There is much evidence that in a post Vietnam era Americans don't want to be involved in war. Neocon ideology has driven America into the mess in the Middle East. Even though the neocons don't seem to understand war or foreign policy, they do understand how to manipulate a large segment of the American public. The neocon think tank "Project for the New American Century," wrote and published a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses," in the 2000, the year before 9/11. They suggested that America use its military to spread "democracy" around the world. They also realized that this change could not happen rapidly, that there would be resitance from within and without America. They also mentioned a way to overcome this. In their own words, "Further, the process of transformation,even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." One year later a new Pearl Harbor had happened and the neocon policy was implemented.
Speaking of Pearl Harbor the majority of Americans did not want to enter WWII before that event. Americans don't like war. Our nation has been hijacked by parasites in the form of war profiteers. On Dec 26, 11:23 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 26, 7:24 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > hmmmm....I wonder if an informed citizenry wouldn't just continue use > > the military to increase wealth but not talk about it so openly. > > I don't think Americans would do this at this time. The United > Nations, nuclear weapons and breakdown of international trade would be > additional deterrents for the USA as well as other nations. I also > believe that Americans as a whole don't like war. However, if an > informed citizenry > increased the wealth of all, or at least most, and sacrificed human > lives to do it, it might be crazy and cruel, but at least it would be > more equitible than what we have now. Presently a few thousand have > lost lives of friends or family members, more have been seriously > wounded, nearly all have lost money, by way of the national debt, and > a few have made billions. Or nation as a whole has been severly > weakened. This is not even counting the horrendous situation on the > other side (the Iraqis and Afghanis). It is time to bring the war > profiteers, and their puppets in our goverment, to trial. > > By the way, I forgot to mention General Butler's solution. He > suggested conscripting suppilies as well as soldiers, thereby taking > the profit out of war for arms dealers. > > On Dec 26, 7:24 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > "[The military] of an informed citizenry...will be used for self- > > defense and when feasible to help fight tyranny and oppression." > > > hmmmm....I wonder if an informed citizenry wouldn't just continue use > > the military to increase wealth but not talk about it so openly. That > > seems to be the trend and tendency. I don't think that tendency or > > trend will stop until the bloodlines amongst countries and economic > > ties are so strong that too many informed citizens would be upset with > > the killing of their relatives from the opposing country and wouldn't > > want to risk damaging the economic gains from that opposing country. > > > Jason > > > On Dec 26, 10:18 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't know what Obama plans to do with the military as far as base > > > closures and the size of the standing army. As I see it he has one of > > > two reasonable routes. > > > > 1. He can accept that America has taken the role of worldwide enforcer > > > and do the job right. The first most important step here is to take > > > the army back from control of the international corporations. I > > > believe that war for profit has been the primary force running the > > > American army for well over 100 years. As evidence, here is a link to > > > the book "War Is A Racket," by Major General Smedley > > > Butler.http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html > > > Once the army is following the will of an informed citizenry, then it > > > will be used for self-defense and when feasible to help fight tyranny > > > and oppression. Notice that I said when feasible. Helping others, when > > > possible, does help us, or so I believe. But not when it leaves us > > > overextended. Then it helps no one. Life Guards, for example, are > > > taught not to attempt a rescue that they think is not possible. Why > > > risk two lives. Why run down our military, lose American lives and > > > ruin our economy for nothing. The army must not be dominated by > > > mercenaries. This is one of the things that led to the downfall of > > > Rome. When our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins and friends > > > are in the army, we will not go to war so easily. When we do, we will > > > have a plan to win with the fewest possible casualties, like Clinton's > > > war in Yugoslavia. If the Commander in chief is failing, he should be > > > recalled. Much of the killing of non participating civilians occurs > > > when the mission is not clear and it stalls, like in Vietnam and in > > > Iraq. > > > > 2. The second approach would be to give up being the world's > > > policeman. Neither the Iraq or Afghanistan wars would have been > > > necessary. The Afghanis were willing to turn Bin Laden and his crew > > > over to a neutral world court. Now they are roaming free. The pressure > > > was working on Saddam Hussein. Inspectors were being allowed to do > > > their jobs. Of course if these wars had been run properly then things > > > wouldn't have turned out so badly and as much as I hate war, I might > > > believe that we did the right thing. > > > > As I see it these are two reasonable options. Both of them are far > > > from ideal, but necessary in the world that we live in > > > > On Dec 25, 10:01 pm, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No, I did not say anti-military, but any generic reference to faceless > > > > people as child killers is not exactly positive either. We risk > > > > dehumanize > > > > them like we accuse them of dehumanizing their target enemy if we drop > > > > the > > > > casual killer labels. I believe we agree on most as I said before, how > > > > we > > > > say it is just as important. Curious enough, the old GI benefits you > > > > mention are in place, and for some, particularly those diagnosed with > > > > traumatic stress disorder, reprieve has finally come, it is now > > > > formally recognized as an actual medical condition.... > > > > > read more » > > > > > Education benefits are working if you use them. Active Duty military > > > > offers > > > > a GI bill of $50,000 - while not Ivy League, can get you a degree that > > > > will > > > > keep you from re-enlisting if you are done with active duty. The rest > > > > is up > > > > to the individual's drive. I'm not sure that the National Guard has > > > > decreased or increased, do not have the stats on that, but surely the > > > > border > > > > duty and over seas tours have. National Guard and Reserve have been on > > > > the > > > > rise for years since the decrease of combat troop count, and base > > > > closures, > > > > but more attention has spotlighted them since Bush and 9/11. What > > > > Obama's > > > > appointees do will be interesting. Any suppositions on that? > > > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Isparklaria > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > Crossbow, > > > > > > While I enjoyed your reply, I think you misread mine. I am not against > > > > > the military. I just want to see it reporting to a President who > > > > > reports to the people. I would like see the public informed and also > > > > > able to recall a president who is definately incompetant and probably > > > > > criminal. I would also like to se the old GI benefits restored where > > > > > military service gets you a college education. I would like to see > > > > > real military service, not Bush's national guard stint, be a > > > > > prequisite to be commander in chief. I would like to see national > > > > > service of some sort, either military or peace corps or something else > > > > > required for full citizenship. Enough service would also get you a > > > > > free college education. There are many more changes that I would like > > > > > to see. I am not for killing but I accept the necessity for now and > > > > > for any forseable future of a strong military. But it must, must, > > > > > must, must be accountable to the people. The people and or the friends > > > > > and family should also be in the army, so that war hurts all of us, > > > > > not just the few who have enlisted. And a tax cut durring a war so > > > > > that we don't feel it. That is a treasonous act. > > > > > > On Dec 25, 1:53 pm, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > "the average joe is quickly turned into a killer through military > > > > > > training" As well as are martial artists and police, whose training > > > > > > is > > > > > > much deeper at times than footsoldiers...and I believe those are > > > > > > whom you > > > > > > are concentrating on - right? Interesting that you choose only the > > > > > > perspective of "killing machine" as not all troops are trained to > > > > > > be foot > > > > > > soldiers, but a vast majority of today's standing armies are > > > > > > technical > > > > > and > > > > > > removed to supply line and command. Most of the boot camp training > > > > > > and > > > > > > follow-up techinical schools are focused on building teamwork, and > > > > > > preventive/protective technology instead of end result killing. Of > > > > > > course > > > > > > units are taught to kill in unison, while covering thier asses, to > > > > > survive > > > > > > long enough to achieve objectives. Where was a standing military > > > > > > invented? WHY? originally? to protect and if you are Amerind, it > > > > > > was war > > > > > for > > > > > > resources to survive. Even Chimps do this today over territory. > > > > > > MOST primitive tribes either trade or fight, or both on occasion. > > > > > Soldiers > > > > > > are never instant inhuman killing machines. When was the last time > > > > > > you > > > > > > really talked to a lifer in the military? or a bootcamp graduate? > > > > > > Many > > > > > > humans can kill and we all can be cruel! I am not just blasting you > > > > > > for > > > > > > questioning, or divulging your perspective,, I am protesting a > > > > > > current of > > > > > > codswallop fueled by this Burning Bush administration that has made > > > > > > a > > > > > > mockery of many. Along with the spining hate mongers of TV!... > > > > > > > read more » > > > > > > > Too many people believe in HollyWoods version of the Arnold > > > > > > Swartzenegger > > > > > > commando. All movies with military representations follow a stupid > > > > > > off-base generic, very far removed, twisted glorification of the > > > > > > real > > > > > > thing. Though I agree with much that you are saying about the > > > > > > regimes > > > > > that > > > > > > control our soldiers...some of your information is very > > > > > > unrepresentative > > > > > of > > > > > > the real military human on a day to day basis. This administration > > > > > > has > > > > > done > > > > > > more damage to the image of soldiery than the Vietnam War because > > > > > > the > > > > > > current altercation has potential to never end. You are accusing > > > > > > the > > > > > many, > > > > > > and degrading the few in the manner you present them.- Hide quoted > > > > > > text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
