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
 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
Fri Jun 21, 2013, 04:24 PM Jun 2013

Operation Junkyard: US scraps 'tons' of equipment as Afghan exit looms



RussiaToday·Published on Jun 21, 2013

As the U.S. army rushes to complete its pull-out from Afghanistan, parts of the country are already turning into huge junkyards. The Pentagon is destroying U.S. vehicles and other military equipment, despite the war already having cost American tax payers more than 630 billion dollars. RT's Gayane Chichakyan investigates, RT is also joined by author and activist David Swanson. READ MORE: http://on.rt.com/dwtr3z

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Operation Junkyard: US scraps 'tons' of equipment as Afghan exit looms (Original Post) DeSwiss Jun 2013 OP
Can't have all that surplus equipment cluttering up the arms market. Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #1
Syria first, need to surround Iran before we attack. GiveMeFreedom Jun 2013 #5
I'm for nonviolent revolution at home and everywhere else, for that matter. Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #6
Sure non violent revolution is better all around. GiveMeFreedom Jun 2013 #7
the army-navy did the samething in veitnam madrchsod Jun 2013 #2
There are plenty of junkyards there... Clyde Tenson Jun 2013 #3
Irony. have a Question for Russia.... PatrynXX Jun 2013 #4
Irony indeed.... DeSwiss Jun 2013 #8

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
1. Can't have all that surplus equipment cluttering up the arms market.
Fri Jun 21, 2013, 04:43 PM
Jun 2013

We'll want brand-new stuff for Iran.


Nothing new here, BTW.
A cousin of mine was in the S Pacific after WW2 & told of all the jeeps, tanks, trucks etc. we pushed off the ships to sink in the Mindanao Trench or somewhere after the end of the war.

GiveMeFreedom

(976 posts)
5. Syria first, need to surround Iran before we attack.
Sat Jun 22, 2013, 02:42 PM
Jun 2013

I am certainly not for anymore war, except here at home, in the good ol' USA. Revolution?

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
6. I'm for nonviolent revolution at home and everywhere else, for that matter.
Sat Jun 22, 2013, 02:48 PM
Jun 2013

Now, where'd I put that soapbox?

Oh--Here it is. (Clambers up)

See Chenoweth & Stephan, for example:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent/dp/0231156839/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371926710&sr=1-1&keywords=chenoweth+nonviolent

For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving their stated goals. By attracting impressive support from citizens, whose activism takes the form of protests, boycotts, civil disobedience, and other forms of nonviolent noncooperation, these efforts help separate regimes from their main sources of power and produce remarkable results, even in Iran, Burma, the Philippines, and the Palestinian Territories.

Combining statistical analysis with case studies of specific countries and territories, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan detail the factors enabling such campaigns to succeed and, sometimes, causing them to fail. They find that nonviolent resistance presents fewer obstacles to moral and physical involvement and commitment, and that higher levels of participation contribute to enhanced resilience, greater opportunities for tactical innovation and civic disruption (and therefore less incentive for a regime to maintain its status quo), and shifts in loyalty among opponents' erstwhile supporters, including members of the military establishment.

Chenoweth and Stephan conclude that successful nonviolent resistance ushers in more durable and internally peaceful democracies, which are less likely to regress into civil war. Presenting a rich, evidentiary argument, they originally and systematically compare violent and nonviolent outcomes in different historical periods and geographical contexts, debunking the myth that violence occurs because of structural and environmental factors and that it is necessary to achieve certain political goals. Instead, the authors discover, violent insurgency is rarely justifiable on strategic grounds.

GiveMeFreedom

(976 posts)
7. Sure non violent revolution is better all around.
Sat Jun 22, 2013, 03:08 PM
Jun 2013

However, I do not see that working all that well here in the US when the time comes. Our voices are ignored by the elected rabble that supports corporate interests in Washington. The people's voices are loud now, but Obama does not listen, nor does any other, except maybe Bernie. Not even Warren is above the special interest that drive politics in Washington. We can vote, but with the gerrymandering that exists, it's not really an election, it's more of just a process to elect the candidate that the 1% want us to elect. Most of the time we elect the lesser of two evils. Peace.

PatrynXX

(5,668 posts)
4. Irony. have a Question for Russia....
Sat Jun 22, 2013, 12:40 PM
Jun 2013

hey what did you do with your old stuff.. in that country?? oh wait. think the bad guys got it. X_X

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Operation Junkyard: US sc...