Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

WhoIsNumberNone

(7,875 posts)
Sun May 27, 2012, 08:18 PM May 2012

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (WhoIsNumberNone) on Mon May 28, 2012, 12:26 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This message was self-deleted by its author (Original Post) WhoIsNumberNone May 2012 OP
stop picking on the president...and congress. tomorrow is a holiday to celebrate the military nt msongs May 2012 #1
I don't think it is to celebrate the military. It is to honor the people and their sacrifice. jerseyjack May 2012 #5
Far too many chervilant May 2012 #2
No better to time re-evaluate the costs of war. Chris Hayes DirkGently May 2012 #3
knr, bookmarked and thank you eom. chknltl May 2012 #4
I think that graph actually understates the case. Jim Lane May 2012 #6
$553 billion is not 59% of $1.34 trillion. bemildred May 2012 #7
Good point- I just did the calculation WhoIsNumberNone May 2012 #8
Self-deleting WhoIsNumberNone May 2012 #9

msongs

(73,881 posts)
1. stop picking on the president...and congress. tomorrow is a holiday to celebrate the military nt
Sun May 27, 2012, 09:23 PM
May 2012
 

jerseyjack

(1,361 posts)
5. I don't think it is to celebrate the military. It is to honor the people and their sacrifice.
Sun May 27, 2012, 11:07 PM
May 2012

I don't think there is anything to celebrate. The people fighting the wars believed they were doing the right thing. Depending on the war, most of us believe our wars were without honorable purpose. Whether it was Granada, Viet Nam, Korea, Hawaii, Columbia/Pamama, Wounded Knee, Cambodia, Laos, Tippecanoe, Black Kettle, Russia in 1919, Mexico, ...on and on... and add to that the C.I.A. actions.

Many of us believe the purpose of most of their service was for bullshit reasons. Isn't the best way to honor and respect that sacrifice, to do what we can to expose the bullshit so that people question the next war?

And the next war at the top of the list for countries to invade: Iran.

The presidents and Congress can't be picked on enough.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
2. Far too many
Sun May 27, 2012, 10:43 PM
May 2012

of the Hoi Polloi will spend this holiday being the good little patriotic consumers they've been trained to be...

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
3. No better to time re-evaluate the costs of war. Chris Hayes
Sun May 27, 2012, 10:55 PM
May 2012

raised an interesting discussion this morning as to what we are honoring, and how the idealism surrounding war and words like "heroism" clouds discussion.

chknltl

(10,558 posts)
4. knr, bookmarked and thank you eom.
Sun May 27, 2012, 10:56 PM
May 2012
 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
6. I think that graph actually understates the case.
Mon May 28, 2012, 12:10 AM
May 2012

A big chunk of the Department of Energy budget is devoted to nuclear bombs.

Furthermore, the graph is limited to discretionary spending. That presumably excludes interest on past debt, much of which was incurred to fight wars.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
7. $553 billion is not 59% of $1.34 trillion.
Mon May 28, 2012, 07:47 AM
May 2012

Just saying, that sort of thing doesn't help the argument being made.

WhoIsNumberNone

(7,875 posts)
8. Good point- I just did the calculation
Mon May 28, 2012, 12:06 PM
May 2012

It's 41%. Whoever made that graphic got it backwards.

WhoIsNumberNone

(7,875 posts)
9. Self-deleting
Mon May 28, 2012, 12:26 PM
May 2012

Confession: It's a long article, and I didn't read all of it before posting. Now I see that about 2/3 of the way down the author starts plugging for Ron Paul. Sigh. And up to that point it had been a good article too- forwarded to me on Facebook by a well known liberal and occupier who probably made the same lazy mistake.

Sorry.

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»This message was self-del...