Six Facts No War Supporter Knows

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Ogre

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 4, 2009
    1,790
    36
    Indianapolis
    Thoughts, opinions?

    Six Facts No War Supporter Knows

    July 24, 2010
    in Commentary

    By David Swanson
    This coming week, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on $33 billion for war. A majority of Americans opposes this, but a sizable minority of Americans supports it. No one who supports it can be aware of any of the following six facts.
    1. For many months, probably years, at least the second largest and probably the largest source of revenue for the Taliban has been U.S. taxpayers. We are giving the Taliban our money instead of investing it in useful things at home or abroad. “WARLORD, INC.: Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan,” is a report from the Majority Staff of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives. The report documents payoffs to the Taliban for safe passage of U.S. goods, payoffs very likely greater than the Taliban’s profits from opium, its other big money maker. And this is neither new nor unknown to top U.S. officials. But it must be unknown to Americans supporting the war. You can’t support a war where you’re funding both sides unless you want both sides to lose. We lock people away for giving a pair of socks to the enemy, while our own government serves as chief financial sponsor.
    2. Our top consumer of oil is the U.S. military. We don’t just fight wars in areas of the globe that are coincidentally rich in oil, but fighting those wars is the single biggest way in which we burn oil. We pollute the air in the process of poisoning the earth with all variety of weaponry. According to the 2007 CIA World Fact Book, when oil consumption is broken down per capita, the U.S. military ranks fourth in the world, behind just three actual nations. There’s no way to care about the environment while allowing the money that could create renewable energy to be spent instead on an operation whose destructiveness is rivaled only by BP. We could have 20 green energy jobs at $50 K each for what it costs to send one soldier to Afghanistan. We’re fighting wars for the fuel to fight wars, even though the process is eating up the funds we could use to try to survive its side-effects.
    3. Over half of every U.S. tax dollar is spent on wars, the military, and payments on debt for past wars and military spending. Here’s a pie chart that breaks it down for you. If you’re concerned about government spending, you can’t just be concerned with the minority of it that is carefully funded with taxes and off-setting cuts elsewhere. You have to also consider the single biggest item, the one that takes up a majority of the budget, large chunks of which are routinely funded off the books, borrowed from China, and passed with so-called “emergency supplemental” bills of the sort now before the House of Representatives, the sole purpose of which is to keep the money outside the budget. Numerous economic studies have shown that investing in the military, even at home, does less for the economy than tax cuts, which do less for the economy than investing in education, energy, infrastructure, and other areas. Its wars or jobs, we can’t have both. The labor movement has mostly (with some good exceptions) been silent on war spending, in part because jobs spending has been packaged into the same bill. Now it’s not. Now the House is confronted with a bill that spends on war the money that is needed for jobs, for housing, for schools, for green energy, for retirement. Will advocates of these raise their voices this week?
    4. A leading, and probably the leading, cause of death in the U.S. military is suicide. U.S. troops are killing themselves in record numbers. One central reason for this is likely that these troops have no idea what it is they are risking their lives, and taking others’ lives, for. Can we expect them to know, when top officials in Washington don’t? When the President’s special representative to Afghanistan testified in the Senate recently, senators from both parties asked him repeatedly what the goal was, what success would look like, for what purpose the war went on. Richard Holbrooke had no answers. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told the Los Angeles Times: “A lot of folks on both sides of the aisle think this effort is adrift. A lot of folks you’d consider the strongest hawks in the country are scratching their heads in concern.” Corker complained that after listening for 90 minutes to Holbrooke he had “no earthly idea what our objectives are on the civilian front. So far, this has been an incredible waste of time.”
    5. The $33 billion about to be voted on cannot possibly be needed to continue the war in Afghanistan, because it is exclusively to be used for escalating that war. The President was publicly pressured by his generals several months ago to begin an escalation, but Congress has yet to fund it. To the extent that it has been begun unfunded, it can be undone. CNN reports: “Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned senators in June that military operations will need to be reduced for the rest of the year unless Congress approves additional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” This is nonsense. If this escalation funding were blocked, the war would remain at the level it was at before. And that’s if the Pentagon respects the authority of the Congress. The other alternative, openly indicated by Gates, is that the Pentagon will fund the escalation out of its standard budget. Congressman Alan Grayson has a bill called “The War Is Making You Poor Act” which would require that wars be funded out of the military budget, which would eliminate federal taxes on the first $35,000 anyone earned and reduce the national debt. How horrible would that be?
    6. War would be the greatest evil on earth even if it were free. Watch this new video of a man whose father was shot and killed while sleeping in bed. More of our tax dollars at work. How many of these stories of what our military does can we write off? Our drones kill both civilians and “insurgents,” as do our night raids and check points. Or, maybe not the check points. General Stanley McChrystal said that of the amazing number of people we’ve killed at check points, none of them have been any threat. And the damage lasts in the places we destroy. Look at this new report on the damage done to the children of Fallujah. This is not because U.S. soldiers aren’t brave or their parents didn’t raise them well. It’s because these wars don’t involve pairs of armies on battlefields. We’re occupying countries where the enemies look like everyone except us.
    Well, maybe our representatives know all of this and still fund wars because people who fund them tell them to. But what can we do about it? We vote whenever there’s an election, or at least some of us do. Isn’t that our role? What does this have to do with elections? It should have everything to do with them. When we call our congress members this week we should not just ask them to vote No on war money, we should demand it, and we should let them know that we will work to unelect them, even replacing them with someone worse (since you can’t get much worse), if they vote for this money. And we should spend August rewarding and punishing accordingly. Here are 88 candidates for Congress this year who have committed to not voting a dime for these wars. They are from every party and political inclination. They should be supported.
    If this war funding can be blocked for another week it will be blocked until mid-September and perhaps for good. If we can get closer to doing that than we have before, we will have something to build on. Just holding a straightforward vote in which war opponents vote No and war supporters vote Yes, no matter how close or far we are from winning, will identify who needs to keep their job and who doesn’t. If most of the Yes votes are Republican, we will be able to confront the President with the opposition of his own party. We’re moving toward peace.
    Get resources from http://defundwar.org
    FCNL has a toll-free number to call your representative: 1-888-493-5443.
    Use it.

    Six Facts No War Supporter Knowshttp://inteldaily.com/2010/07/six-facts-no-war-supporter-knows/
     

    E5RANGER375

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Feb 22, 2010
    11,507
    38
    BOATS n' HO's, Indy East
    Maybe we should save all that cash and just nuke em?:dunno:

    why purple? it sounds like a great idea to me.

    but then we would pay to rebuild their whole country like we did for the japs, and they still dont like us even though they started it. which in their schools they teach kids that WE (Americans) started WWII.

    I just wish we would get our grubby little paws out of all the other countries and let them kill each other like they wanna do. who cares. who cares if people starve to death in those countries because they are failures? I dont. who cares if they commit genocide on each other? I dont. lets get America free again, and fix it by downsizing the federal government.
     
    Last edited:

    WHAT HAPPENED

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 14, 2009
    487
    16
    Largo, FL
    why purple? it sounds like a great idea to me.

    but then we would pay to rebuild their whole country like we did for the japs, and they still dont like us even though they started it. which in their schools they teach kids that WE (Americans) started WWII.

    I just wish we would get our grubby little paws out of all the other countries and let them kill each other like they wanna do. who cares. who cares if people starve to death in those countries because they are failures? I dont. who cares if they commit genocide on each other? I dont. lets get America free again, and fix it by downsizing the federal government.

    Sent you a PM
     

    Keith_Indy

    Master
    Rating - 95.2%
    20   1   0
    Mar 10, 2009
    3,258
    113
    Noblesville
    Well, I care, as a Christian, I care that people are starved, oppressed and subjected by their own inaction.

    But, my preferred solution is to drop millions of DIY freedom packages on them.

    Oh, what's a DIY freedom package:

    1 - 1911
    1 - magazine
    1 - box of 50 - .45 HP
    1 - localized copy of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    That should start things moving.
     
    Last edited:

    WHAT HAPPENED

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 14, 2009
    487
    16
    Largo, FL
    Well, I care, as a Christian, I care that people are starved, oppressed and subjected by their own inaction.

    But, my preferred solution is to drop millions of DIY freedom packages on them.

    Oh, what's a DIY freedom package:

    1 - 1911
    1 - magazine
    1 - box of 50 - .45 HP
    1 - localized copy of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    That should start things moving.

    I think you forgot about the long rifle :ar15:
     

    E5RANGER375

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Feb 22, 2010
    11,507
    38
    BOATS n' HO's, Indy East
    Well, I care, as a Christian, I care that people are starved, oppressed and subjected by their own inaction.

    But, my preferred solution is to drop millions of DIY freedom packages on them.

    Oh, what's a DIY freedom package:

    1 - 1911
    1 - magazine
    1 - box of 50 - .45 HP
    1 - localized copy of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    That should start things moving.

    they have more guns in a lot of those countries than redily availible here. they are weak minded. effort is waisted on them. we cannot save the world. Its not the job of America. let them write their own constitution and declaration of independence. we (americas founders) were realy the first country like this in the history of the world. our founders, my ancestors knew what they wanted, they knew what was right for them and for future generations here on this land. If the people in other countries cant figure out freedom on their own, and how to acheive it then thats their own fault. now if the people make a concious effort on their own, in large numbers, then i am ok with giving them support. but you cant support people who dont want it in their heart
     

    MinuteMan47

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Dec 15, 2009
    1,901
    38
    IN
    Not only are we providing everything to the people who come here illegally, but we are also using the American taxpayer money to support other countries. It baffles my mind.

    Seems like a New World Order to me.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,199
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    These subsidies/grants are outgrowths, I believe, of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. The rationales used to justify the rebuilding of Europe don't carry over into other areas, but the act of handing out largesse to others is addicting (especially when that largesse isn't coming directly out of your pocket), and these programs develop a life of their own. The logic may no longer be sound, but the program lives on.
     

    downzero

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2010
    2,965
    36
    #4 is a half truth. The leading cause of Soldier deaths is vehicle accidents.

    The rest makes a lot of sense.

    Agreed on the Marshall plan. It was paid for with printed money.
     

    Keith_Indy

    Master
    Rating - 95.2%
    20   1   0
    Mar 10, 2009
    3,258
    113
    Noblesville
    Not only are we providing everything to the people who come here illegally, but we are also using the American taxpayer money to support other countries. It baffles my mind.

    Seems like a New World Order to me.

    Future American taxpayer money. Don't forget, all this money we're sending overseas is borrowed.
     

    Fletch

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 19, 2008
    6,379
    48
    Oklahoma

    Numerous economic studies have shown that investing in the military, even at home, does less for the economy than tax cuts, which do less for the economy than investing in education, energy, infrastructure, and other areas. Its wars or jobs, we can’t have both.

    There's so much fail in this, I don't know where to begin. I oppose the war(s), but government can't "invest" in anything to "help" the economy without first stealing from that same economy.
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    There's so much fail in this, I don't know where to begin. I oppose the war(s), but government can't "invest" in anything to "help" the economy without first stealing from that same economy.
    ^^This 100 times. These useless wars are enslaving our children in order to pay off the debt they're incurring. They're not even remotely worth it.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,199
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    Before calling the current "wars" useless, let's consider a couple things:

    The stated purpose of invading Afghanistan and Iraq was to deny training support and funding and possible weapons of mass destruction to Al-Queda after 9/11. A secondary rationale for invading Iraq was the belief that, as in Japan after WWII, we could assist a modern people in becoming a "democratic" country, which, the theory goes, would be less likely to invade its neighbors; would be less likely to support Islamic Jihad terrorists; and would be a seed for instigating democracies in other countries in the region, with, hopefully, the same result.

    A tertiary rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was that it drew jihadists from all over the world to fight against the Infidel, and it's always preferable to have a war on the other guy's turf, if you can manage it.

    It's arguable that we should have just spanked the Afghanis and pulled our troops out; let them go back to killing each other. I don't know if it was an Administration decision to attempt nation-building, or if it was State Department arrogance to think we could accomplish it where other countries have failed, but supposedly, depending upon whose assessment you listen to, the hearts and minds strategy that GEN McKrystal attempted to implement was having some effect.

    All these efforts, whether they were going to work or not, will largely be for nothing since we've telegraphed our exit strategy to the enemy.

    Also keep in mind that, when Pres. Bush declared a "War on Terror", it was a world-wide effort involving not only the MidEast, but Asia, Africa, and South America as well. Those efforts have largely ceased since he left office, but during the remainder of his Presidency, we didn't have anything close to the number of terror/attempted terror incidents that have either succeeded or nearly succeeded since Pres Obama came into office.
     

    E5RANGER375

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Feb 22, 2010
    11,507
    38
    BOATS n' HO's, Indy East
    Before calling the current "wars" useless, let's consider a couple things:

    The stated purpose of invading Afghanistan and Iraq was to deny training support and funding and possible weapons of mass destruction to Al-Queda after 9/11. A secondary rationale for invading Iraq was the belief that, as in Japan after WWII, we could assist a modern people in becoming a "democratic" country, which, the theory goes, would be less likely to invade its neighbors; would be less likely to support Islamic Jihad terrorists; and would be a seed for instigating democracies in other countries in the region, with, hopefully, the same result.

    A tertiary rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was that it drew jihadists from all over the world to fight against the Infidel, and it's always preferable to have a war on the other guy's turf, if you can manage it.

    It's arguable that we should have just spanked the Afghanis and pulled our troops out; let them go back to killing each other. I don't know if it was an Administration decision to attempt nation-building, or if it was State Department arrogance to think we could accomplish it where other countries have failed, but supposedly, depending upon whose assessment you listen to, the hearts and minds strategy that GEN McKrystal attempted to implement was having some effect.

    All these efforts, whether they were going to work or not, will largely be for nothing since we've telegraphed our exit strategy to the enemy.

    Also keep in mind that, when Pres. Bush declared a "War on Terror", it was a world-wide effort involving not only the MidEast, but Asia, Africa, and South America as well. Those efforts have largely ceased since he left office, but during the remainder of his Presidency, we didn't have anything close to the number of terror/attempted terror incidents that have either succeeded or nearly succeeded since Pres Obama came into office.

    i would realy like to know where you got your info from for the highlighted part. its totaly wrong. (and i dont support obama)

    Bush was on his own drunk presidential agenda. he said we would hunt the terrorists down in any country and also those countries who supported terrorism. but its pretty sad that a lot of our "so-called" allies ARE TERRORISTIC COUNTRIES themselves because they support terrorist by hidding them. saudi arabia, pakistan, just to name 2.

    the Iraq war has done nothing more than stir up a hornets nest of people.
    now they all wanna kill Americans actively, where as before it was just the cool thing to talk about around the hookah, but most all knew they would never see a real american in their lifetime in person.

    the "war on terror" is a big farce. Im NOT saying I like any of them child & sheep molesters over there, but I am saying that you should'nt believe a single word of what the U.S. govt tells you is realy going on.

    occupations with no clear goal or end NEVER work. NEVER. The STUPID leaders who think they can go against the grain of history and win, are just showing their stupidity.

    we could have had Osama before Christmas of 2001, but we did'nt and the reason is because the white house did'nt want him that fast!!! people on the ground then will tell you this is fact.
     
    Last edited:

    DocBoCook

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 16, 2010
    944
    18
    Clermont
    Only thing I can agree with from personal experience is the troop suicide rate. I've seen it, and experienced the "WTH are we fighting for" moments.
     

    Keith_Indy

    Master
    Rating - 95.2%
    20   1   0
    Mar 10, 2009
    3,258
    113
    Noblesville
    we could have had Osama before Christmas of 2001, but we did'nt and the reason is because the white house did'nt want him that fast!!! people on the ground then will tell you this is fact.

    While I know the first part is true enough, we did have Osama in our sights after 9/11, the second part is pure conjecture.

    I do firmly believe in Napoleons maxim, Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

    Personally I will never understand why the trigger wasn't pulled.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 7, 2010
    2,211
    38
    (INDY-BRipple)
    It's a abunch of trash.


    Figures, appealing to Americans by way of dollar spent instead of life lost.

    With the foe being Islam, you'd think there would be more volunteers putting on some boots to crack afew skulls.

    I guess the soul of Christian Crusader is long dead.
     
    Top Bottom