Community | March 31, 2010 | 106 comments

Our Government Is Planning to Stay at War for the Next 80 Years -- Anyone Got a Problem with That? | | AlterNet

source: http://www.alternet.org/story/146236/our_government_is_planning_to_stay_at_war_for_the_next_...

Image
Monkey_Films
Without public debate and without congressional hearings, a segment of the Pentagon and fellow travelers have embraced a doctrine known as the Long War.

March 31, 2010 |


Without public debate and without congressional hearings, a segment of the Pentagon and fellow travelers have embraced a doctrine known as the Long War, which projects an "arc of instability" caused by insurgent groups from Europe to South Asia that will last between 50 and 80 years. According to one of its architects, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are just "small wars in the midst of a big one."

Consider the audacity of such an idea. An 80-year undeclared war would entangle 20 future presidential terms stretching far into the future of voters not yet born. The American death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan now approaches 5,000, with the number of wounded a multiple many times greater. Including the American dead from 9/11, that's 8,000 dead so far in the first decade of the Long War. And if the American armed forces are stretched thin today, try to conceive of seven more decades of combat.

The costs are unimaginable too. According to economists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Iraq alone will be a $3-trillion war. Those costs, and the other deficit spending of recent years, yield "virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors," according to a New York Times budget analysis in February. Continued deficit financing for the Long War will rob today's younger generation of resources for their future.

The term "Long War" was first applied to America's post-9/11 conflicts in 2004 by Gen. John P. Abizaid, then head of U.S. Central Command, and by the retiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, Gen. Richard B. Myers, in 2005.

According to David Kilcullen, a top counterinsurgency advisor to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and a proponent of the Long War doctrine, the concept was polished in "a series of windowless offices deep inside the Pentagon" by a small team that successfully lobbied to incorporate the term into the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, the nation's long-term military blueprint. President George W. Bush declared in his 2006 State of the Union message that "our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy."

The concept has quietly gained credence. Washington Post reporter-turned-author Thomas E. Ricks used "The Long War" as the title for the epilogue of his 2009 book on Iraq, in which he predicted that the U.S. was only halfway through the combat phase there.

It has crept into legal language. Federal Appeals Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a darling of the American right, recently ruled in favor of holding detainees permanently because otherwise, "each successful campaign of a long war would trigger an obligation to release Taliban fighters captured in earlier clashes."

Among defense analysts, Andrew J. Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran who teaches at Boston University, is the leading critic of the Long War doctrine, criticizing its origins among a "small, self-perpetuating, self-anointed group of specialists" who view public opinion "as something to manipulate" if they take it into consideration at all.

The Long War has momentum, though the term is absent from the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review unveiled by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February. One commentator has noted the review's apparent preference for finishing "our current wars before thinking about the next."

Still we fight wars that bleed into each other without clear end points. Political divisions in Iraq threaten to derail the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops scheduled for 2012.

As troop levels decline in Iraq, they grow to 100,000 in Afghanistan, where envoy Richard C. Holbrooke famously says we'll know success "when we see it." The Afghan war has driven Al Qaeda into Pakistan, where U.S. intelligence officers covertly collaborate with the Pakastani military. Lately our special forces have stepped up covert operations in Yemen.

It never ends. British security expert Peter Neumann at King's College has said that Europe is a "nerve center" of global jihad because of underground terrorists in havens protected by civil liberties laws. Could that mean NATO will have to occupy Europe?

It's time the Long War strategy was put under a microscope and made the focus of congressional hearings and media scrutiny. The American people deserve a voice in the strategizing that will affect their future and that of their grandchildren. There are at least three important questions to address in public forums:



* What is the role of the Long War idea in United States' policy now? Can the Pentagon or president impose such war-making decisions without debate and congressional ratification?



* Who exactly is the enemy in a Long War? Is Al Qaeda (or "Islamic fundamentalism") considered to be a unitary enemy like the "international communist conspiracy" was supposed to be? Can a Long War be waged with only a blanket authorization against every decentralized group lodged in countries from Europe to South Asia?



* Above all, what will a Long War cost in terms of American tax dollars, American lives and American respect in the world? Is it sustainable? If not, what are the alternatives?



President Obama has implied his own disagreement with the Long War doctrine without openly repudiating the term. He has pledged to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2012, differing with those like Ricks who predict continuing combat, resulting in a Korean-style occupation. Obama also pledges to "begin" American troop withdrawals from Afghanistan by summer 2011, in contrast to those who demand we remain until an undefined victory. Obama told West Point cadets that "our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended, because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."



Those are naive expectations to neoconservatives and to some in the Pentagon for whom the Long War fills a vacuum left by the end of the Cold War. They will try to trap Obama in a Long War by demanding permanent bases in Iraq, slowing American withdrawals from Afghanistan to a trickle and defending secret operations in Pakistan. Where violence flares, he will be blamed for disengaging prematurely. Where situations stabilize, he will be counseled it's because we keep boots on the ground. We will keep spending dollars we don't have on wars without end.

The underlying issues should be debated now, before the future itself has been drafted for war.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Random,   Current Tonight,   Webmash,   17 more
  2. tags:
    Obama,  War,  World,  Government,  18 more
  3.     
    |

106 comments // Our Government Is Planning to Stay at War for the Next 80 Years -- Anyone Got a Problem with That? | | AlterNet

  • ryan8566
    • 0
      ryan8566  
    • Image

    • while the post from 'alternet.org.' is good history, it is absurd to combine the war in afghanistan, with the illegal invasion of iraq, for which bush should have stood trial in the World Court. it states that there have been 5000 military deaths, without distinguishing that 4400 of those were in iraq. while they project a figure of 3 trillion dollars, without documenting how they arrived at that, it could well be true, since we have spent 450 billion in iraq to date--money criminally spent which we could well use at this point in our economy.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ragan
    • 0
      Ragan  

    • I read a news release some time ago where the Rand Coorp. has recommended that the USA start a war with some large country in order to stimulate the economy. That is what the think tanks offer as a solution to world problems and we are overrun with thiink tanks, what with the CFR, The Tri Lateral Commission, the Bilderburgers and so many more. All want war so they can become wealthier and wireld more power.

    • 2 years ago
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • Ragan:

      Question: Were the Builderbergs one of the 4 international bankster
      dynasties who unduely influenced the U.S. Government of 1913 to
      pass the Federal Reserve Act ? Once they brought in that Trojan Horse
      to control our economy and money supply they knew that by borrowing
      money to fiance WW1, then WW2, then the Korean War, then the
      Vietnam War, then the Gulf War, then the Iraq War, then the Afghan
      War, they'd clean up. In Peacetime they don't make anywhere near as
      much currency they can buy Gold with as in Wartime. Look how many
      Trillions of dollars of devastation they caused in Iraq, and how many
      Trillions of dollars they cost us to do that. That's only half the picture.
      The other half is when they soak us for more Trillions to rebuild Iraq.
      Now you know why the U.S. Government has been bankrupt since
      1970. And why most of the States of America are already Bankrupt too.
      California's problems are only the most prominent. The Great Depression
      lasted from 1929 through 1935 for much of the USA, but it wasn't
      until 1939, when the USA geared up for watime production again
      that all of the USA pulled out of the Great Depression. It's a self
      destructive cycle that should frighten the shit out of any sane person.

    • 2 years ago
  • NuclearLullaby
  • Almibry
    • +1
      Almibry  

    • Also from Carlin (concerning the US):
      The 20th century was a wonderful time. The following is a list of some of the "great" events that happened.
      2 world wars, 250 civil wars, 311 holy wars, 1 cold war, 516 wars of liberation, 331 wars of containment, 691 wars of honor, 296 declared wars, 856 undeclared wars, 4 bushfire wars, 2 vest pocket wars, 413 limited wars, 1,987 acts of war, 7,756 warlike acts, 88 police actions, 2 nuclear attacks, 6,578 government massacres, 4 holocausts, 943 jihads, 693 pogroms, 614 long-term prosecutions, 12,111 acts of treachery, 575 betrayals of the masses, 958 grabs for power, 400 putsches, 50 total enslavements, 837 partial enslavements, 4 total genocides, 461 partial genocides, 13,658 cease-fire violations, 3,115 boundary disputes, 1,432 border clashes, 3,047 social conflicts, 798 sectarian rivalries, 13,678 civil disturbances, 946 carpet bombings, 4,288 threats to security, 286 popular uprisings, 1,877 areas of unrest, 622 strife-torn regions, 165 internal upheavals, 745 political repressions, 12,194 acts of sabotage, 1,633 swift reprisals, 818 arms resistances, 639 repressive measure, 1,126 violent outbursts, 9,876 mass detentions, 11,904 guerilla operations, 3,466 suicide missions, 823 slaughters, 1,200 bloodbaths, 43,096 atrocities, 161 reigns of terror, 715 rebellions, 28 revolutions, 21 counter revolutions, 746 coups, 745 countercoups, 457 insurgencies, 458 counter insurgencies, 4,622 covert operations, 3,422 direction interventions, 617 enemy incursions, 13 measured responses, 295 commando strikes, 694 retaliatory raids, 844 surprise attacks, 236 protective reactions, 2,155 frontal assaults, 213 responses of kind, 17,687 hostile incidences, 4.756 belligerent moves, 938 naked aggressions, 849 foreign adventures, 601 overseas entanglements, 307 arms races, 98 international powder kegs, 515 regional tinderboxes, 818 military flashpoints, 2,415 heated exchanges, 911 shows of force, 668 heightenings of tension, 735 deliberate provocations, 921 military confrontations, 639 dangerous escalations, 3,721 terrorists bombings, 438 preemptive strikes, 630 outside aggressions, 8,571 violent disturbances, 646 surgical strikes, 4,392 diplomatic deadlocks, 82,879 ultimatums, 788,969,747 heated arguments, 823,285,571 shoving matches, 917,704,296 fistfights.

      Yep... We're good at war.

    • 2 years ago
  • PressCore
    • +1
      PressCore  
    • Almibry:

      Too good. When the USA used to be at Peace, people produced,
      and saved. Now all they do is maintain to spend, waste, steal and
      destroy. Like the Tombstone Epitaph, it's a lame saga of a downward
      spiral to self destruction. Which could not be worse if the conductors
      of the hellbound train sabgotaged it before jumping off after
      ascertaining the bridge was out up the track. I keep remembering
      the philosophy on the Quaker's wall depicted in the movie Angel and
      the Badman: " Every person has an integrity of soul which can only
      ultimately be harmed by the evil doer itself " If you substitute the word
      nation for person there exists no essential difference. Because what
      is a nation anyway but the collection of people that comprise it ?

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
    • +3
      Almibry  

    • ”Well, we like war! We're a war-like people. We like war because we're good at it! You know why we're good at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country is only 200 years old, and we've already been involved in ten major wars. We average a major war every twenty years in this country. So we're good at it! And its a good thing too because we aren't much good at anything else anymore. Can't build a decent car, can't make a TV set or VCR worth a fúck. Can't educate our young people, get health care to our old people. But we can bomb the shìt out of your country alright! Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh we like that don't we? That's our hobby: Bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya...you got some brown people in your country, tell them to watch the fúck out, or we'll god-damn bomb them! Well when's the last white people that we bombed? Can you remember the last time we bombed any white people? The Germans! Those were the only ones and that's because they were trying to cut in on our action...they wanted to dominate the world...bullSH1T, that's our fúckin job!!!" ~George Carlin

    • 2 years ago
  • PressCore
  • ampersand
    • +1
      ampersand  

    • The business of America is no longer, as Calvin Coolidge opined, "business", but "the war business." Conceptualizing an 50 to 80 year long war as new concept ignores US history. There have been very few periods when we haven't been at war.
      As the military industrial complex bloomed in full hydra-headed force after WWII, cleverly and purposefully funded in every single Congressional district, it became the undisputed driver of the US economic and foreign policy.
      Obama can not and will not change that.
      This is the world we live in.
      If anything, I've grown sanguine about the possible consequences.
      The military is the primary obscene and unshakable burden on the US economy and the combined US armed forces are doubtless the US's greatest single polluter, but with the metatasis of earth's population (and the growing destabilization that they look forward to with such glee, as it gives them a confirming role to play) they may play a useful role one way or another in the continuing tragic train wreck of our contemporary history.

    • 2 years ago
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • ampersand:

      Do you recall what former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura said ?
      He mentioned he observed that senior CIA officials were infiltrated
      into key positions in his State's Government. And that when they
      retired, they were replaced by yet more of the same for the obvious
      purpose of consolidating and solidifying their infiltration into those
      key State Government positions. This was NOT South Viet Nam.
      This was the USA. They are only military in white shirts and suits.
      As for what their ties look like, we all know the Corporate monstrosities
      use the CIA like a Saturday afternoon mechanic uses a ratchet wrench.

    • 2 years ago
  • indecisiveh
    • +2
      indecisiveh  

    • Well I hope you realize the point you should making is that we need to elect more progressive democratic anti-war politicians like Kucinich, Defazio, Grayson etc.

    • 2 years ago
  • NuclearLullaby
    • -1
      NuclearLullaby  
    • indecisiveh:

      Kucinich is a little bit of a flip flopping weasel when it comes to many things!!! Glad to switched his vote on Health care,but I don't care much for people that are that undecided on common sense things!!!

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
    • 0
      Monkey_Films  
    • indecisiveh:

      Ron Paul is good, Kucinich can no longer be trusted, we need real people, professors and experts in economics to run for office. These silver spoon fed politicians were never intended in this Republic.

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
  • NuclearLullaby
  • obamaisajoke
  • Vierotchka
    • +6
      Vierotchka  
    • obamaisajoke:

      I'd rather walk than drive a car whose fuel depends on killing people in a distant land. I'd rather live simply with just the essentials than have a load of goods which require killing people in order to make them available to me.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnAdams
  • Vierotchka
  • JohnAdams
  • Vierotchka
    • +2
      Vierotchka  
    • JohnAdams:

      Yes, I have internet. No, I don't have cable. No, I don't have a car. No, I don't have air-conditioning. No, I don't have a heater. No, I don't have a house. No, I don't have lots of "things" No, I don't have collections. No, I never go out to eat nor to movies. I don't even cook, I eat raw food which I grow myself (organic seeds which I sprout and vegetables from a local organic farmer) I live very simply.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnAdams
  • Vierotchka
    • +2
      Vierotchka  
    • JohnAdams:

      Yes, even though I have the internet, I do live very simply. I don't have to explain anything to you and I don't assume everyone should expect great things from me. I make no claim of greatness, so I really don't know where you're coming from. I didn't claim that my life is better than anyone else's, either. I simply live according to my philosophy and world-view.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnAdams
  • Vierotchka
  • JohnAdams
  • Vierotchka
    • +1
      Vierotchka  
    • JohnAdams:

      If they are willing to have people in other countries killed so that they can enjoy driving cars, buying all sorts of stuff, etc., then no, they don't have respect for living beings.

    • 2 years ago
  • JohnAdams
  • Vierotchka
    • +2
      Vierotchka  
    • JohnAdams:

      I don't think I'm better how I live, and I don't do anything that kills others. I don't eat strawberries - allergic to them. None of the organic farmers from whom I get my vegetables have ever died in a car accident. As for differentiating between what is ok and what is not ok, it is basic morals and values, not ego.

    • 2 years ago
  • NuclearLullaby
  • Ajil
    • +2
      Ajil  
    • Vierotchka:

      I'm shocked you were willing to carry on a discussion with this buffoon, JohnAdams. He reminds me of J_Jammer. The attacks on wording and assumptions of the claims made, not able to understand that the problem they're truly addressing is each individuals measures in life, of values and other perceptions. People like this can end up being a sure way to waste time.

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
    • +3
      Almibry  
    • JohnAdams:

      Everybody dies. Fact of life, in case you missed school that day. Buying a strawberry is hardly as depraved as poisoning whole villages for the sake of commodities. Yes, I have a computer. Yes, I've probably inadvertently contributed to the deaths of many people and animals by being raised in diapers or making purchases without understanding the consequences of their production, but that doesn't invalidate my attempt to live better. People like you are tools if you think that just because a person is born into a system that is full of greed and disregard for the true value of life that they are responsible for it, it is the result of generations of fuck-ups. I repeat what Viertchka said, "You know fuck all about me (us), and it shows."

    • 2 years ago
  • KSirys
  • remanns
  • Ajil
    • 0
      Ajil  
    • KSirys:

      You know, I actually did not know that it actually was J_Jammer until I went to another article, and DeliahTheArtist called him out and pretty much destroyed his crazy little world. It just goes to show how much time we all have spent feuding with him, most of it ended up wasted because he could never let things go, and got very nit-picky on just about anything and everything. I for one hope he gives up trying to be part of the Current community, because he took away from the real discussions that needed to be had.

    • 2 years ago
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • obamaisajoke:

      101 % of anything cannot possibly exist. Thus it's a deception to
      claim it could exist. If you have to use absurdity to make a point,
      then all you've done is to make an absurdity pointless. And the
      idea that humans are all predators against their own species is
      abhorrent and abominable. We're not all undisciplined evil
      weaklings who cannot adjust to shortages. The old timers who
      survived WW2 knew rationing, grinned and bore it. I wasn't
      around then, but I was during the Arab oil embargo of 1973
      into 1974. The idea that anyone has a right to waste and destroy
      vital resources is despicable too. Waste not want not.

    • 2 years ago
  • jdibari
    • 0
      jdibari  

    • Why are Katy Perry and Shauna (whoever the f that is) higher on the list than this story? Hoping everyone that read this took the time to vote this article up and that crap down.

      If there's anything this site has to offer besides discussion and discourse of the "current issues" it's the ability to demonstrate what issues the community feels are most important, ideally some day that would translate into a contingency our politicians would consult prior to originating or voting on legislation.

      As of now it looks like the Current community cares more about bimbos in bikinis than it does the $3 Trillion deficit created by our generation to fund an 80 year War grandkids generation are going to be fighting and paying for.

    • 2 years ago
  • zakthezomb13
    • 0
      zakthezomb13  

    • let the boys play their games...8000 dead in a war, including the innocents murdered on 911, over the past 9 years? Just in AMERICA Tobacco Related Deaths PER YEAR are 440,000...someone has their priorities juxtaposed...

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptB
    • +2
      CaptB  
    • zakthezomb13:

      I agree, the pesticide industry, the food conglomerate, insurance industry, the armament industry (industrial military complex) should all be held culpable for deaths. The tobacco industry intentionally tries to kill people by increasing the nicotine uptake. The mercenary for hire industry (Xe also known as Blackwater) promotes war and violence beyond what is imaginable.

      We need these industries though, and just need to regulate them. Well, we don't really need the tobacco industry, but that is my opinion.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ragan
    • +1
      Ragan  

    • This will entail mass genocide and ethnic cleansing second only to the massive extermination of the American Indian. In fact this will result in a real massive Holocaust. The extermination of the Arab while telling them we are freeing them from the throes of Islamic extremism. There have been extended wars in the past but the longest was the thirty years war. Eighty years gives the wealthy time to exterminate everyone of their biddinng. What a setup.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • Anthony_Gordon
    • -2
      Anthony_Gordon  

    • 80 years is a joke! War is MUST in this world and an ever on going process until we or nature destroys this planet. If you knew half of the real story then you would know that the fear created in soldiers from wars is the second best source of food for certain unknowable forces in hyper-dimensions. At the top of the Al-la-carte is the fear created by very small children. Now you tell me, what kind of bastards are these who feed and thrive on our ingorance in such a unstable zoological garden in the from of a spinning planet??

      An Accident going somewhere to happen!

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
  • Incredulous
  • Vierotchka
  • Vierotchka
  • reeleyes
    • 0
      reeleyes  

    • what is the point of having power when there is no one left to control? what is the point of having money when there is nothing left to buy? i'm not buying it. the paper in my pocket isn't worth anything unless ALL OF US BELIEVE that it is. stronger than god. the best retaliation is to to say NO! non servium. imagine a society where no one is afraid to die. that is real freedom. that is what THEY are afraid of. but i can forgive them for wanting more, or feeling like they don't have enough, when enough is often too much.

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
    • +3
      Monkey_Films  

    • So, if we all agree that the war machine is so big it's hard to be stopped and the wars are for profit and power, ethically speaking, are they really terrorists or are they doing our jobs for us and trying to stop our war machine.The war machine that kills their mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. Maybe our lack of action or lack of results from the actions we do take to stop our out of control war machine is why people hate us and in turn, attack us? Just maybe? If so, is any retaliation on our part justified?

    • 2 years ago
  • s_peak
    • 0
      s_peak  

    • At the risk of sounding like a broken record...

      War == profit and power.

      It's not supposed to end until we own everything.

    • 2 years ago
  • crispyfritters
    • +3
      crispyfritters  

    • We've been at war for 60 years already. The cold war allowed these massive industrial giants (Lockheed Martin, for example) to carve a economic niche out for themselves in order to prepare for a possible war with Russia. Now it's proving rather difficult to stop the gears, because the machine is just so big and complex.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ajil
    • +1
      Ajil  

    • Well then, they must not know about the internet and the type of power given to the rest of us with this type of communication... silly geezers. I personally plan to put an end to all the fighting by exposing the truth. The pen is mightier than the sword. Let it be known that this time next year, The United States Military Complex and Global Corporatocracy will be seeing the largest non-violent protest and collective 'un'-participation. People will be shutting their televisions, and closing out the fear, sobering up to the truth, and facing reality. I for one, will not tolerate another decade of wars, let alone an 80 years.

    • 2 years ago
  • KSirys
    • +2
      KSirys  

    • It's all about the dollar and the corporations that make money from wars. Nothing new... it's sad, but nothing new!

    • 2 years ago
  • chinese_democracy
    • +2
      chinese_democracy  

    • The whole perpetual war thing has been happening for quite awhile now....When is the last time the US has had a violence free decade where we weren't killing folks in some foreign land?

    • 2 years ago
  • booninvailable
  • obamaisajoke
  • chinese_democracy
    • +1
      chinese_democracy  
    • obamaisajoke:

      There is no conflict that can only be solved with violence. Using force is just the path to convenience and it means you are not thinking creatively enough.

      I know a lot of people are going to say I'm naive, but there are many instances where my ideal is realized. If someone were to murder my son (hypothetically) we wouldn't set explosives on the murderer's house and blow it up killing him and his whole family, he would be arrested and sentenced to X years in prison. It's admittedly a primitive analogy of war and peace, but I'm hoping one of us 6 billion will come up with something.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • reeleyes
    • 0
      reeleyes  

    • ever wonder why? if nobody actually wants war, there has to be "bigger" reasons for the powers that be to perpetuate it. power and money are not good enough, control of resources ...maybe, but if the consumers are dying off (obesity, diabetes, laziness.) what do you need plastic and fossil fuels for?

      why? what could be worth it?

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • 0
      RaceBannon  

    • War is a business... I guess if one could make war unprofitable, then war would cease. I hope one of us comes up with that solution soon.

    • 2 years ago
  • Logos51891
  • Alex_Lomini
  • NothingIsAbsoluteTruth
    • +2
      NothingIsAbsoluteTruth  

    • why are we over there anyway? I was never informed of why we are over there.

      and the banks just want us in more debt.. war=debt. after those 80 years there will be another war and after that another war. It will never end. I think we should restructure our government. and i like the whoever said below me "The people should never fear its Government, the Government needs to fear its citizens."

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
  • CaptB
    • 0
      CaptB  
    • Monkey_Films:

      Nah, I will not raid his house unless he lives in a trailer and threatens any homicidal ideations, and plans them or threatens them.

      Terrorist are terrorist, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or creed.

      I will never be able to advocate any officer of the law being harmed so that some terrorist has some freedom.

      The police need higher wages as well.

    • 2 years ago
  • NuclearLullaby
  • Monkey_Films
  • Almibry
  • Monkey_Films
  • Almibry
  • Monkey_Films
  • Almibry
  • CaptB
    • 0
      CaptB  
    • Almibry:

      Imperialist we are. But we CANNOT let Walmart fail. They make over $500 billion a year, and we need to keep the Walton family at their current lifestyle. Their net worth has really been affected by this whole economic crisis, they are down to $20 billion for the five of them. I know, I agree, we need to cut wages and healthcare for the employees so the Walton family doesn't have to suffer this economic crisis.

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
  • CaptB
    • 0
      CaptB  
    • Almibry:

      I do not want to promote violence. I do though want to boycott Walmart. If anyone has seen the film, "Walmart, the high cost of low prices" will just disgust you. Walmart is one of the most evil corporations on the planet. At least in the top 10.

    • 2 years ago
  • Almibry
    • +1
      Almibry  
    • CaptB:

      Yeah. I don't like violence either, but I really really have a problem with wally world and watching that corporation fall would be orgasmic. It's the anti-Christ, if there ever was one.

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptB
    • +1
      CaptB  
    • Almibry:

      After seeing the movie and looking up stats I am completely disgusted with Walmart. We have decided to completely boycott Walmart. I am hoping that it makes a slight difference. I used to think that Nike was bad. I don't know at what level people should stop being greedy and wanting money. Is $1 billion enough to live off? I think $10 million anyone could live happily for the rest of their lives. In America we used to tax the ultra wealthy 70%, now they bitch about 30% taxation. I often wonder if you have to give up on morality to make over a billion dollars?

      Each Walmart family member is worth over $20 billion apiece. All they would have to give up is $24 million for its employees to be provided healthcare.

    • 2 years ago
  • Dagum
    • +3
      Dagum  

    • Our government likes to send the bulk of our military oversees for war, so the government can rape us at home . They know that most military personal take their oath to defend the constitution seriously, and our government fears that the military might interfere while they trample our civil rights at home.

      This is part of the reason why the DHS considers returning veterans to be potential terrorists.

    • 2 years ago
  • bking74
    • +8
      bking74  
    • Dagum:

      We do take our Oath extremely seriously, especially those of us who have seen multiple deployments and have re-enlisted (knowing full well that the previous Administration mislead if not out right lied to the American public concerning Iraq). I don't believe the reason the military is so stretched thin is to leave America exposed to a fascist government but because our current foreign policy forces the U.S Military to use violence to impose our Governments will on other nations. I have been hearing more and more about the DHS classifying veterans are a possible domestic threat. I haven't seen any clear evidence of this and for my sanity refuse to believe it. The DHS needs to keep its new multi-generation of combat veterans. We have been fighting a determined, dedicated and fearless insurgence for nine year now. The Government has trained the veterans in Urban Warfare, the destruction of political and military power bases, how to be both an invasion force and an occupational army. The people should never fear its Government, the Government needs to fear its citizens.

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
  • CaptB
    • +1
      CaptB  
    • bking74:

      Perfectly stated. I have not heard of classifying military retirees as a threat. I know the marines coming back from Fallujah are not being considered for employment for state police positions related to PTSD. I fear this has led members to deny they have PTSD because they fear the stigma of this very real manifestation of symptoms. I feel that we do not allow people with mental health issues are treated fairly in this country. You can have an injured leg and limp and will be treated differently if you can't sleep, focus, and have anxiety.

      I once again will state that we do not pay our military members enough money for what they do. The toll that is takes on our military is affecting our society.

    • 2 years ago
  • Monkey_Films
    • +3
      Monkey_Films  
    • CaptB:

      'I once again will state that we do not pay our military members enough money for what they do. The toll that is takes on our military is affecting our society.' Yes, I agree, even the mob pays its murderers more than we pay ours.

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptB
    • +1
      CaptB  
    • Monkey_Films:

      What you just stated makes you in fact culpable as well to any crimes. Since you elect your state officials to office with your vote. Who then go on in the electoral college and cast their nominations to represent you for the presidency of the U.S. When the President of the U.S. gives an order the Soldiers' follow his orders. So if you are referring to people getting killed, it is as if you are responsible as well.

      Just as we held the Japanese and German populations culpable for their actions in WW2. We made them suffer after WW2 economically as well as socially. Additionally we happened to take a few parcels of land to ensure they behaved.

      Our military do an excellent job of protecting our interest abroad the and worlds interest. I do not agree with the Iraqi war, but Bush was also rated the 3rd worst president of all time for his blundering attempt at leadership and governance. But do not blame the military as a whole for following orders. They did nothing illegal and received no illegal orders.

      I am proud of our servicemen and women. It is your prerogative to be a hater. They give up their freedom through public service so that you may have the freedoms that you do.

    • 2 years ago
  • bking74
    • 0
      bking74  
    • CaptB:

      It is a sad double edge sword, while it's true the Military, DoD and Veterans Affairs is doing more to treat PTSD it is still a touchy taboo in the service. Also, a military career even one that is combat arms teaches a unique skill set, one that does not automatically transfer to police work. Also, because of the stress and psychological effects of combat causes many veterans who otherwise would be qualified for police work ineligible because of failed mental profiles. When I finally left the service (if I am ever lucky enough to leave limb, mind and life intact) I realize due to my particular MOS the most rewarding both economically and life fulfilling will be in the armed private security sector. With the years of service and deployment record I already have at the end of my current enlistment I will have my choice of dozen's of private security firms (working both foreign and domestic) making more in six month contract then four years of active duty. The few of us who had decided to be career military don't do it for the money but for a sense of duty to our families, country and what we believe is a way of life that should be free to everyone on this planet. Yes, we have been mislead. Yes, we might just be a tool of Multi-national Industrial Corporations. But, we have all have taken an Oath we take extremely serious and we still believe we have a mission to accomplish.

    • 2 years ago
  • bking74
  • bking74
    • 0
      bking74  
    • CaptB:

      Thank you for stressing the point that there is a difference between the military and the administration. We are given orders and strive to achieve those orders with as much dignity and honor as possible. Soldiers make mistakes, horrible mistakes that costs innocents their lives. This is a horrendous fact of war. The President is our Commander in Chief but we are the people's army. We fight for you guys, and we feel blessed and proud at the chance to do so.

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptB
    • 0
      CaptB  
    • bking74:

      The military could care less which party is in charge when it comes to taking orders. The role is to follow orders and to accomplish the mission. Mistakes are made at every job, except the military's mistakes just happen to be publicized with greater clarity. The number of mistakes made in hospitals that costs people their lives are staggering, but you will only hear about that in Newsweek on page 37, and not on CNN or Fox.

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
    • +3
      remanns  

    • In all fairness,....the world may be in for "a long war" type scenario,...whether we plan for it, anticipate it,...or lobby for it. The "War of Civilizations" model for the future has not been debunked to MY satisfaction, I am certainly not taking a "there would be peace without American provocation" hypothesis on faith. This is not meant to imply some support for the "military industrial complex" instigation of expenses and world involvement,.....but the Pentagon is THERE precisely to plan-in-depth,.....as well as coordinate.

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptB
    • 0
      CaptB  
    • remanns:

      I believe after we contend with this war on terrorism. We are planning now for wars based on water consumption in the Southern hemisphere (i.e. South America, Africa, and India). When a country cuts off a river source or water from the mountains this is going to lead to tensions. In the next 40 years that is what is being considered.

      Desalinization is most costly than the fresh water it produces. These 2nd and 3rd world nations can't afford for its citizens to purchase water. Has anyone noticed lately that Dasani (Coke product) and Aquafina (Pepsi product) are more expensive to purchase than a gallon of gas in equivalent amounts?

      This comes down to a simple question...is fresh water a right or privilege?

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
    • +1
      remanns  
    • CaptB:

      Neither,....fresh water is a resource,.....and like all resources,...its distribution is arbitrary.
      Now,...if you need it to survive,........you WILL be motivated to procure it by ANY means required. All men are created equal,...in desire. (courage,...strength,...wits,..other shit,....varies.)

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptB
    • 0
      CaptB  
    • remanns:

      So you ARE saying that a govt does not and should not (nor is required) to give its population water in a time of natural disaster. Do you realize how much tax dollars we spent on Katrina to help the poor and needy? We should have withheld water and let over 200,000 people die. We should not have provided them law enforcement inside the dome or protected the populace from looting. We shouldn't have provided temporary homes and shelter provided by your tax dollars?

      Where is the humanity in what you are promoting? A resource, I agree. Our govt did waste a lot of tax money (as you would infer) to help the poor and needy. You are suggesting that we need to let people suffer and die if they don't pay enough into taxes or can't afford it at the time in order to receive assistance? Should the govt intervene when people are charging 10 times the amount for water that is necessary to survive in a time of need?

      I find it absolutely reprehensible that there are people that do not want to help others for the sake of saving their tax dollars. I am so glad that America is not doing what you are saying and sending millions to Haiti, Chili, Turkey and many more countries in aid. Both sides of the aisle do it as well. It does help our economic interest out around the world as well.

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
    • 0
      remanns  
    • CaptB:

      I was not clear, apologies. I have every interest in the distribution of "resources" where need due to motivations of empathy/compassion/shared humanity,...etc. I just prefer not to model it in terms of "rights" or "privileges",.....that simply not the way I frame the issue.
      I AM NOT promoting,....just thinking of this in terms of "needs",..."leverage" and "alliances"; a realpolitik model,.....because that IS the way to model how nations and BIG MONEY power blocks will behave. Personally,...."compassion at the point of a gun" IS sometimes the way to get food and water to the needy,.....no rights or privileges to it,.....NEED trumps.

      ( this was not a pitch for non involvement )

    • 2 years ago
  • Dagum
    • +2
      Dagum  

    • War is part of the economic policy of America. Our government believes we have too many poor people that are draining the coffers of our welfare programs so we need to keep sending the excess over to die in a foreign countries.

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • +1
      fun_size  
    • Dagum:

      "Our government believes we have too many poor people that are draining the coffers of our welfare programs so we need to keep sending the excess over to die in a foreign countries."

      ...rigggght. Losing 5000 soldiers over 8 years in two wars isnt exactly an extermination of the poor. Especially since we have many more wounded soldiers than killed soldiers and American Military personnel get universal health care paid for by the government.

    • 2 years ago
  • Dagum
  • CaptB
    • 0
      CaptB  
    • Dagum:

      I see what you are saying with sending the poor over to other countries. I have to reiterate that our govt did the right thing with welfare and Clinton passed legislation that EACH state is responsible for doling out welfare (except for TARN dollars). 307 million people are in our nation, and 14.9 million are on welfare (i.e. foodstamps, unemployment, WIC, and assisting handicapped people with their rent). So that equates to 4.8% of Americans in a time of economic depression akin to the great depression if it were not for the stimulus package.

      I think that only the republicans keep stating that they are supporting people that don't work? They want to be greedy and not have ANY taxation at all. The states are responsible for the welfare, and if you don't want anyone receiving welfare in your state then elect someone that has your same belief system. Not going to happen, it is obvious why.

      I am very disgusted that we do send our poor off to die in wars though.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • bailey78
    • +1
      bailey78  

    • We have already been at war for two hundred years. So what's eighty more going to hurt? Well besides a few hundred thousand more lives?

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • +4
      Saladin  

    • The U.S. has more or less never stopped being at war since WWII.

      I know this sounds like something crazy coming out of the Pentagon, but they do this stuff all the time.

      They are ALWAYS looking towards the next war and they are ALWAYS fighting SOMEWHERE, be it openly or secretly or via CIA infiltration or support.

    • 2 years ago
  • bking74
    • +3
      bking74  
    • Saladin:

      The term "Long War" might have come to be a part of society's lexicon with the Bush Administration but Saladin is absolutely correct. Part of the DoD and now massive umbrella of federal agencies under the control of the Department of Homeland Security duty and purpose to be on a constant watch for the next "War". Some of which we avoid, some of which we pursue with reckless abandonment. I have studied the politics and economical impact of our nation's current "Long War" policy. I am still undecided, honestly an argument can made that it increases national security while an equally intelligent argument can made that our foreign policy in fact encourages and create the very enemies who now threaten our way of life. "Long War" is a policy that is not only used simply for political means but also as an economical plan. We engage in proxy wars, espionage, political strong arming to out right war to further the goals and profits of the Industrial Military Complex and Multi-national Mega-Corporations. Believe me this is not baseless ramblings, I have seen first hand how incredibly, disgusting wealthy many American corporation have gotten over the spoils of war in Iraq. I will be spending the spring in Eastern Afghanistan with the most of the 10th Mountain and at 28, I am starting to feel like an old man.

    • 2 years ago
  • CaptB
    • +1
      CaptB  
    • bking74:

      I am sure you are all to aware that the Pentagon has cells that have to postulate all possible contingencies that could occur throughout the world. From these little think tanks the Pentagon will draw up plans for, "what if" situations in case we had to go to war with any and every country. I can name a few that are obvious, Iran, North Korea, China and Taiwan if tensions increase, Russia if they invade some Eastern European countries. So these are viable plans that we need to protect our interest as well as the interest of NATO and the worlds community. We literally have to be the worlds police state related to nuclear weapons and the fear of Iran and their fanatical govt getting a hold of one. How would Iran interrupting Saudi Arabia's oil supply impact the world?

      Can we get Pakistan to deal with ALL Alqueda (sic) that exist in their country? Or just the ones that Pakistan wants to arrest or attack. I think Pakistan is very upset with our drone attacks. I wonder how much that is costing us for diplomacy purposes? I know we paid over $500 million to fly over Pakistan in order to get to landlocked Afghanistan. As well as other countries that allowed us to fly over their borders.

      Do we need war though for an extended period? Will the war ever be resolved in that portion of the world? Do we pull out completely and just send in CIA or Xe assassination squads to deal with terrorist? Or just send some drones that fly around the world?

      War is bad, War is Hell. It is very beneficial to the ultra-wealthy and compmanies like KBR (Kellogg, Brown, and Root) that have made money that even Wal-mart is jealous of.

      I would like to stop the wars. However, I know that as an adult that negotiations only go so far with a leader like the ones that Iran and North Korea have representing them. Bush actually stopped Israel bombing Iran's. nuclear sites (over 200+) 6 months prior to the election. Israel showed restraint and did not attack.

      We need the ability make a difference to protect the world. Do we need to attack Venezuela because the president nationalized their oil industry and took away the ability of American countries to strip their country of its own resources with very little economic benefit. Pat Robertson on national television even suggesting sending SF to assassinate him for helping his own people. I am afraid our conservative media (Fox) will try to demonize Hugo Chavez next and try to go to war with someone that is trying to help his country and is NO threat to America.

      That is why we need to be VERY careful with what we allow the Republicans do with their war making ability. They have already manufactured a war in Iraq, and it sickens me.

      Afghanistan I think we need to be there. Should we take away their poppy (heroine) fields and strip them of any revenue? Absolutely, it is unethical for us not to and then allow others in the world to suffer on something we can actually stop.

      This is a multi-faceted problem that cannot be resolved with just saying, "War is bad".

    • 2 years ago
12
1 - 100 of 103
more from Community:
from the community

top videos