Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 Next

Topic: Dear Fiscal Conservative War Supporter
Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Tue 05/04/10 12:39 PM
Dear Fiscal Conservative War Supporter Is it that you don't know what war costs, or that you don't know that it makes us less safe? We've spent $268 billion on making war on Afghanistan, and using Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz' analysis of Iraq we need to multiply that by four or five to get a realistic cost including debt, veterans care, energy prices, and lost opportunities. Public investment in most other industries or in tax cuts produces more jobs than investment in military. In fact, military spending is economically, as well as morally, the worst thing Congress can do. And this is economically the worst time in many decades to be doing the worst thing you can do. Including the war on Iraq, the military bases we're maintaining all over the world, and the general funding of the Pentagon, we spend more on the military and wars than we spend on everything else combined, more than all other nations on earth spend on their militaries combined, and many times what all conceivable enemies spend on their militaries combined. And we call this "defense". Are you sure that's what it is? Why do other nations stay safer than ours without building military bases all over the world and without impoverishing themselves? During the global war of terror we have seen a global increase in terrorism. The supposed tools for fighting terrorism may fight it, but their net impact is almost certainly to increase it. We are funding a government in Afghanistan that wants to join the Taliban, the same Taliban that apparently just tried to set off a bomb in New York, the same Taliban that most Afghans see as their brothers, while viewing us as foreigners. Shockingly, we actually are the foreigners and will never be welcome there no matter what we do. Is it worth it to you to keep trying? We could have 20 jobs paying $50,000 per year here in the United States for every soldier sent to Afghanistan: a job for that former soldier and 19 more. We're spending as much as $100 per gallon to bring gas into Afghanistan where the U.S. military used 27 million gallons of the stuff last month. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bribe nations to be part of what we pretend is a coalition effort. We're spending at least that much to bribe Afghans to join the right side, an effort that has recruited 646 of the Taliban's 36,000 soldiers, but then lost many of them who took the money and ran back to the other side. We probably paid for that bomb in New York. Do you think you'll feel safer if we don't "retreat"? Vietnam just celebrated the 35th anniversary of the United States leaving. Leaving that place didn't make anyone less safe. And every time we dug in deeper, it didn't get us out. The only thing that got us out was leaving -- and Congress ceasing to spend our money there. We did not exit Iraq by escalating it. We have not exited at all, and the escalation does not explain the decrease in violence. And if it did, we would still need hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of civilians to do it in Afghanistan. We have 198,000 troops and mercenaries in Iraq. And violence is down there because so many people are dead and displaced, because a complete withdrawal date has been announced, and primarily because the troops have pulled back from urban areas. When they stopped patrolling for violence, the violence went down, because the violence was being driven by the occupation. Violence will go down in Afghanistan too if the US troops pull back, even if they launch a murderous and counterproductive assault first. And perhaps that is President Obama's cynical plan, to pull back and reduce (but not end) the occupation after a pointless battle fought for U.S. political purposes or to please the military industrial congressional complex. We know that last year President Obama sent 21,000 more troops and 5,000 more mercenaries to Afghanistan, and that violence increased as a result. What's staggering is that the president said he was going to send those troops first and then figure out a plan for Afghanistan later. Sending the troops was an end in itself. Some of them are dead now. We know that a pipeline and major military bases are part of the desired plan, but so is winning elections back home. Will you vote for a president or congress members who behave this way? They think you will. They think you want to keep pouring your money into this hole. They think you have no interest in your children's safety or in having a good job. They know that their own experts think they'd need hundreds of thousands of troops to get anything done in Afghanistan. They're either moving in that direction or pointlessly engaging in a hopelessly small escalation. In either case, do you approve? If you do not approve, you should know that Congress is about to vote on another $33 billion to escalate the war in Afghanistan. This is not money to keep it going, but to escalate it. You can tell your congress member that you would prefer jobs at home by calling (202) 224-3121 and telling them that unless they vote No you will vote against them in November. _______ To receive updates from After Downing Street register at http://afterdowningstreet.org/user/register To subscribe to other lists go to http://davidswanson.org/node/921 http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/28452/dear-fiscal-conservative-war-supporter

TonkaTruck3 Joined Fri 02/12/10 Posts: 852	Tue 05/04/10 07:51 PM
This fraudulent govt. can just print more money...problem solved.

FearandLoathing Joined Fri 12/28/07 Posts: 30121	Tue 05/04/10 07:52 PM
This fraudulent govt. can just print more money...problem solved. Not as easy as that, chief.

Thomas3474 Joined Mon 11/10/08 Posts: 2713	Tue 05/04/10 09:08 PM
Dear Fiscal Conservative War Supporter Is it that you don't know what war costs, or that you don't know that it makes us less safe? We've spent $268 billion on making war on Afghanistan, and using Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz' analysis of Iraq we need to multiply that by four or five to get a realistic cost including debt, veterans care, energy prices, and lost opportunities. Public investment in most other industries or in tax cuts produces more jobs than investment in military. In fact, military spending is economically, as well as morally, the worst thing Congress can do. And this is economically the worst time in many decades to be doing the worst thing you can do. Including the war on Iraq, the military bases we're maintaining all over the world, and the general funding of the Pentagon, we spend more on the military and wars than we spend on everything else combined, more than all other nations on earth spend on their militaries combined, and many times what all conceivable enemies spend on their militaries combined. And we call this "defense". Are you sure that's what it is? Why do other nations stay safer than ours without building military bases all over the world and without impoverishing themselves? During the global war of terror we have seen a global increase in terrorism. The supposed tools for fighting terrorism may fight it, but their net impact is almost certainly to increase it. We are funding a government in Afghanistan that wants to join the Taliban, the same Taliban that apparently just tried to set off a bomb in New York, the same Taliban that most Afghans see as their brothers, while viewing us as foreigners. Shockingly, we actually are the foreigners and will never be welcome there no matter what we do. Is it worth it to you to keep trying? We could have 20 jobs paying $50,000 per year here in the United States for every soldier sent to Afghanistan: a job for that former soldier and 19 more. We're spending as much as $100 per gallon to bring gas into Afghanistan where the U.S. military used 27 million gallons of the stuff last month. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bribe nations to be part of what we pretend is a coalition effort. We're spending at least that much to bribe Afghans to join the right side, an effort that has recruited 646 of the Taliban's 36,000 soldiers, but then lost many of them who took the money and ran back to the other side. We probably paid for that bomb in New York. Do you think you'll feel safer if we don't "retreat"? Vietnam just celebrated the 35th anniversary of the United States leaving. Leaving that place didn't make anyone less safe. And every time we dug in deeper, it didn't get us out. The only thing that got us out was leaving -- and Congress ceasing to spend our money there. We did not exit Iraq by escalating it. We have not exited at all, and the escalation does not explain the decrease in violence. And if it did, we would still need hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of civilians to do it in Afghanistan. We have 198,000 troops and mercenaries in Iraq. And violence is down there because so many people are dead and displaced, because a complete withdrawal date has been announced, and primarily because the troops have pulled back from urban areas. When they stopped patrolling for violence, the violence went down, because the violence was being driven by the occupation. Violence will go down in Afghanistan too if the US troops pull back, even if they launch a murderous and counterproductive assault first. And perhaps that is President Obama's cynical plan, to pull back and reduce (but not end) the occupation after a pointless battle fought for U.S. political purposes or to please the military industrial congressional complex. We know that last year President Obama sent 21,000 more troops and 5,000 more mercenaries to Afghanistan, and that violence increased as a result. What's staggering is that the president said he was going to send those troops first and then figure out a plan for Afghanistan later. Sending the troops was an end in itself. Some of them are dead now. We know that a pipeline and major military bases are part of the desired plan, but so is winning elections back home. Will you vote for a president or congress members who behave this way? They think you will. They think you want to keep pouring your money into this hole. They think you have no interest in your children's safety or in having a good job. They know that their own experts think they'd need hundreds of thousands of troops to get anything done in Afghanistan. They're either moving in that direction or pointlessly engaging in a hopelessly small escalation. In either case, do you approve? If you do not approve, you should know that Congress is about to vote on another $33 billion to escalate the war in Afghanistan. This is not money to keep it going, but to escalate it. You can tell your congress member that you would prefer jobs at home by calling (202) 224-3121 and telling them that unless they vote No you will vote against them in November. _______ To receive updates from After Downing Street register at http://afterdowningstreet.org/user/register To subscribe to other lists go to http://davidswanson.org/node/921 http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/28452/dear-fiscal-conservative-war-supporter If I was you I would start protesting Obama and the Democrats right away!

Lpdon Joined Thu 02/25/10 Posts: 18772	Wed 05/05/10 12:06 AM
Thanks for posting this article. It reminded me to call my Reps. and ask them to vote yes. AQ must be faught, no matter what the cost. Not to mention the jobs the war has created from provate security, construction and trade jobs and military equipment building, selling, repairing etc.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Wed 05/05/10 02:16 AM
Thanks for posting this article. It reminded me to call my Reps. and ask them to vote yes. AQ must be faught, no matter what the cost. Not to mention the jobs the war has created from provate security, construction and trade jobs and military equipment building, selling, repairing etc. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed—those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending its money alone—it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." —Dwight Eisenhower, Speech (1953) http://www.seesharppress.com/warquotes.html

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Wed 05/05/10 05:13 AM
Thanks for posting this article. It reminded me to call my Reps. and ask them to vote yes. AQ must be faught, no matter what the cost. Not to mention the jobs the war has created from provate security, construction and trade jobs and military equipment building, selling, repairing etc. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed—those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending its money alone—it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." —Dwight Eisenhower, Speech (1953) http://www.seesharppress.com/warquotes.html What I have noticed since Obama has taken office is a sharp decline in war coverage and the number of mass protests against it.. Where is the outrage? Where are the effigies of Obama? No warmonger or baby killer chants? I find this very interesting. Instead we see mass pro immigration rallies.. Where are your priorities really at? People are still dying.. Afghanistan has been escalated.. We are bombing the hell out of Pakistan.. Where is Cindy Sheehan? Why isn't she getting wall to wall coverage protesting in front of Obama's vacation destinations? I don't get it.. Where are the New York Times Op Ed's decrying the wanton use of predator drone strikes in a country that is supposed to be our ally? Where is it? Could it be... that all the outrage over the wars when Bush was in office was really just about Bush and not about the wars? I am beginning to think so.. maybe the smirking chimp can address this..

crickstergo Joined Fri 11/02/07 Posts: 1965	Wed 05/05/10 06:42 AM
guess that those folks u speak to r really convinced that Obama's war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a "legal" war.... and no....I don't think the outrage was just about Bush...it was about a nation frustrated once again at a prolonged fight.... and shame on those Bush warmongers for giving up the fight!

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Wed 05/05/10 11:40 AM
Thanks for posting this article. It reminded me to call my Reps. and ask them to vote yes. AQ must be faught, no matter what the cost. Not to mention the jobs the war has created from provate security, construction and trade jobs and military equipment building, selling, repairing etc. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed—those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending its money alone—it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." —Dwight Eisenhower, Speech (1953) http://www.seesharppress.com/warquotes.html What I have noticed since Obama has taken office is a sharp decline in war coverage and the number of mass protests against it.. Where is the outrage? Where are the effigies of Obama? No warmonger or baby killer chants? I find this very interesting. Instead we see mass pro immigration rallies.. Where are your priorities really at? People are still dying.. Afghanistan has been escalated.. We are bombing the hell out of Pakistan.. Where is Cindy Sheehan? Why isn't she getting wall to wall coverage protesting in front of Obama's vacation destinations? I don't get it.. Where are the New York Times Op Ed's decrying the wanton use of predator drone strikes in a country that is supposed to be our ally? Where is it? Could it be... that all the outrage over the wars when Bush was in office was really just about Bush and not about the wars? I am beginning to think so.. maybe the smirking chimp can address this.. The anti-war movement is still very much alive. anti-war.com is a major outlet for anti-war opinion, for one. The reason it doesn't get much coverage is because the MSM has political interests involved.

Foliel Joined Thu 01/10/08 Posts: 1189	Wed 05/05/10 11:46 AM
Where there is good there will be evil. Take down al-qaida and someone will take their place, there will always be people that resent or hate the usa. While I do agree that something needs to be done, war obviously isn't doing it. We have been at war for 20+ years for various reasons, and yet terrorism is becoming a bigger problem rather than smaller. There must be another solution to the problem.

markumX Joined Wed 06/03/09 Posts: 677	Wed 05/05/10 12:25 PM
Thanks for posting this article. It reminded me to call my Reps. and ask them to vote yes. AQ must be faught, no matter what the cost. Not to mention the jobs the war has created from provate security, construction and trade jobs and military equipment building, selling, repairing etc. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed—those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending its money alone—it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." —Dwight Eisenhower, Speech (1953) http://www.seesharppress.com/warquotes.html What I have noticed since Obama has taken office is a sharp decline in war coverage and the number of mass protests against it.. Where is the outrage? Where are the effigies of Obama? No warmonger or baby killer chants? I find this very interesting. Instead we see mass pro immigration rallies.. Where are your priorities really at? People are still dying.. Afghanistan has been escalated.. We are bombing the hell out of Pakistan.. Where is Cindy Sheehan? Why isn't she getting wall to wall coverage protesting in front of Obama's vacation destinations? I don't get it.. Where are the New York Times Op Ed's decrying the wanton use of predator drone strikes in a country that is supposed to be our ally? Where is it? Could it be... that all the outrage over the wars when Bush was in office was really just about Bush and not about the wars? I am beginning to think so.. maybe the smirking chimp can address this.. i've attended six anti war rallies in the past three months, two in D.C. they're still going on, there's no press coverage.

GG2 Joined Tue 08/14/07 Posts: 2120	Wed 05/05/10 01:24 PM
Yadda yadda as usual they still blame W for Obamas economic mess. Nothing new. Who wants to cover a bunch of hippie anti-war rallies? Old news after awhile.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Wed 05/05/10 06:12 PM
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." —Hermann Goering http://www.seesharppress.com/warquotes.html

Lpdon Joined Thu 02/25/10 Posts: 18772	Wed 05/05/10 06:56 PM
Yadda yadda as usual they still blame W for Obamas economic mess. Nothing new. Who wants to cover a bunch of hippie anti-war rallies? Old news after awhile. Exactly.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Thu 05/06/10 01:41 AM
Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority." —Arthur Schopenhauer, Aphorisms http://www.seesharppress.com/warquotes.html

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sun 05/23/10 05:27 AM
Today the straight-talking Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida introduced the "War Is Making You Poor Act" to highlight the obscene amounts being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. Grayson's bill would slash $159 billion "supplemental war funding," giving it as tax breaks to the rest of us, and insist the Pentagon rely on its paltry $549 billion defense http://www.commondreams.org/further/2010/05/21-4 see a neat if distressing video on the hidden costs of war here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3hp8Qaf_q0&feature=player_embedded All that money and they can barely hold their own against a bunch of loosly organised civilian (basicly) militias. Now we know how the British felt fighting the war of 1776.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 05/23/10 06:56 AM
Thanks for posting this article. It reminded me to call my Reps. and ask them to vote yes. AQ must be faught, no matter what the cost. Not to mention the jobs the war has created from provate security, construction and trade jobs and military equipment building, selling, repairing etc. Now, if we could only find a way to get all those jobs away from the Illegal Alien and give 'em to American workers. I know Hussein or the Feds won't help.

Kings_Knight Joined Sat 01/31/09 Posts: 3718	Sun 05/23/10 07:16 AM Edited by Kings_Knight on Sun 05/23/10 07:17 AM
"Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." ... and so it goes ...

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sun 05/23/10 08:21 AM
"Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." ... and so it goes ... I see you like Orwell. Were you against the wars when Bush started them?

Kings_Knight Joined Sat 01/31/09 Posts: 3718	Sun 05/23/10 08:23 AM
"Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." ... and so it goes ... I see you like Orwell. Were you against the wars when Bush started them? What a marvelous ability to completely miss the point ...