RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

David Swanson: "Eventually the beans tend to get spilled. But I have never ever, not even once, heard of a private meeting in which top war makers discussed the need to keep a war going in order to benefit the soldiers fighting in it."

US soldiers patrol in the Dand district of Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, 07/26/10. (photo: Getty Images)
US soldiers patrol in the Dand district of Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, 07/26/10. (photo: Getty Images) your social media marketing partner


+6 # billy bob 2010-12-03 13:32
As President, I plan to make it illegal to profit from war. ALL federal war and "defense" spending will hereby go toward government employees working for the federal government itself, or non-profit companies. For profit "government contractors" will cease to exist. Any person or organization attempting to profit from the federal budget will be guilty of defrauding the American people.

Oh, and by the way, all future federal elections will be 100% fully funded by the U.S. government itself starting with the election 4 years after I take office.


If those are the ONLY things I do as President of the United States, in spite of Joe Liebermann and Harry Reid; and before I'm assasinated by a "lone gunman", I will be the most effective leader this country has had in over 60 years, and will have brought our country back from the brink of tyranny.

Three accomplishments . That's it. If those things stayed on the books, most of the rest of our problems would be resolved within 20 years. Would you vote for me? Would I survive my first term?
+4 # Glen 2010-12-03 17:43
You wouldn't survive through your inauguration address. Well, OK, you wouldn't even be put up for election.

But we can dream.
+6 # billy bob 2010-12-03 13:50
I'm going to argue with most of my liberal friends and say that when george II said the war was over on May 1st, 2003, HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. I hate to say it, but he was right. The actual war - WAS OVER BY THAT DATE. Everything that has gone on since then has been the "war". It's not a "war" any longer after the enemy has already lost and you've already taken over their country. We've moved into another phase - COLONIZATION. Until we can accept that, the "war" won't end. When you colonize a country, that doesn't mean that they suddenly like you. They still want you out. The still try to get revenge on you and do things to get you out. That doesn't mean you're at "war" any more than three men holding down a small woman and standing on her head is a "fight". By that definition, the war will only be over when barbara bush kisses saddam hussein's corpse and makes up. You'll be surprised just how fast the "war" is suddenly over in another 50 years or so, when the oil dries up. barbara bush (not to mention uncle dick) will still be alive. saddam will still be dead, but no one will be required to kiss.
+4 # Glen 2010-12-03 17:41
Fabulous, billy bob. Excellent.

Reminds me of a movie from the distant past in which the inheritors of a man's estate must eat his corpse before being gifted with their share.

The U.S. does have it's corpses around the world.

I, too, am offended by the word war in this case. "We are at war" is even worse.
+3 # billy bob 2010-12-03 20:31
"We are at war" is bad. It begs the question, "who's this 'we' ?"

It's not like there's been any profit-sharing of the stolen booty. No. Our reward for not standing in the oil industry's way has been the ability to pay $3.00 a gallon for the oil industry's oil that it extracted with our tax dollars and "our troops".
+6 # Paul Marioni 2010-12-03 22:14
We have to remember that oil was $20/barrel when we invaded Iraq. How much oil could we have bought for the one trillion dollars we spent in Iraq? How many lives were lost in this futile effort? The troops can refuse to continue this illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war. Maybe, we should stop supporting the troops and wake up America that wars support corporate interests.
+4 # billy bob 2010-12-03 22:17
"I’m sure troops would like to believe everyone back home supports what they’re doing, but don’t they have other things to worry about during a war? And wouldn’t some of them like to know that some of us are checking up on whether they’ve been sent to risk their lives for a good reason or not? Wouldn’t they feel more secure in their mission, knowing that a check on recklessly turning them into cannon fodder was alive and active?"


-Sorry for posting again.
+3 # Dan Fletcher 2010-12-04 03:49
Too bad that there isn't a law that politicians who support a war must have their children serve on the front lines. To improve on that, those politicians supporting it must serve a portion of their term of office in a forward unit even if doing only KP duty.

It's just way too easy sending other people's children off to war to fight and die for reasons you wouldn't even think of sacrificing your children for.
+3 # Blackhole2001 2010-12-06 12:58
Osama Bin Laden could have been caught a couple of years ago and our excuse to stay in Afghanistan would be gone. See the 60 Minutes segment on the special forces general that was told to hold off on moving in on Osama after locating him about a mile away. The general was told to "Hold off" and Osama slipped away. They couldn't capture Osama because it would be "game over" for the war.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.