HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » grahamhgreen » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 60 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 30, 2004, 03:05 PM
Number of posts: 15,741

Journal Archives

Can 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.


War Costs to Date

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.

Visualizing Our Severe income Disparity


Twice in One Day, Ban Ki-Moon Condemned Obama’s Actions on Syria


I earlier reported that in an interview with Spanish newspapers published October 31st, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon condemned U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad be removed from office, and Moon said: “The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people.” However, it turns out (and I didn’t know this at that time) that he also said the same thing in a separate forum on October 31st: a news conference at the U.N. in Geneva, held jointly with the head of the ICRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross. The present news-report integrates both of those statements from Ban. (This has not been done before, but should be; so, part of this article will repeat from that earlier one.)

The U.N. headlined, “Ban Ki-moon (UN Secretary-General) and Peter Maurer (ICRC) on the world’s humanitarian crises – Media Stakeout (Geneva, 31 October 2015).” The 23-minute news-conference video there included him saying (13:50): “I believe that the future of Syria, or the future of the peace talks, … should not be held up by an issue of the future of one man. I believe that it is up to the Syrian people who have to decide the future of President Assad.”

This assertion by the U.N. Secretary General directly contradicts the repeatedly stated position of U.S. President Barack Obama, who insists that Assad must be removed from office and promptly be replaced by someone whom the President of the United States finds to be acceptable to serve as Syria’s leader — that this be done even before the war against ISIS is won. (Is Obama perhaps hoping that ISIS will help Obama to take down Assad? Is he perhaps actually viewing ISIS as being an ally?)

Here is the entire quotation of the similar statement that Mr. Ban made that day to Spanish newspapers and which was quoted at El Pais (as translated by me): “The future of President Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. Now, I do not want to interfere in the process of Vienna, but I think it is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of a person [diplomatese here for: U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that Assad be removed from the Presidency of Syria] to paralyze all this political negotiation. This is not acceptable. It’s not fair. The Syrian government insists that Assad should be part of the transition. Many Western countries oppose the Syrian government’s position. Meanwhile, we lost years. 250,000 people have been killed. There are 13 million refugees or internally displaced. Over 50% of hospitals, schools and infrastructure has been destroyed in Syria. You must not lose more time. This crisis goes beyond Syria, beyond the region. It affects Europe. It is a global crisis.”
Posted by grahamhgreen | Tue Nov 3, 2015, 01:18 PM (0 replies)

30 Billion Dollars More for a War we've already lost. Who will pay?

Let's put this in perspective.

Bernie Sanders plan for free college tuition for all is estimated at 60 billion.

It's paid for with a sales tax on stock transactions.

Who will pay for this new ground war in Syria?

Can we not have a special tax on the wealthiest to pay for this incredibly stupid decision??
Posted by grahamhgreen | Mon Nov 2, 2015, 03:53 PM (5 replies)

Tulsi Gabbard (D): US must stop illegal war to overthrow Assad in Syria

16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria

"Many of you have asked, won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are 'still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.' A veteran put it more bluntly: 'This nation is sick and tired of war.' My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities."

More of his misleading statements here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/10/30/16-times-obama-said-there-would-no-boots-ground-syria/74869884/

Those who would involve the US in a perpetual war for profit must be jumping for joy.

In the tradition of Bush: Obama putting boots on the ground in Syria!!! Wee Hee!

In the end, I imagine we will be aligning ourselves with ISIS to defeat Assad - as, in my view, the defeat of Assad has been the goal since GWB's Axis of Evil speech.

Another win for the neocon dream of endless war.

"Defense secretary: US to begin ‘direct action on the ground’ in Iraq, Syria"

"Defense Secretary Ash Carter today revealed that the U.S. will openly begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria." - http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/defense-secretary-us-begin-direct-action-the-ground-iraq-syria

Most asinine thing I've heard this week. Not only can we "not win it" as GWB ,Glorious Leader and founding CEO of The War on Terror, inc., told us. BUT WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.

Now just one of you war hawks step up and tell me where this money is gonna come from..... And then volunteer to go fight.

Here is the cost of the war, in case you forgot:

Over 370,000 people have died due to direct war violence, and many more indirectly
210,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting at the hands of all parties to the conflict
7.6 million — the number of war refugees and displaced persons
The US federal price tag for the Iraq war is about 4.4 trillion dollars
The wars have been accompanied by violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the US and abroad
The wars did not result in inclusive, transparent, and democratic governments in Iraq or Afghanistan

Issues: WHY is Hillary opposed to Keystone XL? Bernie opposes it because it increases global warming

how about Hill?

TNBernie: Wow, I can't believe her... As a woman myself,

"Wow, I can't believe her... As a woman myself, I always have to deal with people telling me that sexism is "bullshit" or just an excuse women use when they can't admit they're wrong, etc. So, I know where Hillary is coming from, and I always love it when powerful women call out sexist behaviors... but this is not what Hillary did. She did not call out sexist behavior, she took a real, sexist phenomenon and then dishonestly manufactured a situation to serve as an attack on her fellow candidates.

Seeing and hearing influential women like Hillary take a real sexist phenomenon and apply it to a situation where it doesn't belong is really upsetting, and is potentially very damaging to the progress women work so hard for. This will only give shitty people more ammo: "See, sexism isn't real! It's just something you liberal hippy women use when you want to win an argument!"

She is a powerful woman who is trying to champion gender equality; I know she has valuable insight into sexism and politics, and we should at least try to listen to her, even if we don't agree with her politically. But right now she's using her position of power dishonestly and is risking her and fellow women's credibility when it comes to calling out sexism. And that, to me, is the worst thing about this attack. I'm mad that she's lying about Bernie, but I'm way more upset that she's making women lose credibility and giving sexist shitheads more ammo against us..

Hillary, if you want to use your gender as a selling point for you campaign, have at it. I understand the appeal and actually don't see it as a "bad" point, just different from the rest of the candidates. But don't frame a problem as a sexist one if it isn't there. Don't throw progress under the bus in favor to bring down and attack candidates. The candidates aren't the only victims of these attacks. You're stunting progress and losing credibility that so many women (yourself included) have fought for."

- TNBernie
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 60 Next »