybe you'd have a case if we were actually going to end the war at that time but the reality is there is no actual end and for that matter none in Iraq either, we'll have a major force (larger than the army in Afghanistan when Obama took office) for the projectable future.

Further, there is absolutely no plan of action that we can even pretend depends on what we do at all, everything is conditioned on the Afghans doing as we hope and to a substantial extent transforming their society.

You show me a real plan to leave and not transform into an occupation/security force for resource extraction and I'll work with you but platitudes, excuses, and bushshit logic isn't going to fly.

Also, if the expense of leaving was such a critical element then we should have not sent even more there and certainly not triple a logistics nightmare.

Logistics is my principle experience and I need a job so I'd be happy to take a temporary contract for a year or so to help get our people and equipment back as frugally as possible. If be proud to serve my country and to support our troops in such a fashion but I'm not going to swallow a bunch of crap and pretend this is A Ok, rational, protects our national interests, is good for the Afghans, or is the best way forward because none of that is true.

[Raineyb]

279. Yes you do. How do you think the Vietnam War ended?

If you can't be bothered to pay attention to history how the hell do you expect to avoid repeating those mistakes? Oh right you don't because you're arguing for the same asinine "policies" they were arguing back then in favor of the Vietnam War.

[dgibby]

223. You're beating your head against a brick wall.

He's already told us in a post up thread that we're a bunch of old hippies who've messed it all up for his generation, so it would appear that as far as he's concerned, anyone older than he is has nothing to teach him.

The age bias with this one is strong. Anyone who doesn't "need" to read Butler, yet pontificates relentlessly about war is not worth your time or effort. Try again when he's older.

[slay]

323. Yeah I noticed so I finally just stopped replying to him

I really try and educate people here at DU who are mis-informed, but yeah, he's not misinformed, he's willfully ignorant, and unwilling to even listen. Sigh.. And the sad thing is - the hippies were the last REAL challenge to the American Empire who actually made a difference. Hatred runs deep in this country. :(

[Vickers]

191. Dude, I checked your profile...you're from "Washignton DC"

That tells me all I really need to know.

:rofl:

[bring_em_home_bush]

195. so much nonsense and illogic and bizarre jingoism that it's not even worth it

Extra points for the "old hippies" versus "the young pragmatists" excrement, however.

[Ignis]

288. Enjoy your stay.

We "old hippies" can't wait until you fly in with your cape and fix everything. :eyes:

[JDPriestly]

123. And they are threatening to reduce Social Security benefits.

Who are these thieves?

[Greyhound]

144. You won't mind ponying up your $275, will you?

:kick: & R

[OwnedByFerrets]

146. K and R

[unkachuck]

147. unbelievable....

....how many more years of this perpetual corporate war-mongering shit do we have to put up with?

....this ungodly Washington tribe of corporate war-mongers have us all in a stranglehold....time to clean house.

[Dinger]

160. That Fucking Sucks

Not sure what I can do about it, but I won't fucking lay down! Good job (again) Stinky!

[kiva]

162. It's bad enough that this war is pointless, expensive, and will end

badly for us; enough people here have explained very clearly why this war is unwinnable and I'm not going to rehash that argument.

I'm posting because this vote says fuck you to a lot of Americans. Hey kid, sorry but you won't get much attention from the teacher because now s/he has another 10 kids in class because we can't afford to pay for teachers. Supported single payer? Fuck you, we can't afford single payer. Worried about cuts in Social Security and Medicaid? Fuck no we can't afford to pay you that stipend. Unemployed? Out of the kindness of our hearts we will extend unemployment benefits if you grovel enough and let us lecture you about how irresponsible you are...why don't you enlist?

I will not vote for any Dem who voted for this bill. I will not support politicians who sell us out. Tomorrow I am changing my affiliation to 'unaffiliated'.

[slay]

167. Excellent points kiva

I don't recognize many of the Dems these days either. Many of their actions you listed are inexcusable. I know they USED to be a party of the people. These days they seem more like enablers of the Republican Agenda. :shrug:

I will vote for progressive Dems when I can, but I too have to draw the line at this war and will not vote for any Dems who wish to continue it - hopefully anti-war Dems will run in primaries and the pro-war Dems can be defeated. Otherwise more drastic political changes will be needed.

[kiva]

175. I've voted faithfully since 1976.

Twice for a Republican downticket, all of the rest of the time it's been Dems. For the last 18 years its been all Dems, even though once I thought the Repub was actually a better choice in a local race, because I wanted to send a message to Republicans.

No more. Like you I will support progressive Dems, but they will no longer get my vote just because they are Dems. My rep voted yes today - I've worked with her husband, I've defended her against some nasty (and lying) statements, but I will not vote for her in November.

[dgibby]

225. Welcome to the world of "Independent Voters"

I've been registered as an Independent since day one. Originally, I did it because I was active duty Navy, and felt it was the best way to ensure I could be neutral, regardless of who the CIC was. Eventually I realized I cared more about Principle than I did Party. I've always aligned myself with progressive Dems, but I feel no obligation to support any Party that compromises it's principles in order to win.

[mreilly]

226. Same here dgibby

I was a loyal Democrat from about 1988-2004, then left the party and officially registered Independent. It became clear to me that while I also support progressives (or liberals, or whatever you want to call a group that favors people over corporations, fairness over greed, reason over hysteria and education over ignorance) the Democrats would never stand up to Bush or the Republicans, and would continue to cower and run from any head-on confrontation to put the right-wing thugs in their place. I won't go so far as to say "there's no difference between the two parties" but will say one party mouths platitudes to tell me what I want to hear and then occasionally delivers, whereas the other party hates free thinkers like myself who can't be brainwashed or kept in a state of voting for them out of fear/greed.

[kiva]

274. I registered D so that I could vote in primary races,

but after yesterday's vote I want to make it clear that I don't support this Johnsonesque war funding.

[MrMickeysMom]

171. Let THIS be the call used against every Congressional race

... apply where necessary.

STAY ON MESSAGE!

[Jakes Progress]

172. But look at it this way.

Sure we spend billions of poor people's money. Sure thousands more will die. Sure we are recruiting more terrorists.

But at least this president and those congress critters won't be here to take the blame when the last helicopter takes off from a Kandahar roof top with a couple of hundred civilians trying to get on. Whew. At least they will dodge that bad press. Just bump that baby on to the next guy.

[Eyerish]

178. This war is his now...

He can't deny it anymore.

End.The.Wars

[libmom74]

183. a history lesson & alternative

We have to stop being afraid and voting for the lesser of two evils. The Democrats have faced strong challenges from the left in the past and those challenges are what helped this country progress to a more humane nation.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1755.html

http://www.gp.org/index.php

[avaistheone1]

187. Obama was not paying attention.

He did not learn the primary lesson of the Vietnam War - you don't take the country to war unless the entire country supports doing so. Instead the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have split this country down the middle, and opened the flood gates of hell.

:grr:

[Mnemosyne]

189. Kathy Dahlkemper, PA - 3, D " Pro-life" warmonger. knr n/t

[Gator_Matt]

190. This is how empires end

Reminds me of the Athenians bankrupting themselves on unnecessary campaigns of aggression. Meanwhile China dumps their money into infrastructure and growth of manufacturing.

[Chisox08]

200. We always have money for war

But for those lazy, ungrateful, drug addicted Americans who are not in the top 1% can go fuck themselves. :sarcasm:

[BlueJac]

203. Obama is a fucking joke!!!

Bush III

[Naturyl]

205. Disgusted yet?

Sounds like you are... so what will you do?

Personally, I'm writing in a real Democrat in 2012 - and I'm sure that won't be the "Democratic" nominee.

[Ganja Ninja]

211. Bernie Sanders/Allan Grayson - 2012

And no more blue dogs ever!

[dgibby]

228. That would be a dream ticket, wouldn't it?

Of course, we'd have to hire all the unemployed to clean up the mess from GOP, Tea Bagger, and DLC/Blue Dogs exploding heads! Triple plus good.

Get a great team in the WH, end unemployment, get rid of the riffraff!

[slay]

325. Don't tease me

That would be beyond awesome. So of course it won't happen. Man would I LOVE LOVE LOVE it if it did though.

[MissDeeds]

214. I'm writing in a real Dem, too

I considered doing it in 2008 and have regretted I didn't. I won't make the same mistake twice.

[Tailormyst]

245. I was a while back

I'm so done with the lot of them.

[Raster]

210. The United States is now a military-centric country. The Military/Industrial Complex OWNS the U.S.

War is a good business. Invest your child today.

[slay]

326. +1

Eisenhower tried to warn us. :(

[BrklynLiberal]

212. Damn! Damn! Damn!

[MissDeeds]

215. Agree on all points

K&R

[anachro1]

218. Apparently CHANGE

was just BULLSHIT in a party dress.

[blindpig]

220. The ordering of priorities says it all. n/t

k&r

[Vinca]

222. So . . . it's paid for . . . right?

:sarcasm:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

233. We are now the war party and the Repukes that voted Nay are the doves. Rah rah....

:grr:

[democrank]

237. President Obama is center-right.

Expect war. Expect help for giant banks.

[derby378]

238. Too bad the Wikileaks revelations couldn't stop this bill

It's becoming more and more obvious that we're throwing taxpayer dollars into a black hole.

[xiamiam]

240. this thread sounds like the sentiment where I live...no war supporters

and lots of disappointment..thank god for Sam Farr...he gets it right most if not all of the time..this outrage is old news..I know the way people in my community think..I used to know the way DU would respond..not so much anymore..

I would vote for Grayson in a heartbeat..or anyone else who gets it..this is not difficult..out of afghanistan is a no brainer..there is NOT ONE GOOD REASON to stay or escalate...not one

[SlingBlade]

243. K & R

[Tailormyst]

244. I'm so angry

I can't even put into words on this site at how angry I am at Washington because it would be delete. I'm pitchfork and torch angry. I really am.

[myrna minx]

249. .

:puke: :cry:

[Romulox]

251. Electing Obama hasn't "changed" a thing W/R/T our wars of aggression.

Obama's war record = W.'s war record (minus the jumpsuit.)

[CoffeeCat]

254. We're in the Middle East because of the PNAC plan...

The PNACers made it perfectly clear. Why...they even spelled it out on the website (which is now down).

They needed a foothold in the Middle East, first. They want to dominate the world militarily and rape
everyone of their resources. The Middle East is the land they want to conquer first. They frightened
us into Iraq. That went to hell and public opinion deflated, so they've turned their sites on
Afghanistan.

Yes, it's a joke. Yes, we can all see that fighting a war there is ridiculous.

However, it's not ridiculous to the PNAC/neocon crowd. They got their foot in the door with Iraq.
No way in hell are they giving up their position in that region. They'll sell us any idea about why
we need to be there. It's part of their grand plan of global domination.

Afghanistan is just a place holder. Wait until the really good stuff starts ramping up--Iran. That's
in the PNAC plan too. Iraq first...then Iran...then Syria.

This is not a game to these people. This is their plan and they are not veering from it. They will steal
the next few election cycles and they will continue on--regardless of what you or I want.

[BootinUp]

263. I think it will come down to how we go about

getting what we want. Basically we can cry and scream and lose future elections as a result or we can do the hard things and head off any more disastrous adventures.

[onethatcares]

340. thanx for the reminders

too often we forget about the cheneys, the wolfowitizs,the pearls and the rest of those neo cons that sat around government waiting for their chance to bind togeter (under *) and stuff the country into the wars and invasions.

Peace.

[FlyByNight]

262. Unlimited funding for the empire

Austerity and accountability for the rest of us.

Appalling.

:puke:

[LWolf]

265. I think he became a stockholder when he voted

to fund it as a Senator...which he did, regularly, until he needed to campaign as being "against the war" in '08.

[Deep13]

270. Is there a list of yeas and nays somewhere?

I just want to confirm what I think I already know.

[Stinky The Clown]

273. It was posted upthread, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8827714#8827767

[Blue Owl]

276. Booooooooooooo

Hisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

(throwing rotten tomatoes at the warmongers)

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Fearless]

278. Didn't you get the memo? We don't matter anymore.

[Starry Messenger]

280. Hell, education has to *compete* for their crumbs.

I'm sickened. 33 billion for war, 4 billion for education with strings so long it will deform education.

[lib2DaBone]

285. Where was Mitch McConne l nd John Boehner and the Deficit Hawks?

Money for war? No problem. Money to bribe war lords in Afghanistan.. No Problem.

Teachers for our schools? "what are you .. a lazy Socialist..?

[stevenleser]

289. Its not his war. Vietnam was not Nixon's war. Your trying to portray it this way says a lot about

you, not Obama.

p.s., for continued attempts at twisting reality, you are now on ignore.

[liberation]

307. Holy shit...

... so Nixon is the good guy now regarding Vietnam? Jesus H Tap dancing Christ on a broken pogo stick this whole cult of personality is starting to officially freak the fuck out of me.

[Stinky The Clown]

314. Oh my gosh. I'm crushed. You put me on IGNORE?????

How will I EVER survive. You're cold hearted.

:eyes:

:chuckle:

[Ignis]

293. K&R. Plus ça change, eh?

I can't wait until we cut out the middleman and launch our senior citizens directly at Al Qaeda.

[pleah]

301. Yeah, they never seem to have a hard time finding money for war.

Fuckers!

[deutsey]

305. I'm tired of this New American Century

I want the old one back.

It wasn't perfect, but it helped most of us peons (until Reagan came along, anyway).

[liberation]

308. Dude, the last century sucked biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig time

A couple of world wars, a depression, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Reagan, Bush the Lesser, segregation, religious extremism, JFK, RFK, MLK, Lennon...

We had a couple of great and remarkably prosperous decades, ironically the only time the USA could be considered a somewhat "socialistic" society. However, the rest of the world was also in ruins at that time to be intellectually honest about the context. That was also the time the living standards, technological, and social achievements accelerated at a pace unheard of in human history. In fact, for the most part this country has been living off the rents from those couple of good decades.

The fact that most people in this country are unable to make that simple connection leads me to believe we're past the point of redemption in the slippery slope of devolution.

[deutsey]

316. I'm referring to the social safety net that came out of the New Deal

and the progressive era...the one that lasted pretty much until Reagan came along (though it was fraying badly by then).

Having that in place helped a lot of poor folks like me and my family (members of whom fought and were killed in the wars you mention).

I was also alluding the Neo-con PNAC. If this is their idea of a "new American century", then this century will suck even more biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig time than the last one and perhaps even worse than the Gilded Age did.

[bvar22]

344. The previous poster....

...probably isn't old enough to know about Project for a New American Century (PNAC),
and its inside connection to the "Centrist" Democratic Party Leadership through the DLC.
The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

I'm with you.
I want NOTHING to do with PNAC and their vision for a New American Century, though the Obama Administration seems hell bent to implement it ASAP.

Chump Change.

"By their works you will know them."

[katty]

312. More,more,more, and more...PLENTY of $$$ for WAR

and Goldman Sachs bonuses.

[DebbieCDC]

315. K&R - when is this shit gonna end?

[earth mom]

317. It's Obama's War now. Damn right it is. nt

[ProudDad]

319. Another symptom of end-stage capitalism

War is a Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[slay]

328. I posted the same thing

further up the thread but it can NEVER be said enough - WAR IS A RACKET indeed!

Marx predicted this kind of shit would happen at the end stages of capitalism as well - he just had his timetable wrong thinking it would happen much sooner than it did.

[Butch350]

330. Ask yourself a question. What happens to people who rock the boat?

JFK, RK, MLK, etc...

Get the picture?

[kurtzapril4]

337. As I recall

JFK was a hawk who escalated the Vietnam war. He certainly wasn't a pacifist. He also wasn't a big fan of Civil Rights.

RFK was different. I thought RFK would have been an awesome president.

[judesedit]

333. They are working on a public option now. It's a beginning. Vote dem. Obama can't do it alone.

The republicans will charge $700 BILLION to continue the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. How about them apples? I'll still go with the dems any day. At least they are getting things done. Even if it is a little at a time. You can thank the repugs for unemployment benefits taking so long to be passed. Not one voted for YOUR best interest. Thankfully, the war is winding down, honorably for our soldiers. While still pursuing some improvement in conditions there. And conditions here are improving, if slowly. Check the facts. Don't listen to GOP propaganda or you'll never know what's really going on.

Just remember....the republicans SCREWED the American people AGAIN AS USUAL! And will continue to do so....NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY THEY'LL DO. If they say it, the opposite is true. We're living the result of the previous 8 years with them in power. No way..No more of those hypocrites if I can do anything about it. And believe me, I will do everything I can do to kick them out!

[bergie321]

334. War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

[patrice]

346. $33 Billion to kill folks who don't need killing and NO money for anything else. I may have been

the first or one of the first here on the DU to say it:

WE ARE WAR SLAVES!

[mother earth]

348. K & R! I don't want to hear bitching about the deficit, not one damned

word while they support George Bush & Dick Cheney's illegal war(s). It's too bad, so sad, but the new boss, the guy I voted for & put so much hope into to turn around the chaos he was left with, is same as the old boss. Only he is sympathetic, but apparently not sympathetic enough to the progressive cause and the peace cause, etc., to grow a real set and do what's right. Fuck compromise and bipartisanship.

The republicans should be worshipping at Obama's feet, he's doing just what GW did, he's pandering to the base of the have mores and want mores. He's delivered us unto the corporate owners.

I'm putting it mildly to say I'm disappointed, I'm ready for the third party candidate that's going to make good on ending the war(s) and I'm ready for any challenge to this president. There's no loyalty when you have left crumbs in place of bread.

[Catherina]

360. As 1 out of every 50 American children is homeless. Too late to recommend.

http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/




More than 1.5 million homeless American children are stranded at the grim nexus of poverty, economic recession, and escalating housing foreclosures—one in every 50 American children is homeless each year. With foreclosures and layoffs increasing daily, the number of children and families without homes in the United States is likely to increase.

America’s Youngest Outcasts: State Report Card on Child Homelessness presents the clearest snapshot yet of the 1.5 million children who are homeless each year—where they live and the consequences of their precarious situations. The report documents the extent of child homelessness, child well-being, risk for child homelessness and policy and planning efforts for each state. Recommendations for state and federal action are also included.

...

Among the findings reported in America’s Youngest Outcasts: State Report Card on Child Homelessness:

1 in 50 children in America are homeless.

1.5 million children are homeless each year.

Of the 2.3 to 3.5 million Americans who are homeless each year, 34% are families.

These numbers are likely to grow as the economic recession worsens and escalating housing foreclosures increase.

Overall Rank by State
States ranked 1-50 with 1 being best and 50 worst

State / Score
Connecticut 1
New Hampshire 2
Hawaii 3
Rhode Island 4
North Dakota 5
Minnesota 6
Wisconsin 7
Massachusetts 8
Maine 9
Vermont 10
Iowa 11
South Dakota 12
Illinois 13
Pennsylvania 14
West Virginia 15
New Jersey 16
Virginia 17
Maryland 18
Delaware 19
Ohio 20
Wyoming 21
Alaska 22
Idaho 23
Tennessee 24
Washington 25
Oregon 26
Missouri 27
Kansas 28
Michigan 29
Indiana 30
Oklahoma 31
Alabama 32
Montana 33
Nebraska 34
Colorado 35
Arizona 36
Utah 37
New York 38
South Carolina 39
California 40
Mississippi 41
Kentucky 42
Florida 43
North Carolina 44
Nevada 45
Louisiana 46
New Mexico 47
Arkansas 48
Georgia 49
Texas 50

http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/findings_national.php

Download the full report

Interactive Map Here

[WinkyDink]

374. Where is the Pentagon's "Arne Duncan"? HE'D shut down this war!