Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ferd Berfel

(3,687 posts)
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:50 PM Jun 2016

How Many Trillions More Will Pentagon Spend on Mid-East Wars Before They Confront their Disaster

How horrible and tragic does the judgment of our 'representatives' have to get before we wake up and get rid of them?

http://www.alternet.org/world/killing-taliban-leader-really-milestone

How Many Trillions More Will the Pentagon Spend on Middle East Wars Before They Confront the Disaster They've Created?
Things just keep getting worse.


We have it on highest authority: the recent killing of Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan marks “an important milestone.” So the president of the United States has declared, with that claim duly echoed and implicitly endorsed by media commentary—the New York Times reporting, for example, that Mansour’s death leaves the Taliban leadership “shocked” and “shaken.”

But a question remains: A milestone toward what exactly?

Toward victory? Peace? Reconciliation? At the very least, toward the prospect of the violence abating? Merely posing the question is to imply that U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world serve some larger purpose.

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How Many Trillions More Will Pentagon Spend on Mid-East Wars Before They Confront their Disaster (Original Post) Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 OP
Big Muddy (Pete Seeger) bemildred Jun 2016 #1
Thanks Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 #4
It was ringinig in my ears. nt bemildred Jun 2016 #5
However many trillions it takes Matrosov Jun 2016 #2
Generally agree, but............ socialist_n_TN Jun 2016 #10
It's disgusting libodem Jun 2016 #3
Till the war lords who run this country have bled it dry. JEB Jun 2016 #6
Or we finally cut their throats (politically) Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 #15
It's not a bug it's a feature n2doc Jun 2016 #7
“an important milestone” to unending war? kentauros Jun 2016 #8
bernie votes to spend this $$ on killing and war, ask him nt msongs Jun 2016 #9
Yes he does. As does Hillary and......... socialist_n_TN Jun 2016 #12
Like a crapped out gambler in Vegas... Javaman Jun 2016 #11
"Disaster"? Shandris Jun 2016 #13
My god how the money rolls in, rolls in gratuitous Jun 2016 #14

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
1. Big Muddy (Pete Seeger)
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:57 PM
Jun 2016

It was back in nineteen forty two,
I was part of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in a-Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
And that's how it all begun.
We were knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to move on.

The sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on; I once forded this river
Just a mile above this place
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The sergeant said, "With all this equipment
No man'll be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a nervous nellie."
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

http://www.traditionalmusic.co.uk/song-midis/Big_Muddy.htm

 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
2. However many trillions it takes
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:59 PM
Jun 2016

American foreign policy isn't about freedom. It isn't about peace. It's not about fighting communism. It's not about fighting terrorism.

The only objective of American foreign policy is to fight for the things America believes to be in its best financial and political interests.

We'll take down peaceful nations in the name of peace and prop up totalitarion dictators in the name of freedom, as long as those actions suits our interests. Nothing less, nothing more.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
10. Generally agree, but............
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:16 PM
Jun 2016

I would also add to your second paragraph, that American "best financial and political interests" is what makes the most money and profit for the bourgeoisie.

Wars in the last two centuries are about economics and making money for capitalists whether it's in arming both sides and making profit or from profits made in rebuilding what they have destroyed by their wars. Marx and Lenin both noted that war is one way that capitalism destroys dead capital and restarts the system after it reaches a "no growth" impasse.

libodem

(19,288 posts)
3. It's disgusting
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:08 PM
Jun 2016

When we shocked and awed Iraq, we broke it and bought it.

We sent a surge of refugees out of that country to seek asylum in, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and over extended all of their resources. Then we pulled the plug and sent them running again. Not sure we changed hearts and minds
by sending people into the tent cities of the refugee camps. Sanitation has to be nonexistent and privacy to pee in pubic unheard of.

When we got hit on 9/11, I thought what have we done to make them feel hate us so much? And we were told that was an inappropriate question. They supposedly hated our freedoms. So Bush, formulated the Patriot Act, dp decrease all that freedom. And the airlines fucked us, too.

Now, we have good reason for the whole mideast to despise us.

Hey, just when are we going to get rid of that unratified POS, patriot. act any way?

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
7. It's not a bug it's a feature
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:00 PM
Jun 2016

The forever war continues until the US economy collapses. Things will have to get pretty dire here before enough people wake up.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
8. “an important milestone” to unending war?
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:11 PM
Jun 2016

Don't bother counting the money. If they could, they'd have the spigot removed so as to have a never-ending tap to fuel the war machine.

Until we can find a way of converting the war-machine to useful tasks (like rebuilding infrastructure and colonizing the solar system) any milestone they make will always be in their goal of permanent-war.

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
12. Yes he does. As does Hillary and.........
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:19 PM
Jun 2016

Trump and every other bourgeois politician out there. It's one way that capitalists restart the growth system after reaching an growth impasse.

 

Shandris

(3,447 posts)
13. "Disaster"?
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:24 PM
Jun 2016

One can only consider this a 'disaster' if one is still playing the game of "I believe what authority tells me!". Everyone else realizes that this is a complete and unmitigated success on every important front (read: money).

So it's a 'milestone' only in terms of "Good lord, how much more mileage can we get out of this tired, foolish excuse that people are somehow still falling for". It's a milestone in terms of 'Now we can find another group to start working into the fabric of the narrative because this one is starting to get played out'. Heck, it might even be a hidden milestone ("Holy hell, Frank! That last Ac-415 missile was our 500 millionth sale!&quot .

These 'sales' are the only thing keeping this 'economy' propped up. That's not a disaster, that's a literal captive market with an endless lifetime potential of sales in aggregate. The only other business with that much guaranteed return in the US is cemetary sales.

EDIT NOTE: It occurs to me that someone unfamiliar with me might interpret my post as me being supportive of the position that these are 'sales'. That is not accurate. Rather, I find the entire thing disgusting on a visceral level and a marker of degenerate evil made manifest. I apologize if that wasn't clear to anyone.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
14. My god how the money rolls in, rolls in
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:59 PM
Jun 2016

Yes, these enemies we've concocted - specifically the Taliban and Daesh are the enemies du jour - are not a real sophisticated bunch. They don't have to run a country, they just have to recruit disgruntled young men, kidnap young women, and get them strapped with stolen weapons or explosives. They don't have to govern, they just have to intimidate their local areas. They're not responsible for food, water, shelter, clothing, or other utilities and amenities, except for what they can steal for themselves.

So when we murder one of their alleged leaders, they don't miss a beat. Someone just as ruthless or pissed-off will take their place, and carry on the destruction. They're not responsible to do anything but burn themselves up in rage, taking as many others with them as they can. It's like an endless line of toddlers waiting to knock over a stack of blocks. One goes down for a nap, another steps in to take his place, to knock over the stack and laugh. Re-stack the blocks, the toddler just knocks them over again. You don't need a particularly savvy or bright toddler; even the dullest kid can do it.

But the money! Oh, the money is soooo good for those with the right connections. It never stops, rarely even gets questioned. A disaster? The only disaster would be if we quit using violence to try to end violence.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How Many Trillions More W...