Orn, Your quote from Goering is very appropriate. It brings to mind the Gulf on Tonkin incident that allowed Lyndon Johnson to escalate the Vietnam War and the USS Main explosion that began the Spanish American War. Both of these incidents were reported falsely in order to convinve the American public that war as justified.
In general Americans do not like war and in my opinion would not attack if for a net gain.Perhaps if the gain was extremely high and the cost extremely low, the majority of Americans would favor an aggressive war, then again maybe not. In any case, we don't know because a fully informed public that has control of the commander in chief does not exist. We are not even well informed or even adequately informed. It seems to me that few people are willing too admit how little they know, so they are unwilling to do the work to become adequately informed. Of course this is just my opinion and not an adequately informed one at that. But it is partly informed which I have good reason to believe is more informed than most opinions. On Dec 27, 12:08 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > The US budget for the military has been enormous and for most of us > bloated for a long time. And, much of it is hidden within other areas > too. Overall, currently the issue isn’t so much how money is being > spent as how public monies are being collected. > > And as to the historic use of the US military, the list is way too > long to post > here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_e... > > When it comes to selling the people on it, if advertising didn’t work > it wouldn’t exist. However, one of the most telling insights here is > one from when I was a kid. > > "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders > of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple > matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist > dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or > no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the > leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being > attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and > exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the > Nuremberg trials > > On Dec 27, 9:34 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > The point was that I don't believe for a second that people will avoid > > war for the noble reasons you originally described (reduce oppression, > > etc.). Tribes of people (government officials, nations, religious > > organizations, etc) will war if the cost to that specific organization > > is not that great and the payoff far outweighs the cost. The neocons > > probably benefited overall in the Iraq war. > > > A draft or conscription would probably help deter war because wealthy > > and powerful people's children would also be put in harms way to > > protect resources. For example, the neoconservatives would be put at > > risk of death (or their children) instead of just having other people > > die to protect their resources. It is quite amazing how a group of > > old men and a few old women can convince young people to readily died > > for a cause while those old people sit well out of harms way and don't > > incur the financial sacrifices. > > > Jason > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
