No More Endless Wars

gokenin · 05-22-2011, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by shooz

It would depend on what corporations would profit from it and how the ROI would be distributed to Wallstreet investors.

so as long as its good for business you have no problem with a President doing whatever he wants for 59 days ? without any approval from the legislative branch of the government ?

jeffkrol · 05-22-2011, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by gokenin

both since you are asking

time has nothing to do with a moral issue..............

legally he probably could..........

shooz · 05-22-2011, 08:38 AM

I never wanted a corporate run state, the conservatives did.
Now that they have it, I'm just showing how it is.

gokenin · 05-22-2011, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by shooz

I never wanted a corporate run state, the conservatives did.
Now that they have it, I'm just showing how it is.

Please you make it sound like the Democratic party has never benefited from its relations with business. This has been a corporate run state since the creation of modern business back in the mid 1800's. Both parties benefit from this so you can't sit there and say its only one party that is in bed with business.

gokenin · 05-22-2011, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by jeffkrol

time has nothing to do with a moral issue..............

legally he probably could..........

so based on your answer you had no objections to GW Bush doing what he did then am I correct? or does this answer only apply to the current President?

shooz · 05-22-2011, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by gokenin

Please you make it sound like the Democratic party has never benefited from its relations with business. This has been a corporate run state since the creation of modern business back in the mid 1800's. Both parties benefit from this so you can't sit there and say its only one party that is in bed with business.

I can think of a couple Roosevelts that would disagree with that.

I just mentioned it is #1 on the agenda for teapublconsetarians.
More so than for the Libs.

As I said before. I am against running a government like a business.
Just saying that that is how it is run today.
So conservteapublitatians....got their way and still they B****.
I asked you to be careful what you ask for.
You weren't.

Welcome to the plutocracy......

newarts · 05-22-2011, 03:20 PM

What war? A war involves parties in combat. Is squashing spiders war?

We are just beating up on someone essentially powerless to fight back.

It is certainly more ego satisfying than our losing the more realistic quasi-war we are engaging with illiterate Pashtun hillbillies and maybe a hundred Al Quida leftovers.

shooz · 05-22-2011, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by newarts

We are just beating up on someone essentially powerless to fight back

I wouldn't say powerless.
I do call these "wars", occupations, as that is what they are.

newarts · 05-22-2011, 03:57 PM - **1 Like**

This endless, paranoid war business must be stopped!

Our collective ethics have regressed to the dark ages because of fear of monsters under the bed. The only good thing to come from our decade of hubris might be stripping the veil of decency from the face of the fearful, vengeful, selfish monster that is US.

Can we ever stop the "War On Terror"? It appears to be self-perpetuating; being groped at airports in the name of security reinforces the idea that there is something realistic to fear. But the marginal individual threat from international terrorism is small, very very small in the USA.

I recently drove from Florida to Iowa through rural Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and Iowa. Endless forests and fields and homes occupied by people hunkered down in fear of terrorists; surely the threat of being hit by lightning or bitten by a rabid fox far exceeds any terrorist threat when you live 4 hours from the nearest airport.

We are in a difficult position; there seems to be no clear way to un-declare the war on terrorism. Billions of dollars are being spent on "Homeland Security"; hundreds of thousands of people are employed to spy on each other; to succeed in their jobs these people must and will find "threats" - probably by identifying posts like this. Such huge structures are not easily disassembled.

Yet I fear no politician in her/his right mind can say such things. What can be done?

jeffkrol · 05-22-2011, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by gokenin

so based on your answer you had no objections to GW Bush doing what he did then am I correct? or does this answer only apply to the current President?

If you mean falsifying an excuse to start a trillion dollar multi-year war... Yes I have a problem with that morally and legally..
If he went and bombed Baghdad 49 days, I'd still have a moral problem with it but it would apparently be "legal".....

I use papa Bush as my yardstick.. Pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and STOPPED at the border..

Never said legal was good..........

wildman · 05-23-2011, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by newarts

It appears to be self-perpetuating

That is exactly the intent ideally. There is no real money in a three day war - the system needs a cash cow.

newarts · 05-23-2011, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by wildman

That is exactly the intent ideally. There is no real money in a three day war - the system needs a cash cow.

I am serious in asking what can be done to un-declare war-without-end.

*No sane executive will abandon such power.
*I don't think citizens have legal standing to challenge it.
*Politicians are afraid of being weak on terror prevention.

Can education overcome public fear?

GeneV · 05-23-2011, 06:22 AM

A lot more people have to get a realistic view of how serious war is. For this to stop, war needs to stop working as a political move.

I'm sure someone could find an example somewhere in history of a president from another party who did this, but the presidency that ended in 2008 is a fairly blatant example. GWB was elected contrary to the vote of the majority of voters, and the country gave him mixed approval ratings. Then the country is attacked, he struts around making threats with a bull horn, and then a few weeks late (Oct. 7, 2001), he attacks Afghanistan. His approval ratings go through the roof, to about 90%.

Karl Rove sees this and takes note. In early 2002, he is visiting Republican meetings all over the country with a Powerpoint presentation telling strategists how he will use war to get other political concessions. In southern CA, his presentation (which the media obtained) links repeal of the estate tax to a continuing war. Later in 2002, the run up to the Iraq war begins, and Republicans do well in midterms. The Iraq war begins in March of 2003. President Bush declares "Mission Accomplished" in May, and the estate tax repeal passes in June. The strategy pretty much plays out the way Rove's presentation predicted.

We seem to have that tribal nature that has followed our chief of state to war and then followed his commands on other matters.

The war boost is playing out now, as well.

shooz · 05-23-2011, 07:26 AM

Freedom of the press would go a VERY long way to educate the public on the horrors of occupations, or war for that matter.
Too bad we don't have that here in the US.

Nesster · 05-23-2011, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by skyredoubt

Woa, hold on there, Wheatfield, the Lybian operation was started by Obama.

Correct me, please, but we're not actually on the ground in Libya nor do I hear us planning to be. If anything, Obama/Clinton are trying to keep our involvement as limited as possible.

Originally posted by Wheatfield

A Republican president starts an illegal war of aggression, and it's the fault of a Democrat President?

Yes, it is. See, the forieign aggressors and tyrants know that sooner or later the USA will elect another soft, bleeding heart Democrat, and this always limits the one true policy practiced by Republicans. Bush had no choice; he knew that while Bill Clinton was vanquished, someone would eventually take his place.

05-22-2011, 03:57 PM - 1 Like	#39
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	This endless, paranoid war business must be stopped! Our collective ethics have regressed to the dark ages because of fear of monsters under the bed. The only good thing to come from our decade of hubris might be stripping the veil of decency from the face of the fearful, vengeful, selfish monster that is US. Can we ever stop the "War On Terror"? It appears to be self-perpetuating; being groped at airports in the name of security reinforces the idea that there is something realistic to fear. But the marginal individual threat from international terrorism is small, very very small in the USA. I recently drove from Florida to Iowa through rural Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and Iowa. Endless forests and fields and homes occupied by people hunkered down in fear of terrorists; surely the threat of being hit by lightning or bitten by a rabid fox far exceeds any terrorist threat when you live 4 hours from the nearest airport. We are in a difficult position; there seems to be no clear way to un-declare the war on terrorism. Billions of dollars are being spent on "Homeland Security"; hundreds of thousands of people are employed to spy on each other; to succeed in their jobs these people must and will find "threats" - probably by identifying posts like this. Such huge structures are not easily disassembled. Yet I fear no politician in her/his right mind can say such things. What can be done? Last edited by newarts; 05-22-2011 at 04:04 PM.

05-23-2011, 06:22 AM	#43
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	A lot more people have to get a realistic view of how serious war is. For this to stop, war needs to stop working as a political move. I'm sure someone could find an example somewhere in history of a president from another party who did this, but the presidency that ended in 2008 is a fairly blatant example. GWB was elected contrary to the vote of the majority of voters, and the country gave him mixed approval ratings. Then the country is attacked, he struts around making threats with a bull horn, and then a few weeks late (Oct. 7, 2001), he attacks Afghanistan. His approval ratings go through the roof, to about 90%. Karl Rove sees this and takes note. In early 2002, he is visiting Republican meetings all over the country with a Powerpoint presentation telling strategists how he will use war to get other political concessions. In southern CA, his presentation (which the media obtained) links repeal of the estate tax to a continuing war. Later in 2002, the run up to the Iraq war begins, and Republicans do well in midterms. The Iraq war begins in March of 2003. President Bush declares "Mission Accomplished" in May, and the estate tax repeal passes in June. The strategy pretty much plays out the way Rove's presentation predicted. We seem to have that tribal nature that has followed our chief of state to war and then followed his commands on other matters. The war boost is playing out now, as well. Last edited by GeneV; 05-23-2011 at 07:00 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape Endless River	Rense	Post Your Photos!	5	01-11-2011 08:30 AM
Nature turf wars	eric59	Post Your Photos!	2	09-14-2010 05:32 PM
Nature Koala wars	MoiVous	Post Your Photos!	10	01-07-2010 05:03 AM
No brand wars!	Adam	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	9	09-13-2009 10:48 AM
Endless beach	bobwired	Post Your Photos!	3	10-24-2007 10:51 AM

05-22-2011, 08:26 AM	#31
gokenin Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: lowell,ma Posts: 1,899	Originally posted by shooz It would depend on what corporations would profit from it and how the ROI would be distributed to Wallstreet investors. so as long as its good for business you have no problem with a President doing whatever he wants for 59 days ? without any approval from the legislative branch of the government ?

05-22-2011, 08:33 AM	#32
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by gokenin both since you are asking time has nothing to do with a moral issue.............. legally he probably could..........

05-22-2011, 08:38 AM	#33
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	I never wanted a corporate run state, the conservatives did. Now that they have it, I'm just showing how it is.

05-22-2011, 01:10 PM	#34
gokenin Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: lowell,ma Posts: 1,899	Originally posted by shooz I never wanted a corporate run state, the conservatives did. Now that they have it, I'm just showing how it is. Please you make it sound like the Democratic party has never benefited from its relations with business. This has been a corporate run state since the creation of modern business back in the mid 1800's. Both parties benefit from this so you can't sit there and say its only one party that is in bed with business.

05-22-2011, 01:12 PM	#35
gokenin Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: lowell,ma Posts: 1,899	Originally posted by jeffkrol time has nothing to do with a moral issue.............. legally he probably could.......... so based on your answer you had no objections to GW Bush doing what he did then am I correct? or does this answer only apply to the current President?

05-22-2011, 01:36 PM	#36
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Originally posted by gokenin Please you make it sound like the Democratic party has never benefited from its relations with business. This has been a corporate run state since the creation of modern business back in the mid 1800's. Both parties benefit from this so you can't sit there and say its only one party that is in bed with business. I can think of a couple Roosevelts that would disagree with that. I just mentioned it is #1 on the agenda for teapublconsetarians. More so than for the Libs. As I said before. I am against running a government like a business. Just saying that that is how it is run today. So conservteapublitatians....got their way and still they B****. I asked you to be careful what you ask for. You weren't. Welcome to the plutocracy......

05-22-2011, 03:20 PM	#37
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	What war? A war involves parties in combat. Is squashing spiders war? We are just beating up on someone essentially powerless to fight back. It is certainly more ego satisfying than our losing the more realistic quasi-war we are engaging with illiterate Pashtun hillbillies and maybe a hundred Al Quida leftovers.

05-22-2011, 03:25 PM	#38
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Originally posted by newarts We are just beating up on someone essentially powerless to fight back I wouldn't say powerless. I do call these "wars", occupations, as that is what they are.

05-22-2011, 05:46 PM	#40
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by gokenin so based on your answer you had no objections to GW Bush doing what he did then am I correct? or does this answer only apply to the current President? If you mean falsifying an excuse to start a trillion dollar multi-year war... Yes I have a problem with that morally and legally.. If he went and bombed Baghdad 49 days, I'd still have a moral problem with it but it would apparently be "legal"..... I use papa Bush as my yardstick.. Pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and STOPPED at the border.. Never said legal was good..........

05-23-2011, 05:39 AM	#41
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by newarts It appears to be self-perpetuating That is exactly the intent ideally. There is no real money in a three day war - the system needs a cash cow.

05-23-2011, 05:55 AM	#42
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Originally posted by wildman That is exactly the intent ideally. There is no real money in a three day war - the system needs a cash cow. I am serious in asking what can be done to un-declare war-without-end. No sane executive will abandon such power. I don't think citizens have legal standing to challenge it. *Politicians are afraid of being weak on terror prevention. Can education overcome public fear?

05-23-2011, 07:26 AM	#44
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Freedom of the press would go a VERY long way to educate the public on the horrors of occupations, or war for that matter. Too bad we don't have that here in the US.

05-23-2011, 08:29 AM	#45
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by skyredoubt Woa, hold on there, Wheatfield, the Lybian operation was started by Obama. Correct me, please, but we're not actually on the ground in Libya nor do I hear us planning to be. If anything, Obama/Clinton are trying to keep our involvement as limited as possible. Originally posted by Wheatfield A Republican president starts an illegal war of aggression, and it's the fault of a Democrat President? Yes, it is. See, the forieign aggressors and tyrants know that sooner or later the USA will elect another soft, bleeding heart Democrat, and this always limits the one true policy practiced by Republicans. Bush had no choice; he knew that while Bill Clinton was vanquished, someone would eventually take his place.