@cdward: I would say we had a reason in Afghanistan too. We, and by we I mean W, just screwed up the operation. Left it to the next guy to actually dispose of the SOB and try to clean up the mess.
I guess that is because war is not a good thing. Anybody with a half an ounce of intelligence and any compassion would start a war only as a last resort. I don’t know why the conservatives think we need to go fight every two bit dictator and expend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. The last few wars have not ended well and it seems to me anybody with half a brain would be looking for a better approach.
By that logic, we should start with the largest human rights violators and work our way down the list. US or Europe, WWII was not fought because Hitler was a genocidal maniac but because he threatened all of Europe. There were active threats (with an actual army) to those nations. By your logic, we should attack China because of human rights violations. The United States regrettably has little place in “playing policeman” for the world. To do so threatens the sovereignty of other nations and could make an awful lot of enemies. The UN should do the policing. The only way they could do that properly is if most nations give up more of their sovereignty to the UN. It’s not a matter of not being a coward, it’s a matter of diplomacy.
There’s been some recent criticism that it is too easy to “send in the troops” when everyone knows there are only a small number of people who will be affected — certainly not most well-off families. When everyone must face the costs of war, fewer people are willing to start one. Some have suggested mandatory service. Not sure I agree with that, but it is a legitimate concern.
Conservative pols like to go to war because there is a LOT of money to made. All those “defense contracts” to be doled out to their local “defense contractors”. Wrap yourself in the flag and start a defense contracting company -allow a big budget item for political donations.
I think it was more of a “Goldfinger” move. By increasing the risk to supply, Cheney was able to raise the cost for demand. That explains why he maxed out all the US reserves at the height of the price increases.
The “defense” budget is NOT being spent on those who carry the weight, the troops, over 90% goes to contractors in one form or another. (And then there’s the other half-trillion in “black box” money that also goes to CEOs to “administer”.)
Also, while body armor is nice at times, my son’s kit in Iraq weighed several times what I ever carried in ‘Nam, which is part of why so many of our current vets suffer back and leg injuries, that cripple ’em up, permanantly. MRAPs also still get folks seriously damaged, while “better than dead” it will cost us a lot more in the end, and Congress and right-wingers especially don’t want that money spent, nor does the Pentagon accept responsibility.
The statistics on this cartoon are pretty telling, but I wonder what the percentage was for Vietnam?
And all you “conservatives” who are hot to fight and “support our troops”: how about funding the VA properly to take care of the troops when they come home maimed and scarred?
superposition: No, the majority may get the government they deserve, but the rest, who tried to prevent it, do not..logicalone: Munich was too late. The proper time would have been at the invasion of the Saar, which was a massive and successful bluff by Hitler..jeff cartwright: As I have been saying, give disabled veterans the help they need and stop disabling more..churchillwasright: Wrong again. It is Royal Dutch Shell, to whom the US seems willing to give the Arctic Ocean to pollute. They may sell to China, but the real money goes to Amsterdam.
cmsears about 8 years ago
so true.
cdward about 8 years ago
We had a reason in WWII.
Liverlips McCracken Premium Member about 8 years ago
@cdward: I would say we had a reason in Afghanistan too. We, and by we I mean W, just screwed up the operation. Left it to the next guy to actually dispose of the SOB and try to clean up the mess.
twhalen about 8 years ago
If you want to thank a vet, do everything you can to get him or her a job.
Don’t give them a lame “thank you for your service”.
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member about 8 years ago
I guess that is because war is not a good thing. Anybody with a half an ounce of intelligence and any compassion would start a war only as a last resort. I don’t know why the conservatives think we need to go fight every two bit dictator and expend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. The last few wars have not ended well and it seems to me anybody with half a brain would be looking for a better approach.
CrazyRubes about 8 years ago
By that logic, we should start with the largest human rights violators and work our way down the list. US or Europe, WWII was not fought because Hitler was a genocidal maniac but because he threatened all of Europe. There were active threats (with an actual army) to those nations. By your logic, we should attack China because of human rights violations. The United States regrettably has little place in “playing policeman” for the world. To do so threatens the sovereignty of other nations and could make an awful lot of enemies. The UN should do the policing. The only way they could do that properly is if most nations give up more of their sovereignty to the UN. It’s not a matter of not being a coward, it’s a matter of diplomacy.
Motivemagus about 8 years ago
There’s been some recent criticism that it is too easy to “send in the troops” when everyone knows there are only a small number of people who will be affected — certainly not most well-off families. When everyone must face the costs of war, fewer people are willing to start one. Some have suggested mandatory service. Not sure I agree with that, but it is a legitimate concern.
JohnHarry Premium Member about 8 years ago
Conservative pols like to go to war because there is a LOT of money to made. All those “defense contracts” to be doled out to their local “defense contractors”. Wrap yourself in the flag and start a defense contracting company -allow a big budget item for political donations.
ossiningaling about 8 years ago
I think it was more of a “Goldfinger” move. By increasing the risk to supply, Cheney was able to raise the cost for demand. That explains why he maxed out all the US reserves at the height of the price increases.
braindead Premium Member about 8 years ago
Why did we invade Afghanistan again? To get the people behind the 9/11 attacks? Why are we still there?
Maybe Cheney, Willard, or one of the other ChickenHawks can supply the answer.
eddodt about 8 years ago
and we WON the second world war…and gave UP the afghan war…
Dtroutma about 8 years ago
The “defense” budget is NOT being spent on those who carry the weight, the troops, over 90% goes to contractors in one form or another. (And then there’s the other half-trillion in “black box” money that also goes to CEOs to “administer”.)
Also, while body armor is nice at times, my son’s kit in Iraq weighed several times what I ever carried in ‘Nam, which is part of why so many of our current vets suffer back and leg injuries, that cripple ’em up, permanantly. MRAPs also still get folks seriously damaged, while “better than dead” it will cost us a lot more in the end, and Congress and right-wingers especially don’t want that money spent, nor does the Pentagon accept responsibility.
Boise Ed Premium Member about 8 years ago
The statistics on this cartoon are pretty telling, but I wonder what the percentage was for Vietnam?
And all you “conservatives” who are hot to fight and “support our troops”: how about funding the VA properly to take care of the troops when they come home maimed and scarred?
hippogriff about 8 years ago
superposition: No, the majority may get the government they deserve, but the rest, who tried to prevent it, do not..logicalone: Munich was too late. The proper time would have been at the invasion of the Saar, which was a massive and successful bluff by Hitler..jeff cartwright: As I have been saying, give disabled veterans the help they need and stop disabling more..churchillwasright: Wrong again. It is Royal Dutch Shell, to whom the US seems willing to give the Arctic Ocean to pollute. They may sell to China, but the real money goes to Amsterdam.
eubie22 about 8 years ago
That’s the difference of a WWII army filled with draftees and an Afghanistan War army that is all volunteer.