General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan I just say that the endless war in the Middle East is destroying our country? Much like
the Afghan war bankrupted the Soviet Union, these current wars of ours are bankrupting us.
Worse, it's being done on the backs of students, the elderly, our children and the poor.
Worse still, it is killing innocents in the middle east; and every escalation we take elevates our enemies stature and strength.
15 years we've been at this and the situation worsens daily.
Our latest escapade - 50 boots on the ground in Syria - comes with a 30 billion dollar price tag - half the cost of free higher education for all. There is no discussion of taxing the wealthiest to help pay for the war. No discussion at all of deficit spending when it's done for war. No discussion of the morality of continuing a war that was started by lies.
In my view, our military isn't destroying our enemies, it's destroying us.
Thanks!
Total War Funding: $1.64 trillion has been allocated through the Overseas Contingency Operations (war) fund, including $73.3 billion in fiscal year 2015.
Iraq: $817.8 billion has been allocated for the war in Iraq since 2003, including an estimated $1.0 billion in fiscal year 2015.
Afghanistan: $714.8 billion has been allocated for the war in Afghanistan since 2001, including $35.1 billion in fiscal year 2015.
ISIS: $6.2 billion has been allocated to fight the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), including $5.4 billion in fiscal year 2015.
Pentagon Slush Fund: Overseas Contingency Operations has been used to funnel a conservatively estimated $100.9 billion in non-war spending to the Pentagon to avoid legislated budget caps, including an estimated $30 billion in fiscal year 2015.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
KG
(28,751 posts)
Wounded Bear
(58,622 posts)if there ever was one.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I don't know how the people who voted for this disaster ever sleep.
I pray their tortured dreams are filled with the
overwhelming mountain of mutilated bodies of innocents,
innocent people driven out of their countries,
innocent families torn apart,
and the ME ready to Blow Apart.....
Not one of our Shining Moments. It will take years of reparations
and Trillions to undo the damage we have caused.
Dear President Obama,
I was distressed to hear that you are sending more of our children into harms way.
Do you really expect to change anything?
Haven't you learned yet that the US Military doesn't "fix things".
The US Military kills people and blows things up.
Expecting them to "fix" something is not very smart,
especially with the last 15 year track record.
The VERY BEST thing you can do for the Middle East is to LEAVE today,
and let them settle their problems (that WE have caused.)
Sincerely,
bvar22
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
Township75
(3,535 posts)He took ownership the moment he decided to continue them. Just moving some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan isn't ending a war. Joining wars in Syria Libya Yemen and other sites are his....which means ours...and the next president should hat person choose to continue them.
Something we need to keep in mind during the primaries. Who is going to stop them?!
erronis
(15,217 posts)This shit will stop.
And I don't mean some gung-ho sob child with no brains (GWB) but every 18-35yo child of all the rulers. No cushy jobs but front-line infantry. Dicky Cheney's daughters in battle armor in Falujah. Of course Dicky would probably enjoy being warden of Abu Gharaib.
All chicken-hawks should be shipped to help with chopping off the heads of ISiL.
Township75
(3,535 posts)If every elected official's children of appropriate age were required to serve in the military should the country go to war, I doubt there would be a war.
Could you imagine the Bush daughters, Cheney's daughters, Chelsea Clinton, and the Kerry daughters being forced to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to serve? That would show the level of commitment from their parents.
Response to Township75 (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)that our military commitments around the world are going to be the downfall of this country. We spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military -- and I suspect that pie chart leaves out billions of black box expenditures or whatever they call the ones that aren't officially part of the budget -- and no where near enough on things like health or education. Or infrastructure.
Another thing that hasn't yet been an issue, but I think will be over time, is that our military presence in so many places is slowly making this country something of a pariah.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)a generation ago: The Rise And Fall Of The Great Powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers
Brilliant and prescient book.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)since it looks rather dry, but thank you for telling me about it.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)But yeah.
Rex
(65,616 posts)That military budget was always unsustainable, it was just a matter of time before it ruined society. Now all our money goes into abandoning military hardware so the enemy can swoop in when we leave and use it against us. We don't even waste a few explosives to blow it up anymore. Rabid capitalism runs wild in the streets. Devouring our futures hopes and dreams.
Basically we fucked ourselves a long time ago, but it is now just catching up with us.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Its my biggest issue this election.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 10, 2015, 01:54 AM - Edit history (1)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)that they've been consulted with by their supposed "Reps" in DC as to whether or not we think this constant warring is what WE want? And it's not just these wars either. It's just about EVERY FUCKING THING where OUR monies are spent - spent for shit that we don't want. Look at the friggin' subsidies we hand profitable industries while denying adequate and decent food and shelter to our OWN populace! When WAS the last time you were asked how you wanted your rep to vote and fight on these issues?
Taxation WITHOUT representation - that's where we are. Time for a political revolution.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I have a proverbial bridge to sell them.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)but strangely, Hillary is what we'll probably get.
All I can say is sorry to all the brown people in the Middle East. America is just not that into you.
Ilsa
(61,691 posts)Meet the new dictator, same as the old dictator.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)No, no you can't. Don't write it either.
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)Pretty soon all they will have left is a huge pile of rubble in the middle of an unlivable desert .
Some parts are now predicted to be so hot that no one can live there.
Duval
(4,280 posts)leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)I just saw something about water shortages in Saudi. They aren't growing wheat anymore. Water levels are too low.
I think that whole area is in a big drought. I think Iran is dry as a bone, too.
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)against our military?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)These assholes don't give a damn about our troops, in my view, they just want to make another billion.
I want to bring them home.
tblue37
(65,273 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)1. The majority of Americans, including me, believed that the war in Afghanistan was necessary because the Taliban government was giving free rein and encouragement to a guy named Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. They had just flown two Airlines filled with innocent people into the World Trade Center in New York which was filled with a lot more innocent people. Over 3,000 people died that day. Worst yet ben Laden vowed to continue his attacks on our country in every way possible. When the Taliban government of Afghanistan refused to quit giving safe harbor to al-Qaeda, we had little choice but to go after them ourselves. Otherwise al-Qaeda would have grown in strength in its safe refuge and we would would still be dealing with multiple cases of having our civilians killed on our streets.
2. As the rhetoric of the Bush administration increased in volume and we started to build up troops in Kuwait, I preached endlessly that an invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and unwise. I compared the overthrow of Saddam to removing an evil stopper from a bottle filled with very evil liquid which, once released, could not be contained. But the American people believed the administration's lies and we went to war again - one of the biggest mistakes in our history.
3) Bush compounded his huge mistake of invading Iraq with three more momentous blunders. The invasion diverted our attention away from a potentially volatile situation in Afghanistan allowing that situation to continue to simmer uncontrolled. In Iraq Rumsfeld and Chaney planned the invasion "on the cheap" failing to account for the insurrections would inevitably erupt once the evil stopper was removed. They also agreed to the dismantling of the Iraqi army, the only force other than American soldiers capable of enforcing the peace in the aftermath to the invasion.
4) Everything which has since unfolded in that part of the world, including the rise of ISIS in Iraq is the direct result of the stupidity of the Bush administration. I am sick and tired of so call "liberals" blaming President Obama for the aftermath of both wars. In doing so they imply that President Obama has made a couple of horrible situations worse and that is simply not the case. He is simply trying to clean up the messes left to him by his predecessor as best he can while placing as few Americans in harms way as possible. Anyone who cannot see that simply lacks proper vision.
5) I am also sick and tired of people who believe that any use of our military is some kind of horrible mistake. I would love to live in a world where a military is not even necessary, where countries or groups never attack anyone else and where all disputes are resolved by negotiations. Wake up folks, that is not the world we live in! And yes, we can all sit around and blame our government's past policies and mistakes for the fact that are a number of people in the world who consider us their enemies and are trying to settle old scores, but that won't change the fact that we live in a dangerous world. If you think it is wise to totally disengage and allow ISIS run wild in Syria and Iraq to form their Caliphate, you are not as bright as I give you credit for being. Once ISIS has secured in their conquered territory, and have raped, murdered, subjected the local populations to their hearts content, they will turn their eyes outward towards the Great Satan. We can either deal with that situation now or later, but we will have to deal with it.
If you to pretend that we can ignore threats like ISIS and believe that any use of our military is an abomination, by all means do so. But remember you are part of a very small minority and you are alive and free to maintain your beliefs only because other Americans are willing to shoulder your burdens.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)and should be addressed not with perpetual war, but with a global law enforcement effort and an honest examination of causes that provoke terrorism. Invading Afghanistan was idiotic. Our invasions disrupt civil society, create refugee crises, and kill far more women and children than terrorists, which causes even more terrorism. Lashing out in anger with military force is illogical and will always be counterproductive.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)It would be fine if the terrorists were simple individual criminals operating exclusively in our country. Your logic falls on its face when a entity outside of our police jurisdiction uses terrorism as a way of waging war.
I'll use an analogy to show you how illogical you statement is. Let's supposed we had a gang of criminals headquartered in New Jersey which constantly sends it's members to perform terrorists attacks in New York City. If we use your logic the only response the NYPD would have available would be to try detect and capture the individual terrorists before they performed additional terrorist attacks. They would not be able to raid the gang's headquarters and capture its leaders in New Jersey. Now how stupid would that be?
In reality, when crime crosses state lines we have federal authorities (the FBI) which are authorized to put the criminal gang and its leaders out of business where ever in the country they are. But what we if the gang performing the terrorist attacks were operating out of another country and the leaders of that country would not cooperate in their capture. Worst yet, what if the the leaders of the gang were the leaders of the other country.
The choices would then be clear: We would have to continue to endure multiple attempts of terrorism for years on end (some we might prevent, but others we might not) or we could root out the the leaders of the terrorist organization in the other country. In my mind the first option is totally unacceptable. We cannot allow our population to attacked again and again without trying to address the source of the problem. Since their is no world wide police force, the only way to exercise the second option is to use our military or form an alliance with other like minded countries to jointly use our armed forces to attack the problem at its source.
Your solution simply would not work. Nor would the American public endorse it for long.
Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #42)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)You believe the US has a moral imperative to attack and depose other governments, even when they have never attacked us and pose no threat to us, an obvious violation of international law.
The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were "operating" out of many places, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Germany and various states in the US. Why do you suppose none of those places were attacked with military force?
The underlying assumption in your last paragraph, is that our "war on terror" has reduced terrorism, when in fact, the opposite is true.
The War on Terror Is the Leading Cause of Terrorism
http://www.alternet.org/story/48620/the_war_on_terror_is_the_leading_cause_of_terrorism
U.S. “War On Terror” Has INCREASED Terrorism
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/u-s-war-on-terror-has-increased-terrorism.html
Terrorism poses virtually no threat to the average American. You are FAR more likely to die in a car wreck or as a result of an accident in your own home than by a terrorist attack. A military response to terrorism, is completely out of proportion to threat it presents.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I will thank you for not assuming you know how I view the world. Your assumptions reveal you haven't a clue.
My entire world-view does not rest on my certainty in American exceptionalism. I don't believe in American exceptionalism. I am a liberal with views not much different than your own. The difference between you and me is that you are an idealist, with only passing contact with reality. I, on the other hand, am a pragmatist, who sees and deals with the world as it is, not as I wish it to be.
I don't believe the US has a moral imperative to attack and depose other governments, especially when they have never attacked us and pose no threat to us.
You obviously don't understand international law - every country has a right to defend its citizens, but I will leave that for another day.
As I pointed out, I spoke out vehemently against invading Iraq when the vast majority of Americans were all in. I took this stance despite believing the lies about WMD precisely because I believed we had Saddam hemmed in with sanctions and he was of no danger to our country, regardless of whether he possessed WMD or not.
However, in my world view it is an entirely different set of circumstances when terrorist have an opportunity to repeatedly attack innocent Americans where they live and work because their base and leaders are protected in a foreign country by that country's government. Or worse yet, when the leaders of the terrorists attacking us are also the leaders of a foreign government.
In my view, under such circumstances, the President would be responsible to the American people for the deaths of our citizens if he did not seek to use our military in some way, shape or form to remove the terrorist threat at its source. If you would sit by an do nothing nothing under those circumstances, then you are such wimp and you are not worth the I time spent on this post.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 10, 2015, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)
... because the New Jersey police authorities would apprehend the terrorist leaders themselves or allow the FBI to do so. There are obvious limitations to my analogy. and I pointed out these limitations out in my post.
But what do you do when the terror leaders are in an other country whose government is protecting the terrorist group or, worse, when the leaders of the terrorists who are attacking our country are also the leaders of a foreign country?
We could try to stop the terrorist here in this country, and if we can fine, but obviously that isn't always possible. So the choice is clear, we could continue allow innocent Americans, maybe even children, to to die where they live and/or work and/or play, or we can go after the terrorists where they live.
Not and easy choice, especially if you are one of those people who has irrationally sworn to never use the US military.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...with a defined chain of command, and controls of all the regions of the country.
It is not...and never has been.
Afghanistan was/is a mix-mash of Tribal Warlords with their own territories, frequently fighting among themselves. Kabul was an Island City.
One of these Tribal Warlords rented some desert land to a handful of Saudi criminals.
The vast majority of Afghans (99.999%) were completely innocent. There were much better options than The Invasion and Occupation of an entire country for over 15 years to get this handful of Saudi criminals was not the best option, or even a good option.
Since the Afghan government (the Mayor of Kabul) was NOT involved in this Saudi terrorist operation,
the Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan is possibly another War Crime.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)More later.
Can we agree on this first point?
2) agree!
3) agree
4) mostly agree
Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #49)
CajunBlazer This message was self-deleted by its author.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Over there have been at war with each other for 1000+ years. For neocons/republicans to think that we could go over there and solve the different factions beef's with each other / install a new government and have a model democracy is perhaps the most I'll conceive idea the US has ever had. Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Rice/Wolfowitz/Pearl/Feith/Bremmer/Abrams etc should all be charged with criminal incompetence on top of crimes against humanity for the torture that took place under their watch.
bvf
(6,604 posts)"Criminal," yes, but I think PNAC got exactly what it wanted, from seemingly perpetual war to the Patriot Act.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)In the sense that they though Iraq would welcome us with open arms after removing Saddam...but if you are right and they wanted perpetual war than you are correct. They got exactly what they wanted.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)That was precisely one of the main reasons why I argued against the invasion of Iraq. I refer again to my statement that I believed that removing Saddam was the equivalent of removing the evil stopper from a bottle filled with very evil liquid which could not be contained once spilled.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)They are all that matter in this world. Young people sacrifice their lives for the welfare of the oligarchs.
I hate liars
(165 posts)As president Eisenhower noted 60 years ago, spending on our "defense" comes at the expense of essential services for US citizens. The main difference between then and now is that the level of profligacy has increased dramatically. We're in an uncontrolled feedback loop.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)domestic programs.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)What has been done to Iraq for the last 24 years, is a crime with few rivals in history.
Excellent post.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)It's unforgivable, and no politician that supported this crime should ever step out of a prison again.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)My problem with the wars is not that we are not taxing the rich to pay for it or that it is taking away fund for the elderly, the poor, students etc. My objection to the wars is that they are destructive and cause the death of way more people that it saves.
For e.g. even if the Libyan war was going to make us money like Rachel Maddow believes, I would still be against it. So there is my 2c. Elect a real anti war candidate and end the wars now.
eridani
(51,907 posts)http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/09/waging-endless-war-vietnam-syria
Only recently, Barack Obama announced that U.S. troops wouldn’t be leaving Afghanistan any time soon and also made a deeper commitment to fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, including deploying the first U.S. ground personnel into that country. Indeed, a new book by New York Times reporter Charlie Savage, Power Wars, suggests that there has been little substantive difference between George W. Bush’s administration and Obama’s when it comes to national security policies or the legal justifications used to pursue regime change in the Greater Middle East.
Henry Kissinger is, of course, not singularly responsible for the evolution of the U.S. national security state into a monstrosity. That state has had many administrators. But his example -- especially his steadfast support for bombing as an instrument of “diplomacy” and his militarizationof the Persian Gulf -- has coursed through the decades, shedding a spectral light on the road that has brought us to a state of eternal war.
<snip>
During those four-and a half years when the U.S. military dropped more than 6,000,000 tons of bombs on Southeast Asia, Kissinger revealed himself to be not a supreme political realist, but the planet’s supreme idealist. He refused to quit when it came to a policy meant to bring about a world he believed he ought to live in, one where he could, by the force of the material power of the U.S. military, bend poor peasant countries like Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam to his will -- as opposed to the one he did live in, where bomb as he might he couldn’t force Hanoi to submit. As he put it at the time, “I refuse to believe that a little fourth-rate power like North Vietnam does not have a breaking point.”
In fact, that bombing campaign did have one striking effect: it destabilized Cambodia, provoking a 1970 coup that, in turn, provoked a 1970 American invasion, which only broadened the social base of the insurgency growing in the countryside, leading to escalating U.S. bombing runs that spread to nearly the whole country, devastating it and creating the conditions for the rise to power of the genocidal Khmer Rouge.
villager
(26,001 posts)Hard to imagine a "United" States weathering the coming climate and economic shocks....
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The key word that the creators hope you will overlook is "discretionary". Most US state spending is not discretionary, and so labelling this as "National priorities" is deeply misleading.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)FICA stands for 'Federal Insurance Contributions Act' - these monies are to be paid back to us directly, in the form of retirement, social security and medical benefits..... not to be used for war, or similar.
When you add ancillary costs of war, the war budget is actually more than 54%. Like Veterans benefits should be in there - making the total 60%. Plus Intel, and giving war toys to foreign powers (as we did with Saddam in the 80's), add even more money to the total of our tax revenues that should be spent on making America great again. Plus all the interest on the debt we've accrued because of war. I've heard that as much as 70% of our total budget is spent on war.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Here's a pie chart of how US spending actually breaks down. Defense is a little less than 20% (which is still much higher than most countries).
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)with out tax money.
All of the money we put into FICA must come back to us directly.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)once all the black budget military and intelligence funds are taken into account. Substantially higher, I'd bet.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Not to mention the country. One absolute lesson of history is that no empire has ever ended well, and neither will the American Imperium. The only question remaining is just how hard the landing will prove to be.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)It's not the fault of the military. They are just doing what their commander-in-chief tells them to do. It is his fault, not theirs. Most members of the military don't want to be over there either. But if they are ordered to go they have to go.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Middle East quagmire isn't destroying our enemies, it's destroying our country." That and very bad logistical decisions on the part of the war promoters. The only people benefiting are the contractors.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The system is set up to fail, and fail it is doing. The wars are killing more than just people.
Osama bin Laden is said to have claimed that he wanted the US to go crazy attacking the Middle East, and the US has gone crazy attacking the Middle East.
Bernie may be able to put an end to it, but the system may be too large and powerful and already over the cliff.
My apologies to the youngsters for this happening on our watch.
