Increase the Stress or Downsize the Mission?

According to the New York Times, suicides in the U.S. Army this January alone could total as many as 24. (For January 2008, the number was five.) If so, that would not only be the highest monthly total since the Army started keeping such figures in 1980, but more deaths than occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan combined that month. In 2008 as a whole, at least 128 soldiers killed themselves. As the Times noted, "Suicides… rose for the fourth year in a row, reaching the highest level in nearly three decades. Army officials say the stress of long deployments to war zones plays a role in the increase."

Mark Benjamin and Michael de Yoanna, who have just completed a major multi-part examination of Army suicides at Salon.com, record this official reaction to the military health crisis: "'Why do the numbers keep going up?' Army Secretary Pete Geren said at a Pentagon news conference Jan. 29. 'We can't tell you.' The Army announced a $50 million study to figure it out." The two reporters find a wealth of evidence of military misdiagnosis, mistreatment, and plain, outright lack of desire to face a plague of suicides. ("At Fort Carson," the base they studied, "a mental problem from combat is still a scarlet letter.")

But above all, of course, there are simply those endlessly repeated tours of duty in the Afghan and Iraq war zones. Suicides, in this sense, can be thought of as the individual symptoms of a larger military disease. In these last years, the U.S. military has been, like the individuals who committed suicide, overstrained, overstressed, and made to fight wars that consumed America's treasure, while becoming ever more unpopular at home. As retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and TomDispatch regular William Astore points out in his latest piece, "An American Foreign Legion," despite all the lovely "support our troops" sentiments in the U.S., the military was essentially abandoned to its stresses abroad and so became, in practical terms, ever more "foreign" to Americans. Is the U.S. military, he wonders, now the American equivalent of the French Foreign Legion -- a force considered expendable by French elites, recruited from around the world, and meant to fight France's colonial wars in far-flung lands? That force's fate was well captured, he comments, in its grim, sardonic motto: "You joined the Legion to die. The Legion will send you where you can die!"

While the Army struggles, not particularly effectively, to deal with its suicide problem, political and military leaders struggle no less unimpressively to deal with the larger problems of military stress. Their unanimous solution to the global policy version of post-traumatic stress disorder: Cut down on those tours of duty and repair the military by significantly expanding U.S. forces -- by more than 90,000 troops according to the latest Obama/Biden plan. The obvious response, the one that could bring the military back to a state of health, is of course roundly ignored: Downsize the global mission. Bring American troops home.

Comments (46)

1. Bring American troops home.

   Huzzah!

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/16/2009 @ 11:47am

2. What this statistic actually reveals is the results of the marxist public education system along with so-called "progressive" moral relativism that was pushed on children.

   No longer did they learn about absolutes, and making moral distinctions. Instead they were taught that the world is grey, that it is the best color, and that you each have a right to determine what is moral.

   So, we produced emotional dwarfs, incapable unless superceded by strong morals teaching at home, of dealing with real world stress.

   This is further borne out by the fact that anti-depressants are the largest category of prescription medicines prescribed by doctors.

   This is a tragedy that never should have happened. It is probably irreversible unless America rediscovers some moral fiber.

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 12:00pm

3. If Obama were to attempt to downsize the imperial mission, seriously, the generals, backed by their suppliers, would revolt.

   So Obama won't be doing much more than tinkering, while the generals continue to bomb away with impunity.

   Unless ... unless Congress (don't laugh too hard) ASSERTS ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS .. . TO DECLARE WAR, FOR EXAMPLE ... and to reduce the Pentagon's budget. That's how it forced the military's hand in Nam after years of pointless slaughter.

   Posted by sloper at 02/16/2009 @ 12:14pm

4. antisocialist: Marxist relativism is a bit of an oxymoron. There is little that is relativist in a Marxist view of the world. Admittedly much of the academic left has fallen for post-modern relativism and as a consequence has become politically irrelevant and in effect ideologically complicit with the conservatives that seem to be your friends.

   Relativism is what allowed for the death of class-based political discourse and the fleecing of the middle class and poor. Relativism is what lies behind the idea of Fox's "fair and Balanced" view of the world, relativism underpins the bipartisan narrative used (we will see to what effect) by Obama himself. It is relativism that allows him to say that there are good ideas among republicans when they have raped the US economy/society for the past 30 years (I include the Clinton years here).

   A proper leftie would be tolerant of opposing views, in the human rights sense of the word tolerance, but would then clobber the opponent with a torrent of non-relativist arguments. They are not hard to come by. If you have noticed your friends have just concluded the undoing of capitalism as we know it. Let us hope Obama does not save their skins.

   That said, relativism is one thing and nuance another. And a good leftie should do nuance even as he asserts his nuanced position in absolutist terms. Nuance is not weakness. Nuance is strength of analysis and evidence of intelligence.

   Posted by dimik72 at 02/16/2009 @ 12:24pm

5. Bring American troops home.

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/16/2009 @ 1:12pm

6. Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 12:00pm

   WTF???

   It must be a result of SOMETHING leftist (not of course the companies that push anti-depreeants on the TV),...

   It could not possibly be related to extended tours, or substandard medical care, or lack of debriefing/decompression, or serving 2 tours and leaving Iran in charge...

   nope, it MUST be SOMETHING the left did.

   Freak.

   Come out of your America Hating Shell and face reality.

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/16/2009 @ 1:16pm

7. Isn't it JUST FUCKING INCREDIBLE the POWER the FRINGE LIBERAL ELITES have on our country?

   Totally in control of every aspect of America that falls on hard times, in control of Wall Street, in control of drug companies, in control of the media, Totally at blame for the single parent families that send their kids to be babysat in school, single handedly to blame for the state of the auto industry.

   All while being a small, vocal minority.

   You cons live in a fantasy world totally devoid of....personal and movement responsibility.

   "If we send them to Iraq to free us from nukes, IT IS THE LIBS fault they come back with PTSD."

   (of course PTSD is a liberal fantasy as well)

   "It is the NYT's fault the pictures of Americans torturing people incited people to join AQ, it is NOT the fault of the people that authorized the treatment of prisoners".

   It is NEVER the fault of con philosophy. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.

   wages decreasing due to globilzation? Why, it is the fault of unions!

   Wall Street collapses under the weight of bad loans granted by Wall Street?

   It is B. Franks fault, not the people that gave the loans, or asked for B. Frank to change the rules.

   freaks. Bringers of false witness. Liars. Sheep.

   (breath)

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/16/2009 @ 1:23pm

8. Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 12:00pm

   'Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 12:00pm

   WTF???

   Posted by crabwalk at 02/16/2009 @ 1:16pm

   I had once upon a time thought that you meant for your name to be inline with certain marching orders from the right wing priesthood ... But now I see you meant AntiSocialist to be in the context of your being a misanthrope.

   Either way there is no rational way to base let alone reach the (clinically insane; would be better if your future posts were at your therapists site) conclusions you did ... for you not to know better is telling.

   Posted by V at 02/16/2009 @ 1:32pm

9. Posted by dimik72 at 02/16/2009 @ 12:24pm

   lvlib/antisocial read the Classics Illustrated version of "Das Kapital"!

   Posted by Mask at 02/16/2009 @ 1:40pm

10. antisocialist: Marxist relativism is a bit of an oxymoron. There is little that is relativist in a Marxist view of the world.

    A proper leftie would be tolerant of opposing views, in the human rights sense of the word tolerance, but would then clobber the opponent with a torrent of non-relativist arguments. They are not hard to come by. If you have noticed your friends have just concluded the undoing of capitalism as we know it. Let us hope Obama does not save their skins.

    That said, relativism is one thing and nuance another. And a good leftie should do nuance even as he asserts his nuanced position in absolutist terms. Nuance is not weakness. Nuance is strength of analysis and evidence of intelligence.

    Posted by dimik72 at 02/16/2009 @ 12:24pm

    As I often see happen here, you as a proud leftist make assumptions rather than actually reading what is stated.

    I did not say marxist relevativism...I said

    " marxist public education system along with so-called "progressive" moral relativism that was pushed on children."

    I believe there is a conjuctive there that indicates this plus this; not this =this as you falsely surmised.

    then you proceed to obfuscate by a lecture on nuance as if it has any relationship to the formal program of teaching moral relevativism in the public school system.

    As for the undoing of a capitalist free market which made America the strongest nation in the world's history, that has been the ongoing case for decades. The Socialist unraveling of America started slowly with FDR and now sees it's opportunity to finalize the death of freedom with the Obama presidency.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 2:21pm

11. lvlib/antisocial read the Classics Illustrated version of "Das Kapital"!

    Posted by Mask at 02/16/2009 @ 1:40pm

    Mask, I first read it when you were still in diapers, along with Mao's little Red Book.

    The greatest fallacy apart from it's conclusions is that capitalism of the late 20th and early 21st century bears no resemblance to 19th century capitalism.

    the most striking counters to it are the rise of the small business entrepeneur, the internet, and global trading to name a few.

    Any possibility for marxism to be a true economic system as envisioned by Marx in Das Kapital faded decades ago. Instead we are left with more totalitarian attempts like Chavez and Castro. Chavez as you probably heard was made dictator for life today in Venezuela.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 2:27pm

12. Anti-socialist:

    1) I do not see why being the strongest nation in the world should even be a goal. Why not aspire to be the smartest, with highest living standards, best health, least crime and other things that social democracies in Scandinavia have achieved.

    2) If the man who brought you the Manhattan Project and the strongest army in the world (yes that is the socialist FDR), the man who in effect created the military industrial complex, has been the root for the undoing of American power, then bless him. I am afraid however, that you owe your position at the "top" to him. As you owe to him that you avoided an actual revolution by a truly impoverished proletariat. He re-distributed and thus saved capitalism.

    3) As per reading your text. When you say Marxist education and then "progressive relativism" pushed on children then you create a link between the two. Otherwise who pushes the education to the children, their parents? If the "Marxist educational system" pushed progressive relativism then it means it espouses it. But no point arguing that.

    4) As for nuance. It bears relevance. Respect of the adherents of Islam and critique of tenets and practices of Islam can exist in a nuanced position that respects individuals and at the same time condemns practices and excesses. This is just an example of how education should, in my mind work. The problem of course is that a big chunk of liberal academia in which I work has equated critique of Islam with colonialism and oppression thus granting validity to the most egregious social practices. Here a true leftie would actually have to stick to a pro-enlightenment position and condemn Islam with the same ease he lambastes Christianity.

    Posted by dimik72 at 02/16/2009 @ 3:30pm

13. The American Military services do not have the authority to declare war on anybody. They are controlled directly by the President, or by Congress through the budget process. These are the people who make policy and the various commitments around the world. You need to talk to them directly about how the military is used. Unfortunately, in case you haven't noticed, they often do not have a clue, and they use or misuse the military. Draftees in the Vietnam war served one tour in Vietnam and came back with psychological problems. In Iraq, troops serve multiple tours, and any psychological problems would be compounded. The problem is the all volunteer army does not supply enough troops to avoid multiple tours, and, like it or not. you need the draft if this country is involved in a long term conflict.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/16/2009 @ 3:34pm

14. "Why not aspire to be the smartest, with highest living standards, best health, least crime and other things that social democracies in Scandinavia have achieved. "

    We do aspire to be the best and brightest and the strongest and the best health if possoible.....

    but our schhols have killed that off cold and the govt killed off the rest...

    Scandinavia is going broke as populations age and the young leave for better less taxed and higher paying countrys(except immigrants from Islamic world)...

    watch Europe in the next 2-6 months...their economic problems are worse than ours..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/16/2009 @ 4:04pm

15. Somebody said something about whether the U.S. should aspire to be the "strongest nation in the world." It's not exactly the same thing, but it got me thinking about a great quote by Robert Kennedy about our greatness as a nation, and in what terms it should be measured. Here it is:

    Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product...if we should judge American by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

    Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

    – Robert Kennedy, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, March 18, 1968

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 4:59pm

16. <i>Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 4:59pm</i>

    This makes a whole lot of sense; I've also wondered about the "strongest nation in the world" paradigm? Unless good is measured by military strength, why on earth would this be a good paradigm? This is especially puzzling from someone like Liberty, because Christianity STRESSES an emphasis on the good above all else. Some adaptation to fallibility is clearly necessary, but the standard is still the maximum good we can do in the circumstances we're in. Making sure no power vacuum gets filled up with a Russia or China is one thing; idolizing military strength is another thing entirely.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/16/2009 @ 5:20pm

17. I have often wondered exactly what the mantra "the U.S. is the greatest nation on earth" means. What is the criteria? Does it mean in the old-fashioned sense of "greatness," which basically meant a party 9nation or individual) that plays a "great" (large) role in world affairs? Do they mean in terms of individual freedom? (Certainly there are several nations that as free as we are - all the western democracies are "great" by that measure. Do they mean in terms of economic indicators, such as GDP, or what have you? As we know, by several such measurements/standards, the U.S. hasn't been number one in decades. Do they mean in terms of military might? If having a large military makes a nation "great," then Nazi Germany was such as well - but I suspect they can't possibly mean that, because of that very reason. (Few would call Nazi Germany great, in ANY sense).

    Perhaps someday someone can spell out the criteria for "greatness." Greatest literature perhaps? (Maybe Russia.) Greatest cuisine? (Perhaps France.) And so on. Then, they can add it all up, and see which nation comes out on tops in terms of the various subdeterminates of "greatness."

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 5:32pm

18. .....I've also wondered about the "strongest nation in the world" paradigm? Unless good is measured by military strength, why on earth would this be a good paradigm?.....Making sure no power vacuum gets filled up with a Russia or China is one thing; idolizing military strength is another thing entirely.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/16/2009 @ 5:20pm

    What's there to wonder about? The "strongest nation in the world" paradigm is just another form of societal Darwinism.....those less strong tend to emulate the strongest, or certainly seek to ally with.

    The thing is, unlike the Super Bowel, where winning more than 2 in a row is rare, the time cycle of this strongest nation paradigm tends to be generational stretching into centuries....and have an enormous effect on the world as a whole!

    As you correctly point out, ensuring a Russia or China from being the strongest, is worthwhile alone....hence, such goal goes hand in hand with "idolizing military strength".

    Our warriors have a tremendous need to be loved by those they sacrifice for....and when there are vocal elements that call them `BetrayUs', aided by unsupportive MSM and turncoat politicians (eg.: Edwards & Kerry), it isn't hard to see psychological dysfunctions!

    Posted by Happy at 02/16/2009 @ 6:02pm

19. Ah, but who really "loves" the warriors more, those who needlessly sacrifice their lives for highly questionable purposes, or those who feel their lives should only be sacrificed when absolutely necessary?

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 6:13pm

20. To me there is nothing more "turncoat" than to send American kids to die for a dumb reason.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 6:15pm

21. Abraham Lincoln agreed with me on this point - hence his opposition to the Mexican war.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 6:17pm

22. But to get back to the original (and fascinating) question: what do we mean by "greatness," when measuring a nation? I agree that it isn't military might, but what exactly is it then? Does the phrase in fact have any meaning? I would appreciate any input into this enquiry.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 6:20pm

23. To me there is nothing more "turncoat" than to send American kids to die for a dumb reason.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 6:15pm

    why do I get the feeling that you are either a draft dogdging coward or just a coward who wouldn't serve?

    Comments like yours show you not even worthy to kiss a military man or woman's boots.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 6:55pm

24. Intresting how the thread author is so ASHAMED to try to make his arguments by comparing military suicides to the current civilian suicide rates by AGE and SEX! Why, he knows how ridiculous his arguments would be in attempting to assert his conclusions by contrasting the information!!!

    Just another dead end road attempt to justify an insubstanual argument!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/16/2009 @ 7:01pm

25. The key phrase in the author's essay is the following:

    "Suicides… rose for the fourth year in a row, reaching the highest level in nearly three decades. Army officials say the stress of long deployments to war zones plays a role in the increase."

    So you are mssing the point - it's not whether it's compared to civlians or whatever - it's as compasred to previosu rates among soldiers themselves.

    It's up - and long deployments are undoubtedly a reason why.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 7:09pm

26. To me there is nothing more "turncoat" than to send American kids to die for a dumb reason.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 6:15pm

    No one who voted to authorize the war, even Edward & Kerry, were "turncoat" at the time......nor thought the authorization was "for a dumb reason"!

    Those who bailed when the going got tough, when early (global) intelligence proved less that "slam dunk", are the true "turncoat"....which I definitely put you among!

    Posted by Happy at 02/16/2009 @ 7:31pm

27. Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 2:27pm

    Okay, Larry...where in "Das Kapital" did ol' Karl use the term "relativism" and how?

    Posted by Mask at 02/16/2009 @ 7:46pm

28. "aided by unsupportive MSM and turncoat politicians (eg.: Edwards & Kerry), it isn't hard to see psychological dysfunctions!"

    Posted by Happy at 02/16/2009 @ 6:02pm

    Happy, you rant ...

    Following your and AntiSocials logic it is the media induced delayed stress syndrome that is causing these young people to suicide? I see, and since we are now in the realm of phantasy I am sure that we can at least note that these cases, you know the ones due to "main stream media induced delayed stress sysdrome," opps, I forgot it's also LIBERAL CONTROLLED, right?

    So, yes, all cases (at least) of LCMSMDSS) ... have recieved adequate funding.

    Unlike unfortunately, in the reality where C-Span and I inhabit ... where I watched the republican party refuse to fund that part of the non Haliburton spending, the part targeted toward psychological counseling and services for our troops.

    Your analysis which led us to LCMSMDSS was flawless and of great help Happy.

    I do not know where we would be without it.

    Posted by V at 02/16/2009 @ 10:02pm

29. So you are mssing the point - it's not whether it's compared to civlians or whatever - it's as compasred to previosu rates among soldiers themselves.

    It's up - and long deployments are undoubtedly a reason why.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 7:09pm

    No he is blindsighted because the SAME thing is TRUE for the CIVILIAN population nulifying his ideology!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/16/2009 @ 10:16pm

30. Okay, Larry...where in "Das Kapital" did ol' Karl use the term "relativism" and how?

    Posted by Mask at 02/16/2009 @ 7:46pm

    You're as bad as dmik72

    Posted by dimik72 at 02/16/2009 @ 12:24pm

    As I often see happen here, you as a proud leftist make assumptions rather than actually reading what is stated.

    I did not say marxist relevativism...I said

    " marxist public education system along with so-called "progressive" moral relativism that was pushed on children."

    you do understand a conjunctive? meaning this plus this. not this = this

    That said, you cannot have marxism without moral relativism

    Quoting Lenin, "the three sources of Marxism are: British political economy, French Socialism and German idealist philosophy." (www.marxism.org)

    Most of moral relativism especially in the public education system is owed to the Humanists and the Humanist Manifesto which was central to Dewey's 20th century development of public education. Dewey was not a marxist, but he did support Trotsky.

    Dewey, the father of American 'progressive' education shows his cards with the following statement in the New Republic article: "Reference to this phase of Soviet education may perhaps be suitably concluded by a quotation from Lenin: 'We must declare openly what is concealed, namely, the political function of the school...It is to construct communist society."

    more to follow

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 10:31pm

31. crabwalk: The financial crash was the fault of people like B. Frank and C. Dodd - they wrecked the system by their insistance on sub-prime loans. When President Bush tried to put some sanity back in the system, everyone who did try was called raciest - ok, don't want to be called racist so... no, the dirt bags at Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and organizations like ACORN, supported by likes of Frank and Dodd for so many years really did it to us. The banking community went along for the same reason and as long as housing kept going up everyone was making money and lenders went crazy for more, encouraged by the congress. This was a decent idea of "community re-investment", started back in the 70s under Carter, run amuck.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/16/2009 @ 10:38pm

32. No he is blindsighted because the SAME thing is TRUE for the CIVILIAN population nulifying his ideology!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/16/2009 @ 10:16pm

    Actually, the article from the NY Times explains nothing. Many on the left seems to think the war is the cause, when in fact it's a correlation because not all soliders are affected.

    According to the DSM-IV, pre-traumatic factors play a huge part in PTSD.

    Posted by ACook at 02/16/2009 @ 10:55pm

33. Now Mask, see if you can find the marxist appeal to moral absolutes in the Communist Manifesto

    "That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

    But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

    The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason the social forms stringing from your present mode of production and form of property -- historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production -- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

    Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

    On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 11:06pm

34. Finally, this from the Communist Manifesto make it clear that moral absolutes must be eliminated

    "The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

    Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

    "Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

    "There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 11:09pm

35. Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 11:09pm

    Larry, did you notice this part?

    "Undoubtedly," it will be said..."

    Now...add the next two paragraphs after the ACCUSATION.

    Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 08:03am

36. To me there is nothing more "turncoat" than to send American kids to die for a dumb reason.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/16/2009 @ 6:15pm

    why do I get the feeling that you are either a draft dogdging coward or just a coward who wouldn't serve?

    Comments like yours show you not even worthy to kiss a military man or woman's boots.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 6:55pm

    See, this is from the guy that sent troops to find mythological wmd's, then blames the school system for their mental degradation.

    And then wants to lecture us on relativism.

    Larry, who are the communists here? How is it that a few thousand communists in this country are able to overcome the Christian rightwing (millions?) and Wall Street and foment the communist ideology that you fear so? Is it that the right wing is actually powerless and weak, whereas the commies are strong, powerful and effective, but they do it quietly? This would go against what you have been telling us, that "the left" is full of weak kneed softies who can't tie their own shoes without govt assistance.

    Do you think it even POSSIBLE that the reason kids come back from war and kill themselves is that you send 19 year old kids to countries they don't "get", that they see things no person should have to deal with and that they might no get the psychiatric treatment they need?

    Or, is it really the fault of Ms Shepherd's 3rd grade coloring lesson?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/17/2009 @ 08:56am

37. Posted by pyeatte at 02/16/2009 @ 10:38pm

    So, countrywide, Lehman Bros, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns etc were just helpless drones for 8 years, and Bush was POWERLESS to stop B. Franks minority party while the repubs held power?

    Tell me why ALL of the repub bills that were to correct the massive failings of B Frank....stalled in subcommittee, while the repubs held congress with their president.

    See, this is the malarkey I am writing about. On one hand they tell us "the left" is a fringe minority and few in America agree with a "communist agenda", but then when the shit hits the fan, EVERYTHING wrong was the fault of this fringe minority. Wall Street tycoons (who donate more to the repubs, but spread it around just fine) are helpless, they are incapable of stopping credit default swaps from entering their portfolios, Standard and Poor were FORCED to bundle securities into frothy malts of CCC, CC, BB and A rated loans, bunches rated AAA.

    Meanwhile the Republican head of the finance committee and the most loved president in 20 years stood by totally helpless as B Frank ran roughshod over the titans of the investment industry.

    Give me a break. Remember what you preach, personal responsibility. Look in the mirror. Seek out the log in your eye, xtian.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/17/2009 @ 09:06am

38. Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 11:06pm

    Who here, or for that matter on the street, have you ever heard express a desire to "abolish the family"?

    Freak.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/17/2009 @ 09:26am

39. Hard as it is to believe, LVLIB/ANTI-SOCKS was being a bit...disengenuous in his selective editing.

    the "it will be said" was a hypothetical attack, not a declaration of principle. Here's the next lines-

    "What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

    But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms."

    Posted by Mask at 02/17/2009 @ 09:45am

40. why do I get the feeling that you are either a draft dogdging coward or just a coward who wouldn't serve?

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/16/2009 @ 6:55pm

    when god says KILL, you KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 2:22pm

41. I didn't realize antisocialist was the same right-wing blowhard previously known as loveliberty - thanks for the cluing in. A few points:

    1) To resist an unjust war is not cowardice - it actually takes great courage. Ask MLK or Thoreau or Lincoln or Mark Twain.

    2) One can serve their country in ways other than fighting in the military (for example by trying to stop your govt from waging a war which it shouldn't, which is actually bad for your nation).

    Those who resist an unjust war can be motivated by patriotism - that is something his type will never understand.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/17/2009 @ 2:47pm

42. And if you want to talk about "cowards" who wouldn't serve, start with Limbaugh, Bush, and Cheney, as well as the rest of the Chicken Hawks who so willingly send others to die, but won't go themselves.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/17/2009 @ 2:49pm

43. And if you want to talk about "cowards" who wouldn't serve, start with Limbaugh, Bush, and Cheney, as well as the rest of the Chicken Hawks who so willingly send others to die, but won't go themselves.

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/17/2009 @ 2:49pm

    the difference is that they don't bad mouth the military the way you do.

    There have been no unjust US wars to resist so the argument is moot.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 3:01pm

44. There have been no unjust US wars to resist so the argument is moot. Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 3:01pm

    wha?????!!?!?!??!?!????!???!???!???!?

    justify the war of 1812!

    ha!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 3:18pm

45. justify the war of 1812!

    ha!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/17/2009 @ 3:18pm

    Absolutely justified; and no, contrary to Canadian mythology, it was not about US imperialism to expand into Canada.

    'There were several immediate stated causes for the U.S. declaration of war. First, a series of trade restrictions introduced by Britain to impede American trade with France, a country with which Britain was at war; the U.S. contested these restrictions as illegal under international law.[3] Second, the impressment (forced recruitment) of U.S. citizens into the Royal Navy. Third, the alleged British military support for American Indians who were offering armed resistance to the United States.[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

    The US was well within it rights of self defense.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 3:27pm

46. There have been no unjust US wars to resist so the argument is moot. Posted by antisocialist at 02/17/2009 @ 3:01pm

    Credibility, anyone?

    Posted by FDR43 at 02/17/2009 @ 7:26pm