Sorry, it's not about you and it's not for you

[whatchamacallit]

Why would you assume a government that puts your lives in jeopardy by acting to deny you health care, environmental safety, and a level economic playing field, would spend trillions fighting wars for your security?

[timeforpeace]

1. If you ask not what your country can do for you, it's cool.

[snagglepuss]

2. Hammer meet nail.

:applause:

[readmoreoften]

3. Now that, my friend, is the definition of succinct. Wow...

beautiful

[shadowknows69]

54. It takes me four pages to say that as powerfully. Well done.

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

:applause:

[Morning Dew]

5. Spot on. Wish I'd thought of putting it that way.

[freddie mertz]

6. K & R.

Well and economically expressed.

Be prepare for incoming, though:

"You must agree with the Taliban, then.."

That's what we are getting over there.

[reggie the dog]

7. that has got to be one of the most intellegent things I have

ever read.

[Subdivisions]

8. I don't believe their fighting wars for my security. I've always known it was about energy resources

[lark]

74. Enegery resources is only part of the equation

Add military industrial complex plus political power in being a War President and you are getting very close to the real truth.

[EFerrari]

9. Now *there* is a good question.

:applause:

[ZombieHorde]

10. Fun question. nt

[catzies]

11. Never has been and never will be. You have a way with words. n/t

[Gregorian]

12. Vioxx killed more people than Vietnam.

I just wanted to point that out. Maybe it belongs in another thread. It just seemed like it may fit. Something about military invasions over the 9/11 disaster.

[Lorien]

20. How many people did Vioxx kill?

I knew it killed quite a few, but I didn't know the number was in the hundreds of thousands.

[Gregorian]

21. About 50,000

I heard someone discussing it, and the people it killed. They had physical issues that existed, which when combined with the drug made them a greater risk. So it's a bit misleading to say Vioxx killed them.

But still, how many trillions for Middle East invasions? Can't we use the money we earn on our own issues at home here?

I grow weary. Haha. Stupid humans just make me tired.

[Hannah Bell]

29. vietnam: 58K US dead, + about 1 million vietnamese + french deaths. vioxx = 28K "contributed to".

FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths
November 4, 2004

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that Vioxx may have contributed to 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths between 1999 and 2003. The estimate is based on the number of prescriptions issued for Vioxx between 1999 and 2003.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vioxx_estimates.html.

http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html

[Enthusiast]

50. Still nt

[pokercat999]

38. Millions, we often think about Vietnam in the 58,000

Americans killed. We tend to forget the millions of Vietnamese on both sides of the border plus the other nationalities.

[liberation]

58. That is the compassionate American way!!!

How many times most of the opposition to the war has been stated exclusively based on the number of American casualties, as if... the war would be perfectly OK hadn't so many Americans been killed in it.

By the low park estimations, a few hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed, a significant number has been injured, and millions have been displaced. Those numbers, in a population totalling 30 million present quite significant percentages. The sad part is that in the big scheme of things, 5K casualties out of a population of 300+ million are insignificant in comparison (2 orders of magnitude less out of a population 1 order of magnitude larger). And yet for the most part we only hear about the US victims, and if the Iraqis are mentioned... it is done as a secondary aspect.


Funny how the "pro-life" contingent is completely silent on the war casualties, selective bunch of hypocrite hyenas they are and all...

[wial]

23. if Vietnamese and other SE Asians aren't people, then sure

since somewhere around 4 million people died in that war. Not all at our hands to be sure, but a lot of them wouldn't have died if we had not intervened.

To free them, no doubt. To help them.

There's a fundamental wrong in how humans do business that has yet to be corrected, is all I can say.

[Gregorian]

57. It's not like me. I've always taken the whole picture into perspective.

As in Iraq. A million dead. And much worse. In comparison to our losses.


Thanks. I see you aren't the only one who picked up on it. I was repeating something I heard without thinking.

[rudy23]

13. "It's all one big club, and you and I aint in it."

Paraphrasing the great George Carlin--hope I didn't misquote.

[Deja Q]

15. I think he got in it.

Just to what it takes to make a buck, even if it costs you your dignity.

[Echo In Light]

44. Video link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

[BrklynLiberal]

14. RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT....

[donheld]

16. k & R

[BeFree]

17. Uh-Yeah... Good one.

[scarletwoman]

18. Your OP is a thing of profound beauty!

Excellent! :applause:

[varelse]

19. Another message from the "no shit" department

:P

[FarLeftFist]

22. Because National security threatens their corporate greed and bloodlust n/t

[Morning Dew]

24. kick

[Postman]

25. Succinct and profound. Good job.

[cliffordu]

26. Excellent. K&R!!

[tblue]

27. Isn't that the truth?

But even when Democrats are in control, we can't let them get away with it.

[Kitty Herder]

28. Hear, hear!

[noise]

30. Propaganda

A similar notion is that government officials so desperately want to keep us safe that they are willing to trash the Constitution to do so. Propaganda is the common denominator. Leaders ALWAYS act in good faith. For example, we are told Iraq was a "mistake." The Bush administration and the CIA were incompetent.

Look at the successful FOIA squashing torture photo saga. We were told the reason the photos weren't released was because soldiers may be put in greater risk and the country might even be more susceptible to terrorist attack. What about the use of torture in the first place? How on earth did using torture keep soldiers safer? How does condoning torture by protecting the architects from legal accountability keep soldiers safer?

[democrank]

31. Bravo!

Short and sweet.

[Erbaterra]

32. Brilliant!

Absolutely well said! Brilliant!

[gateley]

33. A-fucking-men, brother. nt

[f the letter]

34. Yep.

Nailed

[loudsue]

35. Wow.

If only that weird 21% who still like George Bush could understand the full spectrum of meaning in that statement, we might be able to get somewhere.

[barbtries]

36. yep.

yep. yep. yep. sigh.

[DailyGrind51]

37. Damn, you ask a profound question!

[Orsino]

39. Call your Congressmember right fucking now!!!!1!

...and ask how you can help funnel more of your money to the wealthy.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

40. This is actually part of a song about the IMF, but it seems to work here also.

Excerpt of "Call it Democracy" by Bruce Cockburn
It's always about money for the politically connected.

Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament --
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called "developed" nations'
Idolatry of ideology

North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Excellent!

:woohoo: :applause:

[Le Taz Hot]

42. Another kick.

One of the best posts I've ever read on DU.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

43. I am so glad I don't have you on Ignore

Excellent! :toast:

[Soylent Brice]

45. the shortest /most profound thing i've ever read here.

K&R

[MissDeeds]

46. Well said

K&R

[leeroysphitz]

47. Enough said.

[amb123]

48. Intelligence & Simple Logic - What a Concept!

:wow: :wow: :wow:

[Black-Eyed Susan]

49. Do you think

that there was ever a time when the government of this country represented the people?

It seems from history that the origins of this nation were such that the people (the unwashed masses) were always to be controlled and kept at bay by the government which was there to serve the interests of the larger economic forces.

[Enthusiast]

51. No shit, Sherlock! Well said!

This is why many of us are sooo pissed off.

Clue #1: It isn't because we want a pony.

Clue #2: It's not because we hate President Obama.

The PTB are THE enemy of the American people. They are one of the greatest enemies this country has ever faced. This should be clear to all citizens by now.

Every DUer knows we could provide health care for every U.S. citizen, for 55% what we pay now. This can be done with that "off the table" single payer system that we all want. But advocating single payer is the pony they say we want. Riiiight.

Realistically, what un pony-like change should we expect? We should expect an immediate end to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with an instant 50% cut in MIC allowances. We should expect these "too big to fail" financial institutions to be broken up and the reinstitution of Glass-Steagal. That is some of what a citizenry should expect, if, that is, they had good representative government.

Hey, the PTB can continue to treat the American citizen like a piece of shit. But eventually they will find the whole thing crashing down around their necks. It will happen.

[chill_wind]

52. Absolutely. *War Is A Racket.*

[undergroundnomore]

53. I am sad

Each and every day people across America are having to make the difficult choice as to whether they can afford medical care, prescription medicine, and other basic human necessities. I had hoped that our Democrat MAJORITY Congress, Democrat MAJORITY Senate, and incredibly intelligent President would understand, would put forth the will of the people and PASS a public option health care plan.

We talk about what could have happened if McCain was in office but it's almost beginning to look like he really did win.

Can't they hear the people? Don't they care about us? I'm beginning to think I know the answer to that question and it's not the answer I had originally thought it was.

Very disappointed about the tabling of Sen Nelson's Abortion amendment but on the plus side men can still get Viagra. YIPEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

DAMN, DAMN, DAMN, DAMN, DAMN. Who is on our side? Stop the appeasements to big corporations and Republicans. Stand up for US.

I voted to bring the troops home. Tomorrow is too late. We should not be in the nation building business. Isn't that a Republican platform. Like that cell phone commercial used to say, "Can you hear me NOW?"

[Flatulo]

55. So if the government *did* provide single-payer health care for all,

would you then argue that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed for our security?

If the government acts benevolently in one area, must they be acting benevolently in all areas?

Sorry, I think you've made a logical error somewhere.

[liberation]

59. LOL, blaming others for your false dichotomy?

Talk about runaway projection... seriously, I hope you were not being serious or that I missed your sarcasm somewhere, LOL.

[Flatulo]

I think the false dichotomy is in the OP. Mine was intentionally ironic. nt

[Toasterlad]

72. The Things The OP Mentions Are Evidence That the Government Does Not Have Our Best Interest At Heart

It is a completely valid argument. If the government does something beneficial in another area, that does not make the OP's examples any less valid.

You construct an argument by assmebling evidence to support your claim. It's a rare argument that has no evidence AGAINST it. The argument is valid if there is MORE evidence that the argument is true than there is AGAINST it.

There is no dichotomy, false or otherwise, in the OP.

[Flatulo]

73. You're assuming that the argument that the Afghan war is not in our best interest is true.

I think there is plenty of valid disagreement over that premise.

[Toasterlad]

76. You Would Be EXTREMELY Hard Pressed To Prove That.

So far, the finest minds at the government's disposal have yet to present a single legitimate reason for our continued involvement in Afghanistan. If you'd like to give it a shot, knock yourself out.

[Fire1]

56. If you're referring to Afghanistan, "our security" is only a

fraction of the problem. You're correct, in that, the military objectives have much less to do with "us" and/or our security and more about our responsibility.

[liberation]

60. Indeed we have a responsibility to send our empire to die in Afghanistan...

... so now we have a "responsibility" to be there, funny if only Bush had thought of that excuse!

I guess us Americans are so "compassionate" that we will send our soldiers to a sh*thole, because we have a "responsibility" to bomb the sh*t out of them (i assume those furigners love them bombs and just can't live without us dropping them over their heads) even if it means sacrificing our own health care, social welfare, and infrastructure.

Well, I guess this is one great selfless Christian nation after all... LOL!

[RedCloud]

71. And now a song to your avatar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEj7jnR--Dg

[Dave From Canada]

61. I disagree with your premise.

[Hatchling]

62. Succinct!

Also horked for my sig line.

[HarveyDarkey]

63. Well put

and more truth than many are willing to accept I'm sure.

[zoff]

64. THE question to ask congress critters!

A thousand recs!

[stray cat]

65. But it may be about your neighbor.....

not every policy will benefit you personally

[winyanstaz]

66. K & R......

Exactly...well said.

[valerief]

67. Good thing I'm logical enough not to assume it. Can't speak for others. nt

[harun]

68. Best post evva.

[Jakes Progress]

69. Very well put. Kinda makes any discussion here moot though.

In a way, places like DU give us vent for frustration and anger. Is this the kind of climate that leads to revolutions? I believe the powers just keep testing the populace for just how much we will take. Then they balance it with a little goodie. Then they go back to their evil ways. It's a nasty little balancing act they do with our lives.

[juno jones]

70. K&R! n/t

[Raineyb]

75. Excellent point!

K&R

[WillyT]

77. Most Excellent Point !!!

Wish I could still recommend.

:kick: