"On the fourth day, I’d be assassinated."

[WillyT]

FDL Book Salon Welcomes William Blum, America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy—the Truth About US Foreign Policy and Everything Else
By: David Swanson Saturday February 8, 2014 1:59 pm
Welcome William Blum (WilliamBlum.org) (Interviews, books), and Host David Swanson (DavidSwanson.org) (books) (Twitter)

America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy—the Truth About US Foreign Policy and Everything Else



William Blum would be a national treasure if outgrowing nationalism weren’t part of the process of learning from William Blum.

William Blum would be president if we had any sense. As it is, he once famously remarked:

If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America’s global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now — oddly enough — a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year’s military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That’s what I’d do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I’d be assassinated.

Of course, military spending, across numerous departments is now up around $1 trillion a year, and there are lots more victims to compensate. But the basic premise, the basic inversion of common thinking, holds. People think that an aggressive military stance, troops in every nation, ships in every sea, drones in every sky, protects them. They don’t pay attention to the experts who routinely admit that it’s counterproductive. They don’t stop to ask why the one nation that does far and away the most to protect itself is the most feared, hated, and threatened. They imagine that giving the whole world food and water and agricultural and energy assistance might make us beloved but would cost a lot of money, neglecting to consider that it would cost a fraction of what we spend on making ourselves bitterly resented — oh, and by the way, killing lots of people in the process.

William Blum gives us a different perspective...

<snip>

More: http://fdlbooksalon.com/2014/02/08/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-william-blum-americas-deadliest-export-democracy-the-truth-about-us-foreign-policy-and-everything-else/

[CFLDem]

1. More like on the 4th day WW3 would erupt

as emerging superpowers try to gobble up territory knowing the 800 pound gorilla on the planet isn't going to punish them.

I prefer the smaller battles of a unipolar world to the major wars of a multipolar one.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Which superpowers would go to war with each other? nt

[CFLDem]

5. Well for starters

you'd have China and Russia bumping against each other as they compete for Asia-Pacific supremacy while Iran and Saudi Arabia go hog wild in the ME.

Then the colonization race would speed up again in Africa and Europe would be left to fend for itself.

Eventually all that drama will end up on our shores like Pearl Harbor or the energy crisis of the 70's.

In short we'd be back to where we were before WW1 and 2.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Some questions...

You think the US is the only thing keeping China and Russia from going after each other?

If they went after each other today, who do you think the US would side with?

Do you think the US has the ability to resist SA and Iran right now? Afghanistan is giving us some troubles and consuming a lot of resources.

Who do you think would colonize African countries?

Europe would be left to fend for itself against whom?

[CFLDem]

12. Well

You think the US is the only thing keeping China and Russia from going after each other?

Not the only thing, but major component. If anything the US at least causes any country to think twice about disturbing the status quo.

If they went after each other today, who do you think the US would side with?

Most likely China due to our mutually beneficial trade relationship.

Do you think the US has the ability to resist SA and Iran right now? Afghanistan is giving us some troubles and consuming a lot of resources.

Absolutely. Afghanistan's location between Iran and Pakistan requires the US to be
much more sensitive in the application of our military might for fear of starting total war.

But if it came down to it, we'd be in Tehran in under six months.

Who do you think would colonize African countries?

China and Russia are currently heavily investing in snapping up African natural resources. The lack of a US presence would put that into overdrive.

Europe would be left to fend for itself against whom?

Both Russia to the east and against themselves. Russian influence is already causing havoc in the Ukraine and lack of US defenses would only embolden Russia even more to put its former states under its wing again.

The lack of US defenses would also mean that Europe would have to cut into popular social programs in order to fund actual militaries now that the US wouldn't be doing the heavy lifting for them.

This would cause social unrest as we saw with the austerity protests and destabilize the region in general.

While these are what I feel to be the most likely scenarios, in general the US withdrawing from the world would leave a huge power vacuum that wouldn't be filled by people singing kumbaya under a rainbow.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Thank you for the answers.

I am skeptical about some of your predictions, but my skepticism is only based on my personal opinions.

[Hekate]

23. Well thought out, CFL. The US, as much as some of us would like to drop out...

... of the world's geopolitical dramas, really does play an essential part in maintaining what precarious stability there is.

>sigh< I want to go hide in a cave sometimes myself and to hell with it. It's the old isolationist strain in the American consciousness...

Thanks for reminding me why that would be such a bad idea.

[MyNameGoesHere]

32. I am curious

considering that we have tended to meddle in world affairs for a couple centuries and the world is in general no less or more stable what is the point? How many more centuries do you think we should keep trying the same old policies? To what end? 10000 years of "isolated" conflict? How does that evolve into anything other than savages with clubs beating each other to resolve issue?

[Progressive dog]

41. How many wars have been fought in the US?

Isn't the point of banding together in an American government to first protect us?
Could you name any nation that hasn't tried to protect it's citizens?

[MyNameGoesHere]

42. How many wars have been fought in the USA?

Too many to mention I suppose. The correct question might have been, how many proxy wars have we been involved in.

[Progressive dog]

44. Like aginst Germany, Japan, N Korea,

or Afghanistan. Proxy wars huh, how many have we been involved in?
That is probably why everyone in the world hates us so much, and why Mao and Brezhnev were so popular. Didn't one of them get a Nobel Peace prize?

[MyNameGoesHere]

46. I'm having a hard tome following your direction or thoughts

so I am bowing out.

[Progressive dog]

47. That isn't surprising

[MyNameGoesHere]

48. Nice. I should have thought

of making a such a ingenious reply to you. Oh I feel so sad that you put me in my place. Oh noes I cannot go on anymore, I shall perish. Have a nice progressive day dog.

[Maedhros]

58. Forget it - they're Imperialists.

You won't change their minds.

[7962]

63. Agreed. Especially with the world so connected now, isolationism would only make it worse.

It would all end up on us at some point. The time of thinking "we're all the same" is long gone. We're all human and thats where the similarities end in most cases. Not to mention we dont fight wars to win anymore, because that requires destroying everything and killing a whole helluva lot more people. Do that many people really think the world, as a whole, would be better and safer with the US out of the picture?

[sabrina 1]

24. And yet, history shows that other Empires who were 'keeping all those other places

from fighting with each other' eventually lost their power. The world went on but some of them miss the role of being able to steal the resources of other nations and are now clinging to the coat tails of the latest one.

Let's suppose that there does need to be a few Super Powers to keep all those, as Churchill among other Imperialists, referred to them 'savages' from attacking each other.

Let's suppose that rather than using their power to kill people with, the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions eg, and instead used all that money to help them become first world rather than third world nations? Suppose that when there was a natural disaster somewhere, in some Asian country eg, and the US used its military to help the victims restore their lives.

What if they created student exchange programs that allowed students from various countries to learn to know each other as human beings, rather than as 'enemies'.

We are in the 21st Century and have made ZERO progress wrt evolving into the kind of planet that IS possible. Because we are still stuck in the primitive stages of development.

We are just the latest war mongering nation to jump on that old bandwagon.

But if someday an Empire does emerge that uses its power to spread good will rather than bombs and torture and illegal invasions, that Empire will be powerful.

The truth is though that most nations don't need the Western powers to tell them how to live.

The very idea that this is the case shows how racist Western Imperialism is, even still.

[CFLDem]

26. I welcome that future pacifist empire

because war sucks. Hell, even national borders and all the junk that goes with that is stupid.

[defacto7]

31. This really sums it up very well.

I also agree with your use of "if someday" because I have pretty much concluded the US is not, nor will ever be that Empire. I think the world is the sum of what the dark side of humanity has made it over centuries; it's just another brick in the failing wall of civilization. The board needs an eraser before we can start to rewrite a viable future for humankind, and a rewrite is what is necessary.

[7962]

65. The US was the first to respond to the Tsunami of 2004. Not to mention countless others.

We even offered help to Iran after their bad earthquake of '03. Delivering humanitarian aid all thru the year to many countries year after year.

[indepat]

69. Wonder how much US aid has gone to Haiti following the massive earthquake?

[Hekate]

72. Seriously? You can check it out. One organization is Direct Relief International...

They instantly started loading an airplane, but as it happened they already had a container(s) on a ship in the harbor because they keep a year-round presence there. Unfortunately the docks and the cranes were wrecked in the earthquake, so delivery was delayed.

Anyway that's one American organization. Stats are certainly available for whatever aid was rendered by the US government itself.

[indepat]

80. Did not some Republican Congress-critter hold up the approved aid?

[obxhead]

54. 6 days, 6 weeks, certainly not 6 months.

It took over a decade to "end" that war.

[alfredo]

74. Corporations are the colonialist

[Savannahmann]

6. It isn't a Unipolar world though

Take Syria for example. While we were posturing and making asinine comments about spanking Assad with cruise missiles Russia was moving their fleet into position between us and Syria and doing so publicly.

Russia made no effort to conceal their determination to protect Syria, they had to. They had no choice in reality. So if we had attacked Syria, Russia would have responded by attacking our ships in the Med. Oh we would have won, we have a bigger military, but won what? We can't invade Russia, it is an enormous country that swallows invading armies and devours them whole. The only way to win, is to destroy the world with Nuclear war, which means nobody wins because nobody survives.

Asia, China is the 800 pound gorilla. Nobody can invade China, and what would we do if outright war were started? Oh we could break off trade, sink a few Naval vessels, and down a few airplanes. But what then? How do you force regime change in China? How do you invade a nation with more than a Billion people? How can you defeat a nation with the astonishing ability to construct Three Gorges Dam, or their new port offshore from Shanghai? They are indomitable and rather more sophisticated than many would like to believe.

Even now, China is increasing their influence in the region, by giving away things to improve the lives of the people in places like Tonga. http://www.taimionline.com/articles/2811

About 130 km of roads throughout Tongatapu, Vava’u, Ha’apai, and ‘Eua is to be reconstructed using the loan, and set to be completed by 2013.

Wang says he hopes major infrastructure developments like the NRIP, will benefit Tonga as it did China.

Hon. Vaipulu responded, “The project will continue to foster the warm relations between the two countries. We are looking forward for closer and long term cooperation.”

What do we do? Oh we offer assistance in weapons, training to fight terrorists which are apparently defined as anyone who doesn't like the US, and instructions on how these backward natives can be more American. In other words, we bring ugly American attitudes and guns. China donated a small airplane to the nation of Tonga. Western nations responded by being angry at Tonga for accepting the gift.

http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/fiji/2511/stop-interfering-tonga-tells-nz/

So the story is simple. Tonga got a plane, a single plane from China, and uses it to fly people from one island to another in the multi island chain. New Zealand's airline has to buy their own planes, and the Chinese one is unsafe, and well, Chinese, and so New Zealand air pulled out of Tonga. Then New Zealand suspended aide to Tonga.

Result? China will probably pick up the aid payments, and Tonga will fall into their sphere of influence for a few million dollars and few miles of roads, and one lousy plane. While we tell Tonga to behave or they won't get more guns and bombs and body armor or training from out counter terrorism forces. We'll show them by denying the damned natives the ability to be all awesome with guns and stuff.

It isn't a unipolar world, and it never has been. The ability to destroy the world is a power we share with several nations. The only thing we have in abundance, is military, and it is useless against the other big nations, and is being usurped by the application of brain power to problems other than the fastest way to kill by those same nations.

It is reported that Al Capone said you could get more with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone. Judging from the nation of Tonga area, you can get more with a kind word and a little humanitarian and development aide than you can with a gun.

[CFLDem]

7. Isn't what China did with Tonga

like what we're doing with them?

We give China some factories as a way to keep their people content and China agrees to leave our client states alone.

It's our version of following Capone's advice.

[Coyotl]

8. Exactly the kind of thinking that IS the problem.

[maddiemom]

20. Absolutely.

[MyNameGoesHere]

11. Oh amurka the savior huh?

yeah one of the reasons we are in the state of world chaos is because some folks think we are some kind of fucking knights in shining armor sent to rescue the savages.

[CFLDem]

14. No not to save them

just making sure they behave. As for global chaos... we're actually experiencing an unprecedented period of relative peace.

[MyNameGoesHere]

15. We don't behave. why should they? eom

You seem to have an extreme case of amurkan exceptional-ism.

[CFLDem]

19. I guess it's time for the talk.

The world is not a playground, there is no such thing as "fair".

In the real world, there is no teacher to step in when the bully takes your lunch money. The bully gets to take your lunch money for no other reason than just because he can.

So if you want to keep your lunch money (aka first world status/resources/etc) you can become the bully's friend, get a bunch of your friends to help beat him up, or bulk up and become a bully yourself.

TL;DR: We get to do what we want because we can. It's not exceptionalism, it's merely the privilege that comes with running the playground.

[davekriss]

49. Quoting another "realist" for you, George Kennan

"We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. ... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. ... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. ... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
—George F. Kennan, Policy Planning Study 23 (PPS23), Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1948

Let's face it, we oppress and kill people outside of the United States primarily for one reason: "Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."

Millions die so our upper classes can wallow in wealth with little fear of reprisal. That's real. One of Blum's earlier books was called "Killing Hope" - its what we do. We kill hope in other populations to rise up and control their own resources, their own lives, when in so doing our elites feel the impulse for freedom might hide buried within it the seeds of threat to the non-negotiable (Cheney) American way of life. We smash every nation that deviates from the status quo even when the nation itself is of little consequence simply because our elites cannot stand even a small example of independence from our model of the world.

That's real. That's what drives our military machine and the incessant propaganda needed for we of the 99% to sacrifice blood and treasure to keep things going. You may be comfortable with the relative peace within our boundaries, but I imagine it must be difficult to sleep at night if one pushes out of mind the real costs and consequences of that peace.

Cheers.

[Springslips]

53. Bingo!

The post you argue against was the same argument the Tories used to maintain the British Empire--I think it's called White Man's Burden. His classic conservative real-politic argument badly conceals his American supremacy belief. Supposedly, other nations, China, Russia ect, are manned by apelike creatures who wouldn't know how to act if wasn't for the good USA. That's bullshit.

[Maedhros]

59. We kill children in third world countries

so our children can have cheap iPhones.

[defacto7]

37. I've posted this point before....

But I think the unprecedented period of peace that's been argued depends on a person's definition of peace. Peace by what means could make a difference in perspective. Peace for whom also makes a difference. Stable peace is different from peace at a point in time. What properties are present that make peace a permanent fixture rather than an period of exception.

Time period is a strange concept when talking about human history and it's nonsensical when comparing it to global history where we are not even a blip. Perspectives are important to survival now that there is a reasoning animal on the planet.

I wish for, I hope for, dream of a utopia of peace. But the mess we have is deceiving to some as a peaceful period.

As for the message of peace proposed in the OP, I am completely convinced of its truth. As for retaining peace through present methods of deceit and military power, damn that to hell. But neither will succeed at this point.

[maddiemom]

21. And absolutely again.

[sibelian]

40. There isn't an 800 pound gorilla.

There's an utterly vast conglomerate of scorpions, digger wasps, scolopendra, hornets and parasitic worms swarming inside a huge cardboard model of an 800 pound gorilla. They eat each other as well as making the gorilla appear to move.

Sometimes someone blows a chunk out of the cardboard and you can see the seething, broiling mass wriggling inside.

[DeSwiss]

56. BS!

[rhett o rick]

57. You are making some questionable assumptions in your theory.

One, protecting the "status quo" is bullshit. While we police the world our own country is dying quickly. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our education system is failing, no end in sight for joblessness. Also, you assume that the good ole USofA are the good guys. That's a fun assumption but I dont see any evidence for it. Pure patriotic bullshit. We destabilized the middle East when we attacked Iraq. Those that justified that action used your arguments. We are in Afghanistan because they have valuable minerals not because we are some how altruistic.

[A Simple Game]

61. Sounds like you would prefer another cold war where

the two opposing sides spend themselves into oblivion on weapons they dare not use.

Much better than using the money for humanitarian uses, isn't it? We did win a lot of friends during the cold war though, didn't we? Probably as many as we are winning with all of our actual, if smaller, wars.

There are no winners in a war, any war, none, never!

[CFLDem]

64. The Cold War gave us

The interstate highway system
The information highway system
To the moon and back
And 1980 Gold Medal in Men's Hockey



Among many other advancements. I'd argue the national corruption and excess we now see is due to lack of competition keeping us on our toes.


So yes I do prefer a Cold War.

[A Simple Game]

66. In a rare moment, I am at a loss for words. But I am not surprised.

I am too old to have enough time to figure out your linkage between the events you list and the cold war, so will just have to remain in awe at your logic.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. Nice set of policies, except they ignore how everything works.

He couldn't cut the military budget by 90% because only Congress can do that and the President is required by law to spend the money where it is allocated.

As for paying reparations, the President can't not raise funds to do that. That is the job of Congress.

I agree that the US needs to divest itself of it's hegemonic empire. But this is more a fantasy than solid policies that could be carried bout by a President willing to do the job.

I suspect we will have to wait for history to divest us of empire as it has done for everything other empire in history.

[nikto]

16. Personally, I'd be fine with...

A 50% military budget cut.

More would be better, but that would do.

[Agnosticsherbet]

73. The would still require a compliant Congress. The President can't do it. 2014 is important.

[PowerToThePeople]

4. This is what NEEDS to happen. n/t

[proudretiredvet]

10. Not playing with a full deck.

The day after he did this North Korea would launch nuclear weapons on South Korea. China would take by force many islands around Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippians, and would invade Taiwan. China would also triple their ground forces in Africa.
Iran would begin to blackmail Saudi Arabia and Jordan with the very real threat of a nuclear strike and Israel would launch a preemptive strike on Iran.
Sure this would all work out well.

[nikto]

17. The US is no longer...

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The "cork", in the international bottle.

I am not sure we ever were.

But to some people, thinking so=Patriotism.

Methinks you are making shit up.


But if rolling around in shit works for you, then...


be my guest.



Whatever floats your fantasy.

[CFLDem]

22. Actually

as long as the world runs on oil, and oil is traded in US dollars, we are the cork if they want energy.

I do agree with you that status is falling apart. Methinks we are in for a very rough couple of decades as the balance of power shifts.

[nikto]

27. The internal Conservative response...

Is to be feared more than our actual decline.

Just like the reaction to 9-11 made everything much worse.

[proudretiredvet]

30. You can think whatever you want to.

I spent over two decades of my life traveling this world and have lived in several different countries on four different continents.
If we just took our ball and ran home the power vacuum would be instant and severe. Russia and or China would be in an all out competition to fill that void.
The countries we have made promises to and who depend upon us for their security and safety would be sacrificed to this stupidity.
I in no way agree with all the crap we have pulled in this world but the lives, safety, and security of many others depends on us. If you want to withdraw, fine, but do so in a way that allows them to establish other security for themselves, their families, and their nations.

[defacto7]

33. In a lot of ways I would agree with your straightforward analysis.

But I neither think the OP's point of view nor a status quo point of view will suffice to reorder the balance of civilization to one that sustains peace. We can speed up a process or we can slow down a process, but the boat has already been torpedoed, we're just waiting for it to sink. Pessimistic it may be, but until we face the fact that the systems and methods of humans on this planet are not sustainable economically, politically or ecologically we will just be watching the horizon slowly rise.

[sabrina 1]

34. What other countries depend on us for their security? How about

letting other countries take care of their own affairs? Anywhere we went to 'bring' democracy to, is WAY WORSE OFF than they were before we decided we knew what was best for them.

Take a look at South America if you want to see what would happen if we left the world alone. They are INDEPENDENT nations now, sorting out their OWN problems. They didn't want us there, we supported DICTATORS which is what we are still doing.

IF we were not supporting the dictators in Bahrain, in Uzbekistan, in Saudi Arabia, the people might actually manage without us, as they have done in South America.

This country has more problems of its own than apparently it can do anything about.

It is utterly ridiculous and arrogant and shameful AND racist, to think that we are so smart the rest of the world needs us. Please don't say that to too many people.

South America is doing just fine without our Corporate interference, FAR far better than those countries we decided to 'help' like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just who are all these people who need our warmongering and drones and prisons so much, they couldn't get along without us?

China, Japan, Russia, all existed for centuries without us. Just unbelievable, the nonsense we read on the internet.

[RC]

43. +1000!!1!!11!! A voice of reason.

It is pure arrogance to think the rest of the world needs us, U.S. for much of anything, let alone peace and security? When and where was the last time we delivered peace and security anywhere, since WWII?
WE, the United States, are the worlds main source and support for terrorism. That's a fact. And that needs to stop. It is our own arrogance in our own so-called superiority, that prevents us from seeing that. The world would be a much better and peaceful place if we would bring help and aid, when needed and asked for, instead of death and destruction on our terms.
And STOP MEDDLING IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHER COUNTRIES! Friend and foe alike.
Our owners profit from the destruction and unrest we export. China and Russia are much less the bogeymen than we are. We just set the example.

[Maedhros]

60. Nice international community you got there, World.

It would a shame if something were to happen to it.

[maddiemom]

25. Ya think? How about our just sitting here with our huge-ass nuke power?

Or jumping in only after first drafting all the offspring of our present PTB?

[proudretiredvet]

35. Without forward deployment hiding at home behind our nuclear weapons won't work

If China backed North Korea we would be helpless to stop anything that NK wanted to do to SK. Hiding at home only works when there is assured mutual destruction between the major nuclear capable nations. That would be way out of balance if we bailed out on all of our allies and pulled all our forces home.
Australia, Canada, Great Briton, France, Germany, Japan, and many more depend upon our nuclear umbrella for a good part of their national security.
When I read this take our ball and go home stuff it makes me laugh. No matter how good or bad we are, were, or will be, it will never happen.

[maddiemom]

38. Well, we'll certainly have to disagree about the US being the world's policemen.

However, as a "proud retired vet," were you an officer beyond a minor level? A graduate of a military academy? In actual action during your service? As a 68 year old woman who was an admitted protester in the Viet Nam era, and can remember when women weren't even eligible for the military academies, being drafted completely out of the question, I have never, admittedly had any skin in this (actually serving) game. I do remember Viet Nam as the first time young men were beginning to say "wait a minute, is this worth dying for?" My brother, as well as a number of my male friends enlisted for three years, rather than being drafted for two years. This gave them, allegedly, the option of being trained in some skill rather than just being "cannon fodder" if drafted. With only a few exceptions, they were still often in more danger than their families imagined. Hey, no disrespect "proud retired vet", just up very late due to a crazy schedule.

[proudretiredvet]

50. The reality isn't just that simple out there in the big world.

Everything that has led us to where we are in the world is water under the bridge. Some of that water was necessary and some was down right ugly, worthless and needless.
I do not believe that we should be the worlds police but we must maintain a presence in some areas to maintain a balance in some areas.
I was enlisted but well educated, well traveled, and retired at almost the top of the enlisted ranks. My first overseas tour was to Vietnam, and my last to Mogadishu Somalia in the fall of 1993. I was discharged from a hospital in 1994 due to battle wounds after 23 years, and 6 combat tours as a US ARMY Ranger.
During my active duty time I rotated in and out of Europe with Delta force, Rangers are Delta, and attended every NCO leadership school, war college, and advanced training program that was available to me. It was always my goal to be a professional, informed, and effective leader. When living in other cultures I was always one of the people who learned the language and pursued maximum interaction with the locals.
I have seen our government do good things and bad things. I've seen good people all over the world as well as some truly evil souls. The world is a very complicated place. The quick and easy answers seldom work. And yes we had a huge part in making it that way.
One last thing and I'll shut up. I have a different perspective on our nation than most. One hard wired conviction is that I am disgusted and angry at all of the freedoms and privacy that we have lost over the last dozen years... This is not what I served to protect. This is not a right or left issue either, this is a We The People Issue. I look at all of this crap and I feel betrayed.

[maddiemom]

62. Many thanks for taking the time to reply and being obviously thoughtful in doing so.

I think I made it clear that I meant you no disrespect, just disagree about policing the world. I, too, am disgusted with what's happened to our country: I'll make that in the last thirty years. I have a sneaking suspicion that we probably have different ideas as to the cause. so I'll stop right here. Best of luck and good health to you!

[proudretiredvet]

78. Thanks for the reply

And my eyes and heart are open. I'm not going to agree with everyone here all the time or they with me. We all have different things in our backgrounds that take us to differing positions and points of view.
I have never been able to function on ideology but that has not blinded me to reality.

[nikto]

28. It is so sad to realize the stunning truth...

The American Vets who suffered and died in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq
suffered and died, basically, for NOTHING.

Unless you count the Corporate profit$ which no ordinary soldier received a penny of.

That is the only "something".

To think otherwise is to admit reality is just too painful to bear, and to retreat back into comfortable fantasy,
which can only enable more US soldiers to die for nothing, except Corporate profit$.

[RC]

29. No they wouldn't. They have to live in this world too.

And we would still have our nuclear arsenal. North Korea may be certifiably crazy, but they are not suicidal.
Besides if we were to help people, instead of killing them, we'd be making friends, which would in turn help keep China and Russia in check. Never mind neither wants any kind of nuclear world war. They are not crazy. The world would be a much more peaceful place if we were not the "World's Police" going around bulling the lesser countries and killing their citizens.

[KoKo]

18. Gotta read this later...watching Olympics...this looks like must read...

[Nye Bevan]

36. What a nutjob. So what incentive would Iran have not to nuke Israel? (nt)

[LostOne4Ever]

39. 90%???

Wouldn't that mean firing thousands of soldiers and ending all benefits to them?

Current number of active soldiers in the military:
1,429,995 (~2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces

Average solider salary
$54,000 (~2006)

http://www.ehow.com/info_7898723_average-salary-soldier.html

Cost of soldiers:
$77,219,730,000

Total budget 2012:
$642 billion

About 12% of the budget is going to soldiers and their families. Even after laying over half of them off we would still have to pay them the benefits they earned and that would leave little room for anything else.

Going by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Its more like 23% of the budget is going to the soldiers.


Im all for cutting the military budget but lets do it in a sane fashion? Take us out of places we don't need to be, don't waste money on unneeded military equipment so defense contractors can make money, and slowly decrease the number of active troops without cutting their salaries, benefits or pensions.

I think decreasing the military budget by 50% would be a more realistic goal for the short term. Enough money to keep the troops paid so they can take care of their families at least.

[Sirveri]

71. This was my thought as well, it would demolish the economy.

Suddenly you lay off half of the armed forces and add another 700k job seekers to the workforce. Combined with a massive draw down in government spending to defense contractors which would then see the market flooded with steel workers, machinists, and other highly skilled laborers, all competing for ZERO available jobs.

Any draw down to the DoD's budget must be slow and measured, unless you have over employment issues and the U-3 is hovering around 2% and you just have to spike the numbers.

[Progressive dog]

45. Deadly Democracy,

kind of a catchy slogan. Maybe a political party could use it in a campaign, just not in a democracy.

[PosterChild]

51. Oh yeah, that's going to work!

"I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently." Yes, because the United States wouldn't exist anymore. Permanently.

"The new book is in fact a perfect place to start your journey into Blum World, a.k.a. fact-based reality." To the contrary, it sounds like total nonsense and soft-headed fantasy to me.

[CrispyQ]

52. A kick for Blum, even without reading.

Now I'll go back & read.

[DeSwiss]

55. That's exactly what I'd do too.

[frwrfpos]

67. K and R

excellent thread

[dionysus]

68. reparations, eh?

[ReRe]

70. K&R

Absolutely! I discovered William Blum many years ago. And I totally agree with what he would do on his first three days in office if elected President! I've always felt there's allot more money in peace than in war. I believe that to the core of my being. We could be that "Shining City on the Hill" to the world if we would just do the right thing. Or should I say "could have been?" I do hope we get another chance. Thanks for this OP, WillyT!

[sadoldgirl]

75. Before we spout out that we are a superpower

Let us just look at our debt.
History had a lot of empires which passed. Any country or empire which overextended itself went down. Remember Mongolia at one time? Look what it is now.

[KentuckyWoman]

76. k and r

18000 an hour every hour since Jesus was born.

That is powerful.

[WillyT]

77. I Thought So Too...

[arthritisR_US]

79. I like his thinking, I'll have to look into that book :) nt