Did your heart drop?

[kentuck]

When you heard the General say that this war would probably go on for years? How much longer can the American people put up with more war in the Middle East? Yes, we understand that they hate us and want to attack us but is this the only option that Homeland Security can come up with?

The war mongers may be jumping for joy with the dropping of more bombs but most Democrats are tired of the war and the lies and the deceptions. We don't have to withdraw from the world but we can withdraw from the Middle East.

How about for starters we stop training Afghan soldiers in America? They cannot be trusted. How about we stop arming "moderate" rebels in Syria? They cannot be trusted. Does it really take an Albert Einstein to figure that out?

No doubt this will be a campaign issue in the 2016 election. And it should be.

[jwirr]

1. How about we create more sources of alternative energy?

[humbled_opinion]

82. If there were no need for OIL.....

The MiddleEast would largely be a thrid world nation of poor nomad clans that wouldn't be able to afford the plane tickets to carry out their Jihad.

Alternative Energy has always been the answer, too bad Americans aren't smart enough to comprehend that.....

[grahamhgreen]

89. Americans are. Leaders succumb to the monied interests.

[liberalmike27]

131. Work Hard

To get soldiers to not go back and fight again, work to get people to not succumb to the corporate wars.

If you've not figured out the score by now, you deserve everything you get, when you join up. It's a corporate war, and you're not fighting for Americans. You're fighting for the rich stock holders of the MIC, of the oil industry, of the pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers, and of other war manufacturing industries, and yes, the media that is owned by them as well.

Dry up the pool of people who will join, who will return to the "theater," then we'll dry up the wars. What are they going to send their rich kids? Nope.

Of course then they'll just crash the economy harder, making increasing numbers of desperate people, who need jobs, and will likely sign up just for the income and benefits.

[cali]

2. Here's what I keep thinking: With all the hysteria over ISIS

and Jihadists, I keep thinking that the corporate takeover of the world presents a far greater, much larger long term threat.

[CaptainTruth]

7. True that.

And the corporate takeover of our government poses a much more urgent threat to our country.

[Louisiana1976]

27. Agree wholeheartedly.

[calimary]

60. Welcome to DU, CaptainTruth!

Glad you're here. I couldn't agree with you more. The corporate takeover of our government IS INDEED a much more clear and present danger to our country - HERE IN our country! I frankly don't care that much about the whole canard of "gotta fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here..." BULLSHIT. I think if we DID have to "fight them over here", then THAT would be a far more worthy and realistic cause to suit up for, and hell, even at my age, I could see myself getting into that fight, too. If they were coming up my street, you BET I'd find something worthwhile to suit up for.

But I find myself wondering - ALL THE TIME - seems to me this is THEIR fight over there, NOT OURS! We can train and train and train and train and train and train and train, and then when it's on them, they fold like a piece of kleenex. The Iraqi army runs off the first time push comes to shove, leaving all their nice guns 'n' ammo behind for the bad guys to pick up and enjoy. How long do we have to prop these folks up? Do they really WANT to get in the game and defend themselves? Or are they just slacking off because they know the big ol' U.S. will come over and rescue them yet again? Granted, this is fairly simplistic thinking, but I find myself suspecting that they must not REALLY want to be "free" or "safe" or "independent" or whatever it is being "fought for" over there, or they must not care all that much. One would expect that, if their lives REALLY depended on it, they'd fight to the death - as I myself would if I saw my neighborhood under direct threat from encroaching bad guys. I don't think they want it that badly. If they did, THEY'D be willing, even eager, to stand up and take care of their own situation there. I found that very young kids who were always toted around by their moms when they could be up and walking by themselves wound up just taking the lazy way out (or the spoiled way - if I cry and whine and moan and groan and make like I'm some little weakling, she'll pick me up and carry me so I don't have to walk all the way, myself).

Also, I think we all have to examine our consciences about this. Is this another war for which there is no win? Is this another one of those problems that realistically CANNOT be solved? Or maybe one that can't be solved by the West?

And if we're training and training and training and training and training and training and - well, WHO IS IT, EXACTLY, that we're training? And how soon can we expect that THEY will turn on us, too, because maybe they were leaning that way in the first place? It's also way too simplistic and probably unrealistic and misguided as hell, to fall back on that "enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff.

[Enthusiast]

94. No doubt.

If we want to preserve the democracy, handing the nation over to corporate control is not the way to go about it.

[GeorgeGist]

65. ISIS provides a convenient distraction for exactly that.

Wardrobe by Tommy Hilfiger

[Enthusiast]

95. ISIS might exist for exactly that very purpose.

Sorry to say.

[freebrew]

121. My thoughts, too.

The entire Mid-east debacle was to enrich the BFEE. And it did that. Now they want more, as always.
More money, more death, more weapons to make.

Remember the $9B that just went missing? No one even bothered to look for it.

Poor Neil, he only got a few $M for his Silverado theft.

W, the stupid one, got away with $Trillions.

What have we become? It's depressing as hell.

[rhett o rick]

126. I strongly believe that's the case. nm

[sabrina 1]

91. You are absolutely right. And polls taken a few years ago show that you are not the only

one who believes that . Airc, a majority of those polled stated that the US was one of the biggest threats to World Peace.

[noiretextatique]

98. and our militarized police forces are also a greater threat

to american citizens than ISIS.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

125. Well, of course.

Their the corporate army. Army's defend their leaders.

Merely speaking out about corporate injustice is now terrorism, and the police, er, um, corporate army will not tolerate terrorists.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

123. Exactly.

And this is all distraction while they consolidate power.

And keep us in fear.

[tecelote]

3. America will wage war forever.

War profits are now acceptable to the American people. Torture is OK. Killing our own citizens is no longer morally unthinkable. We accept that we spy on everyone and are being spied on daily.

It's a new America and it doesn't give a damn what you think (assuming you are the 99%).

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. Well, that was depressing.

But I'm afraid you're right.

[Initech]

70. Revolution is the only way to stop it.

And I'm afraid it's not going to be easy in the slightest.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

129. We're too placated to revolt.

“Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!”


― Bill Hicks

[malaise]

4. Perpetual war is what they want

Think profit kentuck - they don't give a flying fugg about anything else.

[indepat]

74. The propagation of a forever expansion of MIC spending for as long as others will continue to

buy our debt. Let's all hope that day they won't never comes.

[malaise]

112. It's coming sooner than they think

All empires eventually rot from within

[indepat]

141. I've thought so ever since the gipper foisted his voodoo economics upon us which was thereafter

fully embraced by the entire Republican establishment: viola a 15-fold increase in the national debt in a mere one-third of a century.

[malthaussen]

5. No, because he wasn't telling me anything I didn't already know. n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Probably the one most significant change that will put an end to our

involvement would be the discovery of an alternate energy source.

So I suggest putting as much money on solar energy as we do on the war effort.

[840high]

9. No - I expected that.

[2banon]

21. not only were you expecting it, you were cheering it on ..

[840high]

73. You know me? I don't know you.

[noiretextatique]

99. i don't know if this person was, but some here are cheering on this atrocity

under the truly misguided notion of supporting the President, and all those who support him. i do not support war...period, not with Obama, and not with Bush. or Clinton, or the rest of them.

[newblewtoo]

10. I was having a discussion

with an old friend about the difference between the sixties and today. One thing immediately came to mind for both of us, the draft. Charlie Rangel is right we need to reinstate the draft with NO exemptions, male or female. Much like the Marines, everyone qualifies 11Bravo, then gets a shot at a secondary MOS. If you cannot qualify you do your hitch in a public service job, one of the hardest working people I ever worked with was a quadriplegic.

Providing everyone a stake will make everyone focus. Amazing how an opinion about war and death takes on a new meaning when it is you who may do the dying.

Rangel is also right about needing to enact a war tax. You can more about his thoughts here: http://time.com/3403976/rangel-draft-tax/

[abelenkpe]

14. Absolutely No

War only benefits the rich and decimates everyone else. If they institute a draft no matter what they say rich kids and connected kids will never be put in harms way and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

[pscot]

45. Back in the day, everyone went

The rich may have gone as officers, but when they were called up, they went. Without a draft we end up with mercenaries like Blackwater.

[AndyTiedye]

53. The Rich only Go into Combat if they Want To

George W. Bush "served" in a National Guard unit in Texas where he was trained to fly an obsolete plane that was no longer being used in combat. Nobody cared if he even showed up.

John Kerry put himself in harm's way by choice.

[whathehell]

140. No, it's only if WE want them to, as we can make laws to make it tougher to draft dodge, regardless

of income.

[AndyTiedye]

142. You Would End Up Forcing Disabled People into Combat

Many people are disabled to some extent, and not all disabilities are obvious.
The wealthy will always have better access to doctors and other medical services
so they will always be better able to document any disabilities they have.

The only way around that is to force disabled people into combat, which would be a death sentence for most of them.

Just making everyone "serve" doesn't mean very much. Dubya "served" by flying obsolete F102's in the Texas National Guard (when he bothered to show up). There was zero chance of him seeing combat.

There is no way you can make the draft fair.

[whathehell]

147. Sorry, but that's about the most easily refuted argument against the draft I've ever heard.

The military has always exempted people from service for disabilities..Never

heard of "4 F" status in WWII?

If, as you say, certain "disabilities" are not traditionally recognized, that can be changed.

[AndyTiedye]

149. Getting a 4F Depended Greatly on One's Access to Doctors

Wealthy parents can doctor-shop until they find one who will sign off on a 4F for their son.
The poor have much less access to doctors and medical deferments.

[whathehell]

150. No, it didn't because the draft board employs doctors to "screen" people.

You could get out of serving for as little as having flat feet, or, like Rush Limbaugh,

having a cyst on your ass.

P.S. Even if they did not employ their own physicians, , the Affordable Care Act

has made 'access to doctors' far more available.

[whathehell]

107. Exactly..I get tired of this "the rich won't serve" as if it were a foregone conclusion

It is decidedly NOT true historically, and doesn't have to be so at present

or in the future, unless we allow it to be.

All of FDR's five sons served in WWII -- Four of them in combat. Even Poppy Bush

served in combat in WWII.

[aggiesal]

59. But it might change the minds of those ...

how are cheering for war, if one of their loved ones is drafted and worse comes to worse,
dies during the war.

No, I believe we do need a draft so that the pain can be felt by everyone,
not just those who volunteered, especially those ignorant fools who keep supporting
a military conflict.

During the run-up to war in 2003, anyone who would discuss promoting the war,
I would hand them an army recruitment application, and say "You're for it, why
don't you sign up?". It would shut them up fast.

I think I may have to start doing that again.

[whathehell]

116. I agree..Enough with 'the little people' fighting the wars..When everyone is in,

there is bound to be LOTS more 'contemplation' of these supposed of these supposed

'wars of choice', and if one DOES get off the ground, it will, as we saw in Vietnam

cause a HELL of a lot in opposition.

[rhett o rick]

132. Disagree. The draft would include millions of middle class youth and that will get people's

attention.
The wealthy elite will get out of it but they get out now. With a draft it becomes more obvious who is buying their way out. If you've seen the photo of the Bush extended family with the note that none (other than Poppy) served their country (I exclude George the Dim-Son because what he did, doesn't count). Today it can be rationalized that they choose not to serve. If there had been a draft, the rational would have to be that they bought their way out.

[Sherman A1]

16. Precisely

we do need a draft for national service. I would suggest that those deemed excess to requirements after boot and infantry training, be used in a updated CCC type of effort to rebuild the infrastructure and other national priorities.

[AndyTiedye]

58. No and No

Supplying the war machine with unlimited cannon fodder just leads to more war.
There is no such thing as a fair draft.

Drafting people for civilian work will be the final nail in the coffin of America's labor movement
since they will, in most cases, be doing work that was previously done by unionized public employees.

[Sherman A1]

71. Your opinion

in any event, it won't happen.

[2banon]

22. here we go again, promoting that old canard as the solution.

the 1% will ALWAYS have a work around, as they always have in the past. Rangle knows it too.

please give it a rest.

[whathehell]

118. Sorry, but that old "canard" worked..There was no "get out of war free" card in WWII

As I said, every ONE of FDR's five sons were in WWII and only ONE was not in combat. .

For many of you, Vietnam was a lesson in a history book, for me and many others here,

it was real life, and we remember it well.

[elleng]

25. Yes,

and he was right the last time he proposed this, for 'Iraq.' Give EVERYONE 'skin in the game.'

[AndyTiedye]

62. He Was Wrong Then and he is Wrong Now

If we had a draft then, there would have been NOTHING to stop GWB from invading Iran.
If we start a draft now, who knows how many countries we will suddenly "need" to go to war in.

[Louisiana1976]

33. About Rangel's idea of a draft for men and women, absolutely not. The rich will find legal ways to

get out of being drafted. And about the war tax Rangel suggests--that would only be a good idea if it's a tax on the wealthy. The poor and the middle class are squeezed enough by taxes.

[whathehell]

80. That didn't work in WWII. All five of FDR's sons were in that war, four in combat..Even Poppy Bush

fought in WWII.

[hueymahl]

110. Apples and Oranges

WWII was are last national war. And by that I mean it was the last time we committed every resource of the nation to winning the war. Every war since then it has been a war of convenience. I.E., we were not directly attacked, and we could have chosen to stay out of it.

Many (but not all) of the sons of the wealthy went, but that was because they had to. And it was in defense of the country, not in defense of some geo-poitical domino/neocon theory.

[whathehell]

114. "Many (but not all) of the sons of the wealthy went, but that was because they had to"

They could "have to" again, if the right laws were passed.

Everyone was eligible for the draft in Vietnam, too, but some got out of service,

mainly by "deferment", college and otherwise. That can all be undone.

As for FDR, do you REALLY think he couldn't have gotten his own sons out of the war,

or at very least out of combat, if he'd wanted to?

In any case, they could "have to" again, but only if we, by law, made them.

Sure, a few will all squiggle out of it, but it would not be NEARLY so easy as having

a volunteer army.

[SammyWinstonJack]

44. Um...NO!

[AndyTiedye]

51. A Draft Can NEVER be Fair

"No exemptions" is a death sentence to the disabled and those of limited athletic ability (poor reflexes and coordination especially). Those who want a draft are OK with that, because they want so badly to drag rich kids into the sausage machine. That would never happen. There would still be "champagne units" far from any combat for those with the right family connections (e.g. George W. Bush's military "service".).

The existence of a draft has never ended a war. It only gives the war an unlimited source of cannon fodder.
When the Vietnam-era draft ended, the war ended about 2 years later, after all the draftees had completed their service.

[BlindTiresias]

54. No thanks

[Capt. Obvious]

78. I've argued that forever

People will be less gung ho to send other kids off to war.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. A draft doesn't guarantee that the blood is actually shared

I'd also note that we're doing this particular war entirely from the air. The likelihood of any American casualties is very small.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

135. Also, everyone gets paid on the level of the common enlisted man.

Meaning no profits. War is a Racket by Maj. General Smedley Butler (Marine Corp) goes into detail.

[Lex]

11. Historically, perpetual war bankrupts empires, causing their eventual fall.

If America wants to stay strong, perpetual war is the opposite of what to do.

[ChiciB1]

19. Ever Hear About A Book About...

The Rise & Fall Of The Roman Empire?? No matter which author you choose to read, the conclusion is disastrous! Just do a quick Google and you don't have to read anything but a short "intro" and get a very good idea!

I'm VERY, VERY AFRAID! Been talking about this situation for years now!

[ChiciB1]

20. Just An Added Comment, I Read

this book a very long time ago and have told my friends recently that I wanted to re-read it again. But I do remember aspects that are similar to the path this country has been on for quite some time now.

[bobduca]

90. Corporations have moved beyond the quaint notion of state sovereignty

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

And are already playing the endgame. Why do we stay so willfully ignorant?

Oh that's right America is different, and exceptional and all that fucking rot.

[Lex]

137. No where did I say "state sovereignty" so take off your quotes.

And your quaint notion that you actually responded to my post.

[bobduca]

138. Apologies Lex, I'm not sure what I was responding to.

Less posting before coffee for me.

[progressoid]

12. Guess what. We're not likely to completely leave Afghanistan anytime soon either.

[littlemissmartypants]

13. Albert Einstein is dead.

And his life story book on tape is the most boring experience in the universe.

Love and Peace,
~ Lmsp

[lsewpershad]

15. NO

I have come to learn that war is what America is all about.

[PeoViejo]

106. The House of War

Is how the US is referred to in the ME.

[proReality]

17. It's time to take all our money and invest in

every company that makes pieces and parts for the war machine. The interest on our stocks will probably be the only way we can exist in a somewhat comfortable lifestyle.

[blkmusclmachine]

18. We MUST remove the profit motive for these wars. Until then, nothing changes.

War = Death = PROFIT = War

[elleng]

23. PNAC planned it,

'New American Century' of war, and its working, cause disenfranchised, unemployed, impoverished people around the globe to 'hate' the U.S.

[MrMickeysMom]

85. This is true ^^^^

Time to remind people of that again…

[elleng]

87. Really.

I'm glad you agree, MMM.

[randome]

24. No, we should not withdraw from the rest of the world.

This is the 21st century. A time when both hemispheres of the world are coming together like never before. Technology (and I don't just mean computers) has been the main catalyst. And when two different worlds collide, there will be violence.

To see things only in a single dimension -war is bad- is to ignore what is happening from an historical perspective.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

37. All we are saying

Is give war a chance.

Sooner or later we're bound to get one right if we just keep trying.

[randome]

41. There is no 'we'. Each administration runs according to its own ethics and rules.

Contrast Obama with Bush, Junior. This is not a continuation of that time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[MFrohike]

56. No

This is a great example of myopic thinking due to a foreshortened view of history. The US has been heavily involved worldwide for over a century, with the biggest increase in the years after WW2. That didn't just happen because of Twitter, it's been occurring since the days of William McKinley. From the days of the Open Door Policy and the Great White Fleet, the US has been engaged. The only variables are the degree of engagement and the degree of meddling in foreign countries.

Your assumption that war just happens because different people come together is blind. Think of everything you imply with such a statement. Seriously, you're arguing that Desert Storm was about Huntington's ridiculous clash of cultures rather than a US guarantee to safeguard Western Europe's source of oil. That ISIS is somehow a rehash of 1683 rather than of 661. You've made it out to be a faceless, inevitable "process" rather than the accumulated decisions of the players. It's a great explanation for the players, because it allows them absolution without any recognition of their sins. It sucks for everyone else because it allows the game to continue forever with no deeper insight than "shit happens."

Oh yeah, I'm not referring to the subject line of your post, just the content.

[randome]

75. 'Technology' refers to more than just computers.

And that has been going on for much longer than the past 20 years or so. Technology enabled WWII to take place. With greater homogenization of cultures, greater conflict occurs.

Think of how 'backward' many cultures in the Eastern hemisphere still are in the 21st century. Women not allowed to vote or choose their lovers. Gays stoned to death. Thieves beheaded.

All of this creates undercurrents of unrest, especially as vastly improved communications enable these backward cultures to learn of alternatives.

And climate change has had its hand in the mix, too. Syria is suffering from its effects and that has played into the unrest there.

This is reaching a crescendo now but it has been occurring for decades. A glacial clash. Like tectonic plates reaching a point of fracture and triggering an earthquake.

Nothing in world cultures happens in isolation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[MFrohike]

81. Are you confused?

That's a serious question. I ask it because this is a mishmash of ideas that really don't go together at all.

"Technology enabled WWII to take place" -- Well, no. See, there'd been world wars prior to WW2 and not all in the 20th century, either. If you'd said "in the form it did," I'd probably agree with you. That being said, the level of technological sophistication generally influences the time it takes to conduct a war, not whether you can actually do so. Attila and Genghis would chuckle at the idea that being horsebound somehow meant they couldn't cross a continent.

"With greater homogenization of cultures, greater conflict occurs." -- Um, what? You sure about that? It's funny, but when you look at America and Rome, for example, you don't see that at all. The greatest periods of cultural, racial, political homogenization don't coincide with the periods of greatest warmaking. For Rome, it was after the most of the Italian consolidation, after which Rome was definitely not homogenous. For America, the period of greatest warmaking was either early 20th century or second half of the 20th century. Neither period is known for its homogenity. I won't make the claim that it holds true in every last instance, but I'd be shocked if it didn't hold in most.

Backward? Always be wary of motes and logs.

Glacial clash? Oh, spare me the dime-store Sam Huntington. His horseshit was nothing but an updated version of the old "we gotta stop the Asiatic hordes from running over Europe." That shit is centuries old. All Sammy did was toss it in a book and semi-sanctify it with his title of Professor. It's virtually indistinguishable from old-style 19th century white supremacist fears of Russia. If you don't believe me, check out what the British thought of Russia during that period. It should be enlightening.

The idea of this great clash is silly if you think about it for more than 5 seconds. If there really is this inevitable clash, then Osama shouldn't be hated because he was fated to kill thousands of Americans not because of his dreams to reestablish the caliphate, but because Islam made him do it. W didn't invade Iraq and cause the deaths of over 100k because he and his advisors were the most incompetent western strategists since Churchill (he didn't make strategy in WW2 for a reason) but because the "clash" made them do it. Yeesh.

Big events occur in historical time because PEOPLE make decisions and take actions to make them happen. Or they don't make decisions and don't act. Either way, it's the actual actors, not some mythical clash that makes it happen. If things are happening, it's because of a series of decisions and actions that influence the elites driving the events not because American culture or some pan-Islamic culture makes it happen.

Again, your explanation comes down to little more than "shit happens." Explaining it in terms of "cultural values" sounds great, until you realize nobody's fighting over gay rights or women's suffrage. The fight is over power and money, with power being the goal and money one way of keeping score. I'm sure the rank and file of ISIS think they're fighting for their version of Islam. I'm sure their leaders like the insulation that thinking gives them.

[Fairgo]

97. I like the way you think

A position well defended. Thanks

[deutsey]

102. "The fight is over power and money"

Nice conclusion to an insightful post.

[randome]

109. You chose to ignore what you didn't like.

I never said we are fighting over rights. I said pervasive communications (as well as climate change) feed into the unrest by allowing even those whose rights are forcibly taken from them to know how different the rest of the world is.

Do you think the Arab Spring came from out of nowhere?

I never claimed to be an expert but to put all that is happening in a gift-wrapped box of "It's oil!" or "It's money!" seems to me to be ignoring the larger forces at work.

America's history is rife with subjugation and annihilation (i.e. 'war'). I'm not certain how you can ignore Native Americans so easily. Rome, likewise.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[MFrohike]

146. No, I just didn't agree with your conclusion

I didn't ignore any of what you wrote, except maybe that I forgot to point out that you emphasized the 21st century and technology in conjunction. That combination led to a natural assumption that you meant the internet, the defining invention/innovation/whatever of the current times, was the agent that brought the world closer, according to your original argument. I simply disputed the idea that the internet, or computers generally, were necessary for world wars to occur.

You actually didn't say that pervasive communications, or climate change, feed into unrest by letting people know the rest of the story (thanks, Paul Harvey). It may be what you meant, but it sure isn't what you said. What you did say, in your original response to the OP was :

"No, we should not withdraw from the rest of the world.

This is the 21st century. A time when both hemispheres of the world are coming together like never before. Technology (and I don't just mean computers) has been the main catalyst. And when two different worlds collide, there will be violence.

To see things only in a single dimension -war is bad- is to ignore what is happening from an historical perspective."

That statement does not necessarily imply a greater awareness of people via things like social media of events occurring in real time nor does it necessarily imply climate change as a driver of change (what a hackneyed phrase, bravo self). You did say that you didn't just mean computers, oops on my part for assuming all you meant was computer-related, but you did directly say that the world, both hemispheres at any rate, was coming together because of technology. You then made the Huntingtonesque claim of the clash of civilizations with the worlds collide bit. Sure, it may not be what you meant, but it's a reasonable assumption to make given all the hype that atrocious "theory" has gotten over the last 20 years.

The Arab Spring was a regional, somewhat worldwide, reaction to one man deciding he had enough. It was not a phenomenon. It was the emotional, and considered, response of individuals through collective action. I think it came from the reasoned and calculated degradation of everyday people by their leaders. It was a response to a series of decisions, actions, and inactions that made history.

I didn't say it's all oil or it's all money. I stated a truism that elites act for power and money, with power being the most important. That's not a simplistic explanation. It's a rule of understanding. If I said "it's all about oil," I'd just be throwing my hands in the air and saying "who knows." That is not what I did. I stated a basic principle that is visible in every time and place and is universal to every culture with the slightest degree of sophistication. Not religious, not economic, not social, but political is the type of animal we call human. Politics means distribution of power and resources or their analogues. Starting from that foundation, all I did was state the blindingly obvious: all elites undertake serious actions, like those under discussion, because they think it will enhance their power (or other methods of keeping score, i.e. money).

I picked specific time periods to point out those periods which were least warlike. I made no claims of no wars. I'm well aware of the Indian Wars and the various wars against the Italian tribes that resulted in the unification of Italy under Rome. I simply said those periods were not as great, on a scale of warmaking, than later periods. That observation tends to undercut your claim that greater homogenity is a precursor for warmaking, when it seems to be the opposite in those two cases.

Since you brought it up twice and I missed it multiple times until this post, what other forms of technology do you think are leading to a greater intersection of the various corners of the world?

[randome]

148. Technology enhances global trade.

The world has been growing more interconnected since the Industrial Revolution. The more our own economy grows, the more we seek out more extensive trading prospects. That's how I believe our culture 'bleeds' into the cultures of the rest of the world.

It isn't a two-way street. Genital mutilation and hooded women are never going to gain much traction in the Western World. But greater freedoms and minority rights are gaining more traction in the Eastern World. Little by little but that's how cultures change.

Like I said, I'm no expert.

Josh Marshall made the case (although he tried not to) that the Muslim world is undergoing its own Reformation period, which, for Europe, was a period of intellectual enlightenment as well as unbelievable cruelty. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you-say-you-want-a-reformation

I think that's correct. Pair the Arab Spring with ISIS and the parallels are there.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[MFrohike]

153. Sometimes, I do hate to disagree

It's only one thing, but it's a big one. The claim that the growth of the American economy causes us to see more extensive trading prospects is, well, not true. Bear with me, I'm going to try to explain in a coherent manner.

Trade is pretty frictionless in terms of tariffs and restrictions. Yes, there are restrictions such as those on GMOs to the EU and some countries maintain particular tariffs on certain items or classes of items, but the WTO schedules cover virtually all products otherwise. The tariff schedules are absolutely mindnumbing to read, oh my God are they ever, but they're pretty comprehensive. Modern "trade" pacts really are not about trade because, well, trade is already done. There's not a lot to add.

Modern trade pacts, like the TPP and TTIP, are not actually trade pacts. They are agreements to harmonize rules regarding intangibles (intellectual property), finance, labor, environment, etc. The purpose is to bring down national rules on these things to a lower international standard. The "barriers" to trade that are referenced in these pacts are not traditional barriers, like tariffs or protective measures, but environmental standards, health standards, and the like. While it's true that those are restrictions on trade, it's dishonest to argue that they are traditional restrictions at all. Those are fundamental functions of the state as an entity.

As for the exchange of cultures, I don't know. I do remember Arthur Schlesinger's Disuniting of America, in which he argued that while the West, a dubiously monolithic entity, was responsible for some of the great horrors of history, it was also the sole source of the ideas that repudiated those horrors and offered an alternative vision. I've never been able to decide if he was right or not.

Whether genital mutilation or burkhas gain traction in the West, I would not say never. Hard times make the unthinkable happen. No authoritarian regime gains power because everyone is happy. Countries don't agree to create giant spying apparatuses because they think they're too free. These things happen because the ground is cracking beneath their feet and they'll run to any port in a storm. It's not that I think some of the worst practices of the developing world will suddenly pop up in middle America, but that I recognize that fear creates the conditions for monsters to appear.

I would not hope that Islam is undergoing anything like the Reformation. 1/3 of Germany died in the Thirty Years' War. I don't really want to imagine a war of annihilation between Sunni and Shia with today's weapons. While the resolution of that war led to a cooling of religious passions throughout Europe, it did not lead to less wars. Nor did it lead to less careless cruelty on the part of the aristocracy toward the other classes of society.

One thing to remember about the Reformation, if the comparison is to hold, is that it was a period of great centralization and the shifting of religious passion to national passion. Cardinal Richelieu, the most famous example, chose Paris over Rome. Cromwell's descendants, political if not lineal, still bar Catholics from the throne. It approaches error to say this period was one of great enlightenment. It would be more correct to say that the Enlightenment, for all its good and bad, was built on the structure of the Reformation.

[bobduca]

108. war is double plus good

Thanks for the clarification, citizen.

[randome]

115. War is never good.

Thanks for the either/or outlook.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[bobduca]

117. Just when Obama does it. got it.

jingoism : even uglier when so-called democrats do it.

[TheSarcastinator]

119. ahh, the reduction to absurdity

One of the most popular tools used by DU's house war trolls.

No one serious has said we should "withdraw from the rest of the world" and you know it. Straw man idiocy at its finest. Keep blazin' the path for war, you brave patriot.

[bobduca]

134. Throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks...

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm guessing normally a judge would rule these arguments out of order...

[H2O Man]

26. This is a strange

and dangerous time in human history. Humankind has all the technology and materials to improve the lot of all people. But the pathology of the few prevents this. We recognize the wrong people as "leaders," and pay a terrible price for it.

Recommended.

[Cal Carpenter]

28. Endless war is normalized by neoliberalism, or really capitalism in general,

along with unprecedented inequality and total disregard for the public good and public infrastructure.

Yay for neoliberalism! Yay for privitization! Yay for endless war! Rah rah rah USA and Western Hegemony!!!1!


Unfortunately, whether or not it is a 'campaign issue' is largely irrelevant at this point.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. There's an esoteric conversation going on..

and 99% of us aren't invited, we're only invited to Pay, Die and Suffer .

[Art_from_Ark]

93. That's it, in a nutshell

[arcane1]

30. Bush said it would not end in our lifetimes, so this isn't really news to me.

Sad but true

[shanti]

31. nope - PNAC

They told us this was in the plans long ago....war without end.

[Paper Roses]

32. Agree 100%. n/t

[Algernon Moncrieff]

34. "We don't have to withdraw from the world but we can withdraw from the Middle East."

I could not have expressed this better. Rec'd

[woo me with science]

36. Good chance of a Rand Paul campaign, backed by corporatists in both parties.

Democratic corporatists will claim to detest him but will run Hillary the war hawk to his right, ensuring Paul's election, at which point privatization goes on steroids, the social safety net can be dismantled, and corporatists get everything they want.

By then we'll be unable to withdraw from any warmongering despite Paul's promises, because reasons.

[hueymahl]

111. Uggh. What a disgusting choice that would be at the ballot box!

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. Well, they can't feed my kids to the war machine!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. That's assuming you listen to generals who consider giving up ANY base to be a "defeat".

[Hekate]

40. I prefer honesty to "We'll have the boys home by Christmas," which is the usual lie.

Make of that what you will, but I would rather not be lied to. When Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld set off to war, they lied through their teeth and DUers knew they were lying. We were going to be greeted with flowers and sweets, remember? The war was going to pay for itself too. Rah Rah. We were screwed over, and they set all this in motion for the next several presidents to sort out.

If I'm going to be screwed over, just don't tell me it's romance. If it's not a screwing but just a damn dirty job that needs doing, don't tell me it's going to be a frolic in the park.

My heart has been so low there is no dropping to do. I think there's a damn dirty job to be done, but at least we are not being lied to about what it is.

[randome]

49. .

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[loyalsister]

72. I think the public appetite for war with Iraq or even Afghanistan for that matter

might not have been there if a return to the draft had been included in the enabling legislation.

[KamaAina]

42. Hopefully Bernie or someone else will raise it in the Dem primaries

I seriously dislike the idea of the Rug Doctor siphoning off the antiwar vote.

[customerserviceguy]

43. I know what you mean

If a war goes on for years, it means that we'll eventually be negotiating a withdrawl from the very people we're fighting. Why not just negotiate a peace settlement now? Give ISIS a country, and let the Iranians see what they're going to do about it.

[SoapBox]

46. Me too...100% agree.

I'm tired of this War Hawk bullshit.

[roody]

47. Follow the money.

[winter is coming]

48. It should be a campaign issue in 2014.

You can't attack people into hating you less. This war is unwinnable.

[Autumn]

50. I got nauseated. This is fucking disgusting, it had better be a campaign issue in the 2014 election

[randys1]

52. God damn you George W Bush and Heartless Cheney

and all administrations before them going back to probably IKE I suppose

our god damn meddling in the ME has got us where?

[graywarrior]

55. OIL

All this crap is over oil.

[SummerSnow]

57. until every drop of oil is seized by the U.S., thats how long.

[LWolf]

61. I didn't hear it

until I read your post.

And yes...my heart is in the basement.

[Duval]

63. Still is dropping. n/t

[Initech]

64. Fuck you military industrial complex.

We'll never spend $700 billion to fix our infrastructure or education needs, but instead that money is going to destroy the middle east further.

[orpupilofnature57]

68. 1961

[hughee99]

66. In 2016, can we still call this Bush's war? n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

69. And the financial Terror he facilitated .

[CentralMass]

67. I do find it disconcerting that Afghani soldiers were being trained in Ma and that they were allowed

to leave the base. If you asked 1000 Ma residents if hey knew this was happening you would get 1000 no's.

[Smarmie Doofus]

76. Added layer of problems for the DEM nominee.

GOP will support the new war .... and complain it's not enough or "too little too late." (It's what they do.)

Obama's decided to become LBJ. ( Without the domestic successes to fall back on.) Dem candidates will be stuck with trying to separate themselves from his war policy while remaining "loyal" to their president.

It don't look good for the ole' USA.

[Capt. Obvious]

77. Be grateful it's not a Republican waging this war

We'd have nothing to argue about here.

[flvegan]

79. Why is anyone surprised?

That's a serious question. How does anything this president or the last president or the next president does, together with the congress at the time, shock anyone anymore?

[Crewleader]

83. Today's Cartoon

[Zorra]

86. The 1% wants their interests protected in the region, and our military is their private

World Police Force.

So...war.

[LeftyMom]

88. If they said otherwise they'd be lying. So no.

I don't see why it'll matter if it's a campaign issue, if it is the supposedly dovish candidate will prove to be full of shit. Again.

[Renew Deal]

92. 30 years

At least that's what they said in 2001.

[FlatStanley]

96. There seem to be a lot of Democrats here who are not weary of war.

[Rex]

100. Barry made a pretty good video on the subject. The MIC is an out of control monster.

The monster stands above all other priorities. Trillions of dollars trumps any number of people protesting or a good cause. Heaven forbid we spend money on anything but war.

PNAC worked like a charm.

[ctsnowman]

105. Exactly!

[vt_native]

101. Democrats are sick of wars?

which ones? Barak Obama? Hillary Clinton?

[ctsnowman]

103. What good would a war be

if it didn't la$t for year$.

[toby jo]

104. 2016 we'll get a rehash of Obama's 'I would have voted against the war…' by the next wannabe.

When Obama said that I didn't believe him at all - it was an opportunistic stance. I think a lot of people fell for it. Maybe this time around they won't.

[hueymahl]

113. And maybe I am going to start shitting rainbows.

We are doomed to repeat history.

[Octafish]

120. Get with the program, kentuck.

Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University knows what's coming and what's good for us, especially the top wage earners. Looks like a heapin' helpin' of War and the Status Quo.

The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Coswen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0

The guy seems to specialize in Big Ticket themes:

Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse

by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM

Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:

"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."

It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.

SNIP...

Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded — every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.

CONTINUED with link to the audio...

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse

For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, we can't afford that now, obviously.

Oh, the good news is the 1-percent may swell to a 15-percent "upper middle class" while the rest of the middle class goes the other way. Gee. That sounds eerily familiar. Oh..."Commercial interests are very powerful interests" uttered same press conference where Smirko said, "Money trumps peace." Pretty much always the on-message 24/7/366 for most of the last century.

[KoKo]

124. Recomend Read...

[EEO]

122. USA! USA! USA!

[marmar]

127. Spin Control is conspicuously absent from this thread.

[ladyVet]

128. No, it was pretty much already at the bottom.

It broke a little more, though. Another trumped-up war. Sigh.

But, hey! It's a Democrat, so it's not so bad, right? So we make even more enemies, and support even more people who will turn on us later. Big deal. The rich get richer, that's all that matters.

[KoKo]

130. I feel we've been "Shock & Awed" once again.....

could hear Cheney, Rumsfeld, PNAC/Neocons and the rest laughing their asses off as they rubbed their hands together in glee thinking of all they have accomplished.

The word SUCKERS comes to mind. But, that is too harsh...or is it?

[rhett o rick]

133. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. The Powers that run this country transcend

political parties. The decision to have a perpetual war is bigger than Pres Obama. I believe this country is being run by an elite cabal. They don't have totalitarian control or even dictatorial control, but they have a high level of control, especially in foreign policy, economics, and the NSA/CIA Security State.

[onecaliberal]

136. How many more years will we starve

and neglect children in this country. NO food, no education, no decent jobs, in order to drop bombs on other countries to keep our military industrial complex fed. This country is pathetic, and the people who vote for this shit need to get the fuck out!

[lark]

139. No, I felt very angry when I heard the news.

Angry at Obama that he's going along with this nonsense and he surely knows better. Angry at the MIC for all the deaths and theft of Americans fortunes so they can make more money. Angry at the neo-cons for lying us into another middle east war. Angry at the MSM for pushing this meme so hard that average, non-aware Americans think their lives are in danger. Funny, no other country in the world thinks this but us. Angry that we started ISIS by arming the Syrian opposition and are now sending more guns to forment more trouble when this next group also turns them against us.

I'm just plain pissed. This, more than anything, makes me worry about Clinton as a possible contender for president. Run, Bernie, run.

[bikebloke]

143. The money has to run out some time.

All this money poured into the pockets of war profiteers isn't coming from an inexhaustible faucet. It's going to run dry one day. Probably a lot sooner than later.

[hopemountain]

144. what happened to the 3 Afghani soldiers

who seemed to have "disappeared" here last week - shortly after their arrival for training?

[orpupilofnature57]

145. Caught them at the Canadian border...whooosh Back to fear, MSM

probably didn't even want to tell us about them, they must of feared a Snowden .

[hopemountain]

151. more like

a 9/11 was what i was thinking.

[orpupilofnature57]

152. Who knows, not the Whitehouse Security staff .

[goldent]

154. I think that as a people, Americans are more warlike

than other comparable cultures (e.g. western Europe). In other words, the government actions reflect the will of the general population. I would have never believed this 10 years ago, but now it seems true. Americans could not handle the video taped beheadings -- I think if the victims were simply shot with no video we wouldn't be at war right now.

I think British culture is similarly warlike -- I think they were very bothered they were not in on the latest action, and quickly got Iraq to request that Britain join in the bombing.