| Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 11:36 pm |
Here's a few points that throw me in this forum:
On the importance of U.S. Soldiers stationed in Iraq supporting the war (a somewhat dubious premise to begin with, since there are so many degrees of "support"): "The people who had to interact face to face, with both the people and the enemy supported being there to get the job done. Does this fact ever enter into any of the debates? No!"
Unfortunately, the opinions of soldiers have entered into the debates, both in the major news media and literally in the presidential debates (as in numerous of McCain's town hall meetings as well as questions by soldiers/veterans in the democratic primary debates). Additionally, it's not at all unusual to see former generals and corporals as paid talking heads on NBC, ABC, FOX, etc...Remember the scandal about half a year ago when the New York Times broke a story about how many of these righteous veterans were essentially puppets for the Pentagon? No?
Here's more about the Pentagon's "Military Analyst" program:
And as a side note, it's somewhat misleading to even call our Army "voluntary." Everyone I know who has joined up did it out of financial desperation. It's great that our presidential candidates at least point this out every now and then, but it's another instance of rampant inequality between classes and races in the U.S. Racial minorities are INCREDIBLY over-represented in our armed forces--that's just a plain fact. I don't call that voluntary.
Archangel, it really IS the responsibility of the U.S. President to consult with Congress before going to war. We just happen to have elected a President who has no compunction with absolute unaccountability to his constituency...and a weak Congress whose subpoenas are like tumbleweeds blowing past the White House gates. Even worse, there are people who prefer this mode of governing ("...here in the US, the President can effectively go to war for 90 days on his own initiative. RIGHTFULLY SO, I might add.") because it's been going on for so long. I would prefer to go back to time where war was declared by Congress...our military has not been a force for good in many years.
Just a word about Israel (which I travelled to for the first time in June): though the many sanctions against Israel's human rights abuses have been shot down by the U.S., Israel is still and has always been in violation of U.N. Resolution 181; the same agreement that permits the foundation of a Jewish State in Palestine also requires an Arab State. There were extremely detailed provisions for how these states would exist side by side and the boundaries were very precise (of course, pretty much every muslim country voted against this resolution, just as the U.S. would vote against the establishment of a radical fringe [remember, in 1947 only a small fraction of Jews were Zionists and an even smaller fraction actually considered moving to Israel] Islamic group setting up shop in, say, Nevada).
Davepat I have no idea why you defend Israel so vehemently (and rudely, quit insulting people!)--I'd like to know, but please be polite. As I was traveling through the country, it was horrifying to see everywhere how Arabs were treated as second-class citizens, living in crowded, unsanitary, and just extremely impoverished ghettoes. And obviously I wasn't even in Gaza or the West Bank. These were the Israeli Arabs, not the Palestinian refugees. I just can't see that incredible inequality and suffering as anything but a direct result of Zionism and the imperatives of maintaining a Jewish State.
OK sim'on y'all!