Military Reunion Show

I came home this evening to find my wife watching a show on the Lifetime channel. One of the promos playing during a commercial was about a new show on Lifetime that follows military dads reuniting with their children. It was a very emotion invoking presentation as it showed a little girl crying as she went to hug her father dressed in a full military uniform.

The only thing I could think about was how many Iraqi and Afghan children will never get to hug their fathers again as a result of the bombs and bullets coming from military men like the one depicted in this program.

Things look very different depending on one's perspective.

Joe Rogan on the American War Machine

Here is a great 9 minute video of Joe Rogan explaining the truth behind the American War Machine. NSFW (language)

"Pro-lifers" Are Hypocrites

Hypocrisy and inconsistency are prevalent in today's world but the so-called "pro-lifers" are the biggest hypocrites of them all. Every Friday morning on my way to work, I drive past a group of picketers holding signs with messages against abortion, some containing extremely graphic depictions of the aborted fetuses, and others with the words "support life" or some variation thereof.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to support the unborn life of a child, and I certainly don't take issue with their right to peaceably assemble, provided they are not trespassing on private property. And I also think that being "pro-life" is a commendable position if applied consistently.

This is in no way a debate about the specific topic of abortion as too often people get caught up in the minutia of the details and lose sight of the big picture. I've come to this conclusion by critically looking at the issue of abortion and recognizing that certain people are always going to be "pro-life" and certain people are always going to be "pro-choice". The mere fact that the factions of support on both sides are so evenly distributed, one can conclude there is not a clear cut moral absolute when it comes to determining the beginning of life.

Contrast this divide to the practically unanimous moral conclusion that murder outside the womb is wrong and should not be tolerated. This should be the focus of the "pro-lifers" because the audience has overwhelmingly accepted that premise and no further effort need be exerted in the attempt of that persuasion.

So why don't more "pro-lifers" support the lives of Iraqis and Afghans? How many of these picketers set down their aborted fetus sign and pick up a peace sign on their way to a war protest?

It doesn't take an unreasonable level of assumption to conclude there's a strong correlation between those self described as "pro-life" and those who support the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else the US military holds occupation. This logic holds true with the subject of torture, about which I have previously written.

Where are the prominent "pro-life" leaders denouncing the mass killing done at the hands of the US government and its military? Why don't the Iraqis and Afghans get the same support as the fetuses? Do "pro-lifers" also support foreign fetuses?

As is the case with most collectivist-minded simpletons, thoughtless decisions are made based on groupings and borders, and those who reside on the "wrong" side of those borders are just "out of luck", I guess. So the lesson that must be learned is this: if you want to be protected by the "pro-lifers", don't reside on the wrong side of a womb wall or the wrong side of the United States border.

Mike Birbiglia - Deck Accomplished

Here is a hilarious clip by comedian Mike Birbiglia about the absurd Bush (now Obama) propaganda with regard to the war(s) and supporting the troops.

Jokes.com
Mike Birbiglia - Deck Accomplished
comedians.comedycentral.com
Joke of the Day Stand-Up Comedy Free Online Games

American Troops Accused of Killing Afghan Civilians, Including Children

Move along people. Nothing to see here. The US military members are the good guys. They're the guys wearing the white hats, right? I mean, they wouldn't act like a bunch of barbaric, maniacal animals, would they?

Prominent Liberals Criticize Obama's Afghanistan Strategy

In a previous posting, I stated the Democrats and the mainstream media do not speak out against Obama when he continues to expand the empire through war and implored the "legitimate pro-peace Democrats and media" to prove me wrong.

Over the past week, some prominent liberals have come out against the supposed "president of peace" and his continued warmongering in Afghanistan. I am pleasantly surprised and want to give credit to those members of the Left who are showing some principle.

Here is Jon Stewart's humorous critique:


Here is Rachel Maddow's critique on her MSNBC show: (hat tip to Phil)


Michael Moore also wrote an open letter on his website where he asks Obama if he really wants to be the next war president.

Obama to Send 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan

As Obama continues in the exact foot steps of the warmonger Bush, how is it that he gets a free pass from the mainstream media and the so-called peace activists?

Is the desire to eradicate thousands of brown people in a foreign land exclusively a Republican stance? Could it be that Obama and the rest of his Democrat buddies simply share the same insatiable desire to wield their power over others and continue to reward their connected coherts in the military industrial complex?

When will people realize that there is NO DIFFERENCE between Republicans and Democrats? Sure, they toss around the political footballs of abortion, capital punishment, health care, etc. But when it comes to spreading the empire, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Legitimate pro-peace Democrats and media, prove me wrong. I've lost all hope for the Republicans and neoconservatives.

UPDATE 12/6/09

Afghanistan War is Useless

So opines Ralph Peters. Peters' piece in the NY Post is written in a style that reminds one of a conversation with a friend - it feels informal, like it's from the heart.

I’ve selected three quotes from the article which are very astute and deviate from the typical war-mongering cries from the media to which we’ve come so accustomed.

Now we are warned that, unless we send another 40,000 US troops to convince Afghans we're their friends, unspecified woes will fall upon us like biblical plagues.

The generals refuse to recognize that, from the local viewpoint, the Taliban are the patriots. We're the Redcoats.

So our troops hold their fire and die to protect Afghan villagers who back the Taliban and to protect an Afghan government the people despise. How, exactly, does this advance our national security?

Peters was doing so well until the final four paragraphs where he apparently realized that he was, in fact, a member of the main stream media and the day ended in ‘Y’. A leopard never truly loses its spots, no? Peters feigns the idea of peace (but only against the Taliban) but continues the war cries against the American boogieman: al Qaeda.

Why, according to Peters, are the Taliban patriots but al Qaeda must be eradicated? Is al Qaeda’s skin browner than the Taliban’s?

Peters wrote:
Killing our nation's enemies always makes sense. [his emphasis]

There are so many things wrong with that simple, but powerful, sentence.
First, who gets to decide who “our nation’s” enemies are?
More to the point, who is this collective that Peters has failed to identify that obviously makes up the “our”?
By virtue of the fact that I was born on this land mass known as America, am I to be lumped in with “our”?
If I am part of “our”, am I to wait until I have been given direction by some person or some group of persons so that I can be enlightened as to who “our”/my enemy is?
What if I don’t agree with the fact that someone or group of persons has been labeled as “our” enemy?
Does killing them still “always make sense”?

Tell that to the Japanese Americans during WWII.

Another Soldier Refuses to Deploy to Afghanistan

Here is another man with courage who knows when to say no to orders when they conflict with what he knows is right and moral (not to mention legal). Of course, he will be derided as non-patriotic, etc, and whatever else the talking heads of the military industrial complex can come up with. Another tired argument is "he knew what he was getting in to when he signed up". No, he agreed to uphold the constitution and defend against enemies, foreign AND domestic, including (and ESPECIALLY) those parasites in DC.

Obama Wants Another $83 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan

Yes, the leader of the "party of peace" has requested more money from Congress to ensure the killing can continue. But I thought that Obama was going to bring the troops home?

Despite the rhetoric, Obama's foreign policy agenda might be worse than Bush's because not only does he have an insatiable desire to police the world, he has the political support of the domestic and international sheep AND - even more devastatingly - the congressional purse.

Terrorists "Hate Our Freedom"

[thanks to Lewrockwell.com and The Washington Post]

In addition to the 17,000 troops sent to Afghanistan this year, President Obama just commissioned an additional 4,000. Has Afghanistan become Obama's Iraq?

Obama To Bring Home Troops From Iraq...To Afghanistan

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/obama.troops/index.html

Pardon me if I don't rush out to get my "mission accomplished" banner made. Prediction: this will turn into a classic example of how these skilled politicians turn a phrase to mean whatever they want it to mean. Sure, the "combat mission" may be officially terminated but in name only. Tell that to the family of the American soldier or Iraqi civilian who is killed AFTER this superficial deadline when a new moniker has been given to our continuing occupation.

Meanwhile, a "quiet" 17,000 MORE American troops have been deployed to Afghanistan and hardly a sound was made.

DEAR SO-CALLED LIBERALS,
When "The Chosen One" commissioned these troops to Afghanistan, where were the protests? Where is the outrage? Where are the principled demonstrations against the war mongering administration?