More private armies running rampant...thanks Obama

[SHRED]

---

Are we so enamored with Obama that we are going to sit by as our President leads us into another quagmire?
How many here got livid at Bush for war profiteering?

We have Obama giggling at the thought of freeing those incarcerated for pot (legalizing), his audience laughing and clapping, and now we are looking at him sending our men and women to more death in Afghanistan.
Something is ass-backwards here.
Have we learned nothing?
Where are you now?

---

Obama to Bring More Mercenaries to Afghanistan -- Sound Familiar?
By Jim Hightower, Creators Syndicate. Posted March 28, 2009.
As Obama begins winding down the war in Iraq, he is building up his own war farther east. Like Bush, he will depend on private military contractors.

Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to war we go!

As President Barack Obama begins winding down the Bush war in Iraq, he is building up his own war farther east. We're told that it will be a new, expanded, extra-special American adventure in Afghanistan, involving a vigorous surge strategy to "stabilize" this perpetually unstable land.

The initial surge will add 17,000 troops to the 36,000 already there. Then, later this year, there is to be a second troop surge of another 17,000 or so. This mass of soldiers is expected to be deployed to a series of new garrisons to be built in far-flung regions of this impoverished, rural, mostly illiterate warlord state that is ruled by hundreds of fractious, heavily armed tribal leaders. We're not told how much this escalation will cost, but it will at least double the $2 billion a month that American taxpayers are already shelling out for the Afghan war.

~SNIP~

What Obama has not mentioned is that, in addition to soldiers and civilians, there is a third surge in his plan: private military contractors. Yes, another privatized army, such as the one in Iraq. There, the Halliburtons, Blackwaters and other war profiteers ran rampant, shortchanging our troops, ripping off taxpayers, killing civilians and doing deep damage to America's good name.

Already, there are 71,000 private contractors operating in Afghanistan, and many more are preparing to deploy as Pentagon spending ramps up for Obama's war. The military is now offering new contracts to security firms to provide armed employees (aka, mercenaries) to guard U.S. bases and convoys. Despite the widespread contractor abuses in Iraq, Pentagon chief Robert Gates defends the ongoing privatization push: "The use of contractor security personnel is vital to supporting the forward-operating bases in certain parts of the country," he declared in a February letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/133289/obama_to_bring_more_mercenaries_to_afghanistan_--_sound_familiar/

---

[G_j]

1. Jim Hightower is a RW hack!!

:sarcasm:

seriously, this is quite disturbing.
thanks for posting

[ProgressIn2008]

87. Heh, too true. I'm waiting for 'em all to turn on Chomsky next for the ritual denouncing.

Chomsky's gonna need to get in line, though.

[Norrin Radd]

136. Hightower looks like a rat!!

A popular, prolific DUer actually wrote that about Krugman.

[Mari333]

2. son of a bitch.

goddamit. just goddamit.

[aggiesal]

131. I know how you feel, but what's the big surprise? ...

Back in February 2008 before most primaries, Obama mentioned that he would
not get rid of Mercenary armies, and in fact would increase their funding with
the state department.

Here is a link from "The Nation" magazine, stating
"... that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private
security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. ..."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

[Djinn]

141. nothing that Obama has said or done since being elected

has surprised me at all, but I don't quite understand all the "what's the surprise" post that follow any OP that highlights some of his shittier actions.

CLEARLY many people ARE surprised, mostly (to my mind) because they voted for an excellent marketing campaign that stayed far away from issues in favour of vague notions of 'hope and change' and the sentimental fluff of his books. Unless you were a sad act political junkie (unrepentant one here) then his REAL positions weren't so obvious and yes I'm aware that many of his more unpleasant positions were detailed on his campaign page - it's pretty obvious many didn't read them. If people on DU were prone to believing the hype, people who are presumably more interested in politics than many in the US electorate, then how many more knew NOTHING of many of his positions?

Not to mention that something can still be worth posting and discussing no matter how non surprising it was, because they're worrying/dangerous/beholden to corporate interests or whatever.

Nothing that Bush did surprised me in the slightest (nor Clinton for that matter) didn't mean I didn't mention/discuss them.

[QC]

163. Very true. n/t

[aggiesal]

169. I'll agree that many people are ...

surprised, because the electorate only listen to the evening news sound bites.

I don't agree that you had to read his detailed campaign page.
Don't buy into the MSM's hype that he only mentioned Hope & Change,
and never got into the meatier substance of real issues.

Everything in his campaign page was mentioned in his speeches.
Here is a site this is keeping track of all the issues that BO made:
The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Enjoy.

[billyoc]

3. The bridesmaids will never know what hit them.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Brilliant!! n't

[jody]

4. Relax, just look into the eyes of the Blue Wizard and keep chanting "Hope, Change".

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. .

:evilgrin:

[Brucie Kibbutz]

126. LMAO

:rofl: :applause:

[NightWatcher]

6. but but but dissent is not allowed

I agree completely that the honeymoons is over and we're seeing the bride without her makeup.

Now you'll get the responses that Obama never promised to end Afghanistan and that you are deluded for thinking that he would end the status quo or end the wars, but didnt he run on the meme of change? How is this change?

[Mari333]

8. but if you criticize Obama in here

you will immediately be told you are no better then Rush Limbaugh.
thank god not everyone walks in lockstep.

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. GOBAMA!

:eyes: Not walking in lockstep here. EVER! x(

[DainBramaged]

50. Rush likes little boys and is a drug addled hack

if you aren't him, you are better than him, but as to the criticisms, when those that criticize can come up with an alternative plan to change things for the better, we'll listen. Until then, you tune is flat.

[Threedifferentones]

80. ROFL

An alternative plan?

Boy, let's see how long this takes:

1. Stop fucking around in Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else. End the wars, close most of the bases, bring the troops home.

2. Do not pay anymore mercenaries ever.

WOW! I SHOULD BE FUCKING PRESIDENT!

Except, millions of us have been proposing this "alternative" for decades. Regardless of which party is in power, however, it does not happen.

The thing is, BO knows we all voted for him in the hopes he would do this. But, he also knows that there is a minimum standard of corruption for those that wish to be big time Federal politicians. Namely, we must have a huge army and a drug war, so that our industries of "defense" and "justice" remain placated.

[Mithreal]

100. Thanks. Now was that so hard, apologists?

Afghanistan is Obama's folly now. What the apologists don't seem to get is that those who disagree with the President on policy here at DU want him to succeed as much as anyone can want him to succeed.

Withdrawing US forces is not an alternative plan to the vultures, profiteers, and apologists though, so, Threedifferentones, your alternative will probably be dismissed outright as impractical or ignored by them, but of course, you know that.

I really would like the apologists to rationalize escalating Afghanistan and destabilizing and attacking Pakistan.

[Djinn]

142. most of the bases?

why not all?

[JohnnyLib2]

7. Disturbing.

Very disturbing.

[SHRED]

11. This is the stuff Olbermann, Maddow, etc...

...need to be screaming about.

Not if Bill O'Reilly had a bad hair day or not.

---

[biopowertoday]

45. yes, I wish they stick to serious issues and looking so petty as

I think they manytimes make all dems look petty. So often of late they contribute to the dumbing down of America.

[rcrush]

173. They wont

Not till its too late. Its corporate media they will do what they are told.

[bottomtheweaver]

12. And that's what it's all about.

Somebody has to get those no-bid cost-plus contracts to build bases, maintain them, supply endless shipments of provisions, weapons, equipment, more weapons, more equipment, and once you get the intel operators in the picture stoking the fires on behalf of their corporate clients, you don't even need a reason, or at least a plausible one.

[SHRED]

13. And how in the HELL...

...can we afford this?

We can't afford single-payer health but we can do this?

sick

[bottomtheweaver]

14. That's where you and I come in.

We "support the troops" with our taxes on future earnings and after all isn't freedom more important than affordable health care anyway?

[Mari333]

15. if he keeps this up he will lose a large part of his base

better get on the stick , Obama. wake up, dude. You're losing a lot of us.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. Corporate priorities reign supreme.

It would seem in this Country that if something benefits our Corporate Overlords, we have the money, which ends in nothing left for social needs. We're then told that we can't afford certain things like single-payer health care. All part of the plan, I guess

[Mari333]

19. You got it. nt

[jody]

24. Have you take the new pledge yet? See below.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. .

:patriot:

[arikara]

129. I can't even laugh at that

its unfortunately too true.

:(

[sandnsea]

16. He ran on fighting the war in Afghanistan

Why is anybody shocked that he's following through with fighting the war that we lost focus on when we went into Iraq. I wish he didn't have to use private military contractors, but you'd be screaming about him increasing the military if did that to take their place.

[bottomtheweaver]

21. But who do you think pays the military contractors?

And who do you think does the job for less, enlisted soldiers supplied by the Army or highly paid "contractors" supplied by highly profitable corporations?

[sandnsea]

33. If he increased the military

you'd be screaming about that too. People are shocked Obama isn't Green. I will never understand why people who aren't happy with the Democratic Party don't go build a Green Party.

[bottomtheweaver]

39. He ran on judgment. Letting military contractors run his foreign

policy does not show good judgment. The argument against using military contractors is exactly that: if he were limited to using our own forces, he WOULD use good judgment in his military adventures.

[sandnsea]

47. Letting al qaeda rebuild in Afghanistan

would be incredibly bad judgment. Reorganizing the military will take time. Still, if you oppose all war, you're in the wrong party.

[bottomtheweaver]

53. As Kerry pointed out long ago, politics is not a military function.

The Taliban is primarily a political organization and we have no business interfering with it militarily. Al quaida is a creature of the US-UK intel apparatus but even if it weren't, it wouldn't require the commitment of thousands of troops and contractors to Afghanistan to monitor. As to opposing wars:

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. . . . I’m opposed to a dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Where the HELL did that guy go?

[bvar22]

65. What you fail to realize:

Al Qaeda does NOT belong to ANY country or state.
If we are successful at making it too hot for them in Afghanistan, they simply move to another country in need of money from Saudi Arabia. There are many places on the Globe where their presence will be welcome,or at least tolerated.
We cannot police every single one.
Al Qaeda wil WIN this game.

The only way to defeat Al Qaeda is to deny them funding through International Law Enforcement.
This will necessarily begin with a confrontation with the Saudi Sheiks.

[SHRED]

66. excellent insight...may I quote you?

[acmavm]

75. Your 1st mistake: you tried to use intelligence and logic. Your second:

you were appealing to a sense of decency.

This is useless if you're criticizing Obama.

edit: Just shut down the computer, put on the blindfold, and repeat the mantra CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.

[alarimer]

99. Yes, there is no military solution to Al-Quaeda.

Or to the Taliban, for that matter.

The solution is political, by making it impossible for those groups to survive. We do this with foreign aid, NGOs and other non-military options. Sending in the military or the contractors is only going to increase the number of people who support those groups.

But Obama (and other Democratic leaders) are in thrall to the military (so as not to be accused of being wimps, I guess). And this is only going to bite us on the ass the next time there is an attack.

[Seldona]

67. Not to mention the explosion of the heroin trade.

I can live with a massive change in policy, with firm goals and a relatively firm end date. Not every mess the last administration left us is going to disappear if we simply go away.

I believe Powell was inadvertently right about one thing. "You break it, you buy it."

Afghanistan was run on the cheap, fought mainly with air-strikes due to lack of committed ground troops, and has largely failed in every sense of the word. The troops there have done their best at the uphill battle they have been expected to fight, but they don't have near the amount of resources to even stabilize the region.

Any gains in woman's rights they may have made will be swept away immediately as well if the Taliban is allowed to take the country over again.

I have 'skin in the game' so to speak. I have two family members that have done, or are in the process of doing, several tours between them. So far.

I want this to end as well. Fast. But it is going to take some serious resources to clean up the neglect and ineptitude of the last administration imo. Not to mention time. How much? I have no idea. I am not smart enough to even make a guess.

I hope this isn't more of the same old, same old.

[Hippo_Tron]

151. Truth is, nobody gives a shit when a blackwater mercenary gets killed

But if a US soldier gets killed, people get upset. The cold reality is that that probably has something to do with his decision.

[ImOnlySleeping]

161. that and

The military has run out of volunteers. So to expand they either a) draft or b) outsource. Of course that assumes you pre-exclude c) not expanding your military presence.

[axollot]

186. Agree. That's exactly what I was thinking too and it'll be a 'minute' before we untangle from them.n

[Djinn]

143. lost focus?

that can only make sense if you actually believed that war had anything to with toppling the Taliban and assisting in even a small way, the lives of the Afghan people. It didn't.

People who criticise the Iraq and Afghan wars as not being well planned are missing the point by a country mile. They have both been very successful in terms of their true aims.

A "friendly" (read supplicant) "government" installed, free market fundamentalism applied (the only laws in Iraq that were kept were Saddam's anti-union laws, everything else - limits on foreign ownership, limits on profit flight, tax laws etc all flew out the window in an economic year zero for the Miltonite droolers.

Hamid "there were many wonderful people in the Taliban" Karzai wont hamper access to central asian oil and gas, and wont make many loud noises about the FACT that life in Afghanistan, outside a tiny part of Kabul goes on exactly as it did pre US invasion.

The US did not lose focus in any way, they've always had their eye on the main game, it's just that many opponents of these wars seem ill informed about what that game really is.

[axollot]

185. Yep!!

[lazer47]

17. The Sky is Falling!! The Sky is Falling!!!,, Private Contractors

have been used since 1776, ever hear of the Hessians, they were the first our country used, anything can be abused, however using private contractors in a war zone is not all together a bad idea, The powers to be just have to use "oversight" that has already been granted to them,,Bush has proven to us, that even the Constitution can be abused, that doesn't mean that we give up on it, it takes responsibility of the Office for which our Congress and Senators were elected...and personally I think that we will get compliance from our elected DEMOCRAT MAJORITY......

[SHRED]

27. So an Obama war is a "good war"?

[lazer47]

35. It is not "OBAMAS " it is a war we are in, started by Bush/Cheeeeeeny

war is not and easy thing to get out of,, it is not just something you can walk away from,, War is never "GOOD" at best it is an abomination, but it is where we are and it has to be dealt with,,,

[SHRED]

38. is it a full fledged "war" now?

Seems like there is still time, before escalation, to back off.

OBTW: It will too be "Obama's war" this Summer. Just wait see how they label it.

[lazer47]

41. I agree it will probably become his war,, but we don't have to do the

blame like the REPUGS will before hand.

[roody]

94. It is an invasion and partial occupation.

[paulsby]

101. correct, but...

unlike iraq, obama made it clear MONTHS ago that he thought the war in afghanistan WAS a "good war", just executed poorly.

iow, i have little doubt, if obama is truthful, that he would have invaded afghanistan as well, after 911.

he just wouldn't have been stupid enough to do Iraq.

people who are surprised by his afghanistan actions/comments weren't paying attention

he is NOT anti-war.

[Thothmes]

188. It became "Obama's War" just as soon as he took the

oath of office as President of the United States. Every flag draped coffin, every burned out village, every dead or wounded Afghani or Pakistani that occured after inaugration day is his responisibility and his alone. He is the Commmander and Chief. The decision to pursue the war or not is his alone to make. He has made that decision, we will continue to make war in Afghanistan.

[sandnsea]

36. Going after al qaeda and Bin Laden is n/t

[Oak2004]

55. *We* did not use Hessians

The British used Hessians against us. They were exceptionally brutal and hated by the colonists.

I suppose I'll concede one point: we "used" Hessians and their behavior to recruit for the Revolution. Kinda like what the folks we're fighting right now are doing with Blackwater.

Mercenaries violate US and international law (something about how they undermine democracy and behave badly wherever they've been deployed). But, hey, because Democrats are "better" than Republicans, we don't need to follow the law???

[enuegii]

59. You might want to rethink that little gem...

about the Hessians as an example. Here's a hint... google the Battle of Trenton and see which side the Hessians fought on in the American Revolutionay War.

[Enthusiast]

158. You are just wrong.

The Hessians were brought here by the British.

[rockymountaindem]

69. The Hessians were used by the British empire against the Continental Army

We fought *against* them. In fact, the use of foreign mercenaries on our soil was one of the complaints of the Declaration of Independence. Get your facts straight.

[lazer47]

72. I posted the wording wrong,, My point was that they are nothing new

My Bad,,,,,

[rockymountaindem]

73. Of course mercs are nothing new

The fact that their use is one thing our founding fathers specifically objected to might suggest that we should generally be against using them, but what do I know?

[lazer47]

74. It becomes one of those things, "that are a necessary evil"

I don't think in most cases that they are "combat",, but are used as "supply chain contractors",, Truck drivers, cooks, civil engineers,, and various trades,, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a little late to shut them all down,, they must be monitored very closely,,,,But like you "what the hell do I know"

[paulsby]

102. i almost worked for one

dyncorp. as a police trainer.

imo, that is an important function.

that, of course, was not a "war thang" but a train the police in the new govt. thang.

[Solon]

76. Uhm, you do realize the Hessians were on the British side in that war, right?

Also, they weren't mercenaries, but debtors, convicts, and others who were conscripted, they didn't volunteer. I cannot believe you are this ignorant of history.

[lazer47]

77. I am not only that Ignorant, but just as ignorant as to how I worded it,,

[Ikonoklast]

90. The Soldiers from Hesse were British mercenaries.

Hessians fought on the side of the Monarchy against the Revolution.

One of the reasons the British failed was the hatred of the use of Hessian mercenaries by King George by the civilian population and the virulent response by the Continental Army when confronted by 'foreign' troops on American soil.

[Time for change]

92. The Hessians were used by the British, not by the U.S.

Edited to note that a few people already noted that.

[bertman]

105. The Hessians were employed by the BRITISH during the Revolutionary War. It was always

the policy of the United States to use citizen volunteers or conscripts to fight its wars until the decision to go to an all-volunteer force was made after the Vietnam war showed that the widespread use of conscription could lead to massive public opposition.

We DO NOT NEED MERCENARIES to fight for the U.S. They are used for four reasons: 1) to prevent a draft of civilians and the massive emotional involvement of our citizenry in the negative aspects of a war; 2) to facilitate the employment of fighters who are not under the command and rules of the U.S. military hierarchy, and who therefore can be used in ways that our military personnel cannot; 3) to establish a privately-owned, highly-profitable, and largely unaccountable-to-anyone, funnel for MIC funds; 4) to allow for the use of a force within the borders of the U.S. that has no allegiance to the Constitution of the U.S. or to the citizens of the U.S.

By jettisoning the concept of citizen-soldiers who have pledged an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the country, our lawmakers are endangering our democracy IN THE EXTREME.

[aggiesal]

133. Ummmm, the Hessians fought with the British, not with the ...

American Revolutionaries.

Also, the Hessians were not considered mercenaries.

The American Revolutionaries were helped by the French military.

And yes it is an extremely bad idea. When we as a nation decide to use
a private army 2 things happen.
First, private armies are much more expensive so our tax dollars are wasted.
Second, they have no chain of command, and thus are accountable to nobody.
In Iraq, no law applies to them. So they can literally run lawless, which they have.
We have lost the moral high ground. In the future, every nation will remind us
of this.

[Djinn]

144. so if it's been happening for a long time

or more accurately happened in the past, it's OK. Does that mean I can have slaves?

[martymar64]

154. Um, Hessians were mercenaries for the British, our enemies

If you're going to use historical examples, at least get your facts right.

[QC]

166. The Brits used the Hessians against us, and sending out mercenaries to kill

their own countrymen was one of the things Americans hated most about George III.

[katandmoon]

20. Awww, Obama wants an Iraq of his very own!

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. .

:evilgrin: And he'll have it too! Along with one term as president.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Being a hawk has now become fashionable on DU and in the White House.

[Mari333]

25. chickenhawk is more like it

"I dont mind sending your kids to war, but I wont send mine...or myself, for that matter"....funny how I used to yell about the freepers being warmongers and chickenhawks, but now that Obama is in its suddenly de rigeur to maim and kill..as long as you do it from the safety of your recliner.

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. I wonder, if after seven more years of war, DU'ers will start demanding that Malia enlist.

Or that President Obama draft her to serve in the Armed Forces.

What goes around, comes around...

[SHRED]

46. I will

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. So will I. And hey, enlistment age is 17 with parental consent. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

152. If soldiers are coming back in body bags 7 years from now, I will...

But I doubt that is going to happen. Obama's objectives in Afghanistan seem narrow and reasonable. I don't think he's looking to conquer the country.

[martymar64]

155. Exactly, they're hawks until it's time to send their kids off to die

Love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal.
Phil Ochs was right.

[paulsby]

103. itr was ALWAYS fashionable

with obama.

where were you when he was running?

he made it clear he supported a war in afghanistan.

nothing new here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. So?

He was wrong when he was running and remains wrong now.

[paulsby]

109. i have no problem with that

i have a problem with people thinking this is somehow inconsistent for obama, or a surprise, or whatever.

it is consistent with everything he said when he RAN for president.

i have no problem with people opposing it, just with them saying this is some sort of abandonment of his principles, stated goals, or beliefs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. We agree. Obama was a hawk while he was running.

What I find interesting is the inconsistency of many DU'ers when it was opposed as "Bush's war" but now find it acceptable to kill people because "our" guy is in charge.

[paulsby]

111. i agree

that is absurd.

fwiw, i supported the afghanistan invasion when bush did it, so *i* am not inconsistent in supporting it now.

but i know there are lots of people who thought afghanistan was wrong, and who are now a bit more... how can i put this delicately... "ambivalent" about it now.

[Two Americas]

177. few do

Few people, if any, who are speaking out against the war were "surprised" or claiming that Obama was inconsistent.

By characterizing the critics as being surprise, or saying that they are claiming that Obama was inconsistent, there provides a convenient way to criticize and attack them. So we hear over and over again - "why are you surprised? He always said he would do this."

People are opposed to the war, whether or not it is consistent with what the candidate said on the campaign trail, and whether it not they are surprised.

What people are trying to do is to say that because people should not be surprised (and allegedly are surprised) and since Obama has been consistent, that therefore their criticism of the war is not valid and should be ignored or dismissed.


...

[paulsby]

178. not at all

again, i am pointing out those who somehow think obama is being inconsistent or not being all "hopey change" or whatnot for supporting the war in afghanistan.

there are plenty such comments going around.

i am NOT saying people's criticisms of the war aren't valid. i happen to support the war, but those criticisms are perfectly valid.

[Two Americas]

180. still not true

People are not expressing their own surprise, but rather pointing out the inconsistency of those who vehemently claimed Obama was an anti-war candidate before the election, and now claim that he was always pro-war.

Those speaking out against the war now often were saying before the election that Obama was not an anti-war candidate. People attacking the opponents of the war now were saying before the election that he was anti-war and were beating up any who disagreed with that.


...

[Two Americas]

179. practically no one does

It gets repeated here again and again that opponents of the war are "surprised" and are accusing Obama of "being inconsistent." That is just a way to discredit them.

[paulsby]

181. no, it's a way to point out that on that point they are wrong

it has little to do with discrediting their argument against the war.

it has to do with pointing out that those who claim obama is betraying his principles by supporting it are WRONG.

[Two Americas]

182. still, few if any do that

Few, if any people here "claim Obama is betraying his principles by supporting it."

Many are claiming that the opponents of the war are saying that, though. That certainly does serve to discredit opponents of the war, whatever the intention may be of spreading that false idea around.


...

[paulsby]

183. "few if ANY"

are you serious.

are you actually reading what people post here?

[bottomtheweaver]

187. The fact remains that he positioned himself as anti-war in the debates

both with Clinton and McCain by hitting the "judgment" point and mentioning his 2002 speech which isn't anti-war either, I know. But I don't think it can be said that his campaign didn't intentionally exploit opposition to the Iraq war to help secure his victory.

[Two Americas]

189. yes

Where are people claiming that Obama is betraying his principles?

I believe that you are sincere, and that you think people are saying that. But most, of not all, of the people expressing opposition to the war said before the election that Obama was not an anti-war candidate.

Some of the same people who claimed that Obama was the anti-war candidate before the election are now saying that he was never anti-war, and that none of us should be surprised and none of us should claim he has changed his position.

The very same people who were saying before the election "how dare you accuse Obama of not being anti-war?" are now saying "how dare you accuse Obama of changing his mind? He was never opposed to the war. Why would you be surprised? He is doing what he said he would do."

But I don't think any of us are. Before the election I said I was opposed to the war, and that Obama was not. I was attacked for that because I was wrong - he was anti-war, they said. Today I am saying I am opposed to the war, and Obama is not. I am now attacked for that, because I "shouldn't be surprised," because he was never an anti-war candidate, so I shouldn't accuse him of changing.

I am not surprised, I have not accused Obama of changing. I am against the war, just as I was before the election, and I am saying the same things now that I said then.

Had Clinton, or McCain, or anyone else been elected, and were they pursuing the same policy, I would be saying exactly the same things.


...

[fascisthunter]

28. very bad move... our forefathers would be turning in their graves right now

[philly_bob]

29. My hope is that he'll get Osama Bin Laden, then withdraw.

That would make sense.

[SHRED]

30. as if that would stop the Taliban?

[philly_bob]

57. No, it wouldn't. Would embarass Republicans & build defense credibility. n/t

[Brucie Kibbutz]

120. That's why we wage war.

To embarrass people and improve our image.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFmMGYv3mag :patriot:

[rcrush]

174. and to find a dead guy

We need to find that 8 year old corpse ASAP!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

79. And how is he supposed to get a dead man? Bin Laden as been dead

for Years.

[philly_bob]

82. Forensics on a disinterred corpse would satisfy me.

Remember: we're dealing with premeditated murder of 3000 people. Bush & Co. dealt with it as an international political issue, but if you view it as a criminal issue, I think it's clear you have to either apprehend the criminal or come up with evidence that he's dead.

How about a "Case Closed" for Obama?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

84. Are you aware that Bin Laden isn't on the FBI wanted list for

9/11?

As to his corpse? How many lives are you willing to sacrifice for that?

BTW.... Benezir Bhutto in an interview before her assassination said Bin Laden was dead. The interviewer was David Frost and it's available on youtube.

Bin Laden also had severe kidney disease. Are you aware there were two sighting of him in hospitals prior to 9/11? One hospital was in Kuwait and supposedly he met with the CIA. Then CBS News uncovered and did a segment on how Bin Laden was at a Pakistan ISI hospital being treated on of all days, 9/10/2001.

[philly_bob]

93. Question of Bin Laden's health seems irrelevant. Question is Obama's motive.

Yes, I've heard speculation that Osama is dead. You recite those reports like Bin Laden's medical health settles the matter of why Obama is increasing forces Afghanistan.

Do you think I'm saying: "I believe we should send more troops to Afghanistan to catch or disinter Osama"? I'm not. I'm trying to understand why Obama's doing it. It seems like a bonehead play and I don't think Obama's been making many bonehead plays. I think he has a strategy, and I'm speculating about what that strategy is.

Why do YOU think Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan?

Oh, and easy on the rhetoric, friend. "How many lives are you willing to sacrifice, etc." Come on.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

112. I was against going into Afghanistan in the first part. I am a Pacificist and it also seemed

insane to me to invade a country to go after one man. Then I read that the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to a third party country. I later discovered that just prior to 9/11, the talks between the Taliban and the US concerning an oil/gas pipeline broke down. http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

Afghanistan had nothing and still has nothing to do with Bin Laden and I think it's insane for Obama to sink us into that quagmire. Why is he doing it? So far, many of the moves he's made favor corporations, and I'm finding him a brilliant, kinder and gentler version of Shrub.

[philly_bob]

124. I thought Bin Laden hid in Afghanistan and Al Quaeda had camps there.

But our disagreement is not about facts.

You are an idealist, a pacifist, and I salute you for that.

I'm a weary old cynic, professionally a realist.

On Obama & Afghanistan, I can only hope the economics will dissuade Obama -- and the corporations you believe he fronts for -- from further sinking into a quagmire. That's why I hoped he had a strategy for a quick expedition and retreat.

I checked out your source <www.ringnebula.com>. It's a good compilation of left-wing sources. I agree generally with most of its positions, although I note that it does not clearly identify who is behind it. (But it's feminist tilt means it's probably not a dissembling Stalinist front group.)

Nice talking to you, Ommmm. I hope the world becomes more the way you see it and less the way I see it.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

139. And 9/11 was an inside job. I too can say things without a shred of evidence.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

192. Benezir Bhutto said it as a matter of fact when being interviewed by David Frost.

The interview is up at youtube.

I would think she would have known something about that part of the world.

[Tim01]

31. Now wait a minute. He really did say he would do this, more or less.

He said he would finish the job in Iraq and get out. Then DO the job in Afghanistan. That will mean more troops there, no way around it.
And if he uses 10,000 private contractors, that is 10,000 troops he doesn't actually have to admit to.
But he did say there was going to be more work in Afghanistan.

[SHRED]

32. and we have a right to protest it

[Tim01]

34. No argument there.

[bottomtheweaver]

37. Yes he did, but then he also ran on judgement

and committing endless resources to an endless war does not show good judgement. For example: when ARE we done? When we've exterminated the population of Afghanistan?

[Tim01]

40. Well, I actually think this is where the real deception starts.

I think there is no plan to really get out of Iraq. We will enjoy a lot of benefits from having control of that country.
And I think we will be more like a police force in Afghanistan.
Plans to get out = outright lies.

[liberalmuse]

42. I guess his keeping Gates was our first clue.

Shit.

[tuckessee]

43. Z-Big was the first clue.

Gates was absolute proof.

[Mari333]

48. we need to call them by their real name..MERCENARIES nt

[Tim01]

56. I think you are mistaken about them.

A mercenary doesn't care who they wage war for as long as they get paid. Our private contractors are former american soldiers who are now working for the american govt in the private sector.

[Mari333]

58. thats funny because the article states

that many of the mercenaries..ooo excuse me, contractors, are NOT US citizens, but have been hired from other countries.

[Tim01]

62. If they have no loyalties as a soldier they are mercenaries.

But American soldiers who are now in the private sector are not mercenaries.

No need for such flamboyant sarcasm, I'm just trying to talk here.

[Solon]

83. How do we know? American soldiers who go private are no less susceptible to greed...

than anyone else in the world.

[Tim01]

86. I actually know soldiers, and contractors.

The ones I know are American soldiers no matter who is paying them. They are loyal to their country. They will not work against Americans. If they can't get a job in the military sector they go back to driving a drywall truck or whatever their civilian job is. They do not consider shopping for a new warlord to work for.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

116. They don't have to look for a new warlord.

They already work for the world's largest.

[Djinn]

145. then they should REJOIN the army

not make a motza as merc's - if they're so in to fighting for the US people they could even start a campaign to get them national healthcare.

They are hired guns - they shoot brown people for money. They are scum.

[DainBramaged]

49. WAIT, let me add this to the list of things Obama is to blame for

War, check

Economy, check

Joblessness, check

Baldness, check

toe fungus, check........

[lonestarnot]

51. Are you forgetting who started this bullshit? And then just let it drain us for these many years?

Now if we are to believe reporting coming from there, Al Queda, is strengthening, so what are we to do just ignore them? Besides I hate the way those motherfuckers treat women.

[Mari333]

54. yes we ignore them

al queda is everywhere..and yes, the longer we are occupying their lands the more they grow because we are occupying their lands.. and saudi arabia treats women like shit but we suck their dicks.
so its all about a fucking pipeline .
and its not our fucking job to change the way they treat women. its their country let them figure it out for themselves.
this whole fucking quagmire is about corporate interests and throwing taxpayer money at people to bring them over to our side to keep our puppet govt we install in power.
the usa will go bankrupt playing 'empire.' i hope it does.

[lonestarnot]

60. Oh that's nice, hoping we go bankrupt. Bullshit to that. The financiers of this country will see

to that! I agree with its their country, let them figure it out for themselves as far as their women are concerned. If they don't rebel, it's their fucking problem, but I have no sympathy for the bastards we knock off while we're there.

[Mari333]

63. sigh. armchair keyboard warrior. nt

[lonestarnot]

64. armchair label maker.

:eyes:

[Djinn]

146. do a little reasearch into the people your government

installed and are currently supporting. Many of them were every bit as guilty as the Taliban on the treatment of women score.

The US has installed notorious warlords into positions of even greater power. Afghan women outside of Kabul are NO BETTER OFF.

[JohnnyLib2]

61. So when does the west coast Obama defense team check in?

This is the sharpest criticism I've noticed yet on good old DU. Staying tuned.....

[OneBlueSky]

68. what is it about the word "quagmire" that Obama doesn't understand? . . .

look what happened to the Russians in Afghanistan . . . does he actually think that there can be some kind of American "victory" there? . . . if so, he's delusional . . .

[HughMoran]

165. If you had been paying attention, "victory" has nothing to do with it

You'd have to be a moron & not listening to what he's saying to think that he's simply trying to "be like Bush" in this regard. His goals are simple and there is, and never has been, the simplistic "victory" viewpoint expressed EVER in his detailed description of what our objectives are.

[liberalsince1968]

70. Somewhere chimpy is drunkenly chortling.

[SammyWinstonJack]

71. .

:evilgrin:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

78. Quiz! What war helped to bring the USSR to it's knees?

Afghanistan stole the morale of its (USSR) army and leeched the treasury and history has a little nagging habit of repeating itself.

IMHO, we had no right to invade Afghanistan in the first place. The Taliban were willing to turn Bin Laden over to a 3rd party country. There were already forces on the border of Afghanistan waiting to invade Before 9/11. Why? Please read

A TIMELINE OF OIL AND VIOLENCE

AFGHANISTAN

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

[LWolf]

81. K & R.

:grr:

[Pastiche423]

85. Disgusting

It's Obama's war now! He's the decider now and he has decided to escalate the war that never should have been.

[ProgressIn2008]

88. Come you masters of war. You that build all the guns. You that build the death planes. nt

[AZBlue]

89. JIM HIGHTOWER? Simply by posting that I'd say you've thrown suspicion on yourself.

[QC]

97. Jim Hightower is an enemy of the people. n/t

[scarletwoman]

114. What the hell are you talking about?

Jim Hightower is one of the most progressive activists and dedicated truthtellers alive. You think that posting one of his articles is cause for "suspicion"?!?!

That's like saying posting lyrics from a Woody Guthrie song is cause for suspicion -- to Senator Joe McCarthy, maybe, but I can't imagine why any supposed liberal would think so.

sw

[Brucie Kibbutz]

117. That's why the bots don't like him.

Because in this case, the truth doesn't reflect well on their favorite celebrity.

[Richd506]

91. I honestly don't know why people are so surprised

Obama said over and over again during the campaign that he was going to send more troops into Afghanistan. Was anyone paying any attention?

[Two Americas]

107. "surprise"

People are not necessarily "surprised" when they express opposition to privatized mercenary armies.

Although I wonder how many people, back during the primaries, anticipated an expansion in the use of privatized armies under any Democratic administration.

I don't see what difference it makes whether not nor people are "surprised." We can oppose the war regardless of what the politicians said on the campaign trail.



...

[Brucie Kibbutz]

119. He can make bad decisions with impunity

because he never said he'd do otherwise during the campaign. :crazy:

[1badjedi]

118. I don't understand either.

He specifically said on many of his campaign stops that afghanistan was not over and he would make sure things were finished there. He never said anything about suspending all operations there. In fact he even made overtones towards following the taliban into pakistan if that is what it takes.

It does seem though that not many were paying attention at all. They were picking and choosing what they wanted to hear. I certainly heard it all but I voted for him anyway due to mccain being too stupid to breathe without an aide reminding him to.

btw it seems too many people either forget or just do not know how we used and abused these people during the height of the cold war. If anything we owe them a chance at some kind of life outside taliban abuses that came after the soviets shipped out. We also need to save them from that taliban flunky karzai that bushco propped up. He is about as trustworthy as a rabid dog. That guy has way too many fond memories of the taliban and it does not benefit the afghan people.

[scarletwoman]

121. "taliban flunky karzai" Huh? Karzai is an oil company flunky, not a Taliban flunky!

He used to work for UNOCAL. He's a creature of the Neocons through and through.

[Djinn]

147. he was originally a big Taliban supporter

when the Taliban finally took control of Kabul they were welcomed by MANY because people wanted an end to the interminable civil war and the lawless banditry and violence of the NA and random warlord factions. He did withdraw his support however and refused an diplomatic posting.

We simply swapped one bunch of misogynist throwbacks for another, Karzai now sits in government with rapists, murderers and thieves, happilly.

[martymar64]

156. Then feel free to ship out to Khandahar, or send your kids

Everything that the Taliban does, so does Saudi Arabia. I don't see you clamoring to invade and overthrow them.

This is an imperialist war and we will lose, the way the Soviets, the British and Alexander the Great did.

[ColbertWatcher]

95. When will the privatization crap end? k+r, n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

96. From what I've heard

Obama has no plans to alter the landscape in Iraq as relates to mercenaries. Anyone have different info?

[Grinchie]

98. He's throwing Hilary a bone.

The DLC has infected the administration effectively, and they are demanding payment for their Corporate puppeteers.

The Afghanistan issues just shows how tenuous the Govermnet's controls are on our overbloated, arrogant military. They are most likely signalling to the Military/Industrial complex that this may be the last frickin war the American Public will finance, and that they better start looking for another line of work.

I think Obama knows that he could not withstand the attacks coming from the Military/Corporate complex if he said, that's enough, go do something else. The layoffs and catastrophic effects on the people that are chained to the money provided by the beast would revolt.

[Marie26]

104. But this shouldn't be surprising

Yeesh. During the campaign, Obama said that he wouldn't rule out using private mercenaries. It's not like he lied about this.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

[Brucie Kibbutz]

123. Is it a debate about whether people should be surprised

or is it a debate about whether it's a good idea or not?

[Karmadillo]

106. If only the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress, this would not

be happening.

[SpartanDem]

113. You would be right

if Obama planned on handing out these contracts the same way Bush did. What Hightower neglected to mention was that Obama said yesterday and has said many times before that the no bid contract days are over. Of course, if you're entirely opposed to contractors this probably does make a lot difference to you, but I only thought it fair to point this out.

From yesterday:

As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the special inspector generals for Afghan Reconstruction

[Brucie Kibbutz]

127. That has nothing to do with it.

The number of companies that the government considers eligible for the job, however many or however few, is irrelevant to Hightower's argument. In fact, the article points out that there are a large number of firms in the running for these new contracts so I don't see where you get the idea that he's at all worried about no bid contracts. Try to follow along.

Oh, BTW, its President Obama.

[Djinn]

148. plain old Obama to me

the weird necessity to add someone's political position before their name and the unquestioning respect afforded to elected representatives is a peculiarly American thing. Where I'm from people are expected to earn respect it is not given for nothing. So you'll have to forgive my blasphemy, my own PM gets called Kevvie on a good day KRudd on bad ones, can't see myself doing any different for BO.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

149. guess I should have used the

:sarcasm:

[Djinn]

150. it wasn't specifically directed at you

I actually assumed you were being sarcastic - it was a more broad point and just something that's always struck me as weird when talking to Americans/visiting America

[Brucie Kibbutz]

153. It might take me a while

but I catch on eventually.

[HughMoran]

164. More like "SNARKASM"

:eyes:

[Brucie Kibbutz]

115. Six figure salaries for mercenaries will help our economy.

:patriot:

[Dystopian]

122. KandR.

Change. One shitty diaper for another.


peace~

[newtothegame]

125. NanceGreggs says no criticizing the President so KNOCK IT OFF n/t

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

140. Criticize all you want. Just don't expect those that disagree with you to not challenge your views.

[Lena inRI]

168. Bwahahahahahaha. . .great zinger. .

. . .insightful precision at its best.

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

[mr1956]

128. I doubt this administration will be using the usual suspects

Though the opening paragraphs of the story insinuate the use of discredited American contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater / XE the article goes on to say:

"Meanwhile, here's an interesting twist to Obama's contractor surge: the for-hire guards protecting our bases and convoys will not likely be Americans. The Associated Press has reported that of the 3,847 security contractors in Afghanistan, only nine are U.S. firms.

Actually, being an American contractor is not a plus in the eyes of the Afghan people, for they've had bitter experiences with them. They point to DynCorp,... (who) got another contract ($317 million) last August to "continue training civilian police forces in Afghanistan."

I think more information is needed to fully understand what this new privatized army looks like, the costs of our agreements with them or if any are hold overs from the previous administration. Until then, I will hold my judgement. But I will be listening and watching with a critical eye.

[Two Americas]

176. wonderful

New and improved private armies? And that might make it OK, because that would be "better" than what Bush did?

This is very sad. We have been hearing again and again from the self-described Obama "supporters" that the administration will be neither left or right, but pragmatic and competent.

But the problem with Bush private armies is not that they were incompetent, or discredited, or ineffective. There is a principle involved.

We can now see that the tossing away "right and left" really means tossing away principles, and the pragmatic and competence arguments are to distract us from just what it is we are being pragmatic and competent about.

Are we to support Democrats because they are more competent and pragmatic at executing the same policies that the Bush administration did?


...

[caseymoz]

130. He said in the campaign that he was going to do this.

[SHRED]

135. but question is...

...Is it the right thing to do?

[caseymoz]

175. Of course that's the question.

I'm not trying to evade it, I am just saying that we can't be surprised at this.

[martymar64]

157. Still doesn't make it right. It's not Malia and Sasha that have to serve, so it's OK

This is an imperialist war and we will lose, just like the Soviets did there and just like we did in Vietnam.

[4turePrez]

132. Okay, for all you people FREAKING OUT at Obama

Here's the real scoop:

I am in the military, getting ready to go on my third tour to Iraq here in about a month. I know this shit first hand.

You all hear the word contractor and immediately think of crazed civilians with black uniforms wielding sub machine guns and running around killing babies. This is not the case. However, the use of civilian contractors highlights serious flaw within our military and our direction as a country:

1. Civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan do everything. Cook our food, wash our clothes, clean our bathrooms, supply our water, transport our goods, build our bases, repair our bases, guard our areas, guard our bases, repair our aircraft, maintain our records, cut our hair, manage our money, collect our trash, etc etc.

2. The military as it stands right now is too small to sustain the operations that are needed to combat the war on terror. Therefore its numbers are subsidized by civilians.

3. If you dint want civilian contractors, be prepared for a draft.

4. If we get into a war with any country that is worth a damn militarily, be prepared to lose.

Our military machine is severely flawed and gimped by the successive political agendas that have impacted it over the last 30 years. Constantly being pushed and pulled in the direction of the political wind at any given time, thus losing its identity. However, it's core is still there, doing is best every day. I just wish you damn people would wake the hell up and realize that were fighting a war that needs 500k soldiers, with less than 200k soldiers. Also, I believe that war is never a solution, and that yeah there are plenty of alternative solutions to crisis such as afghanistan and Iraq. However, the Taliban and Al-Que-da need to be confronted is several different manners, one of them militarily...and I don't see anyone else worth a damn in the world standing up and doing the dirty work. Like they said...the only way Evil can triumph is for good men to do nothing.

So...instead of crying about how Obama betrayed you and all government is corrupt and this and that, let me hear a solution to eliminating the threat of Al-Que-da and the Taliban within a framework that doesn't create an uncontrollable escalation of violence within the region? Stop crying on forums and start doing something to change things.

[bottomtheweaver]

134. There is no war on terror.

I know, they don't tell you that in the military, but that's why we're objecting. The WOT is a sham and not a hard one to see through. What is it's purpose you wonder? Basically to find an excuse to enrich the corporations supplying all that equipment and the contractors you see scurrying around.

[1776Forever]

162. I understand what you are saying - But I would like to see less & less of this kind of support soon.

I prefer that we get more support from around the world through the United Nations and that we put a huge chain around the PMC's that is not there now! I contend that the huge outlays that are given to these "contractors" has not had any over site in the past and I would like to see more of it! While our Military personnel are working under a code of ethics these PMCs go on without one. They haven't even been held accountable for many many abuses in the past. I am following this last court case as best I can where some of the PMCs personnel have been put in a court case over killing in 2007.

Here is a list of tragedies involving PMCs in Iraq from wikipedia:

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

* Employees of private military company CACI and Titan Corp. were involved in the Iraq Abu Ghraib prison scandal in 2003, and 2004. The U.S. Army "found that contractors were involved in 36 percent of the proven incidents and identified 6 employees as individually culpable",<19> although none have faced prosecution unlike US military personnel.<19>

* On March 31, 2004, four American private contractors belonging to the company Blackwater USA were killed by citizens of Fallujah as they drove through the town. They were dragged from their car in one of the most violent attacks on U.S. citizens in the conflict. Following the attack, an angry mob mutilated and burned the bodies, dragging them through the streets before they were hung on a bridge. (See also: 31 March 2004 Fallujah ambush, Operation Vigilant Resolve)

* On March 28, 2005, 16 American contractors and three Iraqi aides from Zapata Engineering, under contract to the US Army Corps of Engineers to manage an ammunition storage depot, were detained following two incidents in which they allegedly fired upon U.S. Marine checkpoint. While later released, the civilian contractors have levied complaints of mistreatment against the Marines who detained them.

* On June 5, 2005, Colonel Theodore S. Westhusing committed suicide, after writing a report exonerating US Investigations Services of allegations of fraud, waste and abuse he received in an anonymous letter in May.

* On October 27, 2005, a "trophy" video, complete with post-production Elvis music, appearing to show private military contractors in Baghdad shooting Iraqi civilians sparked two investigations after it was posted on the Internet.<20><21><22> The video has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services. According to the posters, the man who is seen shooting vehicles on this video in Iraq was a South African employee of Aegis Victory team named Danny Heydenreycher. He served in the British military for six years. After the incident the regional director for Victory ROC tried to fire Heydenreycher, but the team threatened to resign if he did. As of December 2005, Aegis is conducting a formal inquiry into the issue, although some concerns on its impartiality have been raised.

* On September 17, 2007, the Iraqi government announced that it was revoking the license of the American security firm Blackwater USA over the firm's involvement in the deaths of eight civilians in a firefight that followed a car bomb explosion near a State Department motorcade. Blackwater is currently one of the most high-profile firms operating in Iraq, with around 1,000 employees as well as a fleet of helicopters in the country. Whether the group may be legally prosecuted is still a matter of debate.<23>

..........

The fact that these PMCs have been paid huge amounts over and above what we pay our military personnel also is a disgrace! I think this has eroded our Military personnel because those who might have stayed in see an opportunity to get paid up to 4 times as much with this companies and move to them.

There are many questions that need to be answered in this policy move and for one will be listening and hoping someone will be asking this question at the next news conference!

.....

I salute you for your service to our nation! From the mother of 2 who have had boots on the ground in Iraq 1 and 2.

Blessings to you and your family!

:patriot:

[Tim01]

167. Thanks for the thoughtful post. Stay safe over there.

I don't think you are going to get many good responses to your very realistic post. It is easy for people to whine about how they don't like how things are. But whiners rarely have a better solution.

Personally,
I am trying to do my part to use less oil. I think the bad guys would have no interest in us if our oil companies and our govt. were not there exerting influence in their countries.
But if we are running a war anyway, behave more like a conquering country. Take the oil we need, make our own country strong, then worry about fixing their country. Yeah, I know, the rest of the world wouldn't like it.
After our own economy is no longer going down in flames we can build schools and roads over there. We can't help them, and save ourselves, and run operations all over the globe all at the same time.
Let the military do its job.

Really, I think if we would put forth a real effort to reduce our oil usage, the rest of it would fix itself.

[aggiesal]

172. Everything in 1. was originally supplied ...

by the military itself.

When Cheney was the Secretary of Defense for Bush 1,
he started privatizing segments of the military, starting with supply.
http://thehill.com/josh-marshall/privatizing-the-military-2007-09-28.html

Except now the cost is 10X greater than when the military did it.

No, we don't need private armies (i.e. civilian mercenaries).

Military take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Private armies take no oath, have not chain of command, and
they're corporate handlers only care about profit.

[leftstreet]

137. K&R

[Skittles]

138. disgusting

[Hubert Flottz]

159. When will the president fire Gates?(Bush/Cheney's boy)

[Honeycombe8]

160. Freerepublic thanks you for your post, but is angry it had to go looking for it here.

nt

[Djinn]

190. some might say

that the right wing shills advising Obama and the people who'll make money from the use of mercenaries to fight America's imperial wars will be very happy to see YOUR post, but will be bemused to find it on a supposedly progressive site :eyes:

[Runcible Spoon]

170. Dispicable. COME MARCH THIS SATURDAY APRIL 4 MULTI CITY PROTESTS

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

[SlingBlade]

171. I must be getting close

Do you have that dam petition ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5351541

[axollot]

184. Obama was pretty open about Afganistan through out the campaign. n/t

[certainot]

191. anyone really think immediately pulling a major plug on the US military/indust

trial complex in the first two months of the first black president's first term, while the GOP media and a talk radio monopoly and the limbaugh dems are just waiting for any excuse, while the GOP-sabotaged economy is ready to fall apart, is a good idea?

especially with most dems thinking the blogs can make up for the talk radio monopoly that's been dominating US politics for the last 20 years.