(no message)

One of the most striking things about it is that there was no effort made to mobilize the country, there was actually no effort even made to expand the size of the armed forces, as a matter of fact. The President said just two weeks or so after 9/11, "Go to Disney World. Go shopping." Well, there's something out of whack here, if indeed the Global War on Terror, and Iraq as a subset of the Global War on Terror is said to be so critically important, on the one hand. And on the other hand, when the country basically goes about its business, as if, really, there were no War on Terror, and no war in Iraq ongoing at all.

That's what's been confusing me and many on the Left. Either this is the penultimate conflict of our times or it isn't. If it is, then let's go all in. If it isn't stop saying that it is and constitutional rights have to be violated (first and fourth amendments especially) to "Keep America safe".

EDIT: One of the things that struck me about the Ken Burns series The War was the degree to which American society was mobilized during WW2. It was total dedication towards defeating what was seen as an existential threat. If radical Islam is also an existential threat, why has this not been repeated?

Andrew Bacevich is a good guy. Smart, former vet, catholic, principled. The guy lost his son in Iraq.

I like The American Conservative in general. They're not GOP homers. Obviously, given my political leanings, I don't agree with everything they say, but they recognize that the modern GOP has moved away from many core conservative positions on things like finance and how the military is used since 9/11. Given that it was launched by Pat Buchanan, they take more of an isolationist bent.

So don't you realize many of us conservatives are thoroughly confused just as you are. The "we can have guns and butter" was started under Lyndon Johnson! So Carter "talked about" the oil problem and the potential for disaster ... what did he do about it? Same for all the presidents! Same for all the congresses!!! WHAT HAVE THEY DONE ABOUT IT OTHER THAN TALK TALK TALK???

Any informed idiot could see the crisis coming down the pike ... so what has the leadership ... DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN ... been doing about it other than to call each other names? ???

There is absolutely no excuse for the United States being dependent for our energy needs on ANYONE!! LET ALONE DEPENDENT ON THOSE WHO WISH US ILL!!!

President Reagan negotiated the end of the cold war with Soviet President Gorbachev.,The neoconservatives, whom Reagan fired and drove from his administration, were furious. The neocons had hoped to win the cold war, thereby establishing American hegemony.

The Republican Establishment reestablished its hegemony under Bush 1st that it had lost to Ronald Reagan. With this feat, intelligence was driven from the Republican Party.

The neocons engineered their comeback with the First Gulf War and their propaganda, pure lies, that Iraqi troops bayoneted Kuwait babies in hospitals.

The neocons made a further comeback with President Clinton, whom they convinced to bomb Serbia in order to permit separatist movements to become independent states dependent on America.

With Bush 2nd, the neocons took over. Their agenda, American world hegemony, includes Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

So far the schemes of these ignorant and dangerous ideologues have come a cropper. Iraq, formerly in the hands of secular Sunnis who were a check on Iran, is, after the American invasion and occupation, in the hands of religious Shi'ites allied with Iran.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban are resurgent, and a large NATO/US army there is unable to control the situation.

One consequence of the neocons' Afghan war has been the loss of power of the American puppet president of Pakistan, a Muslim country armed with nuclear weapons. The puppet president now faces impeachment, and the Pakistani military has informed the Americans to stop conducting military operations in Pakistani territory.

The American puppets in Egypt and Jordan might be next to fall.

In Iraq, the Shi'ites, having completed their ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from neighborhoods, have declared a cease fire in order to contradict the US propaganda that American withdrawal would lead to a blood bath. Negotiations on withdrawal dates are now underway between the Americans and the Iraqi government, which is no longer behaving like a puppet.

Last year Hugo Chavez ridiculed Bush before the UN. Russia's Putin ridiculed Bush as Comrade Wolf.

On August 12, 2008, Pravda ridiculed Bush, "Bush: Why don't you shut up."

Americans may think they are a superpower before whose presence the world trembles. But not the Russians.

"At the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms and armies that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamored with military might."

-Andrew J. Bacevich

Can anybody blame Russia for being concerned about American militarism? Except for Siberia, they are practically surrounded by American military bases.

The presence of US bases and active duty personnel in various countries does not translate to an "imperial" presence. Just glancing at your map, is the US an imperial power over Australia, Italy, Canada, Japan and so on?

And is this news that the US has increased its presence in the Middle East after September 11th? Is that puzzling to some?

Frankly, I'd be shocked if that map was any less red in the period after WWII through 2001.

You're one sorry, un-American, piece of shit. What about the term, "the Leader of the Free World" do you not understand? We adopted this stance after WWII. This strategy was designed to keep the commies (your brothers) off balance and to keep from having to fight WWIII. Take your tired ass back to football board where you make some sense.

Freedom is a Orwellian world in the Chicago School economics meets American backed militarism world we live in. American policy isn't to promote democracy, which was the normal expression for "freedom". American policy is designed to promote privatization of national assets into the hands of a few oligarch's and pave the way for American multinational corporations.

When Democracy resists, it gets crushed.

When Boris Yeltson destroyed the Russian Parliament building after the democratically elected parliament objected to the radical Chicago School transfer of Russia's assets into the hands of a small oligarchy, all with America's blessing, was he freeing the country?

When Pinochet overthrew Allende in Chile with the confluence of American militarism and Chicago School economics, and tortured and killed his political opponents, was he spreading American freedom?

When China sent in the tanks into Tianamen Square to murder those opposed to the privatization of China's assets into the hands of the communist oligarchy, was that freedom and democracy at work? Or, was it Chicago School economics in confluence with American sanctioned militarism?

I'm not even gonna get into Iraq, which is among the ugliest, most disgraceful episodes in American history.

Answer each of these individual questions Mr America. I'll debate your simple minded sorry ass all day about how our militarism and Chicago School economic policies are destroying, not enabling political freedom throughout the world.

Your opinion is that government regulation is what's best for the United States and it's citizens? That's pure and unadulterated communism. As much as your candidate would like to regulate everything, it ain't gonna happen. We're a free market society and it's gonna stay that way. You can bring up Tianamen square all you want, but it was your brothers (the commmies) that murdered the civilians. Nice try with the "Chicago School of economics dumb ass. You're so painfully predictable, it's becoming boring slapping your pussy ass. You're now relegated to being my bitch.

The video presents a very profound man with some very profound observations. [Profound enough that he didn't tag his post to the wrong post like I did! That's what happens when you're in a hurry.] ;^(

Among the more profound was the observation that no political party has a monopoly on the blame for the jam we're in. Ultimately we, the voting Americans, are to blame for allowing the charade to be perpetuated. We've been too busy trying to pay for [and enjoy]things we could have done without to take the time to see where we as a society and a nation were really headed.

The really sad thing is that anyone who wished to take the time to objectively look at history and where we've been headed ever since WWII could see it coming. There have been people trying to tell us for decades ... but hey ... who wants to listen!

to buy stuff. However, I like to blame Jimmy Carter for this mess, too.

This is worth watching if you have time for something more than 10 second sound bites....I was blown away by this interview.

I think I'll buy his book tomorrow. I'm no fan of Moyer but a good interview.

(no message)

Tagged to wrong post. Sorry about that. :^(