It is a boon to military contractors and the military leaders. The contractors get their fingers in the American wallet while the military gets tons of TV time to demonstrate how heroic it is to bomb 3rd world countries that have not declared or waged war against the US. The best part for them is it is eternal. All you need is a couple nuts and the whole country can be blown up. War on Terrorism is a horrible misuse of language that allows them to do whatever the military wants. The repubs love it because they have been able to convince us they are saving us from people who have no interest in us whatsoever. Is there somebody who thinks Iraq was coming for us? Does anybody believe Afghanistan was a threat to America?
I apologize for causing offense by typing ‘their’ rather than ‘there’.
It takes a brave man to admit when he’s wrong.
I always thought the “war” bit was partly to do with government funding … ie. if we are at war we are allowed to access these coffers and put this money into where we want. If it wasn’t war … then we can’t access the $$$ and we can’t play troop movements (I know little about the government in the USA so was more thinking of my own country). If we’re at war we can skip around a whole lot of normal laws and morals … let’s go get the bastards! (ummm … who and where are they again?! … oh that’s right … anyone we don’t like!)
He also increased spending for the military. :rolleyes: As usual there’s plenty of anti-corporatist conspiracy theories here.
The reason it’s called “War” is propaganda. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean a bad thing, but no one is gonna get excited over a crime.
I live in a neighborhood in Chicago, that’s full of crime. I am far more concerned about Chicago and the thugs WITHIN it then some terrorist coming INTO it.
But WAR allows the government to make urgent changes. It stifles the opposition voices (“how could you not want to win a war”), and it allows for easier passages of laws and an eradication of some rights.
And again, I don’t mean that as a bad thing. Frankly I’d give up some of my rights, if I could get rid of the gangbangers on the subways.
What sacrifices were the American people asked to make, Curtis?
The American people haven’t made any sacrifices. Since all that increased military spending was funded by borrowing the money, that means we’ve asked future taxpayers (that would be young people like you) to pay for these wars, rather than ourselves. I guess we should thank you kids for all the extra taxes you guys will have to pay so we can pay back the Chinese all the money we borrowed, plus interest. I hope you’ll forgive us because the tax rates you’ll have to pay will stifle economic growth for another generation.
Rallying the nation behind the war would work, if only the nation rallied behind the war. You see that happening?
I think that’s the fault of many liberals who declared the Surge a “failure” back in '07 and now have to resort to doublethink to wiggle out of it.
How on earth are the huge espenses of the war, which started in March 2003, the result of “liberals” doing anything in 2007? And what does the attitude to the Surge in 2007 have to do with the way the war was presented to the American people given that it started 4 years earlier?
As for the sacrifices, what of the PATRIOT Acts?
How does that answer my question?
Sacrificing to the Lake of Fire- The God Given Rights of Americans with the justification of a bogus war. We are the Offense.
Just like any Football Game, the best offense, is a screen defense. They feed you the ball, you run it.
I think that the participants in the US Civil War would have found that perspective… interesting.
Well the Confederates would certainly agree with that statement.
That is the sacrifice that has been asked of us.
Here’s my compromise: once our troops are withdrawn from Iraq, Afghanistan, and whatever other places where they are shooting at and being shot at by Al Qaeda and Taliban related bad guys, then we stop calling it a war.
That’s warped. Do you think the sacrifice of the thing that makes us Americans is a positive thing? Do you think it makes us stronger to give up any of our rights?
Is the new conservatism now “It’s all right as long as we don’t lose all the little conveniences we’ve grown used to”? Here’s my phone records, can I keep buying nylons? Here’s my right to criticize the government, do I get to keep buying steaks at the supermarket? Here’s my library borrowing records, can I keep buying enough gas to drive across the state twice a week? Here’s my legal right to drive across state lines, can I keep my lights on at night instead of having to maintain blackout curtains?
That’s great! Bring 'em home!
They shouldn’ t have ever gone out in the first place.
I find this very very amusing, to say the least.
We have a democratic President and had a filibuster proof democratic controlled Congress and yet you (a liberal) are telling Ravenman (a conservative) to bring em home!
Then in the very next breath you blame that fact that they are there in the first place was because of “them”.
Make up your mind please. Either you want them home or not.
Take control sir!! Bring them home!!
You are misunderstanding what I meant. “They shouldn’t have gone out in the first place” isn’t blaming the military for their own deployment. It’s only noting that the decision to send them over shouldn’t have been made, no matter who made it.
And the first part that you quoted was oratorical. It wasn’t an imperative directed at Ravenman. It was a general statement of my preferred move as far as the US military and Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan are concerned.
I would personally much rather treat individual acts of terrorism as crimes, rather than committing our own acts of terrorism on people who probably had nothing to do with the individual acts of terrorism we’re avenging, and thereby doing Al Qaeda’s recruiting for them.