copied for goal of political independence;
"WAIKIKI, October 30, 2012 – Both President Obama and Vice President Biden gave the American people a stunning revelation of their view of the military during the debates. The Obama Administration wants to bulk up on special operations forces and unmanned aerial vehicles, sharpening the post-9/11 transition towards anti-terrorism, counterinsurgency and combating non-state actors in asymmetric warfare. This paradigm places the United States on a slippery slope towards endless military engagement and raises troubling questions about whether or not Congress even retains war powers in our 21st century.
The framers of the Constitution fully intended for the American people to be in the loop when the United States goes to war. Nothing imperils a nation so terribly as committing military forces to combat. This is why Article I, Section 8 grants Congress alone the power to declare war: so that the American people through the House and the States, through the Senate, make the call on whether or not a conflict is worth spending treasure and shedding blood over.
Today, the ongoing War on Terror has eroded the original intent of the framers and has given rise to a near-imperial presidency where commandos and drones are routinely employed in combat all around the world without the American people being given the opportunity to determine whether or not these campaigns are even in their best interest. Congress has effectively been placed in the backseat to the expeditions of the President, left only to retroactively approve whatever conflicts he starts.
The Global War on Terror has revolutionized both America's military operations and the nation's view of war. (U.S. Air Force file photo)
With America sixteen trillion dollars in debt and 6,500 servicemembers or more killed in the ongoing War on Terror, this country needs to have a serious fiscal, legal and moral discussion about the proper role and function of our military. Is our military for national emergencies only – as the framers intended – or is it a global police force? Just when can our forces finally “declare victory” and come back home? When does the War on Terror actually end?
In January 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations and aptly warned, “If the enemy could pick his time and his place and his method of warfare – and if our policy was to remain the traditional one of meeting aggression by direct and local opposition – then we had to be ready to fight in the Arctic and in the tropics, in Asia, in the Near East and in Europe; by sea, by land, and by air; by old weapons and by new weapons.”
America’s policymakers once feared the prospect of fighting a global war but today no such reservations exist. Contrast Dulles’ words with present-day SECDEF Leon Panetta who, when asked by CBS’ Scott Pelly “In how many countries are we currently engaged in a shooting war?” responded “I’ll have to stop and think about that, because you know, obviously we’re going after al Qaeda, wherever they’re at.”
The implications of fighting a global, never-ending war against non-state enemies that can seamlessly blend in with populations should concern every single man and woman in America. In the past, America fought wars that were properly declared by Congress, won, and quickly went home. Today, we have no such homecomings to look forward to and no shortage of “enemies” to fight.
One Russian officer who fought during the Soviet war in Afghanistan remarked that he and his forces would go out every day and annihilate their opponents on the field of battle – but the next day, their enemies would emerge again from the caves, as if nothing had happened the day before. We ought to listen to that warning and ask ourselves whether fighting an apocalyptic-minded enemy that keeps coming back for more is really worth fighting all around the world.
In the past, America's policymakers feared committing troops to combat around the world and sought to deter rather than engage in endless war. (U.S. Air Force file photo)
You don’t have to be a member of the Libertarian Party to see that America needs to urgently change its attitude and policies towards war. We need to stop putting our young men and women in harm’s way, bring our troops home and focus on rebuilding America’s ever-weakening economy. Even the RAND Corporation released a report in 2008 which asserted no battlefield solution to terrorism exists. In that study, of 268 terrorist groups studied, 43% of them were terminated as a result of politics and only 7% ended as a result of military force.
It’s time to stop wasting our existence on endless war and start living in peace again.
Our military should serve the purpose of defense of our territories and use in national emergencies only – not police actions around the globe. As one retired U.S. Navy captain put it, “success in military strategy lies in not fighting. The ideal outcome is to deter and avoid war without surrendering national security or yielding on vital national interests.”
The Bible’s prophet Daniel had an alarming vision in which an angel told him “War will continue until the end”. But we also know from Scripture that “the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever.” Seeking peace is the right thing to do and will bring honor and prosperity back to our nation.
In this year's presidential election, there is only one candidate who gets it when it comes to the right and proper role of the U.S. military, and that man is Gary Johnson. Now more than ever, votes for Johnson matter because they declare to the world that there are some of us in America who still want peace above all else."
comment from Green Liberty Party candidate Mark Miller;
Ever feel caught between a rock and a hard place on election day?
Why are both Democrats and Republicans similar to the Hollywood created serial killers "Jason Voorhees" and "Micheal Myers"?
In another comment i compared Romney and Obama to the fictitious serial killers from Friday the 13th (Jason Voorhees) and Halloween (Micheal Myers).
Why is Jason Voorhees a "nicer" serial killer than Micheal Myers?
Jason Voorhees was accidentally killed by drowning by the negligence of camp counselors as he was developmentally disabled and couldn't swim, so he persists on a series of anniversary killings to get revenge for the killing of his mother on Friday the 13th and his own drowning due to the negligence of others.
Micheal Myers wanted to and tried repeatedly to kill his sister for no apparent reason. As his psychiatrist Dr. Loomis says, Micheal Myers is "pure evil."
The analogy would be Barack Obama is Jason Voorhees (the lesser evil) and Mitt Romney is Micheal Myers (pure evil).
Either way by the end of the movie we'll all be dead regardless of their personal motivations or degrees of lesser evilism. Both Jason Voorhees and Micheal Myers are killing machines despite their differences of motive. The people of the U.S. are the willing victims who sign their lives over to the military-industrial complex.
If we want to escape the trap of bipartisan support for the military-industrial complex and never ending war we all need to take a leap and try to support the neglected third party candidates. When both Obama and Romney answer to their campaign contributer lobbyists from the military-industrial complex we are guaranteed more overseas military excursions and CIA created boogeymen like Al Queda. do we want to listen to the never ending story of U.S. military empire building activities or do we want to tell our own story of liberty and independence from military weapons contractors??
Can we ever escape the death grips of Barack "Jason Voorhees" Obama and Mitt "Micheal Myers" Romney?
By voting for a third party candidate we can break free of bipartisan corruption!!
I used to think that the day would never come... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzeNAUOp17c&feature=related
Media-military-industrial complex has bipartisan control
To avoid becoming a nation of psychopaths we need to take a closer look at the control exerted on our bipartisan leaders by the military-industrial complex;
"Of course, both the American society and the U.S. armaments industry today are different then it was when Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell speech (Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation) famously warned Americans to beware the "military-industrial complex." See also The Farewell Address 50 Years Later. The USA now is the world's greatest producer and exporter of arms on the planet, spend more on armed forces than all other nations combined -- while going deeply into debt to do so. It also stations over 500,000 troops, spies, contractors, dependents, etc. on more than 737 bases around the world in 130 countries (even this is not a complete count). The 2008 Pentagon inventory includes 190,000 troops in 46 nations and territories, and 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. In just Japan, we have 99,295 people who are either members of US forces or are closely connected to US. The only purpose is to provide control over as many nations as possible. We could net $2.6 billion selling our base assets at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and another $2.2 billion for Guantanamo Bay - just two of those facilities.
The Pentagon also has 234 golf courses around the world, 70 Lear Jet airplanes for generals and admirals, a ski resort in the Bavarian Alps. Statistics compiled by the Federation of American Scientists analyzed by Gore Vidal show 201 military operations initiated by the U.S. against others between the end of WWII and 9/11 - none of which directly resulted in the creation of a democracy. These included Iran (1953, 1979), Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1959-present), Congo (1960), Brazil (1964), Indonesia (1965), Vietnam (1961-73), Laos (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-73), Greece (1967-73), Chile (1973), Afghanistan (1979-present), El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua (1980s), Iraq (1991-present), Panama (1989), Grenada (1983). (The Korean War is a notable positive exception.)
Per Johnson, Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA director Gates made it clear that U.S. aid to the mujaheddin began six months prior to the Soviet invasion, and helped provoke it. A recent 'Newsweek' article also pointed out waste in the Pentagon - Secretary Gates estimates there are 30 levels between himself and line officers, and expects by 2020 for the U.S. to have 'only' 20X China's number of advanced stealth fighters; other researchers recently found 530 deputy assistant secretaries of defense, compared to 78 in 1960. See also Dismantling the Empire .
Despite of economic decline, of may be because of it, New Militarism is now pandemic, supported by both parties and aggressively used by Republican Party to maintain the unity of fragile coalition of rag tag groups (see Understanding Mayberry Machiavellians) Neo-conservative ideology still dominates foreign policy and its essence (spread of "liberal democracy" with a shadow goal of defending/promoting own geo-strategical interests and first of all access to cheap oil) is not that different from the old Soviets militarism, eager to spread or "defend" the blessings of "Scientific Socialism (like Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles remember those attempts all too well).
While far from historic high (reached during World War II, when it represented 20% of the civilian workforce) US military still employs 2.2 million people, or about 2% of the civilian workforce. With Departing of Energy and military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, United Technologies. L-3 Communications, etc as well as servicing firms such as Halliburton/KBR/Blackwater/DynCorp you can probably add another million. That means that all-in all at least three million US citizen directly or indirectly works for military-industrial complex. But what is more important that military-industrial complex spends up to 50% of all taxes:
In Fiscal Year 1999 the Department of Defense awarded $118 billion to contractors for goods and services. The "Big Three" in the defense industry -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon -- alone accounted for 26% of all defense contracts in FY'99.
In fiscal year 2003 the United States Government will spend on the military more than all the rest of the countries on Earth combined. Current expenditures are 437 billion and our past obligations are 339 billion, this equals 776 billion. 46% of our Taxes go to the Military Industrial Complex: http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm.This
figure doesn't even begin to account for all of the off-budget, black projects, homeland security nor the 40+ billion the United States Government will spend on intelligence in 2003. -- Mark Elsis Lovearth, Jan. 8, 2002
Pentagon's Anual Top Ten Defense Contractors
Lockheed Martin Corp. $17.0 billion
Boeing Co. $16.6 billion
Northrop Grumman Corp. $8.7 billion
Raytheon Co. $7.0 billion
General Dynamics Corp. $7.0 billion
United Technologies Corp. $3.6 billion
Science Applications International Corp. $2.1 billion
TRW Inc. $2.0 billion
Health Net, Inc. $1.7 billion
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. $1.7 billion
If the ability to anticipate future dangers for the nation is the mark of a truly great president then Dwight D. Eisenhower is the greatest president of the XX century. Dwight Eisenhower's presidency is probably better remembered less for what he did than for what he said while heading for the exit. In a nationally televised address on January 17, 1961, only four days before John F. Kennedy's inaugural, Eisenhower warned of the dangers of "undue influence" exerted by the "military-industrial complex." But it's more then undue influences, it's actually a threat to democracy. The danger is that in its most extreme forms MIC can transform the state into totalitarian nightmare: "WAR IS PEACE. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength."
Abstracting from the ideological bent, totalitarian regimes like USSR (or China) can be viewed as examples of MIC dominance in the form of merger with the state, a variant of George Orwell's "doublespeak" future depicted in his novel "1984". And the dissolution of the USSR is directly related to the destruction of the economy imposed by militarily industrial complex (see Are We Going Down Like the Soviets World) Still, China, which uses the same bankrupt ideological doctrine with political life dominated by Communist Party, managed to survive and even economically prosper.
Eisenhower cautioned that maintaining a large, permanent military establishment was "new in the American experience," and suggested that an "engaged citizenry" offered the only effective defense against the "misplaced power" of the military-industrial lobby. But the problem with his warning was that after the second World War to dismantle permanent military establishment was an impossible task. In a sense the key result of the second World War was the establishment of the rule of military industrial complex. Here is a relevant quote from his famous speech:
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only." http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/media_military_industrial_complex.shtml
Misrepresentation of the people of the U.S. by politicians controlled by the military-industrial complex is a fact of life that we knew since childhood. We the people do not wish to be responsible for U.S. military occupations for religion, oil or other reasons any longer. That both Democrats and Republicans must answer to the lobbyists from the military-industrial complex leaves out any real option, especially when the anti-war third parties (Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom) are always left out in the cold by corporate media outlets.
Cynics, anarchists and other "non-voters" could try to vote for a third party candidate to help balance the scales. Or we elect another status quo politician (Republican or Democrat) who will become another useful puppet of the military-industrial complex for more never ending wars for oil.
Time to climb out of the pitfall trap created by the military-industrial complex and vote third party!!
The third parties didn't fare very well in the bipartisan scramble between Mitt "Micheal Myers" Romney and Barack "Jason Voorhees" Obama as they didn't recieve nearly the same amount of monies from the military-industrial complex and thus were unable to inundate the airwaves with nearly infinite commercials.
One percent or one million votes was the most of any third party candidate, though not enough when compared to the two giant parties. However, it is inspirational as Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and many other third party candidates bring good ideas to the table yet cannot get any airtime from the media-military industrial complex, especially if we endorse peace and diplomacy instead of never ending military occupations.
We need peace, not bipartisan militarism!
Other than that am glad the lesser evil candidate won, the Devil that you know is better than the Devil that you don't know!
What else do Hollywood serial killers Micheal Myers and Jason Voorhees have in common with Romney and Obama?
They all wear masks!!
election results including third party candidates; http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
The Green Liberty Party Presidential Candidate Mark Miller will again be running for U.S. President in 2016 to bring the message of anti-war dimplomacy and legalization of drugs, prostitution and other vices. Voluntary rehab instead of prison for addicted personalities. In addition the GLP will continue to work on the mag-lev floodtrain pipeline to transfer floodwater caught behind setback levees to desert and drought stricken areas further inland as an infrastructure response to global warming's sea level rise and severe storms.
The Green Liberty Party is open to anyone who wishes to combine the Green and Libertarian ideals together in a way that seeks to gather votes from the general public discouraged with the Democrats and Republicans and having ideals on both left and right;
pro-gun, pro-hunting, pro-ecosystem restoration (can't hunt in shopping malls!!),
anti-war, anti-military occupations and anti-CIA interventions, lend a hand during natural disasters with an army of paramedics and construction workers instead of tanks, drones and guns.
Export mag-lev train floodwater pipeline concept internationally and work with other nations to travel to Mars to gather iron to build many miles of ma-lev flood pipeline trains, eliminate flooding and droughts wherever they are installed.
Best wishes to all other third party candidates for 2016, looking forward to some more third party candidate debates to contrast the military-industrial complex controlled debates between the Republicans and Democrats. Our voices combined will only grow louder!!
he refused to sign the state action to impeach Bush jr. -tisk-