One last thing before Lani cuts the Ethernet cable. I know I'm probably the only person who actually reads books that get recommended in coversations like this but I would like to strongly recommend anyone interested in thinking about the moral dimensions of war to read Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations by Michael Walzer. It is perhaps* the most impactful book I've ever read (not that everything I've said in this thread in echoed in there; it's not and I'm sure Walzer would be appalled at times). It was written originally in 1977 and has been revised since, with the most recent in 2000. Obviously it doesn't include any direct comment on the current situation.



*It has to compete for that title with Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water.

Just for clarification I generally regard it as an illegal war fought in a legal manner (still separating diplomatic reasoning from military reality).

Whoa, hold on a minute. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't endorse that tactic. I understand its efficiency. I can commerserate with, for example, politians who - in a sound bite world - could never under any circumstances make such a statement as "I don't support our troops."

But for those who truly do not support our troops, such as myself, I would rather they be honest and say so ... as I have done. Honesty is really the only policy that I will "endorse."



* * * * *

As for the National Guard, MBC, I think they got rooked. I might have to give them a pass (as I would to any pre-Vietnam era U.S. soldier - to answer Nephy's earlier question to me).

But they did agree to take up arms against whomever the Pentagon ordered them to. And now that it has become clear what exactly that can mean ... today's National Guard entlistees will be the last to get the iSm free pass.

I must say I resent that implication, GD. I listed those because those are what was listed by WB. Sheesh.

Going back to the post Scaeagles was referring to, he is correct- I did bring that into the conversation, but it was intended to be ironic on several levels:
I. That the party in control of this mess was elected to take care of the latter part of my post, and
II. That the people re-elected same party with the knowledge that they were using public funds, the same funds that enabled such programs as listed above, to fund the war. The same people cannot be unaware of the impositions and infringements on our constitutional rights that the current administration has instituted, as illustrated by the continuance of the Patriot Act and other travesties.

In short, I was pointing out the irony that the same group of people that wanted to stop funding social programs on the public dime have no problem using the public's money to go to war. They also seem to think that it is enough to say they "support the war" without really sacrificing jack **** for it. I really pay no attention to such people- I admire the men and women in our military, and I appreciate the work they are trying to do, but it's going to be all in vain, a fact I despise along with the people who put them there. I look at individuals like Pat Tilman and my daughter's best friends' dad, and I think they rock. I'm just sorry they were and are being put in harm's way for what amounts to a nothing more than a lie. It's a ****ing shame and sin that they are being wasted for that worthless pile in the White House, and all their business cronies.

No slight intended, what I meant was, "conveniently for me". But my point still stands. Contrary to what you said, there ARE issues where your only objection is that your tax dollars are being used to fund it.

I'm still trying to find good news for Snowflake. It is totally hard to do so.
Here's something:
Source

OK...cool.

I think we agree. WB was expressing disgust that her tax dollars are being used for it. OK. I get that. There are things that the feds spend money on (LOTS of things) that I am disgusted with. Not because they are bad (though I think the large majority of federally funded social programs are failures) in and of themselves, but because it is not (nor should it be) the job of the federal government to fund such things.

Of course, that may be the end of our agreement.

From one of my two favorite economists/constitutionalists, being Walter Williams:

Complete column from which that was taken

However, defense is specifically mandated by the constitution. I have no problems with the debate as to whether this is actually defense of the country (and by extension our allies, as treaties trump the constitution).

So....yes, I do object to my tax dollars being used for a lot of things. I would guess that all of them fall under what I consider NOT to be the job of the federal government.

Here is good news currently found on the home page of CNN. Some require certain specific worldviews, however.

Vioxx Plaintiff Awarded $9 million (good news if you're anti-pharma)
Sharon declared permanently incapacitated (good news if you're anti-Semitic)
Super Bowl MVP eases way for biracial kids
Tarzan's Pal Cheetah turns 74 with cake, Diet Coke
Retired generals call for Rumfeld's head (good news if you're anti-scaeagles)
Lawyers: No DNA link to Duke rape claim (good news if you're the mother of a Duke lacrosse player)
Probe reaches orbit around Venus
Shuttle program full of ups and downs (good news if you're looking for justification to serially murder headline writers)

I'd mojo you for that post, funny stuff.

The issue of "support" hits home for me because my brother is in the Air Force. No, he's not deployed and in all likelyhood won't be, thank God. Even so, he's a part of the war machine. He has always had a conservative world view and that has intensified 10X since he's enlisted. Why? Because he has to view the world that way.

At one point he said to me that it's a given that he'd be a Republican because any time the Dems get in office the defense spending is cut. He was told stories by his fellow officers that in the Clinton years they didn't have money for tools and other necessities. I told him that I'm in a vice versa situation - any time Republicans get in control, education spending is cut, which chops into my own workplace.

We had a moment where we realized that we had ended up on diametrically opposed sides of a cliff...and then we let it go.

Anyway. Do I "support" my brother and what he's bought into? No. I understand that there is a need for a defense, same way there's a need for log-rolling politicians and slick marketing executives (or rather, the lemmings that work beneath these figureheads that actually muck around in the slime for them). These are ugly occupations to me, the true dirty work. I dislike their very existance but they are a part of us, and I can't deny that.

So, we have to have people ready to kill at a moment's notice, or we'll all get killed by the rest of the world. This is the way it is. And these people MUST be robots, MUST be brainwashed, because otherwise they may not kill for us, and we'll die.

I saw what they did to my brother's rebellious nature when I visited him after his bootcamp. He was a half-starved shell of a person, flinching at every person that came into the room, eyes dodging about, making sure he was what he needed to be at all times. This was just Air Force boot camp, the easiest of the branches.

I do not blame them morally for any wars that they are sent to fight. They have been trained to do so. Their point of view has been washed down the drain. By the time they are sent to kill they are not people like you and I anymore. They can't be.

I feel sorry for them. They are victims of the system and victims of society. Yes, they are heroes. Yes, they help protect us. In fact, I know that there are people that were born to do this, and are great at it. God bless them for doing the dirty work that I could never do, the poor bastards.

I know this has nothing to do with this war in particular, and that's fine by me, as I hate even thinking about the can of worms this country is in, no matter how you look at it.