Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Corporatist Republicanism or Democracy?

So how’s that war-on-drugs-thingy worked out over the last forty years?

They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action in hopes for a different outcome. The drug war could be classified as such institutionalized insanity, but it is not. It has been a calculated effort by powerful political players originally intended to suppress minorities, and more recently, to enrich the prison/industrial complex, and preserve the dominance of their own peddling of politically correct, and often more toxic, psychoactive products.

In the wake of a new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy that states the "war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world," we see a small glimpse of enlightenment in our US Congress.

At last we have a Democrat and a Republican introducing a bill in Congress to take the Feds out of their cruel and wasteful war on cannabis. The bill introduced last Thursday by Barney Frank and Ron Paul would allow states to "legalize, regulate, tax and control marijuana without federal interference."

We know the chances of passage are less than slim to none, but it is a bold start.

With each passing year more of the public are realizing the need to end much of the drug war debacle.

Veteran police officers also share this enlightened view.

"Since President Nixon declared 'war on drugs' four decades ago, this failed policy has led to millions of arrests, a trillion dollars spent and countless lives lost, yet drugs today are more available than ever," said Norm Stamper, former chief of police in Seattle and a speaker for legalization-advocacy group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

"When President Nixon declared the 'drug war' in 1971, we arrested fewer than half a million people for drug offenses that year. Today, the number has skyrocketed to almost two million drug arrests a year," said former Baltimore narcotics officer and LEAP executive director Neill Franklin. "We jail more of our own citizens than any other country in the world does, including those run by the worst dictators and totalitarian regimes. Is this how President Obama thinks we can 'win the future'?"

We the people are way ahead of corporations and their politicians on this, as most other issues.

As we see more voters approving medicinal marijuana through ballot initiatives, it provides a clear contrast between the application of democracy and the anti-democratic forces of corporate and political conservatism.

History has shown us authoritarian and corporatist conservatism has always opposed every effort towards democracy, equality, freedom, civil liberties, and prosperity for minorities and the working class. Slavery, poll taxes, “literacy” tests for minorities, voter disenfranchisement, purging of rolls, minimum wage, warrantless surveillance, torture, military aggression, and the war on drugs are all hallmarks of the Right Wing authoritarian corporatist conservatives.

Right Wing corporate "free speech" money is used by tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical corporations to continue prohibition through the politicians they buy, proving again, corporatist Republicanism is antithetical to all vestiges of democracy.

The choice is simple. Corporatist Republicanism or democracy. We cannot have both.

182 comments:

free0352 said...

I agree, the drug war has been a complete waste of time and money and is largely only supported by police who profit from it and privatized prisons.

That's why I'm sure you'll join me in supporting Michelle Bachman for Presdient, as she favors drug leagalization.

No reall, she really is!

John Myste said...

I would like to join Free in supporting Michelle Bachman for the republican nomination for president. That is the best I can do, Free. After that, I must vote rationally.

free0352 said...

I know you guys think Bachman is a push over. we'll see.

Just remember you said that about Reagan and GWB.

Didn't really work out your way did it?

Beach Bum said...

The choice is simple. Corporatist Republicanism or democracy. We cannot have both.

Hate to sound like a party pooper but the game is lost, Corporatist Republicanism won and nothing will change until we have an Egypt-like uprising.

As for Bachmann she is batshit crazy and like Sarah ignorant of American history but she will not be a push over. Down here among the right-wing idiots I work around Romney's Mormon religion is a huge no-go. Bachmann seems to have the imagination of the morons and with the economy in the crapper and Ed Rollins running her campiagn it would be a mistake to under estimate her.

Kulkuri said...

Have you noticed that every time we declare "war" on something, drugs, poverty, etc. etc. it gets worse not better??????????????

T. Paine said...

Kulkuri is right. Conservatives declared "war" on progressives and the leftist moonbats got exponentionally worse! :)

I don't know that drug legalization is necessarily the answer, but it is true that what we have been doing is not working.

You bring up some good points, Dubya, and then you distract from them with you fever-swamp paranoia of the mostly fictional right-wing plutocracy. Too bad, because a serious debate on the pro's and con's of the subject are something that I would like to hear since my opinions on the subject are no longer firmly held and thus open to being changed by logical arguments.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Where has she said that?

Remember, according to Cheney, Reagan and GWB "proved deficits don't matter"?

Did that work out your way?

John,
That makes three of us.

Beach,
You are right, especially since many Democrats are also minions of corporatist republicanism.

Kulkuri,
War is not the answer...for most of us. Since war means profit for those who buy the politicians, permanent war is an integral part of corporatist republicanism.

TP,
I'm happy to see you have an open mind for solutions to what is essentially a medical issue, not a law enforcement problem. It is simply a fact that the drug war is a product of conservatism. It has continued to be a problem because there have never been enough liberals in government to reverse the disastrous course.

Jack Jodell said...

Democracy. All the way.

T. Paine said...

Yes, I think most of us would agree that democracy is the better course; however, as the saying goes, democracy should be more than two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

S.W. Anderson said...

Dave you're right about how counterproductuve and wasteful the drug war is. If only being right and speaking truth was enough to bring about change.

A key part of the problem is that most social conservatives, especially the evangelical/fundamentalist Christians, can't be convinced by facts. Same as with civil unions and full marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Social conservatives are typically authoritarian reactionaries who ardently believe and loudly insist their beliefs are as valid or more valid than anyone else's facts and logic.

Then, you have those vested interests Dave mentions. They want jobs, contracts, dividends, etc., in an economy where those things are in chronically short supply.

Maybe if the country stays in a bad enough economic and fiscal situation for an extended period, independents and know-nothings who usually refuse to get involved will at long last start paying attention and decide they had better get out and help those trying to push the wagon toward reality and sanity.

That's a big if, I know.

free0352 said...

I don't think you can win a war on drugs.

Michelle Bachman, Tea Party Express interview, 9/12/09

As for Reagan on deficits... he called it the chief failure of his Presidency... but we're not talking about Regan... we're talking about Bachmann.

And as for Democrats... if they weren't many magnitudes worse for creating them I might just vote for one. Currently Republicans are being less fiscally Conservative than Bill Clinton was as President... and yet you stand in their way time and again.

Dave Dubya said...

SW,
We'd better dismantle the war on drugs before the prison industrial complex becomes too powerful. And they certainly will. Privatized police forces are also in our future. It is quite difficult enough to overcome the Fundamentalist morals police and the PAT (Pharma, Alcohol, Tobacco)complex.

Free,
Thanks, but that doesn't say very much about her policy preferences.

You brought up Reagan, BTW.

Dave Dubya said...

Speaking of Bachmann:
From the LA Times:

An examination of her record and finances showed that a counseling clinic run by her husband received nearly $30,000 from the state of Minnesota in the last five years, with part of the money coming from the federal government. And a family farm in Wisconsin, where she is listed as a partner, received some $260,000 in federal subsidies.


Can she spell “hypocrite”?


And:

http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

The Heathen Republican said...

@SW Anderson
"Maybe if the country stays in a bad enough economic and fiscal situation for an extended period, independents and know-nothings who usually refuse to get involved will at long last start paying attention and decide they had better get out and help those trying to push the wagon toward reality and sanity."

What makes you think they'll come out and help Democrats? It's clear to me that once independents start paying attention, the Dems are out.

And like T.Paine, I'm open to being convinced on the issue of drug legalization. As of now, my bias is for the status quo, so I need to hear some good reasons why we should start legalizing harmful drugs. Are overcrowded prisons enough of a justification? I know I don't want my kids doing them, but that's not really a good enough reason to build government policy on.

Weaseldog said...

The Heathen Republican said... "I need to hear some good reasons why we should start legalizing harmful drugs."

By harmful drugs, I'm sure you include alcohol and nicotine.

The status quo agrees that the regulated sale of harmful drugs is permissible.

S.W. Anderson said...

The Heathan Republican wrote: "I don't want my kids doing them, but that's not really a good enough reason to build government policy on."

Consider this, then. When you have prohibition, drug sellers are in trouble if caught selling to anyone. So, if a kid's got the money, why not sell to him or her?

Where you have licensed, regulated sale of, say, marijuana, by retailers who are subject to oversight and loss of licence — and livelihood — you have a strong incentive for sellers to obey rules like not selling to kids.

Where drugs like heroin and cocaine are concerned, you've got a widespread mental health problem being aggravated by making it a criminal offense. That doubles down on not getting anywhere with the problem, even making it worse. It's incredibly wasteful and counterproductive.

S.W. Anderson said...

Re: Bachmann. She's a federal welfare queen, and lied about getting so much as a penny in federal money. That makes Bachmann a prototypical Republican legislator — greedy, hypocritical and thoroughly dishonest. I expect endorsements from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney any day now.

Dave Dubya said...

HR,
Independents swung to the GOP in 2010. Since then, approval for Congress has sunk lower than for Obama. Now that the GOP House has shown no interest in anything but coddling the rich and gutting social security and Medicare, the independent factor can easily swing back to Dems.

Let's say your bias for the failed status quo is due to your not having studied the issue.

From a purely fiscal perspective it has long been proven that treatment for drug addiction is cheaper and more successful than incarceration.

Alternative policies in Portugal, Spain, and Holland have been shown to reduce addiction and crime associated with addiction. Drug cartels love the war on drugs. Legalization and regulation would cut their profits and put many out of business.

Addiction is not such a factor in marijuana. In fact, it is the least harmful of all psychoactive substances. Safer than aspirin, in fact. There has never been a single fatal overdose from cannabis. This is the most extreme disparity between harm done by prohibition compared to the effects of the drug itself.

Then there are the civil liberties considerations. Drug war hysteria threatened our Fourth Amendment rights almost as much as the overreactions induced by a "war on terror". The drug war brought us highway check points, compulsory drug testing, termination of employment for what someone does on the weekend in the privacy of his home that has zero effect on work performance.

This is all what we used to call "un-American".

So the considerations for ending the war on drugs are:

Less expense to taxpayers. Less crime. Less violence. Reduced drug cartel activity. Better recovery from addiction. And a stronger Bill of Rights.

Weaseldog said...

"I'd rather do the wrong thing for the right reason, than the right thing for the wrong reason." - Dick Armey

He said this in a local town hall meeting to explain why he supported the war on drugs, even though he felt it was a complete waste of effort, money and human life.

T. Paine said...

I think it is a marvelous idea to replace prisons with tax-payer funded rehab clinics instead. Perhaps there is some middle ground to be found here.

While some of the points you make strike me as good arguments, Dubya, I really think it is an exceptionally bad idea in the long run to legalize drugs.

It doesn't matter what I think anymore though. I have come to the conclusion that the government is broken beyond all repair, the sense of personal responsibility is a complete anachronism, and the coming collapse of our economy which Lord Obama seems to be wanting to hasten should just about finish off this 235 year old experiment in freedom and self government.

I guess I need to go stock up on more ammunition...

Tom Harper said...

Since Congress has gotten so good at de-funding anything they don't like (of course that's only true when a Democrat is in the White House), why don't these "limited government" types put their money where their mouths are and de-fund the DEA and everything else that's drug-war related?

The above was a rhetorical question (as well as a run-on sentence).

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Yes, almost any plan is better than what we have.

"Legalize" doesn't quite cover what is advocated. Don't ignore the words, "legalize, regulate, tax and control marijuana without federal interference."

Nobody is advocating passing out dope in the schoolyard.

And remember this only applies to cannabis. Harder drugs would require more monitoring, regulation, and perhaps even still some prohibition apart from incarceration. Crack and heroin come to mind. Still, we need to de-emphasize the criminal aspect and focus on the health issue.

I just read the Imperial Decider's two wars of choice are hitting us with a $4.4 trillion cost. That should hasten our collapse along with the Big O's corporate-appeasing policies.

I'm down to my last few hundred rounds. Do you think that will be enough to hold them off? German Shepherds are perfect for patrolling the perimeter. Maybe I should string some booby traps inside the treeline...;-)

Dave Dubya said...

Tom,
They want "limited government" only so far as to be subservient to corporate interests. They want the government to be big enough to monitor every uterus.

Apart from that, they are quite happy with warrentless surveillance and intrusive government power over our bodies, and what we might choose to ingest.

After all, we'd have no morals at all were it not for the government's Thought Police.

free0352 said...

Thanks, but that doesn't say very much about her policy preferences

She'll get her chance to, as pretty soon there will be a vote coming up on that very subject. It won't pass... which is too bad. As libertarian as I am, I'm not a fan of a few things being privatized. One of them is prisons and cops. Some things REALLY ARE the government's job, and that's one of them. The profit motive is a wonderful thing, but it is a tool that SHOULD NOT EVER be applied to taking away people's freedom... which is the job of cops and prison guards by nature. I'd be happy if NO ONE was arrested or put in jail tomorrow (assuming it wasn't because criminals weren't caught) but I highly doubt prison companies think that way. Dangerous.

why don't these "limited government" types put their money where their mouths are and de-fund the DEA and everything else that's drug-war related?

Shit yeah, I'd be down with throwing the ATF under that bus as well. Alcohol, tobacco and fire arms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

As for "illegal drugs" the ONLY drug I advocate being a controlled substance believe it or not is antibiotics simply because the over use and abuse of them can nullify their effectiveness by building resistant bacteria from improper use.

In my youth, most of my friends who did drugs did so because alcahol was so hard to obtain but drug deals don't exactly card. A testement to alcahol controls in thie country protecting youth if you think about it.

free0352 said...

I think it is a marvelous idea to replace prisons with tax-payer funded rehab clinics instead. Perhaps there is some middle ground to be found here.

I don't. You end up with rehabs lobbying state legislatures to pass laws requiring more people go to rehab who don't even belong in rehab. Hell, AA and NA do that now, and a lot of judges force people into 12 step programs.

I gained a helthy respect for addiction working as a LEO and having grown up surrounded by it. It kills people, almost all of them. You clearly can't stop it - it's one of the things about human nature you just have to accept, some people will trade their health for chemical indused, fleeting happiness. I say just let it happen, it will anyway dispite the trillions we spend trying to stop it.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Good to see we are on the same page on a few things. Especially “The profit motive is a wonderful thing, but it is a tool that SHOULD NOT EVER be applied to taking away people's freedom.”

Unfortunately the profit motive is a double edged sword. It has been, and is being, used to kill and incarcerate. (Think Blackwater and the War on Drugs) In fact the “reefer madness” hysteria and prohibition was originally manufactured by business interests, the Hearst empire in particular, and is propagated by the PAT (Pharma, Alcohol, Tobacco) complex today.

On the surface the libertarian philosophy of “leave me alone” and “you’re on your own” seems fair and reasonable. But as we see, our government is corrupted to the point that it is used as a tool by powerful Big Money interests. When government power is reduced to less than unchecked and unregulated corporate power, democracy and freedom are the losers. The same is true of unchecked government power. This is why we have, or should I say had, a Constitution. The free market and government can both be double edged swords.

All power needs to be checked. The Free Market alone has no concept of, or need for, justice or fairness. It is a balancing act and it cannot be maintained by pure unregulated corporatist capitalism or authoritarian collectivism. I feel no “ism” is sufficient by itself to be the best system. Communism and Fascism are the extremes. Libertarianism, capitalism and socialism are the three most amenable to the principles of a true democratic republic. This is why I advocate a balance of democratic socialism and regulated capitalism with civil liberties being the core value.

free0352 said...

While I sort of agree with what you're saying here Dave, I for one would much, much, much rather deal with the free market if I MUST choose between the lesser of two evils (and we do) because as you said...

But as we see, our government is corrupted to the point that it is used as a tool by powerful Big Money interests

By strengthening government, we don't weaken special interest... we strengthen it. The power of the state is the powerful man's ally, not his enemy. It's been that way all through out human history. A corporation on it's own really can't oppress you -especially when checked by law (IE you can sue them)... but they can and do with the power of the State behind it. Just think about how much tax money is redistributed to HUGE corporations through subsidy. I must admit, the only thing that pisses me off more than welfare to "poor" people is welfare to billionaires. Every time you try to use law to check these people... it backfires. Just look at the new banking laws that were written by (surprise) a bunch of rich bankers. All the government succeeded in doing was creating a near monopoly on finance. That isn't good for anyone... well except maybe Goldman Sachs...

This is why I advocate a balance of democratic socialism

You just won't overcome the argument made by F.A. Hayek in Road to Serfdom that socialism always leads to... well... what we have today in America... or worse... what they have in the EU. Ask Greece how your theory worked out?

I'll go laze fare, and trust to my own resources instead of Uncle Sam's. I know I'll be better off that way, and so will most people.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

I go back and forth on companies like BlackWater, but agree 100% on the drug war. It is reason number 542 Nixon was the worst President in American history.

The CIA and State Department were in a real bind from 2003 onwards. This is something I know a lot about because

A: I have a total of 12 years service in both the Army and Marines... 8 years USMC, 4 years Army... I have 31 total months in Iraq, 9 months in Afghanistan and 9 months in Djibouti Africa.

also

B: I worked during 2005 for a PMC (Paramilitary contractor) company in Iraq. Not BlackWater, but one of it's competitors. My father in law is also a well respected PMC contractor who just retired who worked for about 7 years in Iraq... in fact that's how I met his daughter... but that's another story! He's been in the game so long, he's worked for just about everyone at this point...

State Department and CIA simply could NOT rely on the military for their security in 2003 in Iraq. As you might have seen on the news, the military was having a whale of a time controlling simple things like THE ROAD. We just didn't have the man power to run our mission in Iraq... let alone support CIA and State Department. That's why contractors like KBR (Haliburtion subsidiary) and BlackWater got hired to handle logistics for the entire mission and BlackWater taking the lead on PSD (Personal security details) for OGA (Other government agencies IE Not DOD). The problem was that in 2003, KBR and BlackWater were the only companies of their kind... they didn't have any competition and so what always happens in a vacuum of competition happened... bad service and over billing. BlackWater operators I knew were very professional... but I'll agree the corporate management of that company was something of the Darth Vader of the contractor world. They were in a position to charge A LOT of money... and they did. I don't know if that makes them evil... but I am glad that since they lost their Iraq licence Triple Canopy has taken the lead on that and I think is doing a better job at a better rate. KBR is STILL the only company of it's kind and I've certainly had my ups and downs with them over the years. The first time I ever had KBR support was waaaaay back in 1999 during Operation Desert Fox in Kuwait which tells you how long they've been in the game. Bill Clinton hired them believe it or not... and that is a problem, because Clinton fired a lot of the Soldiers that used to do the jobs KBR does today. We still haven't replaced those soldiers and have no plans to (in fact we're downsizing the military which means you guessed it... more contractors)... hence making KBR basically another, civilian branch of the military. Hey, we can both join hands and ask for the increase in military spending to hire enough soldiers to make KBR redundant... but we're going to fail... no one is going to do that because KBR contractors are just much much cheaper (KBR hires discount third world labor) than Soldiers whom are full time employees with prices benifit packages and expense life insurance who take years to train and gain experience... so you're stuck with the contractors because long term they're much cheaper. I mean, do you think Obama "likes" Haliburton? Of course not, he's just got no other choice and neither did George Bush. It's the way of the post cold war military. Instead of fighting this inevitability, I wish we'd accept it and manage it better... but you Liberals tend to stand in the way of that... wish you wouldn't since there really isn't a viable alternative but hey... here's dreaming of a better non-partisan war.

Weaseldog said...

Free0352 says, "You just won't overcome the argument made by F.A. Hayek in Road to Serfdom that socialism always leads to... well... what we have today in America... or worse... what they have in the EU. Ask Greece how your theory worked out?"

Actually, that's an example of a deregulated market.

The bankers are completely driving that show, just as they control US Economic policy.

What is happening in Greece isn't socialism, it's fascism. We live in a world where the top banking corporations own governments, and write laws to benefit themselves.

Unless you define socialism as a Wild West style Free Market?

Weaseldog said...

Free0352, thank you for the well laid out argument as the need for mercenaries.

It parallels arguments used by other military strategists over the centuries.

Even Sun Tzu wrote about it. but he wasn't so optimistic. He wrote about how you can't trust or rely on mercenaries and that they weaken and bankrupt the nation that hires them.

You're completely off the mark on where 'Liberals' disagree with you.

If we were to sit down and talk about the mechanics of invading a sovereign nation for the purpose of looting it, to put more money in the pockets of rich men, then I would completely agree with you. You make a great case for the best way to slaughter human beings for profit.

Where folks labelled a 'Liberal' like myself disagree with you, is that we believe that slaughtering human beings, so the rich men can make more money, is wrong.

You're behind the whole war crimes policy of hiring Mercs. Because as you point out, not enough people are joining the military to kill people for a rich man's profits. Which is good for rich men, because hiring out mercs makes them a lot more money.

But if we really needed this war, and to win it, then we would've reinstated the draft.

What conservatives seem completely clueless about, is that these wars were never about winning any battles. I can't believe anybody still thinks we're in Iraq to win a Kewpie Doll. We're in Iraq, because War is a Business. And you don't end a War until you've gotten all of the profits out of it that you can.

T. Paine said...

Weasel, your cynicism is only surpassed by your foolishness if you truly think that Iraq and Afghanistan were about making "rich men" richer. This is especially true in Afghanistan.

I, for one, fail to see how the sacrifices our nation is making is serving to enrich a few greedy corporations/men.


If such is the case for you though, it is really pointless to argue facts with you because you have already disregarded them for your preconceived notion of American imperlialism and that the rights of the plutocrats be championed by ignorant young men and women joining the military.

You have an absolute right to your opinion, even though it is wrong and grotesque.

free0352 said...

The main problem behind your whole arguement Weasel, is we aren't looting Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. In fact much the opposite, we've lost trillions on those operatons. Say what you want about them, but they're hardly profitable.

As for "mercienaries" we don't have those, we have security guards. The mission of BlackWater is to guard diplomats. Really, PSD companies are just a very highly trained version of your local mall cop. Harly the Landsknecht of yore.

As for KBR, they're job is to run chow halls and fix generators, not exaclty the mongol horde.

Lastly, we saved far, far more than we killed. If you'd been to Iraq, you'd know that.

John Myste said...

I swore to stay out of this, but if you had been to Iraq, you would know that we saved far more than we killed.

LOL LOL LOL.

I guess the theory is that those who go to Iraq count up the saved and subtract the dead count from them. They have access to totals that those who have never been to Iraq are denied.

LOL LOL LOL

free0352 said...

Well john, if Iraqis were slaughtered as an infantryman I'd have been party to the slautering. I think I'd remember that. In fact the opposite is the truth, we risked our own lives daily to protect Iraqi civilians. Many of my fellow soldiers and marines came out dead as a result of that risk. I find it halarius when people speak about Iraq or Afghanistan having never been there and having got their "information" from someone who's never been there or at beast never left the green zone. It's like reporting on a football game having not only having missed the game, but never having ever even seen the game played at any venue.

John Myste said...

My apologies, Free. I was not aware that you attended each Iraqi mission / post. I have actually never witnessed any crime in America personally and like you, it just irks me when the media makes up tales about bikers and drug lords committing crimes. I have, however, seen lots of people helped. In America, we do not have crime. We have do-gooders. I know. I was there.

The Heathen Republican said...

John, you must realize the unfairness of your comment to Free. If someone half a world away told me how high the U.S. crime rate was, I would have to take your word for it over theirs because you have some first hand knowledge. Even though your knowledge is incomplete, it is more complete than the other's.

I would trust that Free knows what he's talking about when it comes to military deaths, and I would trust his information over bloggers and media that reside here in the U.S. (and who openly opposed "Bush's wars of choice").

Weaseldog said...

free0352 said... "The main problem behind your whole arguement Weasel, is we aren't looting Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. In fact much the opposite, we've lost trillions on those operatons. Say what you want about them, but they're hardly profitable."

Are you arguing that those $trillions were burned in bonfires and no one cashed the checks?

Do you honestly think that when you make a purchase, nobody profits? that the money just disappears?

When the taxpayer wrote checks to Halliburton to build a water park, that they never built, the money didn't benefit anyone?

Yeah, Saddam killed 10,000 Kurds attempting an uprising. We killed almost two million Iraqis, and created more than three million refugees.

In Republican Math, 10,000 > 5,000,000.

Yeah those Mall cops escort convoys and light up civilians for fun. Just like at my local mall where the mall cops sit out there with a 50 cal, lighting up cars trying to drive in to shop.

You live in a strange universe dude.

Weaseldog said...

T. Paine said... "Weasel, your cynicism is only surpassed by your foolishness if you truly think that Iraq and Afghanistan were about making "rich men" richer. This is especially true in Afghanistan.

I, for one, fail to see how the sacrifices our nation is making is serving to enrich a few greedy corporations/men."

I remember Donald Rumsfield repeatedly denying more body armor and armor plate for Humvees while he was earning millions selling medical supplies to the troops.

I see your point though. Good people like you ignore the shitty way our troops are treated and being used, because ignoring the problems and letting them continue to get shafted is the best way to honor their service.

I see your point of view now, and it makes more sense to me. you don't want to embarrass the troops by bringing attention to the fact that they are dying for nothing. It's bit like if you knew a small child was getting raped and beaten a lot. you wouldn't do anything for fear of embarrassing the child.

Likewise as free0352 points out, we're wasting $trillions on wars that don't benefit the USA at all. Instead the money is pouring into the Pentagon to pay consultants and into Middle Eastern Banks to pay 'Contractors'. These are the folks benefiting. But it's wrong to say that, because it means our soldiers are dying for nothing. And if you say it out loud, then we lose the chance to see more Americans get killed and maimed so that Muslims in the UAE can buy more harem boys.

Dave Dubya said...

Lastly, we saved far, far more than we killed. If you'd been to Iraq, you'd know that.

This cannot be taken as fact without honest numbers.

We don’t even have the numbers of all those Iraqis killed, maimed, injured and deprived of home, education and livelihood. Common sense says war and resistance to occupation killed a lot more than otherwise would have been killed without the war. I don’t need to have been there to say this either. Must we have personally witnessed the holocaust to know it happened?

I suppose if you decide everybody would be dead in Iraq if not for our military aggression based on falsehoods for the political and economic gain of the American Right and their corporate cronies, then we “saved” more than we killed.

We don’t need a ledger to know billions of our tax dollars flowed to war-profiteering corporate suits. One of those suits was the war-mongering treasonous liar Cheney. Never mind the picture of his and the Shrub’s oil-soaked henchmen greedily dividing up spoils on the pre-invasion map of Iraq. Their “honorable” intentions were clear.

We don’t need to attend a football game to know the score...

Weaseldog said...

free0352 said... "Well john, if Iraqis were slaughtered as an infantryman I'd have been party to the slautering. I think I'd remember that. In fact the opposite is the truth, we risked our own lives daily to protect Iraqi civilians. Many of my fellow soldiers and marines came out dead as a result of that risk."

If you really have been there. I thank you for your service. As civilians we have an obligation and a duty not to put you in harm's way without good cause. We have failed you there.

Isn't it ironic that the only reason you've had to save those people is because you were there in the first place? If the US military had never invaded Iraq, those people would still have normal jobs and been living lives as safe those of anyone, who lives in a modern society.

All the saving you are doing was only necessary because the USA invaded a country that was no threat.

Leading up to the invasion, two important things happened.

1. Saddam announced that as soon as UN Sanctions were lifted, he'd be opening up the oil contracts to a public bid and Halliburton was getting the boot.

2. Saddam announced that he would begin settling all oil debts in Euros. He would no longer accept US Dollars.

Until that time, Halliburton had continued to operate in Iraq in violation of US law and UN Sanctions. To get around the legal issues they had a division incorporated in Libya where all of their profits were going. They had a cozy deal set up with Muammar Gaddafi. After the war had gone on for a while, Halliburton had the problem of how to get the money out of a nation that was on the terrorism watch list. So Bush vouched for Gaddafi before the UN and got him declared a 'Good Guy' as Bush puts it.

Once Libya was off the list. Halliburton shipped their money to Dubai, closed their US headquarters and moved it to Dubai so they would not have to pay US taxes or obey US laws.

Weaseldog said...

Mall Cops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBrspkenZR4

Weaseldog said...

If you set off a bomb in a building, then join the rescue effort, you're saving lives...

John Myste said...

Heathen, I am sure you realize that I am nothing if not fair. I did apologize to Free, did I not?

The man on the ground in Iraq certainly has some different data than I have. They see small chunks of things. To some Vietnam vets, My Lai was the status quo. They know, they were there.

My mom tells me that no one would have ever engaged in oral sex in her day. "I know. I lived it," she tells me.

The "I was there, I know" fallacy is a variation of the much beloved composition fallacy. As for the crime rate, if someone half way around the world gives you one answer, and I give you another, you would be foolish to take either one as more credible than the other, without more data. If I tell you that my data is that “I was there,” then you should believe the other guy, who probably has real stats. Neither of us has experienced enough of America to get an intuitive understanding of the crime rate that surpasses collected data. If I were to claim that I know, I was there, I would claim that the crime rate is zero.

Now, Heathen, that is the best apology I know how to give. If Free does not except that, then there is no pleasing him.

Weaseldog said...

Both Gen Sun Tzu and Gen Smedley Butler had their boots on the ground and made it clear that war is always about wealth and power.

Conservatives are all about Me, Me, Me, what do I get... This creates a blind spot for them, that makes it difficult for them to understand that other people may lie to them, to cheat and screw them.

The USA often gets involved in conflicts to benefit third parties. These conflicts are often very expensive and require Americans to make sacrifices. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the first wars designed to benefit non-Americans that have forged alliances with US Politicians. We've sent troops to Haiti, the Philipines, Somalia and many other places to benefit people that provide kickbacks to US Politicians.

This is not a new thing. Before the US replaced the British as a super power, wealthy internationals associated with the East India Tea Co, used the British Military as their private military force, with the British taxpayer footing all of the bills.

Those same families and banks still operate today and use the USA as their private mercenary force. They use our military to their financial advantage and the taxpayer covers the costs. Our politicians benefit because these folks provide kickbacks and bribes to them and their families.

This has been going on for thousands of years. It's not new.

Weaseldog said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008422/U-S-military-spends-cool-20billion-air-conditioning-annually-Iraq-Afghanistan.html

Chapter II - 10. Contributing to a distant army impoverishes the state treasury. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance in turn causes the people to be impoverished.

11. On the other hand, an army nearby causes prices to go up and provisions to be depleted; and this steals from the people’s ability to sustain themselves.

12. When the local population is impoverished and its ability to sustain itself drained away, the people will suffer even as the government must exact more from them.

13, 14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.

He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

No leader should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader full of caution.
- Sun Tzu quotes

free0352 said...

Free. I was not aware that you attended each Iraqi mission post

I don't need to be, I know what the Rules of Engagement are. In fact, we're required to memorize them. They take into account civilians on the battlefield more than any conflict in human history. If only the French were so lucky in 1944, when we bombed their towns flat to liberate them.
It's a little hilarious when the media takes reports from terrorist sympathisers and reports them as fact... only to have them debunked later on such as the Haditha "Massacre" or the Nasoor Square shootings. The only major war crime that occurred in Iraq was Abu Gareb, and the FOB Falcon Rape. Wow, about 14 total Soldiers? This is your big crime?

As for war profiteering, we've had the least amount of it of any American conflict. Compared to the what went on during the civil war, KBR's mistakes are minuscule.
It's hardly endemic.

We killed almost two million Iraqis

That number is flat bogus. Enemy propaganda and you're buying it. Where's you get it from, Al'Queda News? Fact is AQI and the Jaish Al'Mhadi killed more Iraqis in one day than we did in eight years... while we rode in to rescue the poor Iraqi victims.

If you set off a bomb in a building, then join the rescue effort, you're saving lives...

That's so inconsitant with policy and ROE I won't even dignify it.

free0352 said...

Common sense says war and resistance to occupation killed a lot more than otherwise would have been killed without the war.

Say's who? If they resisted the occupation they were the enemy, and they deserved to die. Their deaths are a good thing. We weren't fighting a scrappy band of freedom fighters in Iraq... we were fighting AQI and Iranian backed militias.

If the US military had never invaded Iraq, those people would still have normal jobs and been living lives as safe those of anyone, who lives in a modern society.

Under Saddam Hussein? Hahahaha. If you said that to an Iraqi he'd punch you in the face. Even AQI would say that's nuts!

As for BlackWater, their employees were highly trained operators. SOCOM tours or MEUSOC experience minimum. Those guys just don't blaze away. That's just not how they work. Every operator who was accused was vindicated by FORENSIC EVIDENCE. Zero convictions. Most of the cases never made it in to court, even in the most liberal districts with the most liberal of judges because the evidence was so flimsy. It was literally a case of terrorists using civilians as bullet shields during attacks and then accusing Americans of killing civilians when they fired back in self defense.

that is the best apology I know how to give. If Free does not except that, then there is no pleasing him.

Take that apology, and POUND IT up your ass. Thanks for playing.

Both Gen Sun Tzu and Gen Smedley Butler had their boots on the ground and made it clear that war is always about wealth and power.

So? Those are great reasons.

As for Smedley, you mean two time medal of honor winner Smedley Butler. Dude, I'm a Marine, I know that guy well. You mean the same Smedley Butler who got locked up in a mental institution after he accused President Roosevelt and a bunch of bankers of brainwashing him in his sleep to lead an army of veterans to over throw the government? Yeah. Mental illness is a racket.

The USA often gets involved in conflicts to benefit third parties.

So?

He who wishes to fight must first count the cost.

I'm likely more familiar with Sun Tzu that you are, so spare me the quotes. I own five translations. I read it weekly. It was worth it, not simply becasue we killed thousands of Al'Queda members or liberated Iraq but because it delt a serious death blow to Al'Queda in the Arab world. It dried up all their support. The Muslems got to learn that Al'Queda wan't a robinhood orginization standing up for Muslim rights, but a genocidal, xenophobic theocratic loon factory that killed more muslims in one day that America kills all year. They didn't draw us into a conflict we couldn't win, it was the other way arround. It brought them out of their Afghanistan and Iranian safe havens. As master Sun tells us

It is best to attack the enemy's stratagy first, his plans second, his army's third, and walled cities last.

By attacking Iraq and drawing them into that fight, we disrupted their stratagy and destroyed their plans. They are now all but finished. We are filled with win.

John Myste said...

Apology has been placed where requested.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I'm not going to argue with you about Iraq. I understand your need to justify and rationalize the deaths of your fellows in arms.

Some day I hope you understand that all those deaths were not a good thing. Theirs and ours. Too many deaths on both sides merely led to retaliation and more wasted lives.

I know people that were killed in Vietnam. As with our fellow Americans in Iraq, they too, tragically, did not die protecting our nation or our freedoms.

Ironically, our government only became more hostile to our civil liberties during both the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

The profiteers and their politicians are the only ones who win. Everybody else loses.

I also thank you for serving. I'm sorry for your losses, internal and external. I hope you can be whole again.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

I'm not going to argue with you about Iraq. I understand your need to justify and rationalize the deaths of your fellows in arms.

Nothing to understand. I didn't believe in the Kosovo mission and was rather miffed about the deaths there, same for Somalia. If they die in Libya believe me I'll be wondering why.

Theirs and ours. Too many deaths on both sides merely led to retaliation and more wasted lives.

Soldiers understand this better than you do instinctively. War is always a waste. But sometimes it's a necessary waste. There are bad people in the world, and they like rabid dogs are better off dead.

they too, tragically, did not die protecting our nation or our freedoms.

Vietnam isn't Iraq. We won in Iraq. As for YOUR civil liberties, please explain which of them specifically you have lost since we invaded Iraq? Please give some examples of how this impacts your daily life?

Everybody else loses.

Well, except the Iraqis of Sadr City, Al Anbar, Niniva, Basrah... I could go on. I really didn't care much for the Iraqis in Al'Anbar, but we bonded with the Iraqis from Sadr City. We spent more time with them in their houses than we did in our outpost, including Muslim holidays. Guys from my unit who fought in the battle for the Gold Wall (three month long fire fight) still have I *heart* Sadr City stickers and T-shirts and talk on the internet to friends back AO 5-12 Alpha.

I hope you can be whole again.

Not likely, but it's not like I didn't know what I was getting into when I volunteered. Three times, to deploy.

free0352 said...

In fact, they sell like hot cakes from Sadr veterans.

See for yourself.

http://shop.cafepress.com/i-heart-sadr-city

T. Paine said...

Free, I appreciate and respect the hell out of you, buddy.

It is sad that some folks have to rely on terrorist or hate-America-first propoganda in order to try and justify their political ideology. Fortunately it doesn't withstand scrutiny when the real facts are presented, as you have done.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,

Yes, “real facts”, as long as they fit your belief system. Only Republican Right Wing corporate media tells the truth, eh? At least Wease put out a number. You and Free did not.

You Righties just love to call ALL non-FOX(R) information sources as "terrorist or hate-America-first propaganda", don’t you? Any label will do. Communist, Socialist, Liberal, or any other false and loony euphemism, of the radical Right. This is where you guys follow the pattern of fascists. That is the tactic that would do Goebbels proud. Progressives are socialists, communists, even fascists etc. It makes no difference. To the Right any term will do. Progressives are Nazis according to Beck and you would probably agree. Projection at it’s peak.

This is a foundation of fascism. Demonize the press and anyone who disagrees with you as evil or under an evil influence, ironically while you defend the interests of your powerful Mammonite Masters. Your Masters openly oppose every vestige of democracy, yet you have the arrogance and ignorance to accuse us of being dupes of “terrorist or hate-America-first propaganda".

But then, you have no choice but to believe the propaganda of the Right because you despise a free press and the journalism that it entails. You may as well despise democracy by your support for the Republican efforts to undo the elections of the last two Democratic presidents. Look! He’s a Marxist Kenyan. Look! He lied about a personal matter! Anything to reverse the workings of democracy and the will of the people is the SOP of the radical Right.

These are the undocumented “facts” you embrace from Free:

“We saved far, far more than we killed.” This is a completely unsourced assertion. His opinion. Nothing more. Did he show us numbers? No. Can he show us? No, he cannot. But since it sounds good to you, you take it as “fact”. I guess this depends on what extremely limited context “we” and “saved” and “killed” are used. No explanation or such context was given, just a flat out blanket assertion. Good enough for the Right minded, though.

I said, “Common sense says war and resistance to occupation killed a lot more than otherwise would have been killed without the war.”

His response: “Say's who? If they resisted the occupation they were the enemy, and they deserved to die.”

Says who, indeed? Common sense says one thing. Only Free, as far as we know, says we saved more Iraqis than were killed in our war of aggression. But since he is an authoritarian demagogue to you, you must take his word as the Gospel truth.

“War is always a waste. But sometimes it's a necessary waste.” Clearly referring to Iraq. Again, this is his opinion, but to you, it is fact.

I understand. Free is an authoritarian personality, and you are attracted to this type. After all, you did believe every word Dick Cheney said. This is my opinion...and it is likely fact.

Nothing is more dangerous than True Believers. Their beliefs are more important than human life. War, death, and destruction of liberty happen because True Believers believe the powerful warmongering police-state-building authoritarian leaders. They believe all opposition to their authoritarian leaders is treasonous communism.

History proves my case, again and again.

I will further highlight Free’s cognitive dissonance and misrepresentations later.

free0352 said...

Yes, “real facts”, as long as they fit your belief system.

Or you know instead of what your liberal echo chamber tells you... I have what I saw with my own eyes. I was THERE. I know what I did. I know what my friends did.

I was there in 1999 when Saddam didn't meet the requirements of his cease fire with us and President Clinton ordered us to Kuwait for a possible invasion during Operation Desert Fox. We didn't invade that time, but we sure bombed the hell out of them. It I spent my 20th birthday watching the jets fly north from Ali Al'Saleem.

In 2001 I participated in what at the time was the largest air assault in history, the taking of FOB Rhino in Afghanistan and later the taking of Bagram Air Base, and operations along the Pakistani Boarder. My unit held famously held John Walker Lindh, and helped capture Bin Laden's driver... the intelligence which he gave leading years later to Bin Laden's death.

In 2002 I deployed to Djibouti in the Horn of Africa for 9 months, where I conducted Security and Stability Operations, Counter Maritime Security Operations, and Counter Terrorism training of local forces that directly contributed to taking down the Al Qaeda cells responsible for the 1998 Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

I was there again in Iraq in 2003 when George Bush (and Hillary Clinton for that matter) ordered us back to Kuwait and then Iraq for the same exact reason Bill Clinton sent me there in 1999. I crossed the line of departure on March 20th, fought in the battle of Battle of Nasiriyah from March 23rd through the 27th, conducting the largest scale night attack of the invasion. While there at Nas we found passports on the bodies of dead insurgents who's names matched up to known members of Al Qaeda and whose stamped reason for visiting Iraq on their pass ports was "Jihad."

Two weeks later I helped seize Saddam's home palace in Tikrit where we captured small quantities of mustard gas and several disassembled SCUD missiles. My unit uncovered 16 separate mass graves.

I went back to Iraq in late 2004 for six months, witnessing first hand the birth of the insurgency and participating in the near capture of Muqtada Al Sadr during the First Battle of Basra.

I went back to Iraq in 2006 for five months as a contractor, working in and around FOB Anaconda, later known as Ballad. My job was convoy escort and protection of corporate personnel. We never sprayed up any Iraqis for fun once. While there my company helped build a power plant that brought electricity to millions of Iraqis in Basra, and when the Mhadi Army would blow it up the American Contractors would go right back to rebuilding it... often under direct fire.

free0352 said...

In 2008 having enlisted in the Army specifically to participate in "The Surge" in 2007 giving up a 75k a year job working as an account executive for a major transportation company, and volunteering for the first unit available to deploy to Iraq fought in the Battle of Sadr City. I spent 15 months there, and during that time we chased Al Sadr out of Iraq all together and turned Sadr from one of the WORST areas of operations in Iraq to one of the safest.

Now, are you really going to tell me I know less that a reporter who spent two weeks in the Green Zone?

You're right about one thing, we have NO IDEA how many people were killed on accident during the war. Let me tell you what I do know. That over all these YEARS spent fighting this war I saw every day of it Soldiers and Marines go outside the wire with the specific purpose of protecting the Afghan and Iraqi people at great personal risk. I've seen more than a few times young Americans wounded saving Iraqis from the Islamist threat. We didn't start a war in Iraq in 2003, we finished the one started in 1991 - and we won it. Even Obama and Biden admit that now.

I went from fighting the Iraqi Army to fighting side by side with it... and more so fighting side by side with Iraqi civilians who abandoned the militias and AQI once they saw for themselves the horror they represent. If you want to see the "foundations" of fascism you should have seen Al'Anbar under Al Qaeda rule. You have no idea of what that evil looks like. I'll help you try to understand, try to imagine picking the intestines of children out of the power lines to give them a good Muslim burial after one of your "freedom fighters resisting occupation" blew up their orphanage we'd built them... long after we'd left.

I have definitely been there and done that... and I qualify as my own source on the issue. My opinion is expert. You clearly don't know anything about Iraq, or Iraqis. You want to see real authoritarianism? Try stopping Muqtada Al'Sadr's thugs from robbing his own people in the night to buy bombs to fund the murder of Sunni women.

But if you really want to know why Iraq was worth it, tell me if you'd have heard this had we not gone through what we did in that country.

This quote is from Ahmed abu Risha, head of the Awakening Councils in Iraq on the death of Osama Bin Laden.

“I wish he was killed at the hands of the Iraqis, whose country al-Qaeda has destroyed. His death is a victory to everyone hurt by al-Qaeda. They killed innocents under the cover of Islam and religion to win the hearts of young people under the pretext of Jihad. One day after our work here is finished, I hope to send the Youth of the Awakening to Afghanitan to help them free themselves of the chains of oppression and false religion. ”

If he's down to go, I'll see him there.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

Let me say first that I respect what you have done and whatever you have gone through. I have a brother, relatives and friends who went to Vietnam. None claim to be “experts” like you, though they do have a clearer idea of why they went there. It wasn’t to defend our freedoms and safety.

By strengthening government, we don't weaken special interest... we strengthen it. The power of the state is the powerful man's ally, not his enemy. It's been that way all through out human history. A corporation on it's own really can't oppress you -especially when checked by law (IE you can sue them)... but they can and do with the power of the State behind it.

What in the world makes you think that a government weaker than Big Money will not be a tool of Big Money? They are the foxes in the henhouse and write the very laws that are supposed to check them. Where have you been? Apparently you really have been out of the country for many years.

If I truly “clearly don't know anything about Iraq, or Iraqis”, then you clearly don’t know anything about who owns our politicians. I’m an informed American and I am just as much an expert on this as you claim to be on Iraq. In fact, I have lived here longer than you have, son.

If you think that only the Right Wing (FOX) R is "fair and balanced" journalism, then I have some more "nukular" aluminum tubes for you to go chase down.

It feels good to say We won. Yes, if you mean our military defeated the Iraqi military. We sure did. (I think it stirs TP into a patriotic fever. He hangs on every word you say now. That puts you up there with your fellow neo-con Dick Cheney.)

Yes “we” killed a lot of AQI and militia too, (who would never have existed or have been a threat had we not invaded). Whoopee. USA! USA! USA!

But what did we win? That would depend entirely on who “we’ are and what was “won”.

Iran was a big winner. They got to keep Saddam’s jets as trophies and gained more influence over their neighbor. Contractors, mercenaries and other war profiteers certainly “won” billions of OUR tax dollars, adding to OUR debt. Chickenhawk Bush and Halliburton Dick won reelection and the political capital to enrich their cronies at OUR expense.

What did the American people win? Not so much. We lost thousands of human beings and trillions of dollars. Americans and large numbers of Iraqis are still being killed. Neither numbers have stopped growing by the way, so whatever it is “we” have “won” is costing more and more. Did we win? No. We the people won nothing. And it is not over.

Why is that? You take a long view and frame the war as “finishing the war started in 1991”. What if the picture is not complete? What makes you so sure it is finished? We’re still flushing money and lives down the bottomless pit. We have powerful interests that would profit from endless war. They are running the show way more than your despised “tax and spend commie liberals” could ever hope to influence corporate government policy.

The ruling economic elite royalists are not finished. Their aristocracy is destroying our nation just as the Founders cautioned us.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” - Tom Jefferson

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” - James Madison April 20, 1795

Dave Dubya said...

Well, look at that. I somehow managed to bring the discussion back to the subject. "Corporatist Republicanism or Democracy?"

Here's what happened. After 9-11 70% of Americans wanted nothing to do with invading Iraq. After the Republican propaganda machine used FOX(R) and the fictional "liberal media" to scare us with fictional nukular aluminum tubes, fictional ties between Saddam and AQ, fictional mushroom clouds, and fictional WMD's that shifted to 70%supporting the invasion.

Corporatist Republicanism, along with old-fashioned neocon fear mongering, defeated democracy again.

Weaseldog said...

free0352 said... "Say's who? If they resisted the occupation they were the enemy, and they deserved to die. Their deaths are a good thing. We weren't fighting a scrappy band of freedom fighters in Iraq... we were fighting AQI and Iranian backed militias."

I see your point, they didn't lie down and accept the slavery of an invading nation, so they deserved to die. When a nation is invaded, only terrorists defend it. Like the terrorist French that deserved to die because they resisted the German invasion.

Weaseldog said...

Free0352, you represent the finest in years of government training. From my perspective appear that you believe everything you're told by your chain of command, you lack the ability of self introspection, and that you have no moral compass.

I would assume that you could see this as a compliment, depending how it's worded. I've known other vets that have no sense of right and wrong. There are just rules. They explain that killing a man, a woman or a child is no different than killing a dog. You don't don't really feel anything.

In contrast it bothers me a lot, when I kill a chicken to eat.

I don't believe that you and I have a common frame of reference for discussion.

Weaseldog said...

Dave, you bring up a good point. The veterans I know from Vietnam, Korea and WWII, don't love and cherish war like the current generation does.

There has a been a fundamental shift in the American frame of mind. And as the USA slips deeper into it's economic decline, it will invade more countries out of desperation.

Now we're at war with Libya and Yemen. What nation will we be at war with tomorrow?

We've seen this plot before.

Weaseldog said...

Free, you make it sound like being an occupied country is a good thing.

Do you think the USA would also be better off if it were ruled by a foreign military power? Like the way the USA rules Iraq?

I would guess that you'd say yes.

free0352 said...

Dave,

I'll say it again dude, this war isn't Vietnam. This is a totally different set of circumstances, in a completely different century.

What in the world makes you think that a government weaker than Big Money will not be a tool of Big Money?

I'm assuming it will be either way, so I'm suggesting we make the tool worthless to them. I'd rather they had a weak tool than a strong one. I'm suggesting regular people can do just fine without rich elites in government to "help them."

Their aristocracy is destroying our nation just as the Founders cautioned us.

I agree, hence I think we should take apart their vehicle of power... Federal Government. A government strong enough to provide for every need is powerful enough to take everything you have. Isn't that what's happening?

As for Fox News, I don't know how else I can say this... I base my thoughts and opinions on Iraq ON MY CLOSE, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND Involvement WITH THE CONFLICT. I am my own witness. I don't need a journalist, I was present. In my experience journalists of all stripes (except maybe Pat Dollard) have been universally wrong on the subject. Not just wrong, but utterly wrong. Iraq and Afghanistan represent an utter failure of journalism. I've escorted "journalists" in Iraq... they leave the safe and protected umbrella of the green zone for an hour and talk to two or three people and a handful of Soldiers many of whom never leave the green zone either, and then file reports you read and this gives you a false sense of understanding. As for my status as a "Neo Con" that's um... laughable. I look a lot more like Ron Paul. In fact, this issue is the only one on which we disagree.

Yes “we” killed a lot of AQI and militia too, (who would never have existed or have been a threat had we not invaded

Islamic extremism is the root cause of AQI and Shina groups like the Mhadi Army. Al Qaeda and Syria backing the Sunni and Iran backing the Shia. Islam it's self isn't a bad thing... however out of a billion Muslims many subscribe to a savage, totalitarian sect of Islam. There can be no coexistence with them, they must be destroyed. Iraq was a battle ground for that conflict, one in which we gained victory not only on the battle field but in the hearts and minds of not only Iraqis but Muslims world wide. Sure most Muslims deplore our war in Iraq... but the war in Iraq also caused them to deplore Al Qaeda due to it's over the top, brutal actions against the Iraqi people it horribly victimized. Further, the conflict caused Muslims world wide to reject the ideology of Islamic Revolution preached by Iran. Only Hamas still holds to it, another major victory. Much of the "Arab Spring" would not have been possible without this. Iran has lost in the war much more than we have in terms of tax dollars, certainly lives from it's military (Oh yes they were in Iraq and some still are as you mentioned) and it's standing in contemporary Islam. Iraq isn't a finished work, but that work can now be taken up by the Iraqis themselves... the final victory we achieved.

free0352 said...

Free0352, you represent the finest in years of government training.

You have no idea, I'm a talented infantrymen.

From my perspective appear that you believe everything you're told by your chain of command

Haha, you must not know about me! Half my blog is dedicated to criticizing them LOL. I was officially reprimanded for writing blog posts critical of my Brigade Commander from a combat zone.

As for how it feels to kill, killing a noncombatant is horrible. I've never done it myself, but I've had friends make a mistake and it tears them up. Killing a combatant is... well I can't say it any other way. Its fucking awesome. I hate them for what they are, and I take great job satisfaction in making them dead.

I don't believe that you and I have a common frame of reference for discussion.

I couldn't agree more. I'm a Soldier, my job by nature is to take human life. But I am not a sociopath, because I do so within a frame values and regulations that temper that willingness to kill to prevent the moral ambiguity of war. I teach my young Soldiers every day how to navigate in a lawful and moral way the moral challenges presented by combat.

The veterans I know from Vietnam, Korea and WWII, don't love and cherish war like the current generation does

That's because most of them were drafted and forced to do it, whereas we volunteered for the experience and went willingly. It was their obligation, it's our profession.

Free, you make it sound like being an occupied country is a good thing

Well... if I was living in Iraq and my dictator was Saddam Hussein I would say yes. However, I don't live in Iraq and Obama isn't nearly that bad. If a foreign power showed up here in North America, you'd be hiding behind me while I killed them... that's what you pay me for.

Weaseldog said...

Free, I'm still trying to get past your argument that no one is profiting from the wars, because the USA spends $trillions of dollars on them.


Can you help explain how the money is spent, but no one receives it?

free0352 said...

I'm not disputing people got their pay checks. I am disputing that war makes money for countries... it doesn't, quite the opposite and your guy Sun Tzu would tell you that. What I think is the more valid point, is that just because people get pay checks doesn't mean the whole war is wrong. We didn't go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq to pay Haliburton, though I'm sure that's your argument.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
You are right. Iraq is not Vietnam and this is a different century, as in “Project for the New American Century”. If you agree with, and vote for Neocons you can expect to be called a Neocon. Do you expect me to think for a second Dick “Halliburton” Cheney had no conflict of interest behind his falsehoods and warmongering? Do you expect me to be so naive as to believe in the purity of Bush’s motives for his aggressive war making?

Do you expect me to ignore Bush’s own words? “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.” – George W. Bush 1999

Vietnam was certainly like Iraq in many ways. It was justified on lies. It was not about protecting our safety or freedom. It was a war of choice. And, yes, there were contractors and war profiteers back then. I’m not disputing your first hand observations. But I am insisting that the same military industrial complex profits from both wars. Different wars, same empire mentality, same MIC, and in many cases, same cowardly politicians supported both, like Chickenhawks George and Dick.

Will it be “final victory” when the next dictatorship takes over in Iraq? We will still be paying for the Iraq war long after that happens.

Do you really expect me to believe Bush when he said we were “spreading democracy”? How can we “spread” what we don’t even have here?

free0352 said...

Free, you make it sound like being an occupied country is a good thing

Dave,

What was Bill Clinton's reason for attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq? Could they be the same reason George Bush did, taking those conflicts to their logical conclusion? If not, was it okay for Clinton to do it and Bush not to? If so, why?

…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.

So? I'm not a fan of George Bush's fiscal policy, but I supported his foreign policy... except his unwillingness to go at Al Qaeda in Pakistan as much as Obama has been willing to. I've been pleasantly surprised at Obama's willingness to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However like George Bush, his fiscal and domestic policy has been to socialist for my taste. Heck, he even kept Gitmo open.

As for Iraq being a "war of choice" I like wars of choice. They sure beat wars of no choice... when the enemy is on your door step. If this was 1890 I'd probably be much more isolationist, but we live in a world where you can cross oceans in a few hours. The idea we can ignore threats because they aren't close to us isn't accounting for the modern world. Saddam tried to steal 1/3 of the world's oil supply in 1991, Saddam didn't abide by the cease fire he signed in 1991, and he faced the consequences of that. That was the reason we went there. We stayed because every Jihadist in the Middle East came to fight, and that fact made it very convenient to kill them. It was expensive but their deaths made the world and the US safer.

like Chickenhawks George and Dick.

If Bush had piloted a fighter plane during the war would you still call him a chicken hawk? Is Obama a chicken hawk for not fighting in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan? Is Hillary Clinton or John Kerry Chicken Hawks for voting to authorize the war in Iraq?

Will it be “final victory” when the next dictatorship takes over in Iraq?

What dictatorship?

How can we “spread” what we don’t even have here

When was the last time you were prevented from voting?

RedStateFred said...

hey Dave Dubya,

good video about the Democrat's position on Iraq before the Iraq war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

lots of Democratic hypocrites in this one fer sure!

LOL on how liberals flip flop!

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I clearly remember the Right insisting the reason Clinton bombed Iraq was to distract us from the Starr Chamber witch hunt. They would never, never lie, right?

I see you applaud Obama’s militarism. That would hardly make him much of a liberal progressive type, Corporatist company man, on the other hand,..

I think I gave you Bush’s reason for invading, in his own words. Political capital, power and profit for Halliburton Dick and their cronies are likely the real reasons. We heard all kinds of fictitious reasons. I suppose you think they are just too pure of heart for such actions. And Righties call me naive...

Q. What dictatorship? A. The next dictatorship.

Voting for one of two bought-and-paid for corporatists constitutes about the same “democracy” that voting in the Soviet Union did. We are not a democratic republic when politicians represent the interests of the wealthy one percent over the rest of us. Spin it any way you want brother, but this is the bottom line.

Dave Dubya said...

Hi, Reddy,
I’m always amused how the radical Rightists consider corporatist Dems "liberals”. Right, just like corporate "liberal" media is owned by Rachel Maddow. Reality and perspective have no bearing on their ideological extremism whatsoever.

Edwards was the closest thing to an actual liberal and all he said was we shouldn’t let Saddam have nukes. He didn’t have them, and he could have been stopped without a full scale invasion. But ideologues don’t care about nuance, do they?

The spineless cowards called Democrats were jumping on the war wagon in order to get reelected. They were blindly parroting the propaganda that hoodwinked a nation. Before the lies of Bush/Cheney and FOX(R), and before the firing of Phil Donahue by MSNBC for not being pro-war, 70% of Americans opposed invading Iraq. After the brainwashing, 70% approved. This is strong evidence that only 30% of Americans can think for themselves.

Believe it or not we don’t have a socialist party in the US. We have moderate Right and radical Right Wing parties. They both work for Wall Street, you know. They both are bought and paid for by Big Money and the military industrial complex. (This is what Republican and former general Eisenhower warned us about. You would consider him a socialist.). But you don’t know that. In fact, you cannot know that. Your ideological indoctrination and our corporate media avoid this simple truth.

How else can you not get the fact that the economic elites and their bought and paid for politicians created the mess we’re in? Do you think Ralph Nader or Michael Moore were in charge and caused all the debt and job losses? You probably do. It would certainly fit in your indoctrination.

Most Americans do have a clue that politicians don’t represent them. They know politicians represent the highest bidder, their campaign donors. Democracy is dead and the Righties are ecstatic. This begs the question. Who really hates America?

Now you can go ahead and brag about "ripping me a new one".

RedStateFred said...

Dubya said

"The spineless cowards called Democrats were jumping on the war wagon in order to get reelected. They were blindly parroting the propaganda that hoodwinked a nation."


I think it is great to have all the top Dems on video stating they believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It really shows how full of shit they are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

"They were blindly parroting the propaganda that hoodwinked a nation."

Do you think they were watching too much "Faux News" who put subliminal messages in their broadcasts to make those Dems believe Saddam had WMDs? LOL on your political analysis and reasoning Dave Dubya. Do you also believe in Area-51?

Attempting to centrally manage Healthcare which is close to 20% of the economy should not be viewed as socialism? Get Real.

free0352 said...

They would never, never lie, right?

What do you think, were they lying?

So what you're suggesting was there was a huge, bipartisan plot involving an unholy alliance of the Bush, Clinton, and later joined by the Obama lasting from 1990 to today to invade Iraq to not steal any oil and make Dick Chaney rich?

Excuse me if I find that rather unlikely.

And what next dictatorship are you talking about? Iraq just had an electoral crisis... that was a sign of democracy if there is ever one... shit our government certainly had that problem prior to the signing of the Constitution. Iraq is moving along quicker than they were.

When we talk about the state of our government you have to realize that things have always been this way, and it is all screwed up but it is still the best system ever invented by human beings.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

free0352, I've read all of your chest-thumping opinions throughout this thread (and I especially love the one where you claim to be an "expert"), and I have to admit, you are a "professional lunatic".

Is this the mind-set of all people who go to war these days?

You're scary.

Weaseldog said...

Free said, "I'm not disputing people got their pay checks. I am disputing that war makes money for countries..."

I can see the problem, you're not really reading what I'm writing.

And I think I understand the other problem, You believe that politicians are honest and good men like Jesus, and they wouldn't send you to war, simply because they are taking bribes from the defense industry.

Weaseldog said...

free said, "I've never done it myself, but I've had friends make a mistake and it tears them up. Killing a combatant is... well I can't say it any other way. Its fucking awesome. I hate them for what they are, and I take great job satisfaction in making them dead."

Do you think those soldiers get the same thrill from killing our soldiers? Or do you feel they may just be doing what's necessary to save their country from us?

Weaseldog said...

Free said, "What was Bill Clinton's reason for attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq? Could they be the same reason George Bush did, taking those conflicts to their logical conclusion? If not, was it okay for Clinton to do it and Bush not to? If so, why?"

It wasn't Ok for the Clintons to do it. They are crooks too. They also take bribes from Halliburton and defense industry.

Weaseldog said...

Free asks, "If Bush had piloted a fighter plane during the war would you still call him a chicken hawk? Is Obama a chicken hawk for not fighting in Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan? Is Hillary Clinton or John Kerry Chicken Hawks for voting to authorize the war in Iraq?"

John Kerry served in Vietnam. He's the only veteran of foreign wars in your list. And he's the only one that has shown any opposition to the current wars in his voting record.

Yes, the rest are chicken hawks.

Weaseldog said...

Free asks, "So what you're suggesting was there was a huge, bipartisan plot involving an unholy alliance of the Bush, Clinton, and later joined by the Obama lasting from 1990 to today to invade Iraq to not steal any oil and make Dick Chaney rich?"

So you think the theory that lobbyists have a big influence over our nation's politics, is just an Area 51 theory? The USA spends over $2 trillion/ year in defense related spending. A percentage of that money feeds back into Washington to grease the wheels.

Iraq was not threat to the USA. you yourself said all they had were a few rockets. You yourself said that Iraq couldn't invade the USA. You've make a great argument that Iraq was not a threat.

Then you argue that you think attacking a nation that is no threat is a good thing.

Then you say you're no sociopath. But you love killing soldiers. You really enjoy killing soldiers.

Do you think the USA is going bankrupt just host a war for your pleasure?

Dave Dubya said...

Reddy Freddy,
You wouldn’t mean the Dems were as full of it as the Chickenhawks in the White House? Or only the dems were full of it, and the Chickenhawks were bastions of light and truth?

You want it both ways, don’t you?

What makes you think I’m a Democrat? I advocate democracy, but that is not the same as being a capital D party Democrat. Note that the Republicans represent about as much democracy as the Peoples Republic of China.

Remember the subject is Corporatist Republicanism and it’s impact on individual liberty and democracy. Many Democrats operate within Corporatist Republicanism as well.

If there were truth in names, we’d have a Primary Corporatist Party and a Secondary Corporatist Party.

Scared of “socialism” are you? You believe channeling billions of health care dollars into CEO’s pockets to be healthiest for all?

At less cost per person, life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than in the US. On the other hand Canadians are not as ideologically pure as you are. That should make you feel better.

Free,
Does Eisenhower’s Military Industrial Complex warning make any sense to you? Does my assertion that only corporate friendly candidates make it to the White House make any sense to you?

I’m glad they have signs of democracy in Iraq. They also got to vote for Saddam, too.

Meanwhile back in the States, (You may not be old enough to remember that song.) democracy is being systematically dismantled by the Right. We’ve seen them purging qualified voters from rolls, enacting barriers for students, minorities and democratic leaning precincts. Not to mention the GOP/Diebold touch screen, unverifiable voting machines that erred only on the side of Republicans.

Sure things have always been screwed up, but in case you haven’t noticed, they are getting worse.

The Right is antagonistic towards democracy and is waging economic class warfare against the majority of Americans. That’s why they need a falsely labeled “fair and balanced” FOX(R), and need to falsely label corporate media as liberal. The radical Right could not stand on a level playing field. Economic feudalism is exactly where we are headed. No democracy, no freedom.

By the way, I really do admire your courage in military service. As for the domestic side, I have to wonder if you understand it takes more courage to stand up for the little guy than for the powerful interests of Big Money.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
You're right. Free says some scary things, but I like having him here. He's not one of those simple-minded, goose-stepping, trolling ad hominem attackers. Our positions need to be challenged. Everyone's ideas should be held up for challenge in a free society.

The problem is, much like the Neocons went unchallenged, relatively nobody is challenging the Corporatist Republicanism that envelops our government.

Heck, I even had to invent the term. I don't recall seeing it elsewhere.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave, you're right, there has probably not been an adequate term coined to describe exactly what's going on today. Although there are instances reminiscent of classical fascism such as practiced in pre-WWII Germany, and reminders of colonial America, and before, with England's notorious monopoly, the East India Company, today's practiced "Corporatist Republicanism" is almost a collage of many of history's most non-democratic empires.

As far as free0352, well, he's still pretty scary.

T. Paine said...

Free is indeed scary. Particularly because he is typically dead on accurate about most things political. He sure as hell is right on things militaristic.

And yes, Dubya, Free and those men like him that have put their asses on the line and bled for us are indeed my heroes. I am damned proud to admit it too.

One wonders if President Dubya was in charge on 9/11, would you have chosen to not "help" the military industrial complex and attack the Taliban and al Qaida for their terrosism visited upon our civilians?

Would you rather have sought to show them we meant no harm and disband our military and apologize to them for our transgressions that prompeted them to kill our innocent civilians?

Sticking flowers in the end of Osama's Ak-47 will not bring peace. It will bring only death to you, my friend.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Mr. Paine, you're scary too.

I have no respect for people who enjoy killing. It's psychotic behavior and no different than that of history's notable serial killers and other murderers of record.

As far as your statement about "those men that put their asses on the line and bled for us", that hasn't occurred since the last true war that meant anything -- WWII. Every war, and occupation, since has been waged for profit only. Our permanent war economy, once the stronghold of the G.O.P, now is a Democratic Party institution also. It's Keynesian policy at its worst moment. Those men that have bled since, bled for the profits of an elite few -- never for me. So get off your high horse and spare me the faux patriotic discourse of honoring our so-called brave fighting men and women. They're just pawns of an ever-expanding military-Industrial-congressional complex that's the root cause of this country's debt problem. It'll be the bane of this country's democracy, as we come closer to total financial collapse.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
So, Free is accurate on "most" things. I wonder where you disagree...

As a student of history I note that Nazi propaganda always praised all the "heroes" in uniform. When a culture idolizes all military persons, it not only demeans the efforts of the exceptional servicemen, it creates the atmosphere of militaristic war-loving society. I would bet most vets would not agree with you that "those men like him that have put their asses on the line and bled for us are indeed my heroes."

More often they will say the heroes are the ones who did not come home.

I know you regard me as some kind of hippie pacifist opposed to all violence. What you don't know is I have seen violence and bloodshed, and have sustained injuries, in my years of public service in maximum security settings. What I don't do is claim to be an "expert" and relish the deaths and tragedies of others. (I'm too much of a Christian to be so sociopathic.)

I do know when violence is necessary, and when a war is not.

You however are the expert on "experts".

free0352 said...

Is this the mind-set of all people who go to war these days?

I try to instill a mindset of professionalism and moral courage in my Soldiers. Our first job is ethics, our second job is discipline, our third job is tactical expertise. As far as our being scary, part of our job is to be intimidating. It's best when the enemy fears you. Fear is power. You've got nothing to fear from us however, because of the training I and other NCOs give our Soldiers. We're the most ethical Army in the world. Just look at Abu Ghraib? What those Soldiers did was unacceptable. Do you know who blew the whistle on that? I Soldier with moral courage - if not for him you'd never known that happened. While we cannot tolerate actions like Abu Ghraib, it's unreasonable to expect violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to NEVER happen. The good part no one took a look at however, was that a Soldier had the guts to speak up and stop it. That doesn't happen in the French Army - I know, I've worked with them.

Weasel,

Iraq was not threat to the USA. you yourself said all they had were a few rockets

I think Al Qaeda proved you can kill a lot of Americans without any rockets. I'm not suggesting 9-11 and Iraq were linked, they are not. What I'm saying is 9-11 showed us we have to take every threat seriously. Saddam surely made his threats and acted on them when he fired on US Airmen over 4000 times between 1991 and 2003... not to mention tried to have our President assassinated. Enough was enough.

, You believe that politicians are honest

Hahaha, you should read my blog. About 99% of my posts are dedicated to complaining about either their dishonesty or incompetence.

Do you think those soldiers get the same thrill from killing our soldiers

First of all they aren't Soldiers. Second, I don't think they do, I know they do. First, they'll tell you that when we capture them. They do hate us you know, and the feeling is certainly mutual. That's why they orgasmically change "Allu Akbar" when they pull the trigger on the IEDs when they attack us. They chant Allu Akbar, we scream "Get Some!" War cries are as old as history I guess.

John Kerry served in Vietnam.

Yes, when he was acting in a manner familiar to Genghis Khan right? He's either a lier or a very undisciplined Sailor. I'm going with the former. He exaggerated his military career for political gain... and it cost him an election.

free0352 said...

Does Eisenhower’s Military Industrial Complex warning make any sense to you?

Yes, and I could fill several blogs with ways I've seen the military waste money to enrich contractors. That's not why we invaded Iraq.

They also got to vote for Saddam, too.

Yes, and he was the only one on the ballet, and if you didn't vote for him his thugs stuck you feet first in the wood chipper. I even got to see the wood chipper, it sits in the basement at the Palace Of The Waters in the Green Zone. You know, that's JUST LIKE America... You know, I think your ignorance of what REAL totalitarianism and oppression looks like is a testament to how well we Soldiers have done defending our country and how good our system is. I think when I get frustrated with our politics I'll come back and read this thread and remember how good I really have it.
There are some things wrong with American government (I have a whole blog dedicated to what I think they are), but I've been all over the world, been to every single continent except Antarctica and know from my own experience we live in pretty much the most free, most prosperous country in the world. NO I haven't lived in EVERY country, but name me one more free than ours? Living in places like Germany and Japan was a nice experience and visiting over 23 countries was sometimes fun... but America is best.

So, Free is accurate on "most" things. I wonder where you disagree...

Paine is a Conservative, and I'm a Libertarian. We disagree all the time.

"those men like him that have put their asses on the line and bled for us are indeed my heroes."

I can only speak for myself here, but my friends I've been to war with are my heroes. They aren't some ideal... they're frail human beings who have stood by me in the WORST situations the world can throw at you and been there for me in the darkest of times. I don't have to idolize some football guy, I get to go to work every day with authentic, heroic, wonderful people. That's why I work here, it certainly isn't the generous benefits package and high pay!

and have sustained injuries, in my years of public service in maximum security settings

The military isn't a prison gang, but that experience working in prison should teach you there are people out there you can't reason with, and the only logic response to them is their destruction or capture. That's my job. The death of a member of Al Qaeda or the Mahdi Army isn't a tragedy, its akin to killing a cancer. I'm the chemotherapy.

free0352 said...

Weasel,

What I was going to say, and somehow this got lost in my post, about the enemy getting a thrill over killing us was this- Yes we chant "Get Some" just like they chant "Allu Ackbar" when we fight each other... but there is a difference. We ARE NOT like them. Just ask Nick Berg... oh wait you can't... the enemy cut his head off on Youtube. We don't do things like that, we don't execute children, or target civilians. They do. The problem isn't they like killing us... that's understandable... the problem is they like killing EVERYTHING including each other.

Weaseldog said...

Free said, "I think Al Qaeda proved you can kill a lot of Americans without any rockets. I'm not suggesting 9-11 and Iraq were linked, they are not. What I'm saying is 9-11 showed us we have to take every threat seriously. Saddam surely made his threats and acted on them when he fired on US Airmen over 4000 times between 1991 and 2003... not to mention tried to have our President assassinated. Enough was enough."

I would guess that you were too young when Clinton was in office to pay much attention. But all through the 1990s, the USA continued to bomb Iraq. The war never ended, it has just gone through different stages since Bush I.

Now you might argue that try to defend itself against invasion, deserves what it gets. You message so far on this has been loud and clear. What I don't get is why you hate them, yet you've said you'd do what they do, if the USA was invaded.

Weaseldog said...

Free said, "Just look at Abu Ghraib? What those Soldiers did was unacceptable. Do you know who blew the whistle on that?"

Yeah, it started because the guards were emailing the photos to their friends and they are spreading on the net. The military couldn't let that situation get out of hand.

You know that your story is different than than the accounts given at trial, right?

Weaseldog said...

Free said, "We don't do things like that, we don't execute children, or target civilians."

Actually you do. The US Military bombs populated areas and used white phosphorus in Fallujah.

The difference, is they do it up close, we do it with drone strikes and bombs.

How else do you get the enemy to admit defeat except by making their losses so high, so unacceptable, that they surrender their freedom to make you stop?


I don't know that I actually believe you are a veteran. I know real veterans in life. I know men that have come back from where you claim to be. And they don't talk or write anything like you. you actually write like a Republican or Army PR Agent. And it has made the paper that the US Military has been investing in online propaganda. I wouldn't be surprised if you and T. Pain weren't working cubicles on the same floor.

Weaseldog said...

Free, did you know, that the British didn't consider the American Irregulars to be soldiers either. They were considered to be traitors and criminals.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Actually you do. The US Military bombs populated areas and used white phosphorus in Fallujah.

Collateral Damage is an unfortunate side effect of ALL military conflict. However, every time we fired a WP round anywhere, it was at a legitimate military target that was positively ID'ed. Did civilians get hit from time to time? Sure, and that's tragic, but unavoidable. We gave the people of Fallujah ample opportunity to evacuate even after some of them burned Americans and hung them from bridges, and even when some didn't evacuate and aided enemy forces we still tried to save them and put Marines at GREAT risk to do so. We don't have a 0% rate on collateral damage, I wish we did even though it's impossible. It would make our mission much easier if we could wave that magic wand. I blame those who chose to fight in a built up area - AQI. We certainly didn't choose that. I know on our part we would much rather have met them out in the desert somewhere where no civilians would be hurt, but the enemy chose to use those civilians as a shield to take advantage of our policy of not attackign civilians and for propaganda purposes. Clearly that propaganda has effected your opionion. Frankly, the civilian deaths in Fallujah are ALL their fault. Be that as it may, we've still made more efforts to control collateral damage in this conflict than any other conflict in human history, going above and beyond what is required by the Laws of Land Warfare. Today in Iraq you can't even conduct a raid on an Iraqi home without a warrant issued by an Iraqi judge, nor can a detainee be held without trial in an Iraqi court. That's certainly a first in history.

How else do you get the enemy to admit defeat except by making their losses so high, so unacceptable, that they surrender their freedom to make you stop?

I'm not interested in obtaining the Iraqi people's freedom. Much the opposite. As for getting the enemy to surrender, it depends on the kind of war you are fighting. Not all wars are the same, and tactics must be adjusted per the individual situation. I know one thing, and that is AQI was defeated not once we reached some magic number of enemy KIA or took the Iraqi's new found freedom, but when the local Iraqis learned up close and personal how freak'n evil groups funded by Iran and Al Qaeda are and rejected them and mostly killed them, themselves through programs like the Son's of Iraq. they were much more effective at weeding out AQI than we were because they know their neighborhoods and terrain much better than we ever could.

I wouldn't be surprised if you and T. Pain weren't working cubicles on the same floor.

I started bloging for Army Psi Ops right after Dick Chaney had me blow up the World Trade Center

/ Sarcasm.

I got some tin foil if you need to make a hat or something. Sounds to me you've just never had your crazy ideas challenged before by intelligent people.

And as for the British, you are somewhat correct. I am certain however, the Continental Army didn't wage war by conducting a sectarian, religious cleansing in Boston like Al'Queda did in Al'Ambar province or the Mhadi Army did in Sadr City. The Continental Army acted in an honorable fashion in accordance with the laws of war at the time. Al Qaeda was barbaric by Attila the Hun standards.

free0352 said...

I would guess that you were too young when Clinton was in office to pay much attention.

I not only paid attention, you must have missed the part of an earlier post when I mentioned I was part of some of those operation during the 90s. Also I come from a military family, and some of those family members were flying the planes all those years over the No Fly Zone getting shot at. Trust me, we watched it intently.

free0352 said...

The war never ended, it has just gone through different stages since Bush I.

You're sort of grasping my point here. We FINISHED the war SADDAM started by invading Kuait, when we invaded in 2003.

free0352 said...

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

T. Paine said...

Jeff's Guard, I guess that means that if you were Dubya's VP, you would definitely not have retaliated for 9/11 against al Qaida.

Someone that stands by and lets evil prevail is far scarier than I or Free could ever be, sir.

Hey, Free, I am going to go get another cup of coffee; want me to bring a cup to you in your cubicle, buddy?

You all have every right to your messed up, America is evil, the plutocracy controls us all- opinions. That is the difference here. Soldiers still fight for that first amendment right of yours to free speech, regardless of how inaccurate and misguided it is. "President" Saddam was a little less tolerant of dissenting political speech in his country.

free0352 said...

Hey, Free, I am going to go get another cup of coffee; want me to bring a cup to you in your cubicle, buddy?

Hell yeah, after that I think we should work on tricking the American people into attacking and invading Cuba. I bet our bosses over at BushChaneyHaliburtonObamaClintonBlackHelicopterRethuglikkkanChristianBlackWaterMilitaryIndustrialComplex™ will give us a rise then!

By the way Paine, are you handling the Michael Moore assasination or is that me?

Jefferson's Guardian said...

T. Paine said...

"Jeff's Guard, I guess that means that if you were Dubya's VP, you would definitely not have retaliated for 9/11 against al Qaida."

No, what it does mean is that I wouldn't have retaliated by attacking a nation that wasn't harboring "terrorists" (Iraq).

and also this...

"Soldiers still fight for that first amendment right of yours to free speech"

Nope, sorry, I don't buy that overused and redundant line. As previously mentioned, the last war where that did occur was World War II. Every war and occupation since then has been contrived and entered into for the benefit of multinational corporations and the international banking syndicate. It's a fact.

Weaseldog said...

Free says, "You're sort of grasping my point here. We FINISHED the war SADDAM started by invading Kuait, when we invaded in 2003."

Our Ambassador gave Saddam tacit approval after he spoke to her about his options.

Kuwait was horizontal drilling into Iraq in violation of international law. Saddam appealed to the United Nations and the US, and ignored.

This was featured in a number of prominent news programs and mainstream papers and magazines at the time.

He probably should've just let the Kuwaitis steal $billions in oil from Iraq. I don't think he understood that his alliance with the US was limited to Halliburton's profits from working Iraq's oil fields and as a buffer against Iran.

And if you're from a military family then you should understand all too well Sun Tzu's most important lesson.

All War Is Deception.

When engaged in a war, never advertise your objectives. Sun Tzu says to appear to be attacking when you are retreating, and appear to retreat when you are attacking. He goes on to tell us that we should be deceptive about goals also. If the goal is to capture a certain strategic location, then you should appear that you are going after a different objective so your enemy will commit resources to prevent you from achieving a false objective.

In the days of modern media, the enemy will learn about objectives on television, radio and on the internet. So this is where the misinformation should be spread.

Unless our military leaders are complete morons that inject heroin straight into their brain stems every day, we should assume that they are following sound tried and true military strategies.

And everything they tell us about their stated objectives should be considered to be misdirection.

I believe that our military is meeting all of their real objectives, and what we see in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, etc... Is exactly what they set pout to achieve. Further, the two $trillion / year (and growing) in defense related spending is also part of the plan. Rumsfield kept telling us that he wanted a leaner cheaper military, and I think that was correct. But it was misdirection. He wanted to increase military spending but move more of it out of the gov's control and into private hands in COST+ expenditures.

You argued previously that this can't be a war for profit because the USA doesn't benefit from it. I'm with you there, it's a huge drain on resources and it's bankrupting our nation, just as Sun Tzu predicted. These expanding wars will eventually drive the USA into a deep economic depression. We've already seen the USSR do the same thing. We appear to be determined to repeat their mistakes.

But this doesn't mean that no one benefits from the wars. Two $trillion in annual expenditures for a growing military economy can produce a lot of big profits. Our COST+ contracting where private firms make bigger profits if their costs go up, just begs for waste, graft and fraud.

There is no sign any of this is turning around. Obama seems to have slowed things, but i don't think that's any evidence at all that he's not a chicken hawk. He's doing what Clinton did in softening up targets and building anti-American sentiment in more countries. When a Republican is elected next, that president can use Obama's groundwork to build a new series of wars on.

Another false flag attack by our Saudi friends would do the trick nicely. They financed 9/11 on the cheap. It wouldn't be hard for them to repeat that trick.

Weaseldog said...

Here's an article on one of my tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about how the legislature works in my warped little brain.

Free and TP both need to understand, that this is all in my imagination. You guys don't have to believe a word of it.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/10/the-billion-dollar-bank-heist.html

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Weaseldog, you've made very valid points, and I especially enjoyed the wisdom of Sun Tzu. Free0352 is terribly naive if he, in fact, "argued previously that this can't be a war for profit because the U.S.A. doesn't benefit from it." Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly you, or I, don't benefit, unless we're employed by Big Oil, a defense contractor, a major construction contracting firm, or we're a member of the international banking syndicate. Then, in this case, he's correct. Otherwise, the rewards and profits are enormous if one is a major stockholder or executive officer of any of these types of firms.

There are at least six ways that the corportacracy -- or to use the term that Dave Dubya coined, the "Corporatist Republicanism" -- benefits from permanent war. General Smedley Butler was right when he wrote that war is a racket. Today it's a permanent racket, and it's the fastest and most convenient way to alter a society economically. Under this corportacracy's permanent war policy, the costs to our nation have been tremendous, however for a select and elitist few, the riches have been unimaginable.

free0352 said...

Every war and occupation since then has been contrived and entered into for the benefit of multinational corporations and the international banking syndicate.

Lets assume that is correct. Aren't they and their assets entitled to the same protection our military extends to their employees... you know... they're part of THE PEOPLE too. Why should some dictator get to invade say... Kuwait... and steal the things they bought and paid for and damage the copanies. Millions of Americans own stock in Exxon for example... why should they suffer because Saddam Husien is a bully and wants to steal?

Our Ambassador gave Saddam tacit approval after he spoke to her about his options.

Yeah, that's what Saddam said. It's kinda laughable that you're taking his word for it over... almost EVERY OTHER PERSON IN AMERICA.

Kuwait was horizontal drilling into Iraq in violation of international law.

So the Iraqis were justified in invading Kuwait because Kuwait was aledgedly stealing resources... yet the US is wrong for invading a country for aledgedly stealing resources? What?

If the goal is to capture a certain strategic location, then you should appear that you are going after a different objective so your enemy will commit resources to prevent you from achieving a false objective.

Yeah, we did that... like drawing out Al Qaeda from their Afghan mountain fortress they used to defeat the russians... and tricked them into fighting on favorable Iraqi terrain, using it to set up an Arab democracy - fighting against which would erode popular support for Al Qaeda, it's life blood. Yeah, we'd never use deception.

I told you already, I own five different translation of Art of War and read it weekly. You aren't likely going to school me on Sun Tzu.

When engaged in a war, never advertise your objectives.

I don't pretend to be party to every classifed order in the Military, but I know what mine were. They weren't consistant with your theory.

it's a huge drain on resources and it's bankrupting our nation, just as Sun Tzu predicted. These expanding wars will eventually drive the USA into a deep economic depression. We've already seen the USSR do the same thing.

You are correct here, and we had a steep learning curve in this conflict... which sometimes we were behind. Wish we could have adapted faster, but it didn't work out that way. Frankly, our military in 2001 wasn't designed or trained to fight this type of war, and we had to learn how through trial and error. I must admit we could and should have been more nimble. We are however, doing a better job that the Soviet Union... at least we aren't putting armored divisions on mountain roads too narrow to hold them and we aren't masacring towns.

Our COST+ contracting where private firms make bigger profits if their costs go up, just begs for waste, graft and fraud.

Agreed, at least when it comes to KBR. But that doesn't make the justification for the war wrong... just some of it's management.

There is no sign any of this is turning around.

We are facing struggles in Afghanistan, but I think we've made great strides in Iraq and I think we can too in Afghanistan. Libya and Yemen are fine tactically, it's not a boots on the ground kind of war there. I admit I didn't support action in Libya... however sadly you can't unring that bell. I do support our actions in Yemen.

but i don't think that's any evidence at all that he's not a chicken hawk.

I think elected leadership is very important to a military, especially one as powerful as ours. I certainly don't think it should be a requirement for that leadership to have served in the military, or for that leadership to have been in combat to order me or anyone else to go into combat.

Free and TP both need to understand, that this is all in my imagination

On this, we certainly agree.

Weaseldog said...

Free, I took a stroll through you blog.

I'll borrow Dave's point and take it a step forward, and state that you seem to have dedicated your blog to illustrating the differences in the tiny gulf between moderate right wing corporatists and radical right wing corporatists.

You make it seem that you admire Reagan, yet he's left of Obama. If Obama the Chicken Hawk is a liberal, then Reagan must've been a leftist liberal. He was bigger on liberal social programs such as amnesty for illegals, than Obama will ever demonstrate.

Real Liberalism(Tm) is long dead in the USA. What you and other radical right wingers are now vilifying as Liberalism, used to be right wing Republicanism.

In five years, when your current position has moved to the left, and is portrayed as moderate, tending towards liberalism, will you have continued to stay with the radical right? Are you going to keep moving to the right?

Weaseldog said...

Free, as to your comments about how the American Revolution lacked the horrors of war that have been unleashed in Iraq, that's untrue.

Many of the original irregulars were colonials that fought in the French Indian War. They carried the tactics they used against the American Indians such as scalping men women and children alive, into the war against the British.

That aspect of the war just isn't taught in public schools, because it's not patriotic. You'll have to dig deeper to learn about specific tactics used against British sympathizers and their families. And vice versa... It was a real horror show. One thing it had going for it though, is it didn't last as long as our current wars.

Weaseldog said...

Free said, "Yeah, that's what Saddam said. It's kinda laughable that you're taking his word for it over... almost EVERY OTHER PERSON IN AMERICA."

No, actually our Ambassador to Iraq told this story in a 60 Minutes interview, just before the US invaded Iraq.

Weaseldog said...

Free says, "So the Iraqis were justified in invading Kuwait because Kuwait was aledgedly stealing resources... yet the US is wrong for invading a country for aledgedly stealing resources? What?"

Choose one.
1. A nation is justified when it invades another nation to steal it's resources.

2. A nation is not justified when it invades another nation to steal it's resources.

You've been arguing all along that when an American kills someone to steal their stuff, they are justified, but if someone who's isn't an Americans kills someone to steal their stuff, it's wrong.

It appears that you're starting to see the contradiction in what you're arguing. That is a good sign.

free0352 said...

Choose one.

Option two.

We haven't invaded anyone to steal anything. What have we stolen from Iraq? Their oil business is nationalized and they sell it at the prices they set, to whom ever they choose. They have nothing else to sell.

Afghanistan doesn't have anything worth stealing.

The only contradiction, is that you find Iraq's invasion of Kuwait justified because it set out to steal Kuwaiti oil, and the US's 1991 Gulf War (and it's Iraq war contintuation) unjustified because it set out to protect a key ally who was one of our key suppliers of oil. Stealing oil is okay, but protecting a friend isn't? What?

free0352 said...

such as amnesty for illegals

You must not have read my blog very carefully, what ever on it gave you the idea I'm not in support of this? You asked what Paine and I disagree about? That issue would be one of those things.

I don't move in any political "direction." I think that whole school of thought is abusrd. I'm too "all over" that spectrum for it to matter.

Weaseldog said...

Free, I've enjoyed out conversation.

You say that your orders prove my arguments are wrong.

And my main argument is that we're having wars, simply because they are profitable.

I pointed out that Sun Tzu teaches us to use the troops in deceptive ways, so the enemy won't know the main objective.

This would of course include giving order to satisfy side objectives that are designed to for PR purposes.

So without divulging classified information, can you give a clue as to how your orders reduced the flow of money from the US Taxpayer to KBR? Or some similar anecdote?

Did you mission halt the growth in military spending, and took, say $100 Billion in profits away from Halliburton?

I can believe that you engaged in humanitarian missions and did work to bring down cells of resistance, but these are necessary precursors to creating a safe environment for predatory corporate expansion.

If that's what you're doing, then you're doing the same thing British soldiers did to help the East India Co take control of India, China and Africa. That really just makes you a low paid merc, taking orders for a gov that's a proxy for corporations.

Weaseldog said...

free0352 said... "such as amnesty for illegals (Ronald Reagan)

You must not have read my blog very carefully, what ever on it gave you the idea I'm not in support of this? You asked what Paine and I disagree about? That issue would be one of those things.

Exactly my point. From your perspective, Ronald Reagan is a commie liberal. I guess I didn't get to the article where you blasted Ronald Reagan for being a socialist pinko.

I thought Paine was against Ronald Reagan's Amnesty for Illegals plan too. Are you T. Paine?

Weaseldog said...

free0352 said..., "Option two.

We haven't invaded anyone to steal anything. What have we stolen from Iraq? Their oil business is nationalized and they sell it at the prices they set, to whom ever they choose. They have nothing else to sell."


It's not a secret that the Iraqi gov only gets a fraction of the money that they are due. Halliburton and the other contractors are ferreting most of the profits out of the country.

"Afghanistan doesn't have anything worth stealing."

The international banking system is highly dependant on the huge flow of money from the illicit drug trade. The poppy fields are of prime international strategic importance.

Further, the Afghanistan and the Taliban were allies of the USA until their visit in Houston, with Enron where they failed to come to terms over a proposed pipeline deal.

Right after this occurred, Ken Lay and other members of the energy industry met with Dick Cheney in his Energy Task Force Meeting. Following the meeting, the White House began publically condemning it's previous allies, the Taliban. The media began blasting a campaign against Burkas and the Taliban's ongoing program to eliminate other religions. Both were practiced the USA had no problem with when Ken Lay was negotiating with the Taliban.

Now the pipeline is finished and our military patrols it, as it's a prime target of sabotage. The best part is that the oil industry was fully subsidized, pays no royalties for the use of the and has the UN providing security.

"The only contradiction, is that you find Iraq's invasion of Kuwait justified because it set out to steal Kuwaiti oil, and the US's 1991 Gulf War (and it's Iraq war contintuation) unjustified because it set out to protect a key ally who was one of our key suppliers of oil. Stealing oil is okay, but protecting a friend isn't? What?"

I was just illustrating your hypocrisy.

Bush I had the power to prevent the first Gulf War. The Bush I wouldn't have given Saddam permission, if he didn't want a pretext for invasion.

All of that took years to come to a head. If the UN and the USA put pressure on Kuwait to close the wells, they would've done so.

Another option would've been to negotiate a leasing agreement and a royalty plan.

Kuwait still operates the horizontal drilling rigs, pumping Iraqi oil. So clearly they have benefited from the $trillions that the US taxpayer has contributed, to help them keep stealing.

Weaseldog said...

Free said, "You must not have read my blog very carefully, what ever on it gave you the idea I'm not in support of this? You asked what Paine and I disagree about? That issue would be one of those things."

Ooops thought you were saying you are not in support.

I didn't peg you for being a liberal.

Are you a liberal?

Weaseldog said...

As to Smedley Butler being institutionalized. That used to be a common way to get rid of people.

It might still be, though regular prisons work well enough. Just hack their computer, upload child porn add a few incriminating browsing records and call in the tip. With rootkit access you can customize a computer to match any crime you like.

In the dark ages of the USA mental institutions, some men found them to be a convenient way to get rid of wives. The Church wouldn't provide annulments for just any reason. It was tough bar to reach if you already had children, but incurable insanity was an acceptable reason.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352 you either cleverly or naively said...

"Lets assume that is correct. Aren't they and their assets entitled to the same protection our military extends to their employees... you know... they're part of THE PEOPLE too. Why should some dictator get to invade say... Kuwait... and steal the things they bought and paid for and damage the copanies. Millions of Americans own stock in Exxon for example... why should they suffer because Saddam Husien is a bully and wants to steal?"

Yes, let's do assume this is correct -- which it is. (It has been confirmed by many of your own, so we'll move on...)

The Bush Administration justified the war -- and the American public initially accepted that justification -- on the grounds that Iraq posed a terrorist threat to the U.S. These justifications included: (1) Potential connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and (2) The possibility that Hussein was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction that might fall into the hands of terrorists. These justifications have been shown to be false, and as a matter of fact, have proven to be purposely fraudulent. In other words, the Bush Administration intentionally took us to war under false pretenses.

Now, where does the unilateral invasion of Iraq even remotely dovetail with your question?

Nonetheless, with a big broad brushstroke reply, to your big broad brushstroke question, the answer is no.

T. Paine said...

I really don't need to contribute anything to the debate as Free has done a masterful job all on his own.

That said, Weasel asked, "I thought Paine was against Ronald Reagan's Amnesty for Illegals plan too. Are you T. Paine?"

I am absolutely against amnesty for illegal aliens. Further, in retrospect so was Ronald Reagan.

His son, Michael Reagan, recounted several years ago how his dad had told him that this was perhaps his biggest regret of his presidency.

Aside from not retaliating for the deaths in the terrorist bombming of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, I would have to agree with Ronald Reagan in his assessment.

T. Paine said...

Jeff's Guard, just because Mother Jones and Daily Kos said that Bush lied about Iraq does not make it so.

Saddam was in violation of a UN resolution to allow inspection teams UNFETTERED access to ensure he was in compliance with the disarming of his WMD programs. He continuously reneged and stalled the inspectors.

Our bi-partisan congress, including Democrat presidential candidate Hillary, voted for authorization to use military force if Saddam did not abide by that UN resolution.

Saddam did indeed have terrorists ties, and indeed British Intelligence still sticks to its story to this day regarding his regime trying to acquire yellow cake uranium from Niger. Something of which Joe Wilson lied about and has since been thoroughly discredited.

Further, Saddam offered bounties to the remaining families of homicide bombers that killed Israelis, who used to be our ally prior to this administration.

There were several suggestive ties and apparent cooperation between Saddam and al Qaida as well, including training camps within Iraq's borders. This was reported by Stephen Hayes, and summarily dismissed by the left because it doesn't meet their preconceived notions that Bush was evil and lied.

I would spend the time and give you a bunch of links from credible sources citing these facts, but you would ignore the data anyway and I don't feel like wasting the time for nothing.

free0352 said...

The Bush Administration justified the war

I seem to recall 13 reasons George Bush gave for invading Iraq, mine amoung them. It's not my fault you have selective memory.

These justifications have been shown to be false,

Which ones? The one where Saddam didn't follow his cease fire agreement we were nice enough to let him sign? His support for Islamic Jihad? His refusal to have his military inspected? His firing on US aircraft? Or his illigal invasion of Kuwait?

And that will never will be true because we killed Saddam.

the answer is no.

Why don't corporations (which after all, are made up of people) have a right to have their assets defended? Don't they pay taxes for that sort of thing?

Anonymous said...

(Rasmussen) — Voters remain strongly supportive of a free market economy over one controlled by the government and still think small businesses are hurt more than big businesses when the government does get involved.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 72% of Likely U.S. Voters believe a free market economy is better than an economy managed by the government. Just 14% think a government-managed economy is better. Another 14% are not sure.

Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly prefer a free market approach. Among these segments of the electorate, the number preferring a government-managed economy is in the single digits.

Among Democrats, 48% say a free market is better, but 29% think a government-managed economy is the answer. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of those who work for a private company give the nod to a free market economy, compared to 53% of government employees.

RedStateFred said...

Dave Dubya

If we had small government and term limits, in what the Founders of this country intended, would lobbyists be able to get special breaks from the government for the special interests they represent? You paint a phoney picture that only Republicans in congress are manipulated by lobbyists and special interest groups. Would the Pelosi's have the same wealth if Nancy had not been in politics?

Dave, you and Ellis D need to back off on the pot. It is clouding your reasoning.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

free0352, misleadingly claimed...

"I seem to recall 13 reasons George Bush gave for invading Iraq, mine amoung them. It's not my fault you have selective memory."


"Shortly after the invasion, the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies largely discredited evidence related to Iraqi weapons and, as well as links to Al Qaeda, and at this point the Bush and Blair Administrations began to shift to secondary rationales for the war, such as the Hussein government's human rights record and promoting democracy in Iraq."
Sure, the list probably does total thirteen, but they were grasping at straws after the two initial reasons were presented to be lies.

It's not my fault you have no memory.

You also said...

"Why don't corporations (which after all, are made up of people) have a right to have their assets defended? Don't they pay taxes for that sort of thing?"

They do -- in a court of law. But that's not the reason we're in Afghanistan and Iraq, is it? And, no, that's not the reason they pay taxes. You've got it backwards. The corporations go in after the occupation and "rape and plunder" (after you guys, that is.)

Sorry. Try again with your inane deflection.

Just the Facts! said...

JG,
Why don't you move to a country that you feel taxes the rich enough? If you could find one.

Dave Dubya said...

Freddy,
You paint a phoney picture that only Republicans in congress are manipulated by lobbyists and special interest groups.

No, I don't. You’d better back off that Koolade, it obviously impairs your ability to read, among other cognitive functions.

Forgive me if I cannot respond to all of your lapses...

TP,
I totally agree: just because Mother Jones and Daily Kos said that Bush lied about Iraq does not make it so.

Bush's lies make it so. Unlike those "nukular aluminum tubes", the truth is there.

Did you hear the one about the "biological labs" when he said, "We FOUND the Weapons of mass destruction"?

That was a lie, too. You don't remember that one, I bet.

And Cheney's fabricated "Prague meeting", that he said was "pretty much confirmed".

They lied hundreds of times. We have them on tape, you know.

Free,

Since you are the expert, you are aware that the past month's bombings have freed dozens of Iraqis, from existence. I can’t guess at the annual totals.

And you know darn well, our people are being killed.

Since the first of June 18 more American families will not be joining your victory celebrations.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Looking back I overlooked your answer to my MIC question.

You were annoyed about the waste of money. Good for you. Ike was not referring to money, he was warning about influence. You know, that stuff I rant about all the time.

Check out Eisenhower's Farewell Address. I suggest reading it all, but this is the part I refer to:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

free0352 said...

Dubya,

You need to learn the difference between incorrect intelligence and a lie. There is a reason we call Intelligence an oxymoron you know...

you are aware that the past month's bombings have freed dozens of Iraqis, from existence.

Yes attacks are down 800% from 2005, but hey nothings perfect. Also, I would point out that if we had a greater presence there, that likely would not have happened. However, it's time for the Iraqi security forces to take over totally and there will be some growing pains for them. Cut them some slack, there Army is only seven years old where ours is 236 or so.

And you know darn well, our people are being killed.

Nature of war, but hey... we volunteered. There won't be any signings on the Iowa this war, but the victory is just as real.

As for Ike, I actually currently reside in his home town, believe it or not. The same Ike that placed the Shah in power in Iran with Operation Ajax, the same who conducted Operation PB Success in Guatemala, and the same Ike that started what became known as the Bay of Pigs? The same Ike that involved the CIA with numerous operations known and unknown in Latin America to benifit *gasp* corporations like the United Fruit Company? The same Ike that first sent ad visors to *gasp* Vietnam? Sounds like Ike wanted us to keep a good eye on things, but had NO PROBLEM projecting power. Wish we still had em', he knew how to get things done!

John Myste said...

I have not had time to completely keep up with this very entertaining debate. Can someone tell me who won?

Just the Facts! said...

Or you could read what then Secy of the Treasury under FDR Henry Morgenthua said about Govt stimulus spending.
It was May 1939 to his fellow democrats on the House Ways and Means committee.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job.
We have not made good on our promises… I say after 8 years of this Administration (FDR) we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”
From Morgenthau Diary, May 9th, 1939 , Roosevelt Presidential Library…

free0352 said...

It's not a secret that the Iraqi gov only gets a fraction of the money that they are due.

Um... I don't think so.

Now I think you're just making shit up.

They do -- in a court of law.

Somehow I don't think "Saddam, Saddam! Please don't hurt me or steal my oli rigs!?" is a working stratagy for the situation in Kuwait in 1991. BTW, we don't "rape and plunder," and corporations in Iraq work exactly the same in Iraq they do everywhere else. But riddle me this, how have the "evil corporations" raped Iraq exactly?

And lastly, "Bush" didn't authorize the use of force in Iraq, Congress did, and Bush carried our their order. Go read it for it's self here.

I'll quote some of it.

Let me ask you?

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Where's the lie?

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region

Please explain how Saddam was not a threat to at least the Persian Gulf region.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Where is the lie?

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations[other than Al Qaeda], including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Where is the lie?

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Where is the lie?

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Where is the lie?


Lastly, SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


Where is the lie?

Dave Dubya said...

Just the Fact , (As in singular.)

You guys never tell the whole story. For good reason.
Here are more facts you care not to mention.

Morganthou aided in financing the New Deal and supported the WPA, CCC, etc. He was philosophically opposed to Keynesian economics but understood the nature of the emergency.

Let’s look at the numbers. Hoover and his corporation coddling, tax cutting Republicans bestowed upon FDR a Great Depression with nearly a quarter of America’s workers unemployed. I bet they didn’t even consider women as unemployed back then either. Those were dark and dire times, indeed.

Then the man who was accused of betraying his class took office. He was a brave Democrat who said, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hatred for me — and I welcome their hatred.”
The unemployment rate FELL each year during FDR’s first term.


Roosevelt tried deficit spending, but he was too timid. Then he stopped in 1937 and the economy nose-dived.

By 1937 it was cut down from 25% to 14.3%. By 1938, after pressure from Republicans, of course, to back off his policies, the rate went back up to 19%.

FDR learned his lesson. He ignored them and 14.6% was regained by 1940. Apart from three weeks of the year of 1941 we were still not in the war; and it was down to 9.9%.
So, BEFORE the war FDR restored 15% of the jobs lost under Big Money Republican rule.


Facts. Look ‘em up.


Free,
Tell me when those families of the recent dead share you victory mentality. But my opinion matters as little as yours to them. They are dead. Why? Because people believed Bush’s lies. Fact.

Just can’t get on topic with the MIC “influence” thing can you? Why not? You are a Golden Ruler anyway. You believe those with the gold make the rules. You support the undemocratic rule by the economic elites. Just admit you don’t like democracy. You really don’t, because it is clear by your Right Wing authoritarian position on every issue. Don’t give me that tyranny of the majority crap about democracy. The majority of Americans are not represented as it is.

“The difference between incorrect intelligence and a lie.”

You are parroting the Bushies again, blaming false intelligence. What else is new? They cooked the intel to fit their war-mongering. Cheney was at the CIA making sure the cherry picking was just “Right”. The British Downing Street minutes confirm intelligence was “fixed” around policy.. Anyone paying attention knew this as well.

Bush lied about Saddam’s ties to AQ. He lied about ‘nukular” tubes. Cheney lied about Prague. The list goes on. Have you not read a thing I wrote?

If Bush said “our intelligence indicates...” then maybe it would not be a lie. Even then it would be doubtful, knowing how they cooked the intel. He stated his false claims as certainties, obviously not being certain. Those are called lies.

Now go show me those “nukular tubes” and biological labs. We knew they were lies at the time, but if you believe real hard, they must be there.

You sir, like TP, are a true believer. It is amazing how you say you don’t trust politicians, but you buy everything, really, everything Bush/Cheney said.

Just the Facts! said...

"Roosevelt tried deficit spending, but he was too timid. Then he stopped in 1937 and the economy nose-dived."

So the problem was FDR didn't spend enough? Can't say that about our current President, he has more debt than the previous 47 Presidents and we still have over 9% unemployment. Talk about revisionist history!

The only problem is we are not taxed and regulated enough and government is not spending enough.
Amazing.
Please give me your sources so I can look them up.

T. Paine said...

And Dubya calls ME a true believer! Talk about someone that ignores history, facts, and logic and then has the audacity to claim it is we who are the "true believers".

I'll tell you what I do believe in though. I believe, that despite its many faults, America is still the greatest country on earth. It has made horrible mistakes in its history and is one of very few countries that has attempted to right those wrongs.

I don't believe in 95% of our politicians; I don't believe in hate-America-first-and-always revisionist history; I don't believe in failed Keynesian economic philosophy. I don't believe that if we put the government in charge of everything and outlawed big corporations or better yet, federalized them like Lord Obama did with GM and Chrysler, that the world would be a better place.

Congress and Obama's spending will finally do what many on the left have long wanted; it will destroy America.

Ya know what? If everyone works for the government, then that really doesn't leave anyone left to pay their salaries through taxes does it?

Those big corporations you rail against may have faults, but they do supply jobs and products. Government supplies entitlements and little else. I don't want to live in your make-believe utopia of Amerika, Dubya.

free0352 said...

Tell me when those families of the recent dead share you victory mentality. But my opinion matters as little as yours to them. They are dead. Why? Because people believed Bush’s lies. Fact.

I've been to more military funerals than I care to count, and universally the parents of the deceased have been gracious, patriotic and supportive of their sons and their cause. I'm sure there are some parents out there in the minority along with some wives... but that has not at all been my experience. Some of my best friends are Gold Star Moms, the moms of my friends. They wouldn't appreciate your comments here at all, of that I'm certain.

You guys never tell the whole story. For good reason.

So you admit I'm right in a sideways fashion and then circle back to the straws your grasping at... the TWO (of many, many reasons) we went to war with Iraq that weren't true.

Okay, Saddam Hussein didn't have a nuclear bomb and he wasn't a member of Al Qaeda. He never will be or have one either... because he's dead and his sick sons are dead and the world is a better place without him. THATS a fact.

You are parroting the Bushies again, blaming false intelligence

I am parroting... all the intelligence I saw prior to Bush's election no less. Oh, I forgot... Obama, the Clintons and the Bush's not to mention Nanci Peolci and Dick Chaney are all in it together. Uh-huh. It's not me who sounds like a "true believer" here.

Hoover and his corporation coddling, tax cutting Republicans

Weeeellllll not EXACTLY. Hoover actually raised taxes it seems. So did FDR famously, to some ludicrous 80%+ levels. If you mean that succeeded in that you mean it drove the country into the economic abyss then you are correct.

By the way, even Keynesian's admit now that WWII was what brought us out of the Depression. That sure was a lot of government spending... and pretty perverse to call that prosperity. Rationing, rubber drives and austerity. Also, it's pretty easy to have full employment when there's a war and a draft. And guess what? Even after the New Deal spending that is nothing compared to what even George Bush spent... let alone Democrats... after WWII we went right back into recession because we never let the peace time economy correct and prices and the market work. It was only after the conservatism of your old buddy Eisenhower that things got back on track. They didn't really take off till YOUR GUY JFK cut taxes. I guess shockingly the lesson we should learn from that is: When you take money away from people... they become poorer.

You believe those with the gold make the rules.

One thing about contemporary America... we certainly aren't at want for rules. We regulate everything. That's why I advocate people ruling their own lives by reducing the power, size, and scope of government. With no tool of oppression, those with the gold have nothing to make rules with. Without government, those with the gold just have a pile of shiny metal.

free0352 said...

If everyone works for the government, then that really doesn't leave anyone left to pay their salaries through taxes does it?

Well Paine, you know what they say? Socialism sounds great till your run out of other people's money.

free0352 said...

So the problem was FDR didn't spend enough? Can't say that about our current President, he has more debt than the previous 47 Presidents and we still have over 9% unemployment. Talk about revisionist history!

Haahaha well said!

Dave Dubya said...

Just the (FOX),

Unemployment decreased through his first four years and increased when FDR caved to Republicans. You can’t grasp that, can you? Of course not, it runs contrary to your indoctrination.

Why don’t you admit Bush and even your demagogue demigod Reagan had more debt than their predecessors? Did that make them socialists? Of course not. Obama shares that circumstance too, but that makes him a “socialist” to the fanatical Right. You reek of double standards of a narrow hateful ideology.

You said, “we are not taxed and regulated enough and government is not spending enough”. I did not. Now you are just lying.

I will not waste my time responding to outright lies. I will simply call you a liar and be done with it.

TP,
Now you have crossed the line into fascist rhetoric. Now you suggest I hate and want to “destroy America”. That would me a mortal enemy to our country if it were true. It makes you sound like a fascist if it were not true. All because I want expiring tax rates to expire and want more democratic representation in our government. You fanaticism is showing.

Let’s pretend you and Free are correct for second. We went to war based on “false intelligence” and not propaganda lies. If thousands of Americans died based on false intelligence, would that not be considered one of the “horrible mistakes” you admit were made? If so, is it also not a horrible mistake to fail to investigate how such intelligence was accepted and selected? No, let’s just trust the pure motives and honesty of Bush and Cheney. That’s what true believers would do. So you are happy there was no investigation into that horrible mistake.

ignores history, facts, and logic and then has the audacity to claim it is we who are the "true believers".

There you go again. Just like JTP you make a generalized assertion about me based on nothing. You don’t believe in 95% of politicians, yet you openly admit you believe Bush and Cheney. They were bastions of truth to you and Free. Do you have any idea that puts you in a small a group of “true believer” fanatics? That is not my “claim”. It is your stated belief. See the difference? Yet you insist I am the one ignoring logic. Sad. This reminds be of a Moonie telling my I have no faith. You know the Moonies, right? They are the cult of Bush family friend and right wing media Washington Times owner Sun Myung Moon. And you wonder why I call Republican “conservatism” a cult.

Your honesty and your foundation of your claim that I ignore “history, facts and logic” are as evident as those “nukular” aluminum tubes and “biological labs”.

Where did I say “put the government in charge of everything and outlaw big corporations”? I didn’t. And you are dishonest, or fanatical, to make that accusation. In fact, you and Free are both wild-eyed fanatics if you think letting temporary tax cuts for billionaires expire is “America-hating socialism”. Get a grip. Restoring 3-5% rates on the economic elite makes sense if you are really as concerned about our country as you are about the comforts of the elites. As I indicated, shilling for the rich and powerful takes no courage at all. But cheer up, they will win. They always do thanks to you true believers.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Just the facts! told the following lie, and incredibly, Free0352 confirmed it...

"So the problem was FDR didn't spend enough? Can't say that about our current President, he has more debt than the previous 47 Presidents and we still have over 9% unemployment. Talk about revisionist history!"

{{Citation Needed}}

In actuality, it's Republican presidents of recent memory who take the award for spendthrifts. See
Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP
chart. Facts don't lie, but Just the Facts! does -- constantly.

Oh, and how many presidents were in office prior to Obama? (If you can't recite a simple fact correctly, what makes you think anyone will think you have an ounce of credibility with anything else? See? Caught in another lie...)

By the way, as far as "revisionist history", you guys wrote the book.

Anonymous said...

Well, Jefferson's Guardian, your horse manure posts are sure getting deep. I do believe I'll have to wear my chest waders the next time I wade into reading one of them. Your last post today almost crested my hip boots.

The Heathen Republican said...

Jefferson's Guardian, that chart on Wikipedia has been debunked as skewed since it presents things by presidential term.

When you see the debt presented by a combination of White House party and congressional party, it's clear that the Democrats have created our debt problem. The president is only one-third of the budget process, but nice try.

Power To The Tea Party! said...

2012 will be the 80th anniversary of Franklin Roosevelt's accession to the Presidency, marking the start of America's 80-year disastrous experiment in the Welfare State. It's a lovely irony that a man who professes to admire FDR will very likely be the last of America's Welfare State Presidents.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

The Heathen Republican said...

"Jefferson's Guardian, that chart on Wikipedia has been debunked as skewed since it presents things by presidential term" [Emphasis my own].

Reread the original paragraph. I didn't establish the basis, or set the parameters, of the argument, Just the Facts! did. I only responded in kind.

Thank you for your analysis. That's very impressive. But, it leaves out one important detail. As you know, the president proposes and submits a budget to Congress each year. Once it's kicked around in the House and Senate Budget Committees, and their conference bill passes both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the president. He either signs the bill or vetoes it. If he signs, the bill becomes law. If not, it returns to Congress for another rewrite.

It's the "power of the pen." As Harry Truman famously said, "The buck stops here."

The moral of this story: Republican presidents apparently have signed-off on a hell of a lot more spending increases than Democratic presidents have.

Just the facts!

The Heathen Republican said...

I didn't say you set the parameters, but you are citing a chart that has an inherent bias.

First, I disagree. The House has to pass the budget, as does the Senate, so they each have a "veto" in the process, as well as the ability to override the president's veto. In my opinion, there is equal blame across the White House, Senate, and House.

But second, I'll let you have it your way as long as you're willing to blame Obama, as the president who "proposes and submits a budget" in the present cycle. I don't know, but I assume you think Republicans in the House are obstructing The One's ability to pass a jobs bill, fix unemployment, or raise the debt ceiling.

Have it your way, but you won't get to blame Republicans in the House if all budget issues are the full responsibility of the president.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen Republican, if you've read any of my blog posts, or have followed me at all here, or on Tom Degan's "The Rant", you'll know I'm no fan of Obama's. I view him as a corporatist, like (at least) the four presidents who preceded him. I view all presidents, since at least 1980, as neo-cons. Any differences are marginal and inconsequential. They all have served their corporate overlords to the detriment of the people.

It surprises me, no-end, that he's (Obama) deemed to be a "socialist" by the Right, when in fact he's so far right of center that the whole political spectrum has shifted like an over-weighted see-saw. As Dave Dubya has remarked on more than one occasion, Richard Nixon would we viewed as a "flaming liberal" in today's environment.

For example, your party's disenchantment with what you call ObamaCare is surprising to me. It would seem you'd be for it, considering that it's such a golden goose for the health care insurers. Probably surprising to you, I'm against it also. For this very reason, and because it mandates that I purchase insurance through one of these insurers if I'm not already insured.

Oh, by the way, you're wrong about your last statement. Yes, I can blame Republicans in the House if this budget impasse results in our government defaulting on its debt. After all, I'm an equal-opportunity "blamer". Can you claim the same?

The Heathen Republican said...

@Jefferson's Guardian: I haven't read your blog, but I recently added you to my blog roll, so I'll get to know your views soon enough.

What I hear you saying is that Republican presidents are to blame for our debt before now, and you're happy to blame Republicans in the House now instead of the Democrat president who is presiding over the spending. Doesn't sound equal opportunity to me.

I'm conservative, so I'll complain about Republicans when they don't do conservative things. But progressives and Democrats provide a lot more fodder, so I prefer to keep my powder dry for them.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I don't expect families of Bush's war victims to take comfort from my reporting on the lies that led to their loved ones' deaths. Honest families would not condemn me though. I also don't expect them to share your gloating and “victory” celebrations either. That just seems insulting to their sacrifice.

Mission Accomplished. Yeah it sure was. It got Bush reelected.

"You guys never tell the whole story. For good reason."

You are losing focus here. I don't have time to correct all your misreading and distractions. You not only took this out of context, you ignored the point I made that unemployment was shrinking throughout FDR's first term. This had nothing to do with WWII. Unlike the false propaganda of the Right, FDR was making progress for the American people way before the war.

You may now continue to ignore my points about FDR and the disproportionate influence by the MIC.

From now on I will simply say you are off base, instead of correcting your deficit of reading comprehension.

You do like to assert corporate power will be lessened by smaller government. If corporate power is greater that government's they no longer need to operate within the law. All evidence of corporate power exceeding government's power leads to them filling the power vacuum and destroying the peoples' last recourse for justice and representation. This is where corporatist republicanism is killing democracy. My point stands.

You see, no matter how small a government is, it is more powerful than individuals, and corporate power will dictate, and have dictated, public policy under your ideology.

Is this complicated?

And when did I ever say I believed democrats' cowardly parroting of Bush/Cheney war mongering propaganda? Nowhere. That shameful pandering was for their reelection in country suffering from war frenzy.

You are a true believer regarding those dems as well, apparently.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Heathen Republican, you said...

"What I hear you saying is that Republican presidents are to blame for our debt before now, and you're happy to blame Republicans in the House now..."

I'm sorry you heard it incorrectly -- or at least made some major assumptions. If, however, Republicans choose to pull the plug (instead of raising the debt ceiling and then continuing the budget conversation), which it appears they are willing to do, I'd say, yes, it's apparent who will be the primary target of my disgust.

I'm progressive in my values. Like you and your conservative values, I complain when Democrats cease to be Democrats and don't act progressive.

Just the Facts! said...

"Unemployment decreased through his first four years and increased when FDR caved to Republicans. You can’t grasp that, can you? Of course not, it runs contrary to your indoctrination."

History does not support your claims.

Dave Dubya said...

JTF,

Real history does support me. I gave you the facts and you came back with a simple-minded lie.

What do you know about history anyway, Junior?

Everything Rush, Hannity and Glenn Beck University taught you?

You are the fact-inpaired one, son. I told you, your indoctrination runs contrary to reality. Go back to your fascist cult.

I warned you. I will not waste my time responding to outright lies. I will simply call you a liar and be done with it.

You are a liar.

Promise kept.

free0352 said...

Honest families would not condemn me though.

Implying Gold Star families are dishonest? I suggest never entering a VFW hall... ever... for your own safety.

That just seems insulting to their sacrifice.

It's not.

Mission Accomplished. Yeah it sure was. It got Bush reelected.

Yes, it did. Doing the right thing has that effect on voters. He certainly didn't win because of his stellar oratory skills.

You are a true believer regarding those dems as well, apparently

Or... it could be they did the right thing and then sold out the President for political purposes... nah a politician would never do that!

FDR was making progress for the American people way before the war.

You think the 1930s were progress? That explains all the insane things Progressives want to do and have done to the economy... Repeating the 30s! You guys are doing a wonderful job of repeating that decade of misery these days. Please stop.

If corporate power is greater that government's they no longer need to operate within the law.

Thats frankly impossible. Think I'm kidding? Who would win in a war between Exxon and the Untied States? Oh wait... I'll go one better, who would win in a war between Exxon and say... the smallest police force in the tiniest town in United States. Answer... government. Obviously, they have tanks and nuclear weapons and air craft carriers. The best a corporation can do if you don't pay them is sue you for they money and hope government makes you pay them... if you don't pay your taxes government will arrest you on the spot. You can sue corporations for literally frivolous reasons... government has quantified immunity. You have to CHOOSE to give your money to a corporation in exchange for a good or service they have... Try choosing not to pay your taxes or follow a law and watch what happens to you. Government is raw power, naked force. Even Democracy is force, because it makes law and that law is backed up by people with guns.

Without a strong government, everyone is equally powerless over each other- in my world that's a good thing. We don't need some bureaucrat in Washington calling the shots or paying my rent. A strong government that is powerful enough to give you every thing you need is also powerful enough to take everything you have. It's funny how on the one had you will blame corporations for the prohibition against marijuana... and there may be some truth to that... and then in the same breath argue you want to strengthen the very tool these corporations use to outlaw your beloved BUD.

That doesn't make any sense. You say I'm authoritarian when I argue for fewer taxes, fewer laws, fewer regulations... and then present yourself as anti authoritarian as you argue for higher taxes, more laws, more regulations...

I have to ask... are you on crack?

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

Without a strong government, everyone is equally powerless over each other.

Yes, maybe on an individual level. That did not, and would not, stop corporate goons from killing miners wanting union representation. Government would not send the military against a corporation, especially one that dominates it, but they sure have used the military against the people.

This is why you scare people. They get the impression you would round them up and detain them without charges, or worse, if so ordered. This is what I mean by authoritarian.

There you go again.

Mischaracterizing and drawing non-existent implications. Then again, that is what you need to do to dispute what I say.

Bush’s war was not at all popular in 2005 and he would have lost the election when the death toll rose. His popularity plummeted. You don’t remember that, do you?

“You think the 1930s were progress?”

See, I told you that you were losing focus. No, that’s not what I wrote. Go back and read, slowly if you need to, the fact that FDR lowered unemployment way before WWII.

I do think that Koolade you guys slurp impairs your ability to read, as well as other cognitive functions. It certainly obliterates any compassion for all but the wealthy elite.

Just the Facts! said...

DD,

Where did you get your "real history"?

You are wrong.

History does not support your claims or statements.

Liberalism has been failing America since 1931 by being unable to keep the promises it has made to the American citizens. If it were not so, with all the regulations that has been passed in it's name, with the trillions of tax dollars that has been spent in it's programs, how come there is still poverty in American? Why, after over 70 years of the Progressive/liberal movement, they still are unable to claim victory?
Could it be due to the FACT that Liberalism, Socialism, or Progressivism, what ever you want to call it, can not keep it's promises and therefore lies to it's proponents? Saying that with just one more tax increase, with just a few billion dollars more in spending or debt, it will all work out.

Dave Dubya said...

JTF,
There you go again. You are not only a liar, but a lazy repetitive liar.

You say I’m wrong but offer no facts. I provided information. You are too lazy to look anything up.

I guess you’ll have to wait for Rush to tell you what to think.

free0352 said...

That did not, and would not, stop corporate goons from killing miners wanting union representation.

Miners are free to quit, and the company can't say a word. Try quitting not paying your taxes. Try quitting being a citizen and smoking weed in your front yard in front of the cops, see where that gets you.

Government would not send the military against a corporation,

Please provide an example of a corporation that poses a violent, national security threat? You don't see Saddam Hussein as a threat when he has SCUD missiles, a million man army, and is trying to kill our president but the mineral company who theoretically has dangerous working conditions is a national security threat. WOW. Your judgement here is questionable.

There have been instances when military authority has been abused. But we Libertarians are working on it.

Your last statement made me think of something... Didn't your strong government hero FDR put some Japanese people into some internment camps or something? Yes, yes I think I remember that. After his "progress" during the 1930s on the economy he turning right around in the 40s and in a triumph of civil rights... Locked up Japanese Americans and threw away the key for five years without so much as a hearing. I can't think of anything more authoritarian that FDR, the father of a command economy that failed, and concentration camps. Yeah, yay progressive "liberty and prosperity." The only corporation making out during FDR's first two terms were the barbed wire salesmen.



FDR isn't making much of a case for your Big Government protects the people in economics and civil liberties theory is he?

FDR lowered unemployment way before WWII.

No, no he did not. There were ups and downs during the Depression, but the only bump that guy could put together for employment numbers was hiring done by the very Military Industrial Complex you so despise as it made war materials for the British for Lend Lease - or programs like the CDC where young "transient" men were rounded up into camps and required to work in the middle of nowhere on projects to no where.

Again, pretty perverse to call an entire decade of grinding poverty, government oppression, hopelessness and war prosperity - and only the truest believers would think it.

free0352 said...

So let me sum it up all simple. FDR squandered billions and put people in camps. Ronald Reagan presided over the second largest economic expansion in the country's history and paid the people FDR put into camps reparations.

Government really is the problem.

free0352 said...

Oh BTW, please spare me story of the Paint-Cabin Creek Strikes of in West Virginia back in good old 1912. I sense it coming, and if I'm wrong disregard. However, I'm very familiar with the incident. I big part of that story IMHO is hype proliferated by socialist writers McAllister Coleman and Stephen Raushenbush... but we'll grant their propaganda for a minute. You've got one isolated data point at best and even that was likely flat lies. You know what isn't a lie and no one is disputing it? FDR lockign away the Japanese, or Progressives running the economy into the ground today, or government laws against everything from salt and transfats with the food we eat to outlawing your beloved bud, to our friend George Bush handing banks 700 billion dollars or the new kid Obama handing out 1.3 trillion to executives in private jets.

I'll risk the po-dunk Baldwin Felts Detective Agency any day compared to the raw power of THE STATE.

Just the Facts! said...

I know. I'm really a sleazy lying stupid ass aren't I? Im glad you noticed.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Now there you go again, mischaracterizing and drawing non-existent implications.to call an entire decade of grinding poverty, government oppression, hopelessness and war prosperity.

No, I did not. If you insist I did, then I will treat you like JTP and call you a liar.

FDR lowered unemployment way before WWII.

"No, no he did not," you say.

Yes he did. Now you're reducing yourself to JTF's simple mindedness. You offer no information.

Once more: By 1937 unemployment was cut down from 25% to 14.3%. By 1938, after pressure (from Republicans, of course,) to back off his policies, the rate went back up to 19%. (Still less than the Republicans left him.)

Again, put down your Koolade and read the stats I patiently researched and provided.

FDR violated the rights of Japanese Americans. Bush did the same thing on a smaller scale. Neither makes it right. Bush actually did emulate our Japanese enemies and embraced waterboarding. Lucky guy. He got to have it both ways. Very Republican.

Without FDR and his Big Government, you may be goose-stepping with another crowd these days.

I do wonder how much of a “Good German” you would have made. At least you’d have loved invading Russia.

Still can't acknowledge the anti-democratic influence of the MIC, I see. Good corporate lackey.

I can’t devote all my attention correcting your reading disabilities.

Or maybe you’re just being a jerk, deliberately fabricating things, like the guys you deeply believe in did with “nukular aluminum tubes” and a Prague “connection to al-Qaeda”.

I hope you don’t force me to that conclusion.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
My brother was in a picket line and was clubbed by a corporate goon, or was it a cop on their payroll?

Either way, he was not on company property and nobody was charged with the assault and battery.

This was how corporate America treated a Vietnam vet. Try spewing your corporatist crap in his VFW hall.

Just the Facts! said...

"Without FDR and his Big Government, you may be goose-stepping with another crowd these days."
Really DD, what "real history" book did you get that from?
Joe Stalin might have issues with that position.
Another example of the progressive liberal movement attempting to make FDR the savior of the world.

DD you are wrong.

Just the Facts! said...

DD,
I'd give you sources to back up my statements but I know you would not read them, right?

free0352 said...

By 1937 unemployment was cut down from 25% to 14.3%. By 1938, after pressure (from Republicans, of course,) to back off his policies, the rate went back up to 19%. (Still less than the Republicans left him.)

Ah the New Deal, the liberal progressive fairy land. It's kinda funny, my guy and one of my favorite Presidents Calvin Coolidge (likely the only Libertarian President we've ever had) reduced debt, had one of the lowest tax rates EVER and enjoyed the roaring 20s. A time of social and economic progression. FDR's era was known for Depression and War - most of which was found later unconstitutional and imprisoned countless Americans because of their race. Keep defending it, it's making this too easy. The best part is when you can show improvement in unemployment numbers... it was because of the Military Industrial Complex making tanks and planes and supplies for Russia and England! The very same MIC you despise! I guess they really aren't so bad are they!?

Without FDR and his Big Government, you may be goose-stepping with another crowd these days.

Another great argument for me. Germany never attacked America, and couldn't have. Heck, they couldn't invade England 20 miles of water away! Certainly Saddam attempted genocide like Hitler did against Jews when he gassed the Shina and purged the Marsh Arabs? He attacked his neighbors in naked, illegal aggression... and both declared war on America. So you're right, had we thought like you do back then... there may have been some goose stepping going on. I don't think you'd have liked their concept of "social justice" though.

My brother was in a picket line and was clubbed by a corporate goon, or was it a cop on their payroll?

I don't know, was it an off duty cop? My grandpa used to tell me stories about them showing up to labor riots.

Either way - common thug or OFF DUTY cop... let me ask you this? Would you have rather your brother faced the company thug or... me. I represent government power, and you decide to come protest us and they decide to have your riot moved guys like me show up. Just ask the citizens of LA, Cincinnati or New Orleans if they'd have been willing to trade placed with your brother. I won't lie to you, despite all we did for Iraqis when we're in warrior mode we aren't pleasant people. What answer do you think they'd have given. Had I determined your brother to be a credible threat or had he refused to comply with my commands I'd have gone to the Rules of Engagement. That evolves tear gas and rubber bullets. If that doesn't work... real bullets and bayonets.


So again, any evils presented by the free market pale in comparison to a powerful State. You're taking your chances either way, just ask which side you'd like to tangle with?

free0352 said...

do wonder how much of a “Good German” you would have made. At least you’d have loved invading Russia.

Lived there for three years, the wife and I enjoyed our time but we really like the States more. I think I was fine at it, they aren't bad people ;)

Oh, as for joining the NASDAP or Nazi movment, I'd have gone all insurgent on them, probably fighting with the Russians.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Hmm, what would be the best part? I know. Just what YOU say.

Yes, The best part is when you can show improvement in unemployment numbers... it was because of the Military Industrial Complex making tanks and planes and supplies for Russia and England!

And you’re an expert on history too, I take it? Well, considering your reading retention handicap, I’m sure you are an “expert”.

And there you go again with the reading comprehension disorder. Or....or maybe......just maybe.....you are being less than honest here. Hmmm....

Go back and read what I wrote. Then find the sourced corroboration where I found those same figures, 25% to 14.3% by 1937, that show improvement in unemployment numbers, and you will be on your way to learning how to study history. (Hint: Where one would look up labor statistics. Try the "Google".)

“Germany never attacked America, and couldn't have.”

I got some news for you, son. U-Boats torpedoed US ships before Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. They killed 115 of our sailors in one attack, yet you say they “couldn’t have attacked”. You Righties really don’t know history as much as you like to think you do.

Shall I teach you about the USS Reuben James? The destroyer was the first warship of the US Navy lost in the Second World War. Sunk by U-552 on October 31, 1941.

Don’t take my word for it. Look it up. While you’re at it look up the unemployment rates for FDR’s first term. Oh, I almost forgot, you don’t like to read what you don’t want to know.


Kids: This is the lesson today. The best way to learn is to WANT to learn.

Yes, you seem the kind that would round up and detain without charges peaceful Americans if ordered. Long as it fits your rules of engagement. And it will. A police state is not far behind a corporate state.

Just the Facts! said...

free0352, what DD just did in response to your post is why on some blogs he is called the
DUKE of DEFLECTION.

T. Paine said...

This has been very entertaining. Final score: Dubya 15; Free 125

Your credibility is strained, Dubya and your inconsistencies are painfully visible. Free pointed out several for you to contemplate.

Dave Dubya said...

Thank you, fringe Right gallery, you overcame your shock at my needing to school you and your hero, and made your "fair and balanced" judgments.

And the response on the jobs record of FDR? How about influence of the MIC?

Nevermind, for the Right "wins' by ignoring and distracting when they are clearly wrong.

John Myste said...

I need to correct the scorecard.

Mr. Paine was completely un-objective. He gave Free high points for sharing his opinion. Therefore, Paine's grading is awarded an F. I am very disappointed in you, Mr. Paine. You can do better, and often have.

I have not completed reading the papers. I have read much of it and I can honestly say that the final score is about an 85 to 85, out of a possible 100 each.

Probably more than 50% of the arguments on both sides are emotion-based, and yet they are often powerful. Both sides made impressive points at times, and both sides recovered from what appeared at first glance to be a crushing blow. My intuition tells me that this is a logical draw, regardless of who the audience actually believes is right.

But combatants survived vicious attacks and no one came out unscathed.

Dave Dubya said...

JTF,
That was some deflection on your part there, Bub.

John,
Good observations, but are you sure you have no bias in wanting to see the debate continue for your entertainment?

T. Paine said...

"John,
Good observations, but are you sure you have no bias in wanting to see the debate continue for your entertainment?"

Of course he wants to see it continue. This is why he awarded you a tie score, despite your obviously being perhaps 20 points down in the fourth quarter instead of my mildly inflated original score. :)

free0352 said...

And you’re an expert on history too, I take it?

Not as I am on the Iraq war, but I think I'm schooling you on this one.


I got some news for you, son. U-Boats torpedoed US ships before Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor.


Saddam Hussien fired on US airplanes 4000 times (literally) and tried to kill Presidents GHW Bush and Clinton.

yet you say they “couldn’t have attacked”.

Let me clairify - I should have said invaded.

And the response on the jobs record of FDR? How about influence of the MIC?

I'd write it in crayon if I could on an internet blog. FDR- worst record on the economy in human history. More people were out of work in 1939 than there are today and the country had half the population it does today. If that's "progress" you can keep it.

Influence of the MIC on George Bush's decision to invade Iraq - zero.

Any questions?

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I’ll admit I learned something from your experiences. Maybe you even learned something from me, if you’d admit it.

So Saddam could have invaded us?

I won’t defend him, but it is a fact that Saddam killed less Americans, all in retaliation, before we invaded, than Israel did in 1967. On June 8, 1967 while clearly flying the US flag, the USS Liberty came under fire by rockets from Israeli jets. When the rockets were all fired, more jets returned with rockets, cannons, and napalm. It was reported that lifeboats were strafed by Israeli machine guns. Later Israeli torpedo boats fired five torpedoes at the Liberty with one striking the ship, killing most of the 34 Americans who died from the assault. 173 more Americans were wounded.

It was hushed up, of course.

Talk about “friendly fire”. Man!

You may continue to ignore or deny the facts I reported on Roosevelt’s job record after the Republican Depression left him near 25% unemployment.

Ah, a response. Influence of the MIC on George Bush's decision to invade Iraq – zero

Mere assertion, but thank you anyway.

Just the Facts! said...

DD,

Thank you.
Coming from the Duke of Deflection, I consider that quite a complement!

Dave Dubya said...

Just The FOX,
Takes one to know one, right?

Just the Facts! said...

DD,

I think you misspelled Facts.

free0352 said...

So Saddam could have invaded us?

No, and neither could Hitler. We still RIGHTLY went to war with him, and rightly went to war with Saddam Hussein and Iraq for pretty much the same exact reasons. Those being: Attacking of our allies, genocide, theft and national looting, refusal to abide by treaty and a surrender agreement, firing on our military forces, and declaring war on us.

...as for Israel... what do they have to do with either of our wars in Iraq exactly? Are you saying because they fired on an American ship in the 70s (assuming they did, I'm not familiar with the incident) we should declare war? I dunno, if they do it again maybe. Certainly if they shoot at us 4000 times and try to steal 1/3 of the world's oil and billions in American Corporate Assets, invade our allies, and declare war on us we should.

But then again, I've never been a huge rah-rah Israel guy. Not't particularly against them either. Think we'd be better off staying out of that mess all together.

after the Republican Depression left him near 25% unemployment.

It became the Democrat Depression after year six of FDR. It's an arbitrary number, but I'm going with it. Which program he sponsored do you think worked best? The CCC when he rounded up the riff-raff and forced them into wilderness work camps with threats of jail for "vagrancy", or the Japanese Internment Camps? I can't decide which is more disgusting.

Mere assertion, but thank you anyway.

Same back at'cha. You know the old saying - "That which you freely assert, I can freely deny."

I’ll admit I learned something from your experiences.

I'm from the government, and I'm here to help ;)

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

I'm from the government, and I'm here to help ;) Very imaginative.

Here’s what we get from you: “I’m from the Republican New Order, and you are on your own Granny. Pull up those bootstraps, Gimpy, It’s mourning in Amerika Inc.” :-(

”Attacking our allies, genocide, theft and national looting, refusal to abide by treaty and a surrender agreement, firing on our military forces, and declaring war on us.

Yes any regime that would do those things should be destroyed as criminals against humanity. Hey wait, that sounds almost exactly how the US Government acted on the American Indians. Let’s be glad those tribes had no powerful allies that would be justified in killing our leaders and occupying our country for decades.

Still any way you look at it, Saddam was of negligible threat to us. He wasn’t quite that stupid. He disarmed and allowed inspectors back in, who found nothing, until it was time to remove them for Bush’s war.

Yeah, that would definitely make it a war of choice....based on misleading falsehoods to the US Congress and citizens, leading to the Patriot Act and other eviscerations of the Bill of Rights. Now THAT was, and still is, a threat to our freedom and democracy. The coddling of the rich at public expense, deeper debt, and a crashed economy were additionally very real threats to our national general welfare the Constitution attempted to promote.

No matter how much you deflect from my facts, FDR reversed the Republican unemployment numbers every year of his first term. Even after he made the mistake of caving to the GOP, the rate never did go back up to GOP levels. He even added jobs after the 1938 dip that count as still being gains before the war.

I will spell it out for you.

1933 - 24.9%. Thanks a lot GOP. 1934 – 21.7%, 1935- 20.1%, 1936 – 17%, 1937 - 14.3%....Wow! Down 10%! Way to go, FDR, “traitor to his class” and great progressive leader for our people. But wait, he bends to GOP thug’s relentless lockstep pressure. No! 1938 – 19.0%. Ah. Thank God he stopped listening to those corporatist goons...1939 – 17.2%

I will repeat this just on the off chance you absorb it. The rate NEVER did go back up to GOP levels. No matter how hard you wish it happened, whatever way you imagine it happened.

Now the corporate party guys, who want to prove government is the problem, after being elected, want to run the show again. Yeah, we sure can trust them. Vote GOP.

You may now return to ignoring and distracting from my “assertion”.

Dave Dubya said...

Just The FOX,
What "facts"?

Just the Facts! said...

DD,

For a liberal who I think would support diversity, it seems strange how anti any view point that is not liberal you are.
I don't hold anything against MSNBC, or CNN, HLN, or the 2% of Americans who watch their programs. I just dont agree with them.

I wouldn't support Media Matters as a tax free organization funded/started by Mr. Soros trying to close any news network if it were liberal or conservative. To do so hurts our freedom of speech. But I doubt I would be far off if I said the majority of Liberals would support that happening.

What is becoming clear is that liberals beleive in freedom of speech as long as that speech does not go counter to or effect a positive outcome of a liberal cause.
If FOX fails because it cannot attract enough views in order to sell AD time, well they just didn't get the American viewers support. Just like Air America, not enough people believe or agreed with what was being broadcast by them.
It's like I've said before,
Liberalism cannot win in the open free market of ideas. Hence the hatred for FOX or any conservative talk show host. The only way Liberalism wins is if big govt funds them or regulates their opposition out of the market place. That is the cornerstone of Liberalism: Nobody can succeed without big govt unless they cheated or stole to become a success.
Sad, very sad.

P.S.
provide support for your claim of the unemployment rate being 23& for FDR, and while you're at it, what was the rate of unemployment in GWB last year and what is it now?

Dave Dubya said...

JTF,
You bring up some good points.

I’m mostly anti-Right. I annoy many liberals with my general support of the Second Amendment. It’s about freedom.

MediaMatters is not trying to close any news network. And I don’t think they are even trying to close FOX(R). They have a right to free speech. Calling it “news” and “fair and balanced” pushes it to absurd levels sometimes though.

liberals beleive in freedom of speech as long as that speech does not go counter to or effect a positive outcome of a liberal cause.

Not true. I welcome all opinions and speech at this blog and anywhere else, as long as it is civil.

Liberalism cannot win in the open free market of ideas.

This is why I joked, “Just the FOX”. You see, that is not a fact. Look at what the majority of people think of campaign cash. Pretty liberal.

That is the cornerstone of Liberalism: Nobody can succeed without big govt unless they cheated or stole to become a success.Sad, very sad.

Wrong, very wrong. This is waaay more FOX than fact.

I was hoping you and Free would find out on your own where the FDR unemployment rates come from. Since Free doesn’t seem to want to read what he doesn’t like, you can look it up. They are from the best, and possibly only, source on labor statistics. Try the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

You’re right. We are stuck with the rulings of the Supreme Court. And since the majority of the Justices are very friendly with corporate non-persons and their billionaire owners, they will continue to interpret our laws in favor of their friends as much as they can. Maybe you’ve heard of something like it. It’s called judicial activism.

This is why I say the only remedy for our democracy in decline is by Constitutional amendment. I won’t hold my breath waiting, though. You see, most politicians are also very, very friendly with all those corporate non-persons and their billionaire owners. Maybe all that free speech cash has something to do with it.

Oh, well. At least I can still use my actual Constitutional free speech, even though it does not count as much as corporate free speech.

Thomas Jefferson said, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

What do you think he meant?

Dave Dubya said...

JTF,
Obama is no FDR.

free0352 said...

Yes, he never put anybody in camps.