Non-violent Actions for Social Change

[sth]

The solution for this problem isn't term limits its public financing of elections. In the UK when you run for office when the campaign season starts the government provides equal financing for every candidate deemed to have a chance to win. Private money can't be spent its illegal. It eliminates the power of lobbyists and all other money brokers. Of course it will never happen in the US.

 

[roshinaya]

Removing lobbying and allowing only private citizens to donate wouldn't really make any difference. What would stop a wealthy CEO of a big corporation to donate to his candidate as a private citizen and making sure that he will vote on the right things for the corporation? Face it, the US is as good run by big corporations and the wealthiest percentage of the population and there is no real solution to it.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Chief I don't believe everything this guy says by a long shot. You are welcome to review my DD214 to see why.

But, I get where he is coming from on some small parts of his assertions. I was in the army before 9/11 and I still ask every day why the hell did we really go to Iraq. Why the hell are we still there? Are we really going to leave next year like they have pretty much demanded?



I know why we are in AFPAK, I have no problem with that. But when will that end? What have we accomplished beside a lot of dead radicals?



Here is the big question you need to ask yourself: How much fucking money have we spent in those two places, and all the surrounding countries that we have been using for the effort (Qatar, anyone?). How many contractors like me did you work with or know the past 10 years that probably would not have made so much money if not for those two wars?



Try answering some of these questions prior to just considering them indictments of your post. Dialogue Chief, its about the dialogue here.

Pete, I wouldn't have an issue with SOME of the things this guy has to say either, if he #1 had half a clue & didn't assume the military are a bunch of barely educated lemmings that couldnt get into college or find a "real job" and walk atround like robots chanting "ugh, he have oil, me go kill" or better yet "GE say motor on missile need tested, me shoot at village, prove it go boom" and #2 said it in a way that wasn't a rehash of every anti-war activist of the 60's.

I laughed at your last sentence, I'm a Commo, you and I both know Commo's have no problems with dialouge.

Here are some thoughts, some based on EDUCATED research, and certain things gathered during my time in, remember i am not an expert, never claimed to be, just somebody that through a large portion of his career worked literaly side by side with members of our SOF community. Why did we go into Iraq post 9/11? Everyone knows the arguments out there: they were harboring terrorists, they had WMDs, so on and so forth, they were thumbing their nose at the rest of the world, Jr wanted to finish what Daddy started......how about a combination of gearing up for another invasion from Iraq, Kuwait style, combined with the obtaining of nuke capable armaments ... something that the Intel idiots jumped the gun on, and mis-analyzed as being in house already. As far as I am concerned, we should have left iraq a while ago, and we should have started cutting back troops in Afghanistan a long time ago. However, I dont have the ear of anyone at the 5 sided funny farm here in DC, to voice my opinion too, not that they would listen to a lowly Chief anyway, I after all am an uneducated bumpkin from the sticks/inner city who just is a pawn of the big corporations. Oh and before I forget the guy was a mass murderer too, like Hitler, Milosevic (or whatever that sick ******'s name was in Yugoslavia), and Amin....but then again, not our problem, let the people there take care of it. Even though the rest of the world is screaming at the US to do something about it. Again ignore the rest of the world and dont do anything.....they dont matter.



As far as the amount of money spent, I agree it is ridiculous. I'll tell you this much, that is where the biggest fiscal reform can be made, tell the fucking contractors that they arent going to get paid the fucking ridiculous amount they are asking for their services and then stick to your guns, and they will quit charging what they do. However, you and I know damn good and well know that contractors will make money regardless of any ongoing conflict/war. Simply put, you need the tech reps to fix the things we, the guys using the gear, just dont have the knowledge to fix. Becasue things do happen, especially with todays technology, that even the guys who designed it, stand there scratching their asses going "Wow, we never saw that before."

 

[supraman]

I'm going to say something that is most likely unpopular but I guess that's kinda my thing lately anyway. A military is necessary you must be able to defend your bordered. Sadly we are a superpower in a time that frowns on expansionism. I want to say this up front, I respect every person that is or has served in our military so what I am about to say is not a shot at them. But when is the last time our military defended this nation? BHC mentioned that it is servicemen that keep us free (I'm paraphrasing). When was the last time a serviceman actually defended the United States of America? World War II comes to mind, Japan did attack us and we defeated them for it. But outside of one battle in Alaska the Japanese never set foot on American soil, certainly never touched the continental united states. I think the last time we had a foreign invader would be the civil war since the South ceded but those really weren't foreign soldiers so I think the last time a Foreign soldier set foot on American soil (Excluding the Japanese in Alaska) was the War of 1812.



My point is that every person that is served today that has seen combat hasn't defended America. All the wars we've been involved in since World War II....what do we have to show for them? Our nation wasn't defended, new territory wasn't acquired? All we got out of Korea, Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Afghanistan and the Second Gulf War is more debt and casualties.



Now to bring it back on topic.



I think the easiest way to fix the majority of the problems in this country is get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back to a gold standard and make the government balance the budget, I have to balance mine, why should they be any different.

 

[Pez68]

I meant no offense with my comments on the military. I hope you guys realize that. I'm just telling you what I've heard from those I know that joined the military after high school. Those that served in Afghanistan/Iraq specifically. They did so not out of a desire to serve their country, but because they really had nothing else to do. A lot of those guys came home and found out they couldn't find a job to save their life too.

 

[winos5]

I joined the USAF during the height of the cold war (1984) during Reagan's second term. Here is why I joined in no specific order.



- I wanted an education, and while going to McHenry County College was a start, I was going nowhere fast.

- I went with a friend who was enlisting and got sold on the idea by the recruiter.

- I was tired of living at home and wanted to get out on my own, mainly because I totaled my parent'c car and I was on a short leash/in the dog house.

- I wanted to travel.



Had nothing to do with wanting to serve my country at the time.

 

[Tater]

Removing lobbying and allowing only private citizens to donate wouldn't really make any difference. What would stop a wealthy CEO of a big corporation to donate to his candidate as a private citizen and making sure that he will vote on the right things for the corporation? Face it, the US is as good run by big corporations and the wealthiest percentage of the population and there is no real solution to it.

Unions have a very large part in this as well.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Unions have a very large part in this as well.

Very, very true. At one time, I feel, unions were needed. They have definetly outlived their purpose though. And for the record, I was a card carrying teamster before I joined the military. Funny thing is, I was a Union member in a "right to work' state...go figure. All it did for me was ensure tht I was immediately put to the front of the hire list for any place that was union affiliated. Never used it.

 

[supraman]

Very, very true. At one time, I feel, unions were needed. They have definetly outlived their purpose though. And for the record, I was a card carrying teamster before I joined the military. Funny thing is, I was a Union member in a "right to work' state...go figure. All it did for me was ensure tht I was immediately put to the front of the hire list for any place that was union affiliated. Never used it.

I won't say unions have outlived their purpose. The workers need a united voice a union brings that. The problem is the history of corruption in Unions and the UAW. The UAW is a union gone wild, they make the employers bend to their wills.



Maybe I'm pro Union because my dad was a Union member when he worked for the CTA, I dunno.

 

[BigPete]

Chief, I understand what you are saying about the motivations to invade Iraq. That is pretty much the public's understanding on why we went there. The truth of the matter takes some of that information and a whole other set of info and makes it much more complicated, but at the same time more simple. (confucious say lol)



So we were told that the intel folks (my people, mind you) found all this stuff on Iraq which could lead someone to believe that they were getting nukes, that they were in bed with terrorists and 9/11 planners, that they were hoping to start another war with a neighbor (Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Isreal...). All of this stuff was used loosely by THE ADMINISTRATION of W to infer bad things about Iraq. There was not one single agency or one group of agencies touting any of this as a cause for war. In fact, nearly all have since declared that their reports were woven into a fantastic story told by people like Colin Powell at the UN (which he later felt so used and remorceful for that he resigned). The Intelligence Community did not run to W and tell him and Darth Cheney that we needed to get the drop on Saddam. It was the other way around. The administration wanted anything they could get their hands on to try and find cause to invade Iraq.



Did Saddam deserve what he got? YES. Did that country need a new course? YES. Are they an ally going forward? YES. Does our presence there serve a purpose of 'stabilizing' the region? I'll but that too. Did we take the opportunity to eradicate a large number of radical muslims during the war? YES. There was a huge influx of young radicals coming from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Egypt, you name it, all around the time that Al Zarqawi pledged his allegiance to Al Qeada making him the steward of the effort their.



The simple fact of the matter on Iraq though, is that we did not HAVE TO invade. It was a choice made by W's administration to finally finish what his daddy and Clinton did not. Contain or remove Saddam and the Bathists. Everything that got us there was lies and conjecture. History will say that they are better off for having us come in and do what we did, but it is a real shame that it cost an unknown but estimated number of 300,000 lives.



Since this post is getting long in the tooth, I won't dredge on about our motivations but I will agree with Variable's inferrence that a lot of US tax payer money was spent on that effort and some of the people that benefitted the most were defense department contractors. Their services include, rebuilding and force support/supply (KBR), security, intelligence, infrastructure, IT support, armament (planes, ammo, vehicles, UAVs) and all the hands on support like wrench turners. War is big business, there is no denying it and the proof is in the amount we spend every year on 'defense'.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Chief, I understand what you are saying about the motivations to invade Iraq. That is pretty much the public's understanding on why we went there. The truth of the matter takes some of that information and a whole other set of info and makes it much more complicated, but at the same time more simple. (confucious say lol)



So we were told that the intel folks (my people, mind you) found all this stuff on Iraq which could lead someone to believe that they were getting nukes, that they were in bed with terrorists and 9/11 planners, that they were hoping to start another war with a neighbor (Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Isreal...). All of this stuff was used loosely by THE ADMINISTRATION of W to infer bad things about Iraq. There was not one single agency or one group of agencies touting any of this as a cause for war. In fact, nearly all have since declared that their reports were woven into a fantastic story told by people like Colin Powell at the UN (which he later felt so used and remorceful for that he resigned). The Intelligence Community did not run to W and tell him and Darth Cheney that we needed to get the drop on Saddam. It was the other way around. The administration wanted anything they could get their hands on to try and find cause to invade Iraq.



Did Saddam deserve what he got? YES. Did that country need a new course? YES. Are they an ally going forward? YES. Does our presence there serve a purpose of 'stabilizing' the region? I'll but that too. Did we take the opportunity to eradicate a large number of radical muslims during the war? YES. There was a huge influx of young radicals coming from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Egypt, you name it, all around the time that Al Zarqawi pledged his allegiance to Al Qeada making him the steward of the effort their.



The simple fact of the matter on Iraq though, is that we did not HAVE TO invade. It was a choice made by W's administration to finally finish what his daddy and Clinton did not. Contain or remove Saddam and the Bathists. Everything that got us there was lies and conjecture. History will say that they are better off for having us come in and do what we did, but it is a real shame that it cost an unknown but estimated number of 300,000 lives.



Since this post is getting long in the tooth, I won't dredge on about our motivations but I will agree with Variable's inferrence that a lot of US tax payer money was spent on that effort and some of the people that benefitted the most were defense department contractors. Their services include, rebuilding and force support/supply (KBR), security, intelligence, infrastructure, IT support, armament (planes, ammo, vehicles, UAVs) and all the hands on support like wrench turners. War is big business, there is no denying it and the proof is in the amount we spend every year on 'defense'.

Pete, we can continue this via PMs if you want, I dont want to derail this thread anymore then we already have, I threw my 2cents in because, well we already know why. I am not going to argue that alot of tax payer money (mine included, that is something I always found Special person, military pay themselves, because thats where my paycheck comes from) went into the "war effort" and that post war is big business, but the whole "Military is a tool of the corporations" set me off, because we know at the heart of it, that is simply bull. Now if he wanted to say there are some really twisted indivuals in Govt office that have an agenda, I can agree with that.

I didn't want to get into the whole "this information here, was used to indicate this.." so on and so forth.

 

[BigPete]

Roger that, Chief. I think we are pretty much on the same page though. I just needed to use that situation as an example of how I felt Variable was not totally missing the mark.



I do not agree with his rhetoric carte blanche though, just wanted to make that clear.



And I agree with you on the taxes thing...never made sense to me. I take home about 65% of my 'earned income'.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Roger that, Chief. I think we are pretty much on the same page though. I just needed to use that situation as an example of how I felt Variable was not totally missing the mark.



I do not agree with his rhetoric carte blanche though, just wanted to make that clear.



And I agree with you on the taxes thing...never made sense to me. I take home about 65% of my 'earned income'.

I don't think Variable was missing the mark, but I also do not think that mark fits all situations. Again I will point out Grenada, Somalia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic. What businesses were driving those and those were all actions?





The taxes thing drives me nuts. I remember a time when I did not have to pay it (or even much).

 

[bubbleheadchief]

I don't think Variable was missing the mark, but I also do not think that mark fits all situations. Again I will point out Grenada, Somalia, and the Former Yugoslav Republic. What businesses were driving those and those were all actions?





The taxes thing drives me nuts. I remember a time when I did not have to pay it (or even much).

I would so love to talk about the last one. that one I cant.

 

[Ymono37]

This is definitely not one of my areas of expertise (not that I have any real "expertise" in anything) but I feel like I remember reading something about the US supporting a coup in a Central American country to protect... the price of bananas.



I'm kinda with Pete here in that Variable is bringing up some interesting things to think about - just not sure he's approaching it from the best angle considering all the folks we have on here that were/are members of the armed forces.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

I would so love to talk about the last one. that one I cant.

Perhaps oil and natural gas might have something to do with it....just as when the Germans twice tried controling that region.

 

[BigPete]

Perhaps oil and natural gas might have something to do with it....just as when the Germans twice tried controling that region.

Are you talking about the Trans-European oil pipelines that go to the Caspian?



Genocide played a role in that region as well. We get pretty fired up when there is some good old 'tribal warfare' going on. Too bad we didn't help Darfur. Too bad for Darfur that they didn't have any of value that we could exploit...ahem...use.



We don't mobilize thousands of troops out of the goodness of our hearts. That is how I can agree with Variable, on some small level.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

Perhaps oil and natural gas might have something to do with it....just as when the Germans twice tried controling that region.

Oil had nothing to do with FRY, at least the last time we were involved...FRY is when Yugoslavia split into Croatia, Serbia and Milosevic did his part by the ethnic cleansing him and his cronies did.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Oil had nothing to do with FRY, at least the last time we were involved...FRY is when Yugoslavia split into Croatia, Serbia and Milosevic did his part by the ethnic cleansing him and his cronies did.

That is what I was initially getting to about what business drove that US action. I get the who strategic screw with the commies thing



With my time there (early on in the campaign), we had little if any contractors we worked with. Most of it was multi-national and cleaning up bodies from my perspective.

 

[MassHavoc]

sorry. I didn't have time to get fully caught up on all this but could someone tell me what this thread is about again? I'm getting a little confused. Probably because of all the references to coflicts I know little about. Which brings me to another concern. It's amazing to me how many people on this board are so strong willed in political beliefs yet the government seldom changes and in my view is in disarray. With so much passion it's a shame more can't be done.