US Militarism, the Clark candidacy, & the Stupidification of the Public

[RichM]

The Sickness of US Military Spending

In its relations with other major institutions of national life, the military is emblematic of what's gone wrong in today's America. Two areas in which our society's illness is most striking are 1) the centrality of the military to economic & political life, & 2) the cultural/media mythology & glorification of all things military. The mythology, of course, derives from the relentless PR campaigns which have been required over the years to make frequent recourse to international violence & gargantuan military budgets seem natural & acceptable.

To begin with, one must recognize that the function of today's military bears only the vaguest connection to "defending the American people." The military's real function, contrary to this naive fiction, is as global enforcer of policies benefitting US corporations & investors. The internal societal machinery, known as the MIC (military-industrial complex), lies right at the "Ground Zero," so to speak, of the foul-smelling mass of corruption into which US society has devolved.

As an economic phenomenon, military spending lies at the core of the American economy. This has been increasingly the case ever since WWII, regardless of which party held the White House. If military spending were severely slashed, the economy would collapse. Thus in a very real sense, the economy has become DEPENDENT on military spending -- not for the products it produces (which are often useless), but because too many jobs have come to depend on it. Needless to say, the lobbyists, executives & investors who are the movers & shakers of the MIC are not the type of people who would ever allow their stunningly lucrative sinecures to be politically interfered with in any way. Military spending could be curtailed, as Charleton Heston might say, only "over their cold dead bodies."

The general nature of the mythology surrounding the military is that the US uses its armed forces only in the name of justice, freedom, democracy, & to "protect Americans." The truth of course could hardly be more opposite: the US armed forces are used almost entirely for OFFENSE on behalf of private interests abroad, and have, like the armies of any imperial power, committed countless crimes against humanity. What the US does abroad is virtually always deeply immoral, smashing into submission defenseless people deemed either inconvenient, or insufficiently obedient to the requirements of US corporations.

Considering then the economic role & mythology of the military, we have 2 interlocking "Big Lies" positioned at the very heart of the US role in the world:
1) The military is many times the size it needs to be, not because the country needs the "defense" but because the MIC has made (& continues to make) fortunes for well-connected insiders; because our economy has come to be "dependent" (in the sense of "addiction") on this form of government spending; & because imperialism requires keeping a huge terrifying fist at the ready.
2) The actions of the US military are not only NOT based on considerations of "honor, justice, democracy, & freedom," but are more accurately characterized as the exact opposite of these things. The US military does not "liberate;" it threatens, oppresses, occupies, terrorizes. It fights not for "right" but for "wrong" -- for the oligarchy's private greed, for oppressing defenseless masses on behalf of giant banks, weapons producers & oil companies. The real motivations of military action are unmentionable in US society & are essentially the polar opposite of publicly-proffered explanations.

The Sickness of the Public Mythology about the US Military

It is no surprise that speaking the basic truth about military spending is regarded as absolute blasphemy, tantamount to political suicide for a leader of either party. Since the truth is made unmentionable by virtue of whose ox it gores, the lie becomes provident: we must publicly continue to pay verbal homage to the need for a "strong defense." A "strong defense" has nothing whatever to do with "defense" as defined by any good dictionary; it is just a handy euphemism for insane levels of Pentagon spending, corruption at the highest levels of government, feeding pigs at the trough, & supplying the US military with the wherewithal to murder & oppress innocents in Third World countries.

Virtually every reference to the military that emanates from television, newspapers, movies, etc is required to paint a glorious & honorable image of soldiers "fighting for our freedoms." Anyone who dared to defy this propaganda norm would be crucified as a traitor. Thus we have an absurd situation in which nothing but fulsome praise can be publicly uttered for an institution that is a central feature of a corrupt monstrous machine. Some of the worst people in the entire world (in terms of viciousness, greed, and lying) are Rumsfeld & Co, & all the lobbyists for the MIC; yet the face of the US military that the public is always presented with is that of the handsome young soldier stationed in Iraq, interviewed on the nightly news.

The Clark Candidacy

On this background, comes Wesley Clark to the fore as a potential candidate. Clark is a general whose past history shows, on the one hand, that he is an intelligent man with some modest tendencies towards social liberalism. He has spoken, for example, against the Bush tax cut for the rich -- this is commendable. He has been critical of the recent Iraq war, which is certainly to his credit, as far as it goes -- which, unfortunately, is not too far.

On the other hand, he is no General Smedley Butler (who famously said, after retiring in the 1930's, that during his 33 years in the Marines, "I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.") There is not the slightest reason to believe that Clark is prepared to speak Butler-like truths about the US military. (It's worth noting that Butler also said, "Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service."...http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm.)

Clark "served" in Vietnam -- an historic crime against humanity, an enormous atrocity whose extent most Americans remain blithely unaware of. Is he prepared to tell the truth about the horror of American action in Vietnam, to the world & to the American public? Of course not. He is not a boat-rocker or serious institutional critic; he is, rather, a creature of the military himself, intent on using the prestige & (dubious) glory of the military to catapult himself into high public office.

Clark also commanded in Kosovo. Though most people on DU clearly do not realize this, the bombing of the former Yugoslavia was not at all a noble altruistic effort to prevent genocide against Kosovar Albanians, any more than the recent Iraq atrocity was a noble altruistic effort to "liberate" Iraqis. In both cases, those were merely the pretty "cover stories" fed to the public to camouflage far less-attractive realities.

The Significance of Clark as the Democratic Nominee

If Clark enters the race, he will be a formidable contender who IMO may well gain the nomination & go on to win the general election. Though this may sound wonderful at first glance, there are several reasons why it may not really be cause for much celebration.

First of all, assuming he wins, it will probably not be by virtue of the program or ideas he sets forth, but by virtue of his star power, his good looks & pleasant demeanor before the TV camera, and of course, more than anything else, his military credentials. In a real sense, it will be for much the same reasons that Schwarzenegger is likely to win California. In both cases, the ignorance & celebrity-worshipping tendencies of the public will be appealed to & exploited to convert "stars" into political leaders, regardless of what political program they really stand for. (If Clark wins, one might reasonably speculate that the rightwinger Norman Schwarzkopf would also win, were he willing to run as a Democrat. The public only sees a famous general with a nice smile; they don't much care, or even know, if the general leans left, right, or Martian.)

Secondly, as DU is well aware, the rightwing has very assiduously fear-mongered about terrorists & "threats to our security" for 2 years now. A candid & truthful response to this shameful manipulation of public fear for political gain would involve educating the public -- explaining to them that we're not really in such great danger of having major US cities blown up by terrorists, etc. But choosing a military figure to be the Democratic nominee is the OPPOSITE of this honest approach. It takes all the dishonest groundwork the Republicans have laid with their fearmongering, and -- rather than trying to expose, oppose, or correct it -- attempts to EXPLOIT it. That is, it tacitly concedes that the rightwing has been truthful all along in its fearmongering; that a solid basis for daily fear of Islamic terrorists does actually exist & has not been exaggerated. It tacitly concedes as well that the rightwing has been justified in responding to the "Islamic threat" primarily by escalating military spending & taking aggressive military measures. The message to the electorate is: "Yes, everything Bush has been doing is pretty much firmly based on reality, & he's done generally reasonable things, too. But we differ with him on the details of the precise way that he's gone about it."

It is one thing to say that the attack on Iraq was a wholly unacceptable war crime, based on complete fabrications about "WMD," concocted in reality on behalf of oil companies & the likes of Halliburton, & for geostrategic imperial designs, etc. (That's what was in the minds of the millions marching in the streets last February.) It's something quite different to say that the only thing wrong with the war was that the US didn't quite manage to bully or bribe the other Security Council members into rubber-stamping it, or that the imminence of the WMD threat was not sufficiently proven; or that it would distract from the equally phony "War on Terrorism." Clark (& Dean) are taking the latter of these 2 very different types of "anti-war" positions. Those types of criticisms are pale & outrageously truncated versions of the full truth about Iraq. I would call them the "Anti-War Lite" position. They are marginal, limited criticisms of a criminally monstrous thing -- and as such, do the truth great injustice.

DU understands pretty well how important the 2004 election is going to be. America has really gone far off the tracks, in these last few years. One feels, accordingly, that it will be necessary to publicly acknowledge some painful truths about our society, before we shall be able to even begin to repair it. Some of these painful truths involve the military: that it's way too big, & way too central to how our economy operates; that the military has been grievously & unjustly misused -- not just "occasionally" but with terrible consistency, over the last century.

The Clark candidacy rests on the premise that "the military is a profoundly respectable institution," a force for good in American life. But it isn't. In many ways, it's one of the very most horrible things about America. Running a man for president mainly because he's from the military -- a man who is going to exploit the undeserved American faith in the military, rather than expose the many reasons why this faith is delusional & grievously misplaced -- this is a dishonest disservice to the nation. It encourages MORE American ignorance, not less; it encourages MORE American fear & reliance on the military, not less; & it rests on (& contributes to) faith in an institution that's become a demented instrument of violence, plunder & corruption.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Pepperbelly]

2. total bullshit based on ...

nothing more substantial than opinion.

Pfft.

on edit: as I have read your posts here, you very clearly do not have the interests of the party at heart.

[RichM]

4. Oh, excuse me. I guess US militarism is nothing to worry about, after

all. I mean, what's a little problem like that, compared to the fact that the candidate in question is your distant cousin?

Forgive me for not getting my priorities straight. :eyes:

Yes, let's all be like you, and not even give a moment's thought to what it really means to nominate a military figure.

[Terwilliger]

11. and the party doesn't have the interests of the people it serves

seems pretty clear

OnEdit: mistype

[KittyWampus]

37. I reread the initial post

During a debate Dennis K. mentions cutting military spending and Dean spews out how he wouldn't do that while we're fighting a war against terrorism.

1. The Pentagon has reported TRILLIONS missing not once but TWICE in the last several years. That's TRILLIONS not millions or billions.

2. The war on Terrorism requires money to be spent on the homefront funding our first responders and border patrol etc. NOT THE PENTAGON.

In the end your opinion piece reflects a willingness to dump on someone who has served in the military... since Clark's record indicates he's an outstanding citizen committed to Democracy and our Constitution.

[zeemike]

3. I don’t think

That we should get into savaging each other even if all that you say is true And my life experience tells me that it probably is.
But that's what the media wants, all nine or ten of them attacking each other, the very thought of that is orgasmic to them.
I hope the demos don’t fall for that one again.

[BeHereNow]

5. EXCELLENT POST!

I think you have brought forth some extremely important
considerations in this essay.
Given the nationalistic fever in this country- I think it is
quite possible that everything you discuss is most likely.
Clark may very well be the most brilliantly designed
Trojan Horse to be wheeled onto the political stage yet.
Time will tell...and birds of a feather do tend to flock together.

BHN

[saskatoon]

151. Yes. Remember what Eisenhower said re the military

Hope someone will post what Gen Eisenhower said in regards to the military-Industrial complex. In my opinion mixing the Military and Politics is as scary as mixing Politics with Religion and we know where that got us and continues to be with the dingbat born again asshole as pResident.

[Flying_Pig]

6. Excellent Rich, ...just excellent.

Wonderful observations, and written well. My take and feelings are much the same. Push come to shove though? Of course, if Clark is the nominee (which I doubt) I would be forced to vote for him over Bush. That said, do I think Clark might add to a ticket in the VP slot, say, in the case Dean gets the nomination, given Dean's "so-called" lack of foreign policy and military credentials? Yes. In view of the current situation in the nation (created by Bush regime fascists), it might be a plus, insuring a win. But, I would not be happy about it.

I think we've had quite enough "military glorification" in this country, and unless Clark plans on being someone who would be willing to fully reform our military, and its role in the world, into an organization truly devoted to the greater good of the nation and the world, I do not believe it is a good idea to perpetuate the military control of our government.

[phegger]

67. but.......

unless Clark plans on being someone who would be willing to fully reform our military, and its role in the world, into an organization truly devoted to the greater good of the nation and the world

BUT (and excuse me if somebody has already made this point), that is not what the military is for. The military is for defending the country (as in physically protecting our physical borders). The military is a tool that you take out and use when it's appropriate to do so. The military is for fighting. That's what it does. Decisions about WHEN and HOW to use the military are POLITICAL decisions, made by politicians.

There's nothing wrong with having a military that does its job. The problem is with the people who use the military to a). make large amounts of money and throw their economic weight around, b). punish those who don't agree with them, and c). start wars in order to distract us and get themselves re-elected.


-ph B-)

[Jr_Samples]

82. Well put

The military's role is DEFENSE.

After all, it's not called the Department of OFFENSE.

Though I suspect the current administration wouldn't be immediately put off by the idea.

[LoneStarLiberal]

7. Good With the Bad

There are good aspects to the military for many people who serve, just as there are bad aspects to the military for many people who serve.

The military does play a central role in America's psyche, particularly at this time. One need only look at the accounting for some of the major defense giants to see that there are billions and billions of dollars tied up in the military. It's big business, no doubt.

I don't think that these things necessarily add up to Wesley Clark being a bad candidate or a bad person. War is hell and even in abiding by the rules of war you will preside over some bad things ranging to the unfortunate to the horrific. Generals prosecute wars, however; politicians decide to enter into them.

I too would like to see America become more divorced from militarism. Where I take issue with your analysis is that I do not believe there is any way for this to happen with a non-military leader in the White House. Just like the Israeli and Palestinian situation will never be settled by a non-IDF veteran in charge in Israel, America will never begin to divorce itself from militarism as a primary tool of foreign policy with a non-military leader in the White House.

This is why the loss of Yitzhak Rabin in Israel was such a devastating tragedy: He was a military man who had a liberal vision (albeit after a fairly conservative career) and his credibility as a military man allowed him to pursue this vision until he was gunned down by a ultra conservative bigot.

I believe Wesley Clark would be this type of leader. He is someone who has the military credibility that, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, Americans desire, and a liberal platform. I highlight the for better or worse part because I realize your point: That this is exactly the problem with America. My point is that you need a Wesley Clark or someone like him, a very rare breed of military background and liberal ideas, to get this country going in the direction you desire.

[Ress1]

8. I think people who have never served tend to think

"the military is a profoundly respectable institution" more so than those who served and personally understand and recognize the beast it can be. I have no problem with Clark being an ex-military man as long as he has the integrity to serve honorably. Logic tells us if the next president is a Dem, it won't because he/she` is weak on defense. To disqualify any Dem. who stands for a strong military from getting your vote is playing into the hands of the GOP. It's a non-winning issue and if we detest what Bush is about, we cannot place this burden on the shoulders of our candidates. We first have to stop the bleeding.

[Tinoire]

9. Thank you RichM! What an important TRUTH you wrote!

It is one thing to say that the attack on Iraq was a wholly unacceptable war crime, based on complete fabrications about "WMD," concocted in reality on behalf of oil companies & the likes of Halliburton, & for geostrategic imperial designs, etc. (That's what was in the minds of the millions marching in the streets last February.) It's something quite different to say that the only thing wrong with the war was that the US didn't quite manage to bully or bribe the other Security Council members into rubber-stamping it, or that the imminence of the WMD threat was not sufficiently proven; or that it would distract from the equally phony "War on Terrorism."

Clark (& Dean) are taking the latter of these 2 very different types of "anti-war" positions. Those types of criticisms are pale & outrageously truncated versions of the full truth about Iraq. I would call them the "Anti-War Lite" position. They are marginal, limited criticisms of a criminally monstrous thing -- and as such, do the truth great injustice.
------------------

I wish I had written that :)

Neither Clark nor Dean was against Afghanistan. Neither Dean nor Clark was against Iraq- not a peep about the obscene sanctions which killed over a million innocent people did we hear from either of them.

I get angry when I hear poeople say Dean was against the war- Dean was NOT against the war. Both he and Clark just wanted to wait (an additional 60 days for Dean) until we were able to MANUFACTURE a some facsimile of a fool-proof case. Yeah great... So we wouldn't have ended up with as much egg on our face- big deal- millions of innocent people would still be dead- we just wouldn't realize how obscene the whole thing was- just like Yugoslavia which some would like us to think was a glorious affair when it was in reality the first murderous phase of the PNAC agenda.

---------------------------------

In the 1990s, neo-conservative William Kristol joined with Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others to set up a think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). This group’s prescription included dramatic increases in military spending, putting weapons into space and establishing a global military presence that could enforce American economic, military and political hegemony in geo-politically strategic regions like the Middle East and Central and East Asia.

PNAC Agenda for the Middle East
Aside from putting weapons in outer space, the most disturbing and ambitious element of the PNAC foreign policy blueprint was the plan to “democratize” the Middle East through military conquest. The project’s dream scenario called for running the table in the Middle East by first imposing regime change on Iraq and then proceeding to take out the regimes in Iran, Syria and eventually moving on into Central and East Asia, culminating with regime change in China. This strategy is explicitly recommended in the PNAC documents (www.newamericancentury.org), and the neo-conservative architects of the plan brazenly call for being able to wage war in multiple theaters simultaneously.

<snip>

In fairness to the hawks, their plan ostensibly calls for reshaping the Middle East with democracies in place throughout the region. If the plan actually succeeded at bringing about full-fledged democracies throughout the Middle East, it might merit careful consideration, especially if it could be shown that few innocents would be killed, maimed or displaced in the process. However, the plan is based on so many flawed assumptions that only the most naïve could judge the best-case scenario as even remotely plausible. Furthermore, it appears that many of the policy architects themselves recognize that the plan is a recipe for regional chaos and interminable bloodshed on a truly grotesque scale. However, the potential for disaster, rather than discouraging the neo-cons, actually emboldens them to support the plan, because by creating chaos they actually create the conditions that might make it appear necessary to occupy the region militarily.

<snip>

Finally, many of our fellow citizens are waking up and refusing to believe the rosy scenarios painted for us and the outright lies fed to us. We must not continue to march down a ruinous path of perpetual war and face the inevitable anti-American backlash that war will create. We need the courage to stand up to a reckless administration in Washington and demand an end to ceaseless interventions.
Instead of calling for a new American century of military conquest and control, we must begin a project for a new century that is a truly international century based on cooperation rather than conflict. We should begin with the simple and not terribly radical step of rejecting the neo-conservative doctrine of pre-emptive warfare as the new centerpiece of our foreign policy.

<snip>

http://peaceworks.missouri.org/monitor/2003/augsept/pnac.htm
------------------------------------------

What Will You Do?

by Michael W. Stowell
August 18, 2003

<snip>

What will you Americans do about the destitution that you left behind in that country your government disappeared, Yugoslavia? Can you afford all the reparations? How about some bread? Some bakeries? Some medicine? Some books?

<snip>

I wonder what you Americans will do, after you take your government back, with all those military troops you have scattered about the world and all those weapons you keep and supply. Will you save the world from the weapons you own? Will you stop selling and giving away 'instruments' designed to bring death? What about your nuclear weapons; will you free the world of all weapons of mass death and destruction; will you lead all humanity to complete and total disarmament?

What will you do, America, about what has happened in Afghanistan? Now, look at that state of affairs. Your country's government has been operating there, illegally and covertly, for many years; so now, will you leave those people to their land and help them overcome the tyranny they have endured, at your government's behest, throughout all those years? Will you end your military support of the petroleum industry that has occupied their country and subjugated their interests?

<snip>

You can do this America, but only you can do this. I would love to see people from around the world sending money to help you elect Dennis Kucinich, and I am sure they would if they could. However, if you do not have significant money to give, or even if you do, money is a small part of it when everyone takes the time to do what is necessary.

What will you do, America?

Michael W. Stowell
http://www.swans.com/ A site well worth a visit!!!


2004 - CHOOSE WISELY - WE ARE ON THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS

[saskatoon]

152. Tinoire, how right you were to use the word "obscene"

and if anyone wants to see just HOW obscene, click on link to see the Iraqi children after one of our bombings. There is one little girl about six I imagine about the 33rd down who haunts me---tho' of course they all do.
http://www.shianews.com/hi/middle_east/news_id/0000758.php

[Tinoire]

156. OMG... So obscene

And I will see those children all afternoon.

NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And here, for people who forget about the sanctions, are more pictures of what the Iraqi people and children sufferend thanks to Clinton/Blair-imposed sanctions.

Over HALF A MILLION CHILDREN died! And Madeline Albright's sole comment was "We think it's worth it".

http://www.firethistime.org/extremedeformities.htm

Looking at these pictures just made me realize how imperative it is to get the right man in the White House. And in this century, the right man MUST be anti-war, MUST be a peace candidate. NOTHING justifies this type of obscenity.

Anyone who is indeed anti-war shoud examine their candidate VERY VERY closely and ask themselves- "What was my candidate saying as this was happening?" "Was he at least speaking out at the time?"

And they ALL knew at the time- everyone knew; if they pretend they didn't or want to gloss over this issue, then they're unfit for the job because there were protests all over the world to include right in front of the White House. Out of the 10 candidates trying to convince us they're the best person for the job, Kucinich was the ONLY one with the courage, integrity and the strength of conviction to CONSTANTLY speak out, to attend rallies and marches, to have really shown us the measure of a man.

At this time, more than ever, America and the world need a candidate with character. The measure of a man- think about it. World peace depends on Americans making the correct choice and having the courage to make the right person electable.

Peace
------------------------------------------

WSWS : News & Analysis : Middle East : Iraq

Washington police arrest anti-Iraq sanctions protesters
By Frank Gaglioti
10 August 2000
Use this version to print

Police carried out the mass arrest of 104 people in Washington, D.C. on Monday in front of the White House as they protested against United Nations sanctions against Iraq. Three of the demonstrators were held for pouring mock blood over the sidewalk. Demonstrations were held in several cities in the US, as well as London and Baghdad, to mark the tenth anniversary of the imposition of punitive sanctions by the UN, which have resulted in the death of as many 1.7 million Iraqis since the end of the Gulf War. Grace C. Simms, one of the protesters in Washington, stated that “I feel as if I'm living in Germany before the Holocaust and I need to stand up and say this is wrong.”

Some 300 people attended the Washington protest, which was held over three days. Protesters held signs such as “US has killed 1.7 million Iraqis for oil,” “Stop sanctions now” and “Iraqi children Holocaust II.” The arrests occurred in what the police claim is a restricted area in front of the White House, where protesters are barred from standing still or sitting. The marchers had a permit but this was unilaterally revoked by police when the protesters stopped. Those arrested face up to one year in prison. The protesters were made up of various anti-sanctions groups including religious groups and pacifist organizations. A rally over the weekend was addressed by Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

<snip>

A UNICEF survey of infant and maternal mortality published at the end of 1999 revealed the impact of the sanctions on Iraqi children. The initial impact of the Gulf War was a staggering three-fold increase in the mortality of children under five. The report reveals a further doubling in the death rate since 1991, which can be attributed to the imposition of economic sanctions. The study also found that death at child birth is the leading cause of death among women of reproductive age. Thirty one per cent of women at child bearing age die in giving birth. Most of the deaths can be attributed to the lack of basic medical facilities and drugs and malnutrition.

<snip>

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/iraq-a10.shtml

--------------------------

Congressmen Join Call to Lift Iraq Sanctions


Ohio representative calls sanctions "immoral"


<snip>

A parade of Congressmen, flanked by Muslim and Arab activists on Capitol Hill, condemned the U.N. sanctions as a failed policy that had caused soaring infant mortality and killed hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis while doing little to weaken President Saddam Hussein's grip on power.

``This embargo hasn't hurt Saddam Hussein or the pampered elite that supports him but has been devastating for millions of Iraqi people,'' Democratic Rep. David Bonior of Michigan told a news conference. ``Our message is simple. We're saying millions of children are suffering and we refuse to close our eyes to the slaughter of innocents.''

<snip>

Since then criticism of the policy has grown and this week two senior U.N. officials resigned in protest. On Sunday Hans von Sponeck, the German humanitarian coordinator in charge of the oil-for-food program in Baghdad, quit after criticizing the sanctions for unjustly punishing the Iraqi people and creating a human tragedy. Two days later his compatriot Julia Burghardt, who headed the World Food Program in Iraq, did the same.

<snip>

The U.N. itself estimates that more than a million Iraqis have died, directly or indirectly because of the economic sanctions. Among them, " several thousand children are reported to die daily from malnutrition and lack of adequate medicines.

``What we have done is to put in place a policy that is not only counter-productive -- it's more than that, it's immoral,'' said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat.

<snip>

http://www.ngwrc.org/news/content/FriFeb180900152000.asp


Yes, yes this is why they hate us and it has nothing to do with Bush for this was before- this was under a Democratic Administration that had people on both sides of the aisles wanting to lift the sanctions.

[RichM]

10. Isn't the subject of US militarism worth discussing, on a liberal website?

Doesn't it seem important, in formulating a political stance, that the military is so deeply joined to such foul things? ...

[Pastiche423]

14. I was right there w/you

until you inserted Dean's name.

How in the hell is Dean's history anything like Clark's history? IMHO, that negated any points you were trying to make.

[RichM]

16. Response -

I made MANY points, mainly about the role of the military in US life, & about the message it sends to nominate someone just because he's a general. I only made ONE point that had anything to do with Dean. It's really not logical that your disagreement on the one Dean point should have anything to do with your reactions to the rest of what I wrote.

As far as Dean goes: I feel that Dean's criticism of the war has been of the limited variety, like Clark's. That point can be argued, of course. But in any case, it should have nothing to do with most of what I was talking about.

[Pastiche423]

23. Why did you feel it

necessary to include Dean's "criticism of the war" in a post about the role of the military in US life?

I was taking your point seriously until then. I also agreed w/you until then.

You asked further up, "Isn't the subject of US militarism worth discussing, on a liberal website?"

My answer was meant to tell you why I felt your original post was not worth discussing. You threw Dean's name in there and blew the whole point, as Dean has not been in the military, nor is he running on a military stance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Howard Dean Has Supported Every Military Adventure of The Past Fifteen

years save Iraq War 2.

Talk about the narcisisism of small differences....


Dean suported The Afghan War

Gulf War 1

The No Fly Zones

Sanctions against Iraq


and Clinton's 98 four day bombing of Iraq.


He also said recently and I paraphrase that he "wouldn't hesitate to send American troops anywhere in the world to defend American interests."

He doesn't sound like Mohandas Gandhi to me...

[Pastiche423]

32. Do you know

what "military history" means?

Have you ever been in the military?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Now I Have To Be In The Military

to discuss the military.

Military history is the systematic study of past military events and the evolution of the military and it's role in society and the world....

I guess you can't refute my point that Dean is pro-military.....

[Jr_Samples]

86. Biggest socialist orgnization in the US = military

The military, ironically, is in many many ways, a giant socialist organization.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Think We Should Ditch The MIlitary

unilarerally disarm, join hands and sing Kumbaya

[Terwilliger]

13. I don't think it would help you

I wish you'd get RFK off your avatar...you don't have the first clue

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Have Read Books

on RFK by Arthur Schlessinger, Evan Thomas , and Jack Newfield. My mother walked precincts for John F. Kennedy in 1960. She took me to the front of a ropeline when I was six years old in in 1964 to shake his hand when he was running for senator of New York. An autographed picture of RFK that he sent me when I was ten years old sits on my dresser drawers. I was a Ted Kennedy delegate in 1980...

Robert Kennedy was a nationalist anti-communist like his brother John...


You want to remake him in your namby pamby image. It won't work....


As Mao said. "before you speak investigate>"

[Terwilliger]

18. as I said, Mao is dead

lets move on

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I Thought

only Freepers thought being a Democrat and being an American were mutually exclusive.

[Terwilliger]

78. no, only Freepers are such blind partisans

THAT's what it is

[Jr_Samples]

89. Liberalism should emulate such conservative thinking

The FReepers are dyed-in-thge-wool conservatives, and therefore don't open their minds to much during campaign season.

We should somehow learn to be so united.

[RichM]

22. All true, but you omit the most important thing about RFK -- namely,

that the reason he won the admiration & affection of millions stems from his personal transformation AFTER his brother John was shot. It was only in this period, the last 5 years of his life, that his personal suffering transformed him from a spoiled bratty plutocrat, very much the "nationalist anti-communist," as you say -- into something far greater than that. It was only after he began taking seriously the hardships of the poor & the downtrodden, & after he became clear on the way the imperialist Vietnam War was disfiguring America, that RFK became a great man.

In his youth, he was nothing special. He was a snotty, arrogant little prick. He sympathized & worked for Sen. Joe McCarthy in the early 50's. At this stage, there was nothing in him to admire -- yet that is the part of him that you confuse with his greatness. His greatness didn't develop until he saw & admitted to himself the bankruptcy of the prevailing structure of US society -- which is deeply connected, as RFK knew, with the sickness of militarism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Everybody In Their Right Mind Rejects Mindless Militarism

That strawdog won't hunt....


Bobby Kennedy grew to oppose the Viet Nam War because he saw it was unwinnable and it was tearing this country apart.

He loved this country with a passion; flaws and all.... If a nationalist is a person who loves his country than RFK was a nationalist his entire life.

I don't see liberalism and nationalsm as being mutually exclusive.


I don't see how loving my own country and respecting others is mutually exclusive.


I don't see how being a liberal realist and supporting a strong defense are mutually exclusive.

Sometimes violence is justified as a last resort. The mindless rejection of the military by some reflects a knownothingness as great as the Bush crowd's mindless embrace of it.

[Pastiche423]

27. Please give examples of

"Sometimes violence is justified."

Was the Viet Nam war justified?
Was the invasion of Afghanistan justified?
Was the invasion of Iraq justified?

And please include why they were justified.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Sometimes Violence Is Justiified

I subscribe To Malcom X's philisophy.


I will treat you with respect but if you harm me, my people, my friends, or my family I will respond by any means necessary.

The Afghanistan War was justified. Iraq War 1 was justified not Iraq 2...

[Pastiche423]

29. Why was the

invasion of Afghanistan justified? What did the people of Afghanistan do to us? What proof do we have that anyone in Afghanistan did anything to us?

What did we "win", if anything, by bombing the crap out of one of the poorest countries in the world?

Same question for the 1st Iraq invasion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Iraq Invade Kuwait A Sovereign

nation. The invasion of Iraq to evict them from Kuwait was sponsored by the United Nations. Article 51 gives the member nations the right to defend themsleves as well as to call on other nations to assist in their defense.

But let's take it to a more practical level. If there was no sovereign and a group of thugs took over your residence and evicted you I would help you get your residence back even if it meant risking my life...

There is the legal and practical justification for Iraq War 1...


The Taliban was hosting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda was using it as a base to support terrorist activities around the world including 9-11. We invaded Afgahinstan to root out Al Qaeda. The Senate gave unanimous support to Bush for the Afghan operation and the House gave almost unanimous support. Only one Representative opposed it, Barbara Lee of CA.

I'd be more than happy to dicuss wars I thought were unjustified or imprudent...

[Pastiche423]

35. What had the Taliban and Al Qaeda

done to the U.S.?

My question was, what was the justification?

Once you answer that question, please provide proof of the justification.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Al Qaeda Was Behind The 9-11 Attacks

Even Howard Dean believes that...

And if you don't believe AlQaeda was behind the attack your problem is with the Doctor not me...


The Taliban was hosting Al Qaeda and refused to give them up....


Now, if I'm harboring a fugitive and refuse to give him or her up the sovereign or in my case the Seminole County Sheriff is going to come in by force and take him or her.

[Pastiche423]

43. Where is the proof that

Al Qaeda was behind 9/11? As closely as I have been following 9/11, I am shocked that I missed it.

Was it in the newspapers?
Was it on tv?

Since I do not get a newspaper, nor cable, that must be why I missed it.

But damn, you would have thought that somehow that proof would have made it to the internet.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. This Is A Joke Right

Here's a link where Osama takes credit for the bombing.

http://www.september11news.com/OsamaSpeeches.htm


I've been answering your questions now it' time to display the courtesy I showed you and answer mine:

Why did Howard Dean support Gulf War 1?

Why did Howard Dean support the Clinton/Blair policies re Iraq which included sanctions, periodic bombings, and no fly zones?

Why did Howard Dean support the Aghanistan War implicity accepting Al Qaeda responsibility for 9-11

and

Why did Howard Dean say he would send troops anywhere in the world to defend American interests.

I'll await your repsonse....

[Pastiche423]

55. Was that the fat Osama

or the skinny one?

I asked for proof and you gave me an article about a fake tape. Even in the tape that the WH was claiming to be Osama, Osama (fat or skinny) never once claimed responsibility for the attacks.

I see now that you believe the lies fed to you by whistle ass and his enabling whistlers.

No proof has ever been given to the world that OBL or Al Qaeda was responsible for what happened on our soil on September 11, 2001.

There have been many, many questions asked, but none answered.

No questions were answered before our country bombed the fuck out of Afghanistan. Plans to bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan were on whistle ass' desk many months prior to September 11, 2001.

Does "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs" ring a bell?

Our military was ordered to bomb the fuck our of Afghanistan w/o one shred of proof.

Justification?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Why Are You Stubbornly Refusing To Answer My Questions

about Howard Dean.

I showed you the courtesy of answering your questions now why don't you answer mine.


Re: Al Qaeda and 911

If liberal luminaries like Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and Tom Harkin believed Al Qaeda was behind 9-11 when they gave Bush the authority to attack Afghanistan it's good enough for me...


Al Qaeda had means, motive, and opportunity.... if it was enough for the guys above it was enough for me...

[Pastiche423]

70. You have shown me the courtesy

of showing me bunk. You have showed me that you believe the lies that whistle ass and his enabling whistlers have tried to make the world believe.

You have also proven to me, that you believe our military needs no proof to bomb the fuck out of any place or anyone.

This thread is about the role of the U.S. military, not about Howard Dean.

Since I have been alive, (which is longer than you) I have not seen justification for any war/invasion/bombing the fuck out of someone that our military has committed.

Power
Oil
Politics
Greed
Playing w/new military toys

are not justifications in my book.

On edit: missed a word

[Tinoire]

74. Excellent post - ditto

Very nicely said...

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear annihilation. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.

Martin Luther King

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. Was violence justified

to stop Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini?


Was violence justified to end slavery?

If somebody was physically assaulting another individual would I be justified in using violence to stop it or would the ennobling thing be to do nothing.

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in a time of great moral crisis."

-Dante Alghieiri

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

-Edmund Burke

"There is no greater love than to lay down your life for another man."

-Jesus Christ


Martin Luther King embraced passive resistance because it was the best available tactic to achieve his goal of pricking the conscience of the white elites in 1960's America.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

116. Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini?

Still using that old saw, aren't you?
If the Europeans had no history of "Military Glory" and the armies and weapons that go with it, how could any of these piss poor "leaders" have done what they did?

And constantly bringing up these old bogeymen has nothing to do with where humanity stands now!
We are in dire need of some NEW thinking about how we all need to cooperate, not a continuation of the old "need to compete".

[Paragon]

120. John 15:13

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - King James version

"There is no greater love than to lay down your life for another man." - DemocratSinceBirth

Interesting how you tweaked that verse, DSB. You also seemed to have skipped over the passage directly before it (John 15:12):

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. Two Points

I did the Jesus quote from memory. I doubt you can find one theologian who would argue that substituting man for friend violated the spirit of Christ's remark and I don't see any contradiction between loving my fellow man and laying down my iife for him...

[Terwilliger]

129. or, apparently, killing because you feel like it

SOOO Christian :nuke:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

134. Prove I Said

I'm for "killing when I feel like it" and I'll pay for your psychiatric evaluation....

[Terwilliger]

138. lessee...war in Iraq...no evidence...no mandate...npo threat

but your boy Kerry and his friends said "oh well! if we killed tens of thousands with no justification...well, just vote for us anyway!"

That's when you advocate wanton killing. That's when you should realize that the people you support are just as warmongering as "the other guy" They dont care if people are killed so that there jobs aren't threatened. They care about themselves and fuck everybody affected by their decisions. That's what you advocate.

Everybody in the country supporting the two-party system should have his head examined.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

144. For The Record I Opposed

Iraq War 2

and the phony wars against Grenada and Panama...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. Why Do You Studiously Avoid My Questions About Dean

All your criticisms of me are criticisms of Dean because we both s-u-p-p-o-r-t-e-d

Gulf War 1

The Afghanistan War

the no fly zones

the sanctions or oil for food program...


and we both reserve the right to "send American troops to foreign countries to defend American interests."

and we both oppose cutting the defense budgets

The reason you won't answer my questions about Dean is because your head is spinning from the cognitive dissonance of supporting a politician whose view of the world is so different from your own.

Come over to the light side-:)


And whether you have been alive longer than me is of no moment since youth and wisdom are not mutually exclusive...

[Darranar]

83. I supported the no-fly zones...

I saw and see absolutely nothing wrong with them. The US has more aggresive then it should have been, but the idea was fine.

[Pastiche423]

84. The military is no "light side"

You are correct in that living longer does not make one wiser. But I have experienced more, 1st hand, what the military has done in my name.

Again, I say, this thread is about the role of the U.S. military.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. Why Are You Afraid To Admit That Howard Deam and Democrat Since

Birth favor the "same role for the military"


Howad Dean and Democrat Since Birth both favored or favor


Gulf War 1

the no fly zones

the oil for food program

the Afghanistan War

maintaining defense spending at current levels

and reserving the right to "send American troops anywhere in the world to defend American interests"

Say it... I can take it... I'm a big boy .... all 6'2 225 pounds of me....say it.... Howard Dean and Democrat Since Birth are big fat hawks....

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

145. Slavery And The Destruction Of The American Indian

are a blight on this nation's history...



The fact we didn't stop the slaughter in Rwanda is shameful...

I blame that on the Rs for tieing Clinton's hands...

[Forkboy]

56. I just read that (again)

Where does Osama take credit? He may sound overjoyed,but that's not admitting anything.

[Forkboy]

71. hello?

:shrug:

[Forkboy]

106. Speaking of "studiously avoiding the question"

Where does Osama claim he was behind 9-11 in your link.You put the link there to prove your point but it doesn't in what I read.Can you please show me where you see that DSB?

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Terwilliger]

130. never mind

warmongers don't ever make much sense

[Forkboy]

160. I'll try again lol

the fact that you have studiously avoided my question tells me that you have no facts to back up your claim,and what's more,you know you dont.That makes it very hard to buy any of your claims,not just on this issue but others as well.

[Sterling]

166. On Boy not another "but Osama said he did it" post

I really thought Duers got out more.

[saskatoon]

159. Al Qaeda? Or

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index.htm

[saskatoon]

155. AL Quida, Afghanistan and 911???

Take a look at this:
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index.htm

[saskatoon]

157. Al Qaeda or?

Al Qaeda? or http://0911.site.voila.fr/index.htm

[Forkboy]

163. DSB doesn't seem to be interested

mainly because it shows how wrong he is.

[Terwilliger]

99. That sovereign nation had been created 70 years before by Britain

not very sovereign...more like a quick sketch to give oil planners some coordinates

Also, George Bush gave Saddam the green light to attack Iraq.

As far as al-Qaeda goes, that's another failed project by Democrats and Republicans fight the great commie enemy by sponsoring little wars in far-off lands. You should be ashamed for openly advocating such horror.

Barbara Lee was the only rational person in the congress after 9/11...everyone else was mortified, and they acted like victims more than they acted like enforcers of the law.

[BoogieBear]

123. That's true, but it's only part of the story

Iraq invaded Kuwait at the encouragement of the US. Kuwait had been side drilling into Iraqi territory, taking some $15 billion worth of oil out of Iraq soil, all with US encouragement. In Texas, people get shot for side drilling.

Saddam had stopped playing ball with the US regarding oil prices, and so the Bush 41 administration decided to take further control of the oil prices by removing Iraq's reserves from the market. That's what that whole episode was about.

[saskatoon]

153. Al Quida, Afghanistan and 911????

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index.htm
Take a look.

[RobertFrancisK]

167. World War 2

Afganistan was, but we should have rebuilt instead of just abadoning them. And truth be told, they are better off with no government than the fundamentalist, sexist, violent, suppressive one they had. How in God's name can you argue that? And they were lead by a government that had links to and sheltered a group that attacked innocent Americans. Yes yes, we trained them and we've been bad to the Middle East, I know all this. But bottom line is that we took out a lot of al-Quedas support in that war, and while we may have botched everything else, that doesn't mean that wew were not acting in the vital interests of the United States.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Enlighten Me Oh Great One

Here try this impoverished phrase

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own physical safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-John Stuart Mill

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. "because the military fights not to be

free, not for causes or "higher principles" but simply to exploit others on behalf of US corporations."


My bad . I didn't know we fought the Civil War for Wells Fargo...


I didn't know we fought World War 2 for General Electric.

[Character Assassin]

54. Unlike the steaming pile of self-righteous assumptions you wrote

As far as Mill's quote goes: it doesn't apply at all to the US military, because the military fights not to be free, not for causes or "higher principles," but simply to exploit and enslave others on behalf of US corporations. There's nothing heroic about it -- it's just murder.

Nice binary either/or thought process you have there.

Have you thought about a career as a light switch, perhaps?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. ....

[RichM]

61. Howdy, CA. Long time, no see. I hope you've been well.

Please, feel cordially invited to specifically name some of the most egregious self-righteous assumptions in my steaming pile. Then you can explain just why & how you feel they are wrong. Then perhaps we could discuss those points, as time & inclination permit.

[Character Assassin]

65. When you start with wildly unsupportable rhetoric like this....

What the US does abroad is virtually always deeply immoral, smashing into submission defenseless people deemed either inconvenient, or insufficiently obedient to the requirements of US corporations.

You've already discounted being taken seriously by anyone familiar with history. Sure, you make genuinely think that, but it flies in the face of the historical record, even with the 'virtually' caveat thrown in.

[RichM]

76. But CA - you are well aware of the long list of US interventions in Third

World countries. There is a well-known such list from Z-Net, that gets posted here from time to time. Which of these many dozens of US interventions are you defending? Vietnam? Indonesia? Any of the many thrusts into Nicaragua? Iran? Guatemala? Chile?

Even if you can point to a few of these horrible things that you felt were justifiable in their own time & context, do you really dispute my main points -- ie, that the MIC has grown to monstrous proportions, that its function has little if anything to do with "defense" (as defined by Webster), & thus that the use of the military exemplifies corruption at the highest levels of government?

[sangh0]

135. Bait and switch

Somalia, for one, is a US intervention that doesn't appear to benefit corporations.

Even if you can point to a few of these horrible things that you felt were justifiable in their own time & context, do you really dispute my main points -- ie, that the MIC has grown to monstrous proportions...(blah, blah)

If you really believe you have evidence to support that, then you shouldn't need to exagerrate the abuse of the military by claiming that EVERY intervention ohas been in the service of profit. I would have thought that you were smart enough to realize that sometimes they throw us off the trail with a justifiable use of force.

But then, you wouldn't be an idealogist.

[Terwilliger]

139. are you kidding?

I guess you forgot about the Somali oil fields!


========================================================================

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Project%20Censored/CensoredNews_1993.html

The U.S./UN military involvement in Somalia began in mid-November 1992, but it wasn't until January 18, 1993, two days before George Bush left office, that a major media outlet, the Los Angeles Times, published an article that revealed America's oil connection with Somalia.

Times staff writer Mark Fineman started his Mogadishu-datelined article with, "Far beneath the surface of the tragic drama of Somalia, four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside. That land, in the opinion of geologists and industry sources, could yield significant amounts of oil and natural gas if the U.S. led military mission can restore peace to the impoverished East African nation."
According to Fineman, nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron, and Phillips before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown. The U.S. oil companies are "well positioned to pursue Somalia's most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified."
Oil industry spokesmen, along with Bush/Clinton Administration spokespersons, deny these allegations as "absurd" and "nonsense." However, Thomas E. O'Connor, the principal petroleum engineer for the World Bank, who headed an in-depth three-year study of oil prospects off Somalia's northern coast, said, "There's no doubt there's oil there...It's got high (commercial) potential...once the Somalis get their act together."

UPDATE: Somalia has been torn apart by clan fighting since 1991 when dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown. In mid-November 1992, the United States launched Operation Restore Hope with the avowed purpose to find and expel faction leader Mohamed Farah Aidid, in an effort to bring peace to the nation. Instead, in a media-sensationalized night invasion, U.S. Marines went ashore in Somalia on February 28,1995, to protect final withdrawal of U.N. forces after the failed mission which cost $2 billion and the lives of 140 American and U.N. peacekeepers. Aidid died shortly after a gun battle in late July 1996 and two of his archrivals announced unilateral cease-fires (Associated Press,8/3/96). The cease-fire lasted until September 16, when one of the faction leaders called an end to the agreement and fighting resumed (Orange County Register, 9117196). Jane's Intelligence Review (10/1/96) concluded: "Peace will not come to Somalia until a leadership emerges that is perceivably working for all Somalis from whatever clan." And so the oil companies bide their time until the "Somalis get their act together," as one oil company spokesman said above.
========================================================================

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[bpilgrim]

100. they like to talk about gassing, shoot we were perfecting that art in NAM

before we sold the stuff to him and trained his army to use while we are using 'dirty bombs' in IRAQ as well as all the other nasties.

but hey we got a word to make all the mess go away right, COLATERAL DAMAGE.

:puke:

peace

[Character Assassin]

147. IOW, I don't suffer under your delusions.

how do you dispute anything RichM claimed?

Perhaps it escaped your notice that what I condemned was the use of sweeping generalizations and attempting to define down something as complex as the history of US foreign policy, involvements and/or entanglements into a truncated, universally applicable motive.

To do so indicates a willingness to slant data and try and force history into conforming with a pre-determined conclusion, and that requires that one be extremely selective, and therefore inaccurate, with what is presented.

You always pontificate how smart you are...

I have never once done so at this forum.

you show me the "Libertarian" foreign policy perspective, when the history, as you note, demonstrates a clear interventionist and imperialist attitude by our country against the rest of the world.

What are you babbling about? Neither I nor anyone else here that I can see has attempted to portray or explain US foreign policy in either 'Libertarian' or libertarian terms, nor suggested that doing so is appropriate. It would be a fool's errand, as US foreign policy has never been libertarian, and no one is stating that it has been.

Show us where your logic comes from.

Logic dictates that I cannot answer a request to address something I have not stated in terms that I didn't use.

How can you dispute what he said when 8,000 people civilians have died in Iraq (in the current confict) all to get a dictator out of Iraq whom we put there in the first place and supported through his most barbaric practices? What history do you read???

I'm not disputing that, Ace.

[bpilgrim]

97. lets focus on the past 60 odd years...

to start.

we're waiting. and let's try something a little more creative then the standard propaganda which has all long ago been debunked and now that we got the internet - thank gore - at our virtual fingertips as well ;->

we're waiting...

peace

[bpilgrim]

96. look how far computers took us

with binary logic

besides i know you aren't willing to argue that our military hasn't ben missused in the last 60 years now are ya?

peace

peace

[Ani Yun Wiya]

121. Your constant use of quotes from the past...

Only shows how well your indoctrination has gone.

Got any original thoughts??

[Terwilliger]

140. so in order to be a human being, you have to be willing to kill others

is that your profound wisdom?! :nuke:

[Jr_Samples]

92. How very liberal of you.

"fans of the military are such dunderheads"

I'm reminded of Hank Hill, admonishing Kahn Soupanousinphone, "Damn Chinese and their stupid stereotypes!"

Name-calling and broad characterizations are the tools of FOX News tacticians.

I suppose in general they're tools of desperation.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Tinoire]

90. Now you're catching on!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Wonk]

41. "I WILL NOT VOTE IF WESLEY CLARK IS NOT THE NOMINEE." I wonder

how many other Clarkies feel the same way? Basically what you're saying is your ranking of prospective candidates for '04 is Clark, Bush, then the nine declared Democratic candidates? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Tinoire]

50. When you consider that

according to the Republican and Democratic founders of the "Draft Clark" Movement 1/3 of his support comes from Dems, 1/3 from Independents, and 1/3 from Republicans... this shouldn't be too surprising.

That breakdown explains a lot. There's an noticeable difference in the thought/expression processes of the Dems for Clark and the Repugs for Clark on this board.

One group can debate, the other can not.

[CoffeePlease1947]

63. ignore this

sorry

[Tinoire]

69. lol - RichM has my permission to CARRY ON!

This is the United States of America, not France.

If you want to win elections, you have to think like an American.

Familiar talking points... :think: I really wish I could remember just where I've seen this type of post? :shrug:

Love always,

Tinoire (Ret, US Army)


And not at all amused by stories like this:

... Clark's $120,000 U.S. Army Mercedes -- with a reported highly classified radio system aboard -- was car-jacked while his wife used it as a personal vehicle to drive to the golf course...

http://www.hackworth.com/9aug99.html

And here, just to save myself the trouble of having to address anyone's lame rebuttal attacking Hackworth, the most decorated soldier alive:

Even General Wesley Clark , Nato's former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, had the embarrassment of losing his armour-plated limousine, although the car, stolen when unoccupied at a golf course, was recovered within 24 hours.

From the article: Limo-driving Eurocrats targeted by international carjacking gang
By Stephen Castle in Brussels 29 April 2001

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/carjack.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I'll Give Hackworth His Props

but by what objective measure is he the most decorated American alive?

by volume of medals.....


there are folks with more medals than Hackwoth


by earning the Medal of Honor


Hackworth doesn't have one...

[Tinoire]

88. No he doesn't but

That comment was mostly for the lurking freepers. Medals tend to blind and impress them. Go figure :shrug:

But still, if you're impressed by that type of stuff, I dunno, Hackworth with eight purple hearts across his five tours in Vietnam would impress me a lot more than, oh never mind...

(For the lurkers- )
Hackworth's Individual Decorations & Service Medals:

Distinguished Service Cross (with one Oak Leaf Cluster)
Silver Star (with nine Oak Leaf Clusters)
Legion of Merit (with three Oak Leaf Clusters)
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star Medal (with "V" Device & seven Oak Leaf Clusters)(Seven of the awards for heroism)
Purple Heart (with seven Oak Leaf Clusters)
Air Medal (with "V" Device & Numeral 34)(One for heroism and 33 for aerial achievement)
Army Commendation Medal (w/ "V" Device & 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Good Conduct Medal
World War II Victory Medal
Army of Occupation Medal (with Germany and Japan Clasps)
National Defense Service Medal (with one Bronze Service Star)
Korean Service Medal (with Service Stars for eight campaigns)
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
Vietnam Service Medal (2 Silver Service Stars = 10 campaigns)
Armed Forces Reserve Medal

Unit Awards:

Presidential Unit Citation (with one Oak Leaf Cluster)
Valorous Unit Award (with one Oak Leaf Cluster)
Meritorious Unit Commendation

Badges & Tabs:

Combat Infantryman Badge (w/ one Star; representing 2 awards)
Master Parachutist Badge
Army General Staff Identification Badge

Foreign Awards:

United Nations Service Medal (Korea)
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (with two Gold Stars)
Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (with two Silver Stars)
Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal (1st Class)
Vietnam Staff Service Medal (1st Class)
Vietnam Army Distinguished Service Order, 2d Class
Vietnam Parachutist Badge (Master Level)
Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation
Republic of Vietnam Presidential Unit Citation
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation (with three Palm oak leaf clusters)
Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class Unit Citation (with one Palm oak leaf cluster)
World War II Merchant Marine Awards:

Pacific War Zone Bar
Victory Medal

Note: As per a Department of the Army audit conducted by COL Pam Mitchell, Chief Personnel ServiceSupport Division on May 6 1999.

http://www.hackworth.com/awards.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. Who's Never Mind?

Wes Clark left part of his calf in Nam... He also lost much of the use of his right hand...

I'm not a big military buff but it looks like Clark has a ton of medals on his chest but I digress....

To me the whole party is starting to resemble a circular firing squad. If the stakes weren't so high it would be amusing...

[Forkboy]

42. lol

:crazy:

[ignatiusr]

49. Don't worry about Rich's comments, they're irrelevant

His views are based on radical ideology and arbitrary hatred of all things military. This represents a very, very small portion of the public, and has no bearing on the outcome of the elections. He's welcome to say whatever he wants, however illogical, but he is among such a small and radical minority that his views will have zero effect on Clark's candidacy.

[Tinoire]

59. Attn K-Mart Shoppers - Chaska has left the cheer-leading rally

If you have to stomp your little feet everytime your hero is slammed, then a discussion board just may not be the place for you :shrug:

..you are likely to disagree strongly with many of the comments you see expressed here. Please do not take these differences of opinion personally. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to lash out and break the rules of this message board. A thick skin is usually required to participate on this or any message board.

Please note that, strictly speaking, sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not considered personal attacks. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

There is a difference between forceful advocacy for a particular issue (which is allowed), and personally attacking people (which is forbidden). If you can't tell the difference, you are likely to get into trouble here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. Thanks For Posting The Rules

If somebody dropped the dime every time the rules were broke half the board would be deleted...

[friendofbenn]

34. excellent post rich

i think people living in a country always need to be fully aware of whats going on in that country and not allow themselves to be blinded by patriotism. its unfortunate that america is the most patriotic country in the world

[Q]

38. Well said and done...

...and wait!...here comes the kneejerkers who will berate you for being 'unfaithful' (to their cause) without ever addressing the main premise of your thread.

[Darranar]

44. Great post!

Graet job, and agreed completely!

WESLEY CLARK FOR NOT PRESIDENT OR ANY POSITION OF IMPORTANCE!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. I Just Want To Respond In A Non-Inflammatory Way

All six Democratic candidates who have any shot at winning the nomination basically accept America's role as a hyperpower and the responsibilities and expense that comes with it. Gephardt, Dean, Lieberman, Kerry, Graham and Edwards are all committed to maintaining current military expenditures and commitments.

Any honest observer would say any difference between the major Democratic candidates is one born of vanity and not substance.

Mr.'s Graham, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman have much more in common with each other when it comes to the role of the military in American foreign policy than any of them do with radical critics of American foreign policy like Noam Chomsky or Edward Said....

[sujan]

46. thank you RickM

[Junkdrawer]

47. Bottom Line: Clark has got to address the Eisenhower warning...

regarding the "Military Industrial Complex" before many of us would feel at all comfortable with his candidacy.

BTW: Good post Rich :thumbsup:

[Woodstock]

51. I had these Eisenhower quotes handy

"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."

"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

[Junkdrawer]

53. A timeless, timeless quote.

And THE #1 problem that confronts us all.

[KoKo]

77. so glad to see the original quote! Thanks...some here don't believe he

said it...and we need to be reminded over and over! :-)'s

[Clark Can WIN]

142. Thanks Woodstock

That is a great quote, and it illustrates what the willfully blind will not see. It's a very lucky thing that their numbers are so minute among the general voting public as to render them insignificant.

In particular........"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

Who better to address the misuse and perversion of the military than a liberal from within that system? Who better to promote diplomacy than someone who has agonized over the needless deaths of so many not from afar through numbers, stories and photographs but there with the stench and blood and the agony?

If Wesley Clarks education and intellect are threatening or emasculating to bags of steaming crap & renowned Democrat haters like Col. Hackworth, then I take that as a good sign.

On the heels of 9/11 is there anyone so naive as to believe that we can or even should put forth a candidate who would gut the military to pieces or even toss it aside altogether? If you do, you my friend your train is screaming away from reality with no brakes, and you had better jump now while you still can. A return to sane foreign policy and a more discreet military presence in the world will not come in that manner, and certainly not now.

Wesley Clark is our best chance to take the White House back decisively and restore sanity and respect to our foreign policy. Once he declares there will be more opportunity for him to speak to the domestic issues that concern him as well such as the environment and education, but that's a whole other topic.

[ignatiusr]

60. He already has somewhat

He criticized defense spending in a recent Newsweek article. Said that a lot of the economic stimulus we're seeing is a result of defense spending, and that he thought there were "far more effective ways to use our money." That's paraphrased, but that was the general idea of the statement. If you want a link, I can probably find it.

[Q]

48. To expand on your premise...

...the military-industrial-corporate complex now includes the American Free Press.

- Investigative journalism is dead and thus no more stories about 500 dollar hammers or defense contractor fraud in general. Hell...the 'mainstream media' barely had anything to say when it was 'discovered' that the Pentagon had 'lost' track of literally trillions of tax dollars. And what are the odds that you'll hear the truth about 'Starwars' from a media corporation with defense contractor subsidiaries?

- And now the DLC leadership and the Neocons are in a race to see who can act the toughest by spending the most money on things...not meant for the defense of the United States...but to redirect tax funds into the hands of the wealthy few.

- Nationalism, God and Patriotism can become a curse to a country that deals in blind faith instead of introspection.

[BeFree]

57. Good work, Rich

At this stage, if all we can do is get some folx thinking about the largesse of the military and the dangerous blind support given it, we've accomplished something. Your piece is a sound statement which if read will be very educational. Thanks....& Peace

[CoffeePlease1947]

64. Attacking American men and women in uniform will not win any points

I think you perfectly outlined what has caused the Democrats to lose elections in the 1980's and 2002. You attack the men and women in uniform that selflessly give themselves up to defend this country. You should instead attack the political leaders that make those decisions. This is the United States of America, not France. If you want to win elections, you have to think like an American.
Clark fought in Vietnam, he didn't start. Clark lead the Bosnian war, he didn't start it.
You expect that military officer to publically attack his Commander and Chief while still in uniform? That is called treason, and every man and woman that does this should be tried, this is what kills our soldiers. It is clear you have never served in uniform and have NO respect for the men and women that do.

Mike

[Q]

73. Not to speak for Rich...

...but I believe his thread is meant for people JUST LIKE you.

[RichM]

87. Mike, you couldn't be more wrong. I do not attack those in uniform at all.

I attack "the political leaders that make those decisions," just as you wrote. And I attack the institutional relationships that have developed between the Pentagon, the military hardware suppliers, the oil giants, etc, & the Congressional leadership (of both parties, not just presently, but over the decades at least since WWII).

If you look carefully at my post at the top, I don't believe there is anything that's critical of the men & women in uniform themselves, who for the most part do their very best and deserve no blame whatever for the missions they are sent out on.

My criticism of Clark is based on two things, but neither is an attack on him "as a soldier." The two things are 1) the symbolism of choosing someone from the military as a candidate, which I find dangerous because it reinforces erroneous ideas in the public mind, & 2) my view that Clark himself is not remotely going to be the kind of candidate that aims at bringing about fundamental change to American society. I see him, at best, as someone who would not be as bad as Bush, but who would change none of the fundamental forces in American society that make a nightmare like Bush possible.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. Do You Really Think

that

Gephardt


Kerry

Lieberman

Dean

Graham

or

Edwards

would alter the current defense pardaigm.....

[RichM]

101. No, of course not. Only Kucinich has the philosophical depth & vision to

even try. And of course, he's the only one who has had the guts to explicitly propose cutting military spending & using the money to improve the lives of the great majority of the American non-rich: health care, education, infrastructure.

Sharpton seems to also be in roughly that same place, philosophically. Dean is not really there. (I'm very underwhelmed by him, generally speaking, though he's better than the other 5 "first-tier" guys.)

[Trek234]

103. Not that the US military should engage in such activity

But by your logic EVERY SINGLE PERSON at the Nuremburg trials should have been found to be innocent of any and all charges on the grounds that they (rather than as you say comitting treason) were "just following orders", and you would support them for NOT going against the will of the CO they had.

If you would NOT support them, and all those under them, following orders of the commander then you are a hypocrite.

That's the problem with the blind good soldier argument.

[Malva Zebrina]

149. YEs

and some incredibly compassionate people who knew about Vietnam, some incredible people who had a conscience and sense of who they are and what they need to do with thier life here on earth did NOT go to Vietnam--even though they did not start it.

In the case of Iraq, these soldiers are NOT defending American "freedoms' Those who would succumb to this wordspeak, do indeed need a refresher course in the English language--especialy in reading comprehension--

Bush, the AWOL president and commander in chief, took these pathetic pawns and propelled them into a "cake walk" war, forty percent of whom are not even citizens but hoping to be one if they get wounded for Bush--

these young pawns just happened to be there because it was a living--there are no heroes amongst them--they are not fighting for your or for my "freedom" at all. Our freedom has NOT been in jeapardy unless you want to count the machinations of one Mr. Cheney and Bush--and Ashcroft--

here are NO handsome fresh faced heroes because they walked into Iraq after the country was devastated--ten years of bombing in the no fly zone, the sanctions and the final killing of six thousand innocent citizens in Baghdad and who know how many somewhere else. It was a piece of cake to walk in and over these people and, of course to let Saddam go free. No heroes--not defending my "freedom"--only risking their lives to assure Bush and his buddies lots and lots and lots of profit--at the expense of the taxpayer.

This entire war, and possible the one in Afganistan has been nothing but a shameful exercise in empire building for corporate gain--the notion that a human life is precious, has no place on the PNAC menu of Bush and the neocons--and you know what--they do not care if I think it is "shameful"--they do not care if you think it is "noble" all they care about is their own power and they can wield it over you by messing with your brain and nationialism, and they can wield it over me by threats.

[KoKo]

68. what an interesting post......putting together in such a thoughtful way

what many of us feel as worrysome about the push for Clark's candidacy.... There have been some of us who have been worried about the prescedent this sets.....sort of "Acceptance of PNAC as being a valid goal for the US.'

But, we couldn't put it as eloquently as you have in this post.....This is the worry....well stated...thanks..

This quote from your post is what worries me the most......

The Clark candidacy rests on the premise that "the military is a profoundly respectable institution," a force for good
in American life. But it isn't. In many ways, it's one of the very most horrible things about America. Running a man
for president mainly because he's from the military -- a man who is going to exploit the undeserved American faith
in the military, rather than expose the many reasons why this faith is delusional & grievously misplaced -- this is a
dishonest disservice to the nation. It encourages MORE American ignorance, not less; it encourages MORE
American fear & reliance on the military, not less; & it rests on (& contributes to) faith in an institution that's
become a demented instrument of violence, plunder & corruption.

[friendofbenn]

79. dlc dean

Dean on the military: "I don't think you can cut the defense budget."
good one :wtf:

[scarletwoman]

85. Excellent, RichM, absolutely excellent!

Beautifully said, trenchant, spot on analysis. I have not your eloquence, I can only say that I wholeheartedly agree.

And, of course, the ensuing thread is a fascinating read. People REALLY hate having their cherished mythologies challenged...

I have accomodated to the apparent fact that there is little hope for this country. Appalling few people are able/willing to step out of their ingrained mindsets to see the whole picture of what's really going on.

Still, it's a comfort to know that at least *some* minds are up to the task, however much it seems to be a case of the "lone voice crying in the wilderness".

May your voice continue to ring with the truth!

Peace,
sw

[mikita]

102. I would have to ditto scarletwoman's reply...

I felt that this was an outstanding post.

From some of the comments made in the thread, it appears that there many DUers who need to read more outside stuff, and not just on this site. Try Bill Blum's Rogue State for a great start. And try re-reading Zinn's Hx of the American People, all the while looking for the parallels to our current state, and see that we've been a pretty nasty nation for a long time, and that the path we're on isn't one that just "happened" in 2000. It's hard to swallow, but we're not really the heroes we thought.

Perhaps this is not an accurate impression, but it seems that many DUers believe that if we get W-A out in 2004, then everything can be "normal" again. Personally I believe that IF he's "booted out" (hard to imagine with a rigged voting system) it's because he's done what they need, and they want the masses to heave that collective sigh of relief.

We are circling the drain, IMHO. And if you want to flame me by saying "why don't you just give up?" -- I can only say that I must stay informed so they can't change me --as they change my world.

Peace.

[Hamlette]

93. Do you advocate NO military?

I'm guessing you don't go that far.

There is no one more likely to curb the excesses of the military than someone who was in it. Just like everything else in life. You wanna know where the bodies are you hire an insider to be on your team.

The trashing of the military on this board is stupid. Oh yeah, and an anti war candidate is gonna have a VERY tough sell. I know you don't like to be told we failed so many times before. BUT WE DID.

And I don't want to make the same mistake again.

You are wasting your time anyway. he's not running and that means we've got less than a 50/50 shot at the white house. Less if we don't stop eating our young.

[Trek234]

107. "There is no one more likely to curb..."

That's a joke right? Looking at history you will see FAR more people who were in the military and later gained high political power doing exactly the opposite.

[Hamlette]

111. Grant, Washington, Eisenhower?

No war mongers there.

I grew up listening to military types saying the war in Vietnam was wrong. I've also read The Bush book by Woodward. Colin Powell was very much against the war. Yeah, he switched and ended up supporting it. There are decent arguments that he did what he should have done.

There are many people in the military who are liberal and decent human beings. Not all of them are war mongers. It's actually why I'm a HUGE supporter of the draft. You get a wider cross section.

The military is necessary. Treating them like freaks and holding them at arms length is dangerous. If you truly consider them to be your enemies you should draw them closer to keep an eye on them.

[bobthedrummer]

94. Revolution in Political and Military Affairs/RPMA is about the efficacy

of coups, IMHO. I've been taken to task on what I read in it, but my spook network agrees with me.

RPMA is about the end of the nation-state, the blurring of crime and war, and you can read it here to judge for yourself a couple of years and wars from 9-11-2001 and 12-12-2000.:nuke::puke::argh:

RPMA
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/coup.htm

Militarism is what BFEE promotes. Here are a couple more links to chew on from these neo-conservative dominated think tanks that spend OUR $ like Third Reich did as it grew.

Revolution in Military Affairs/RMA
http://www.datafilter.com/mc/rmaWarCollege.html

Shock and Awe
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html

Warfare in the 21st Century
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/library/bibs/warfar03.htm

Non-lethal arsenal
http://www.adacomp.net/~mcherney/nonlethal.html

This is why we need a Department of Peace.

[John_H]

108. WoooooHoooooo! Clark gets the RichM kiss of life!

Well folks, it's finally arrived in all its basso-psuedoprofundo, megabrushin', knee-jerkin', grad-student-prose glory: the definitive indicator of Wes Clark's electablity. And it can only mean one thing, which, of course, is that 99% of dem voters would vote for Wes Clark in a heartbeat if he ends up as the party's nominee.

Just think. If that happens, Rich may treat us to 600 word proposal to rename the "general" election!

[neverforget]

109. After reading this thread, I just hope we remember who the enemy

is come November 2004: George W. Bush. Dean, Clark, Kerry, Kucinich, Mosely-Braun, Sharpton, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards anyone of them would be better than that jackass now squatting in the White House.

[RichM]

110. Yes, but 2 of them would be A LOT better, & the rest would only be

marginally better. (My dog Spot would also be better, but is that a good reason to elect my dog Spot?)

Why don't we try to elect someone who's NOT a militarist, someone who courageously opposes US imperialism, someone who wants to downsize the Pentagon?

[KG]

112. as usual - a lucid appraisal

and as usual - half totally miss the point. but don't let that stop you from trying to throw a little light into the darker corners of our society.

[BoogieBear]

114. This is an excellent essay, however...

I think it misses one crucial point. I don't think Clark's supporters are militaristic types. I think they are supporting Clark purely out of pragmatism. They see his "military background" as a useful tool for winning over moderate Republican voters who are still concerned with the whole "national security" thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. My Final Take On This Subject

I am not a pacifist nor a militarist but someone who realizes there are situatuions where the use of force is necessary. To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton " if all men were angels there would be no need for a military."

I am a big guy. I go 6'2 225 and I have always been big for my age... As I came to the aid of smaller kids who were bullied in school I would come to any of your aid if you were unjustly attacked by a larger predator... It is that basic philosophy and predisposition that informs me on when the use of miltary force is justified:

To defend one's country....

To defend a sovereign nation that has been attacked by a larger and more powerful nation...

To protect the human rights of a-l-l human beings. I respect each nation's sovereignty but that sovereignty ends when you use it to advance systematic slaughter of a people or other people. Some examples would be Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Cambodia. I would also include our destruction of the American Indian but that takes our topic to a whole new level.

Until we beat our swords into ploughshares the use of force is justified. As Jesus Christ has said "There is no greater love than to lay down your life for another man."

Peace 03

Brian

[Spentastic]

119. So after reading

All the crtitcism of your assertions in this thread you've decided to ignore them and find some quotes that back your point of view and declare victory?

Jesus didn't say much about enforcing your will militarily did he?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. "All the criticisms of your assertions in this thread and you've decided

to ignore them and find some quotes that back your point of view and decalre victory."


I didn't know it's a "victory" for an opinion when it's embraced by a bunch of posters on a bulletin board.... My bad....

I don't know why I have to post this to support a common sense position on the use of force but what the Hell

"If mankind minus one were of one opinion,than mankind is no more justified in silencing the one-if he had the power-would be justified in silencing mankind."

-John Stuart Mill

I am waiting to hear why it's not justified to use force to protect one's self, one's propety, one's life, one's country or somebody else's life,somebody else's country, or somebody elses's property...



To demonsrtate how absurd your position is I will merely state the contrary...

It is not justified to protect one'self, one's county, one's property or somebody else's life, soemebody's elses propery, or somebody else's country....

[Spentastic]

132. See you're doing it again!

"I am waiting to hear why it's not justified to use force to protect one's self, one's propety, one's life, one's country or somebody else's life,somebody else's country, or somebody elses's property..."

Now that sounds sensible (ish). Now tell me that's what the U.S military is used for. That's the problem the multi trillion dollar MIC the U.S has is not used for those things in the main.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. Where Did I Say I Give The Military Carte Blanche?

It's so much easier to skewer an opponent when you use strawmen and attribute to him positions he doesn't hold....and that's why honest debaters don't use these tactics.

I subscribe to the just war theory.

If a war can meet the tenets of the just war theory I will support it....

[Spentastic]

137. o.k

I'll elucidate a bit.

The concept of "just war" may be valid. Your interpretation of "just war" i.e Iraq I, Afghanistan differs from mine. Grenada, Panama, Vietnam don't fit the bill at all.

How many trillions of dollars are needed to fight "just wars"? It's entirely possible to argue that spending several times more than your nearest opponent is folly when other things are demonstrably wrong with your own country.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. I Enjoy Our Conversation...

I vigorously opposed the "wars" against Granada and Panama and Iraq War 2 .... I was ambivalent about the reaons we entered Viet Nam but I believe it was "lost" long before Saigon fell in 1975. It was probably lost in 1968 or so...

I support wars to end slavery-the Civil War

Wars of liberation - The Revolutionary War, The Russian Revolution,

Wars to prevent harm against innocents WW2,Kosovo, Bosnia

Wars to reverse irredentism- Iraq War 1,* the Korean War

Wars to root out terrorists-the Afghanistan War

The force used should be proportionate with an emphasis on keeping civillian and combatants casualties to a minimum....

I realize that all wars have their own subtexts and it is difficult to reduce them to a morality play of white hats versus black hats.

* I am well aware of America's support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and how America often plays a double game and gets bitten in the ass but that didn't give Saddam a right to attack a sovereign nation. I am also aware of the Saddam meeting with April Glasby where she tells him "America has no position on inter-Arab disputes" but Sadam was crazy to infer from that the U.S. would sit idly by while he invaded a nation friendly to the U .S.

[Paragon]

122. see post #120: "John 15:13"

Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. Hmmm

I said I would use force to protect those weaker than me...


When I was in elementary school and junior high school there would be kids who "shook down" the "weak" kids for their lunch money.... I put a stop to that if the "weak" kid came to me...


I didn't know that by stopping the strong from preying on the weak I was seaparating myself from G-d. We must have had different Sunday School teachers.

Here's a link for a more detailed disquisition on the justified use of force:

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[Ani Yun Wiya]

117. EXCELLENT POST, THANK YOU!!

This is by far the BEST post I have seen on this board.
Keep up the excellent work!!

More people need to have this kind of thinking.

[Paragon]

118. Exactly right

Honestly, people who support Clark are doing so because they've bought the conceit that Democrats are somehow soft when it comes to defense and the military.

Excuse me if I look askance at Clark supporters who have swallowed Republican dogma and enjoyed it.

[LoneStarLiberal]

141. Ideally Right, Practically Wrong

because they've bought the conceit that Democrats are somehow soft when it comes to defense and the military.

There are a whole lot of other issues besides Clark's military record out there and not all of us who would wholeheartedly support a Clark candidacy do so simply based on his military experience.

Unfortunately your point gets at something that is a problem for the people we as a party need to woo: They DO think Democrats are soft when it comes to defense and the military. That is a simple, unfortunate fact. The moderates that we need to defeat Bush/Cheney in 2004 DO think Democrats are soft on national security, the very issue that the Bush/Cheney team is going to run into the ground.

It is a sad, ignorant state of affairs that people believe this, but the reality of the situation is that the belief is there and has been there for the better part of two decades.

So we are left in that very cynical pickle of following what is ideally correct and most likely losing or embracing what is practically correct and giving ourselves a good chance at winning. The answer to that conundrum lies in what cost you are willing to pay.

[Pastiche423]

148. What other issues

besides Clark's military record are there that the nine candidates haven't already addressed and/or supported?

Name one that makes him rise above the nine candidates.

[LoneStarLiberal]

150. Options

Well whether or not what I believe he might have in the trunk policy-wise is going to be far more of a personal preference issue for me at this point. If you are insinuating that there's nothing to point to policy wise, you are correct.

Judging by what I have read of some of Wesley Clark's different comments on issues that will be central to this campaign, I am inclined to believe that he will propose a mix of new liberal social programs mixed with support through revamping for existing liberal social programs. These liberal social programs will be

It's true that the nine candidates have been all over several of what I would consider to be the campaign's core issues like flies on a melon. Unless you break down each candidate issue by issue, I don't really see or hear anyone who inspires me as a whole yet. I am most definitely inspired by three different candidates on individual issues, but as of yet no candidate as a whole.

I think Wesley Clark might provide that whole impression I, for one, am looking for.

Maybe he will run. Maybe he won't run. I simply believe that the more options we as Democrats have the better off we will be in picking a nominee who will be better positioned to unseat George Bush in 2004.

[Pastiche423]

154. Come again?

In your long reply, I was unable to see your response to:

Name one that makes him rise above the nine candidates.

Did I miss it, or is there not one issue that makes Clark rise above the nine candidates?

It appears to me, that the only thing that makes Clark different from the nine candidates, is his uniform.

A uniform w/lots of pretty medals does not a president make.

[LoneStarLiberal]

158. OK

What I tried to get across in the previous post is that I can't name you an issue of Clark's that I could compare to an issue stance of any other candidate because we obviously don't know the official issue stances, if and when they are announced, if and when Wesley Clark decides to jump into the race.

So, to summarize:

Name one that makes him rise above the nine candidates.
Since I don't know any I can't name one for you. I can tell you that I am not satisfied with what I have heard so far from the nine candidates, each taken as a whole.

I hear some things from Dean I like. I hear some solid policy from Kerry I like. I hear some fascinating progressive policy from Kucinich I like. I've heard a lot of good policy from John Edwards. But as of today, I don't hear any one candidate and feel that he or she is my candidate without reservation.

It is my impression that Clark could bring some competition on the issues to this contest. That's what I'm interested in: Giving Democratic voters more variety. Maybe it wouldn't be more variety: Maybe it would simply be more of the same. The point is none of us know but I am willing to bet that, given what I have read about Wesley Clark's ideas, his policies addressing the issues would inject some fire into a primary season where we need to emerge, as a party, with some sure-fire policies to address the issues facing our country.

If you are asking me what I personally think a policy of his would be and compare my personal intuition to an official policy of say Dean's or Kerry's, no thanks. I'm not running for office so my waffling isn't important.

I am curious to know your thoughts. I take it from your postings that you are not now nor would you support Clark in the primaries. Since we don't know exactly what his policies are, why decide against him now with incomplete information when you could wait and make a choice under a condition of more information if he declares? Is his retired military status the deciding issue for you before you know anything about his policy ideas for the issues?

[Pastiche423]

161. Thank you for answering my question

The reason for your excitement over Clark is because he wears a uniform w/pretty, shiny medals and that he might bring some competition on the issues to this contest.

What's to compete? I have watched every Democratic forum to date and can't fathom what Clark might have to add that hasn't been said by the wonderful nine candidates.

My prediction: Clark will not run because his monster military ego will not allow him to enter a contest that he can't win.

As to would I vote for him? Not on your life!

Why?

Pristina Airport
Waco
Connections w/PNAC
His military mindset
His "coyness" to declare if he is a Democrat*
His "coyness" as to if he is running for president*

* Both say to me that he is indecisive. (Waiting to see how much $$$/people will back a sure win?)

[LoneStarLiberal]

162. You Need To Adjust Your ESP...

You need to adjust your ESP if it's telling you that I'd support Clark because he was once in the military and was a high-ranking officer. Why? Because that's not the reason.

I know all of us who might/would support Clark if he decides to run are all supposed to be drooling on ourselves over his military record and his medals. I happen to think that he would offer a whole lot more that what he has been boiled down to represent on this thread and elsewhere.

In the spirit of RichM's original post on this thread, I agree with him that we could do to step back from the militaristic society we have become; but there's absolutely no way that this step back occurs under anyone else besides a retired military person.

As to all of Wesley Clark's personal reasons, hey, you might be right. I certainly don't know. And if your ESP with me is any indication, I wouldn't go putting money on that particular prediction just yet.

But, in the end, it is glorious that we can agree to disagree. Just like in religion, in politics you have to have faith before you can make the leap of faith in a candidate. Right now I don't have that leap of faith for any of the nine candidates and I'm interested to see if Wesley Clark might spark that leap of faith in my political life this year. If not, oh well. I'll financially support and volunteer to support whomever is nominated. I'm just not ready to close the door on my options just yet.

[Donna Zen]

168. Name one...okay

Clark advocates for something he terms "Constitutional Legitimacy." He sees that government has moved away from the built in checks and balances so necessary to effecting the Constitution. Thus, instead of a Congress that acts in the best interests of the people, we have a Congress that digresses into partisan bickering, doesn't read bills, and get away with benefitting their largest contributors with our tax dollars. He sites bushco foot-dragging failure to investigate and hold accountable those responsible for or negligent regarding 911. The American people are the being represented by those who are not held accountable. He sees this as inevitably leading to a slow slide into a country where our Constition will no longer matter. Part of his bi-partisan stance is a building of a coalition that will enable him to change that. One of the other players in this move back to legitimacy must be an informed people:

Rather, yours is the daily responsibility of citizenship, carried on through open debate and exercised at the ballot box on a hundred different issues and candidacies.   And this will require dissent, dissent that cannot be silenced through charges of comforting the enemy without surrendering the very freedoms we say we are fighting for.

Clark at Seton Hall in 2002, long before a draftclark movement.

http://academic.shu.edu/commencement/highlights_2002/clark2.html

To the best of my knowlege no other candidate has this issue on their radar.

You have accused us who support Clark as doing so because we are blinded by his medals. In reality, it is you who are Blinded By His Medals. Yes. And by not recognizing your own hatred of those clinking symbols of the military, fail to understand the opportunity you are now given. Electing someone in the true liberal tradition and obtaining the mandate to push a progressive agenda. So if you want to continue the MIC just keep bashing the very person with the necessary authority to bring it under control, but don't expect me to stand shoulder to shoulder with you.

 

[burr]

164. All I can say is YES SIR,

and what do I think next?

[waggawagga]

165. So Don't Vote for Him

Any Democrat who runs in 2004 and argues that the military is made up of war criminals is going to get three votes (his, his mom's, and this guy's).