I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 22, 2024, 05:53:52 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
532606 Posts in 33561 Topics by 12678 Members
Latest Member: astrobridge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  I Hate Dialysis Message Board
|-+  Off-Topic
| |-+  Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want.
| | |-+  The war in Iraq infuriates me!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Go Down Print
Author Topic: The war in Iraq infuriates me!  (Read 23046 times)
Bill Peckham
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3057


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 01, 2007, 07:09:34 PM »



That's exactly the point. We did not have to resolve anything. We had plenty of other things to take care of, we could have lived with the situation as is, threatening more effectively after our quick success in Afghanistan. If he had not blundered into Iraq our quick success in Afghanistan would have been an effective motivator to people like Saddam.

We managed to tolerate the Soviets for 40 years without seeking some final resolution. We've managed to live with Castro 90 miles from the US mainland for 50 years without resolving that situation. We've managed to live with North Korea - no one's wackier then Kim il Sung - without seeking to resolve the Korean war. Iraq had no solution, it should be clear that one could not "resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam" no matter what you did. What more evidence could one possibly need?


So it should not have been resolved despite time and time again Saddam committing acts of war and terror on the US and his forbidden association with terrorists. 

As to the soviets, castro and N korea there are vast differences in them compared to saddam.



You're using the wrong tense, nothing has been resolved. We've traded one problem or set of problems for a worse set of problems.

We have yet to solve a single problem.

I am saying it should not have been tried. The chance for success was too small; the price of failure too high.

Of course each situation has its own unique details but there is a continuum and Saddam was somewhere between Castro and Sung.
Logged

http://www.billpeckham.com  "Dialysis from the sharp end of the needle" tracking  industry news and trends - in advocacy, reimbursement, politics and the provision of dialysis
Incenter Hemodialysis: 1990 - 2001
Home Hemodialysis: 2001 - Present
NxStage System One Cycler 2007 - Present
        * 4 to 6 days a week 30 Liters (using PureFlow) @ ~250 Qb ~ 8 hour per treatment FF~28
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #76 on: June 02, 2007, 12:48:30 PM »

You're using the wrong tense, nothing has been resolved. We've traded one problem or set of problems for a worse set of problems.

We have yet to solve a single problem.

I am saying it should not have been tried. The chance for success was too small; the price of failure too high.

Of course each situation has its own unique details but there is a continuum and Saddam was somewhere between Castro and Sung.

Saddam is no more and is no longer a threat.  That issue is resolved. 

The problem with al-qaeda existed before this action and was already a problem.

I do suppose if you were to eliminate most of saddams history then one could claim he fell between castro and sung.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 12:59:08 PM by BigSky » Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #77 on: June 02, 2007, 01:37:11 PM »

The ousting of one man is an issue resolved?

And what exactly did that accomplish?
Logged
Bill Peckham
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3057


WWW
« Reply #78 on: June 02, 2007, 02:09:07 PM »

You're using the wrong tense, nothing has been resolved. We've traded one problem or set of problems for a worse set of problems.

We have yet to solve a single problem.

I am saying it should not have been tried. The chance for success was too small; the price of failure too high.

Of course each situation has its own unique details but there is a continuum and Saddam was somewhere between Castro and Sung.

Saddam is no more and is no longer a threat.  That issue is resolved. 

The problem with al-qaeda existed before this action and was already a problem.

I do suppose if you were to eliminate most of saddams history then one could claim he fell between castro and sung.


I think you're confusing a tactic <deposing Saddam> with a strategy <bring democratic example to the Arab Middle East> because you've lost sight of the mission <create a world more amenable to American interest>

It's a common mistake to think tactics are strategy; it is less common for people to mistake tactics for mission.
Logged

http://www.billpeckham.com  "Dialysis from the sharp end of the needle" tracking  industry news and trends - in advocacy, reimbursement, politics and the provision of dialysis
Incenter Hemodialysis: 1990 - 2001
Home Hemodialysis: 2001 - Present
NxStage System One Cycler 2007 - Present
        * 4 to 6 days a week 30 Liters (using PureFlow) @ ~250 Qb ~ 8 hour per treatment FF~28
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #79 on: June 02, 2007, 05:25:46 PM »


I think you're confusing a tactic <deposing Saddam> with a strategy <bring democratic example to the Arab Middle East> because you've lost sight of the mission <create a world more amenable to American interest>

It's a common mistake to think tactics are strategy; it is less common for people to mistake tactics for mission.


 ::) You really are out of the loop on this whole issue.
Logged
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #80 on: June 02, 2007, 05:30:03 PM »

The ousting of one man is an issue resolved?

And what exactly did that accomplish?


Saddam is no longer able to fund terrorists across the world with the money of the Iraqi people.  The fact that he is gone now means that is hundreds of millions of dollars that cannot be used to fund terrorist operations he had planned against the US and others.
Logged
Bill Peckham
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3057


WWW
« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2007, 09:03:56 PM »

The ousting of one man is an issue resolved?

And what exactly did that accomplish?


Saddam is no longer able to fund terrorists across the world with the money of the Iraqi people.  The fact that he is gone now means that is hundreds of millions of dollars that cannot be used to fund terrorist operations he had planned against the US and others.

Our actions are the greatest fund raising tool a terrorist could dream of ... we replaced one sociopath with a multitude. We've created a terrorist factory out of a sole proprietorship. There has been no resolution.
Logged

http://www.billpeckham.com  "Dialysis from the sharp end of the needle" tracking  industry news and trends - in advocacy, reimbursement, politics and the provision of dialysis
Incenter Hemodialysis: 1990 - 2001
Home Hemodialysis: 2001 - Present
NxStage System One Cycler 2007 - Present
        * 4 to 6 days a week 30 Liters (using PureFlow) @ ~250 Qb ~ 8 hour per treatment FF~28
kitkatz
Member for Life
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 17042


« Reply #82 on: June 02, 2007, 09:42:51 PM »

And there will never be a solution. The religious mass hysteria in the Arab peninsula had to be resolved first between the fighting factions. Then a true peace can come to the region.  We, as the capitalists, involved, have just made a situation worse.
Logged



lifenotonthelist.com

Ivanova: "Old Egyptian blessing: May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk." Babylon 5

Remember your present situation is not your final destination.

Take it one day, one hour, one minute, one second at a time.

"If we don't find a way out of this soon, I'm gonna lose it. Lose it... It means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of ones faculties, three fries short of a Happy Meal, wacko!" Jack O'Neill - SG-1
Bill Peckham
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3057


WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 02, 2007, 10:41:12 PM »

Bigsky since you seem to have fully bought into the Laurie Mylroie world view with regard to Saddam and terrorism against the US you should like this symposium. It's long - it starts here http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=16985&p=1 First Mylroie (identified as one of the foremost American scholars on Iraq and Saddam Hussein) makes her case Saddam was behind basically everything, then her position is rebutted by Dr. Robert Leiken, the director of the Immigration and National Security Program at the Nixon Center, he argues that the connection does not exist on page 2 of the symposium  (I said it was long) http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=16986&p=1

Leiken is thorough in knocking down Mylroie's theories. I think this is my favorite of his many conclusive points "On the contrary Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who at one time set up an intelligence office in the Pentagon devoted to proving Laurie’s thesis, had the rare integrity to acknowledge on October 4, 2004 that he had “not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two. “
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 10:46:26 PM by Bill Peckham » Logged

http://www.billpeckham.com  "Dialysis from the sharp end of the needle" tracking  industry news and trends - in advocacy, reimbursement, politics and the provision of dialysis
Incenter Hemodialysis: 1990 - 2001
Home Hemodialysis: 2001 - Present
NxStage System One Cycler 2007 - Present
        * 4 to 6 days a week 30 Liters (using PureFlow) @ ~250 Qb ~ 8 hour per treatment FF~28
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #84 on: June 03, 2007, 05:51:52 AM »

Our actions are the greatest fund raising tool a terrorist could dream of ... we replaced one sociopath with a multitude. We've created a terrorist factory out of a sole proprietorship. There has been no resolution.


Not really.   We are drawing them out.  Remember that al-qaeda was in very few countries in 93 and during the next 8 years spread to every country on the planet. 


Bigsky since you seem to have fully bought into the Laurie Mylroie world view with regard to Saddam and terrorism against the US you should like this symposium.

No need for me to buy into her work.  I have watched this thing for years.  From Saddam kidnapping of well over 175 Americans to his attempted killing of presidents, ambassadors and others. Just why do you think we bombed Sudan?   Long before this war started Newsweek and Time had written several articles about things Saddam had done and was trying to do, many of which were terrorist attacks on the US in one form or another. 

Look at the stink the guy with TB is causing.  One of Saddams plans that failed was to infect dozens of people with small pox and then send them to the US.   If only 10 people got into the US with smallpox it would have potentially killed thousands if not millions.


This thing was tried to be worked out for over a decade with resolutions etc. etc. 

Too many countries, most notably France, Germany, Russia went around such things and traded with Iraq anyway.  As per the UN itself Saddam refused to even give the aid to his people from the oil for food programs. 

When someone has been a constant threat and has attacked and continues to plan attacks, we cannot wait until they succeed and thousands or millions are killed before acting.


These resolutions NEVER worked with South Africa, so can anyone honestly think they were going to work with Saddam?
Logged
Bill Peckham
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3057


WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 03, 2007, 08:29:32 AM »

Our actions are the greatest fund raising tool a terrorist could dream of ... we replaced one sociopath with a multitude. We've created a terrorist factory out of a sole proprietorship. There has been no resolution.


Not really.   We are drawing them out.  Remember that al-qaeda was in very few countries in 93 and during the next 8 years spread to every country on the planet. 


Bigsky since you seem to have fully bought into the Laurie Mylroie world view with regard to Saddam and terrorism against the US you should like this symposium.

No need for me to buy into her work.  I have watched this thing for years.  From Saddam kidnapping of well over 175 Americans to his attempted killing of presidents, ambassadors and others. Just why do you think we bombed Sudan?   Long before this war started Newsweek and Time had written several articles about things Saddam had done and was trying to do, many of which were terrorist attacks on the US in one form or another. 

Look at the stink the guy with TB is causing.  One of Saddams plans that failed was to infect dozens of people with small pox and then send them to the US.   If only 10 people got into the US with smallpox it would have potentially killed thousands if not millions.


This thing was tried to be worked out for over a decade with resolutions etc. etc. 

Too many countries, most notably France, Germany, Russia went around such things and traded with Iraq anyway.  As per the UN itself Saddam refused to even give the aid to his people from the oil for food programs. 

When someone has been a constant threat and has attacked and continues to plan attacks, we cannot wait until they succeed and thousands or millions are killed before acting.


These resolutions NEVER worked with South Africa, so can anyone honestly think they were going to work with Saddam?

South Africa? Too bad Rumsfeld didn't give you a chance to explain the connection before he concluded there was no hard evidence. Lots of conjecture but usually you go to war on facts.

Speaking of Newsweek Fareed Zakaria has an interesting article up here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/page/0/ it's titled Beyond Bush. I don't know, a lot can happen in 19 months.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 08:32:23 AM by Bill Peckham » Logged

http://www.billpeckham.com  "Dialysis from the sharp end of the needle" tracking  industry news and trends - in advocacy, reimbursement, politics and the provision of dialysis
Incenter Hemodialysis: 1990 - 2001
Home Hemodialysis: 2001 - Present
NxStage System One Cycler 2007 - Present
        * 4 to 6 days a week 30 Liters (using PureFlow) @ ~250 Qb ~ 8 hour per treatment FF~28
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #86 on: June 04, 2007, 08:16:40 PM »

South Africa? Too bad Rumsfeld didn't give you a chance to explain the connection before he concluded there was no hard evidence. Lots of conjecture but usually you go to war on facts.

There was enough evidence for clinton to bomb sudan over it.
Logged
skillpete
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 31


whats up peeps

« Reply #87 on: June 05, 2007, 02:03:19 PM »

 :bandance; CLINTON  :bandance;
Logged

why the hell is my underwear on your head!
Bill Peckham
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3057


WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 05, 2007, 05:23:08 PM »

South Africa? Too bad Rumsfeld didn't give you a chance to explain the connection before he concluded there was no hard evidence. Lots of conjecture but usually you go to war on facts.

There was enough evidence for clinton to bomb sudan over it.

I still don't see the South Africa connection. I do understand the Sudan/OBL connection or at least the Sudan/Salafism/OBL connection but I don't know where I would put South Africa in that equation.

Bigsky, I'm curious if the administration's immigration strategy has shed any light for you on the administration's Iraq policy? Or rather has the administration's immigration strategy soured you on the administration? Which it would seem might lead you to see their Iraq strategy in a different light.

Micky Kaus has a great editorial up at the LA Times today where he runs through the striking similarities http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kaus4jun04,0,430080.story?coll=la-opinion-center

MAINSTREAM editorialists like to praise President Bush's immigration initiative as an expression of his pragmatic, bipartisan, "compassionate conservative" side, in presumed contrast to the inflexible, ideological approach that produced the invasion of Iraq. But far from being a sensible centrist departure from the sort of grandiose, rigid thinking that led Bush into Iraq, "comprehensive immigration reform" is of a piece with that thinking. And it's likely to lead to a parallel outcome.

Here are 10 similarities:

1. They're both ideas Bush had when he came into office. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote about his first Oval Office meeting with Bush, a few weeks into Bush's presidency, at which the president explained his "determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq." About the same time, Bush was meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox to try to hammer out an immigration deal that would combine a guest worker program with legalization of existing illegal Mexican immigrants. (This was all before 9/11, although in both cases Bush has claimed that 9/11 made essential what he wanted to do all along. Funny how that happens.)

2. They both have an idealistic basis. Bush was sympathetic to the way Middle East democrats had been frustrated by "realist" foreign policies, and he's clearly sympathetic to the problems of poor immigrants who come to the U.S. to work and feed their families, only to be forced to live "in the shadows." Those who have doubts about Bush's plans (e.g., Brent Scowcroft on Iraq) get little sympathy from him, however. They're seen not as prudent realists but as cultural imperialists, even racists: What, you think Iraqis are incapable of democracy? What, you think the immigrants from south of the border are any different from previous immigrants?

3. They both seek, in one swoop, to achieve a grand solution to a persistent, difficult problem. No "smallball!" The Iraq Project was going to begin the transformation of the Middle East, an area that had frustrated president after president. Similarly, "comprehensive" immigration reform would, as the name suggests, resolve in one bold bill the centuries-old immigration issue — "solve this problem once and for all," as Bush said last week.

4. Both envision a complicated, triple-bank-shot chain of events happening on cue. Iraqis were going to be grateful to their American liberators, come together in peace and give us a stable "ally in the war on terror," setting off a democratic domino effect in the region — a scenario that seems like highly wishful thinking in retrospect. Latinos, in the Bush immigration scenario, will be grateful to Republicans for bringing them out of the shadows, etc., ensuring a large, growing GOP Latino vote for decades to come. Meanwhile, a program of legal guest workers will somehow stop new illegal workers from crossing the border to join them.

5. Both depend crucially on pulling off difficult administrative feats. In Iraq, we had to build a nation in the chaotic vacuum of sectarian post-Hussein Iraq — which meant training a national army and police force from scratch with recruits who were often sectarian loyalists. "Comprehensive" immigration reform requires the government to set up an enforcement mechanism that can prevent millions of impoverished foreigners from sneaking across thousands of miles of unprotected borders — and prevent America's millions of self-interested employers from hiring them. Meanwhile, the overworked, incompetent federal immigration bureaucracy is going to efficiently sort out the 12 million illegals already here — "Non-Immigrants Previously in Unlawful Status," to use the official Prince-like euphemism — running background checks by the next business day and issuing each of them a new, "probationary Z-visa."

6. In both cases, the solution has failed before. The British failed to "stand up" democracy in Iraq. We failed to do the same in Vietnam and also failed to establish stable, trans-factional governing structures in Lebanon and Somalia. Likewise, the grand, bipartisan Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform of 1986 had promised, and failed, to establish an effective immigration enforcement mechanism.

7. In both cases, some Bush plan enthusiasts may not really mind a chaotic end result. Iraq war foes argue that some important neocon supporters of the Iraq war weren't really bothered by the prospect of Sunni-versus-Shiite warfare — even seeing divide-and-conquer advantages. Similarly, there's the suspicion that many supporters of Bush's immigration plan won't really be bothered if the enforcement parts of the law fail to stop the flow of new illegals. Employers, for one, would get additional inexpensive, willing workers.

8. In both cases, less grand, less risky alternatives are available. Bush could have kept Saddam Hussein boxed up while he planned regime change through other means and pursued the more manageable war in Afghanistan. ("Smallball" in 2002. Sounds good now!) Similarly, Bush could put enforcement mechanisms in place and make sure they work before he potentially stimulates a huge new wave of illegal immigrants by rewarding those illegals who've already made it across the border.

9. In both cases, Bush's sales pitch excludes these middle alternatives. With Hussein, it was war or capitulation. With immigration, we're told, the only choices are legalization or mass deportation.

10. In both cases the consequences of losing the grand Bush bet are severe. Bush himself is busy these days describing the debacle that his big Iraq bet has now made possible: a government "overrun by extremists on all sides … an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by Al Qaeda." Possibly "the entire region could be drawn into the conflict."

The equivalent disaster scenario on immigration would go something like this: "Comprehensive reform" passes. The 12 million illegals are legalized as planned. But the untested enforcement provisions prove no more effective than they've been in the past — or else they are crippled by ACLU-style lawsuits and lobbying (as in the past). Legal guest workers enter the country to work, but so do millions of new illegal workers, drawn by the near-certain prospect that they too, some day, will be considered too numerous to deport. Soon we have another 12 million illegals, or more. Wages for unskilled low-income American and immigrant workers are depressed. As a result, in parts of L.A., visible contrasts of wealth and poverty reach near-Latin American levels.

And, yes, the majority of the new illegals are from one country, Mexico — a nation with a not-implausible claim on large chunks of the Southwestern U.S. For the first time, a neighboring country will have a continuing hold on the loyalties — and language — of a majority of residents in some states, with the potential for Quebec-like problems, and worse, down the road.

Hey, stuff happens!

If both grand Bush plans fail, which disaster will be bigger? Iraq, obviously, at least in the sense that tens of thousands will have died. But we can retreat from Iraq. We won't be able to retreat from the failure of Bush's immigration plan because it will change who "we" are.


me: At least with the immigration legislation the Senate and House is debating the issue and there is public push back from our legislators even in the face of demonizing rhetoric from the administration and their supports (see http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070604-113526-7596r.htm "Sen. McCain said Monday that his fellow candidates who oppose the bill "would intentionally make our country's problems worse." Intentionally!). With Iraq the administration was able to act without any checks and the policy was worse for its lack of restraint.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 05:31:19 PM by Bill Peckham » Logged

http://www.billpeckham.com  "Dialysis from the sharp end of the needle" tracking  industry news and trends - in advocacy, reimbursement, politics and the provision of dialysis
Incenter Hemodialysis: 1990 - 2001
Home Hemodialysis: 2001 - Present
NxStage System One Cycler 2007 - Present
        * 4 to 6 days a week 30 Liters (using PureFlow) @ ~250 Qb ~ 8 hour per treatment FF~28
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #89 on: June 05, 2007, 05:28:02 PM »

When we rise in the morning and listen to the radio or read the newspaper, we are confronted with the same sad news: violence, crime, wars, and disasters. I cannot recall a single day without a report of something terrible happening somewhere. Even in these modern times it is clear that one's precious life is not safe. No former generation has had to experience so much bad news as we face today; this constant awareness of fear and tension should make any sensitive and compassionate person question seriously the progress of our modern world.
 
It is ironic that the more serious problems emanate from the more industrially advanced societies. Science and technology have worked wonders in many fields, but the basic human problems remain. There is unprecedented literacy, yet this universal education does not seem to have fostered goodness, but only mental restlessness and discontent instead. There is no doubt about the increase in our material progress and technology, but somehow this is not sufficient as we have not yet succeeded in bringing about peace and happiness or in overcoming suffering.
 
We can only conclude that there must be something seriously wrong with our progress and development, and if we do not check it in time there could be disastrous consequences for the future of humanity. I am not at all against science and technology - they have contributed immensely to the overall experience of humankind; to our material comfort and well-being and to our greater understanding of the world we live in. But if we give too much emphasis to science and technology we are in danger of losing touch with those aspects of human knowledge and understanding that aspire towards honesty and altruism.
 
Science and technology, though capable of creating immeasurable material comfort, cannot replace the age-old spiritual and humanitarian values that have largely shaped world civilization, in all its national forms, as we know it today. No one can deny the unprecedented material benefit of science and technology, but our basic human problems remain; we are still faced with the same, if not more, suffering, fear, and tension. Thus it is only logical to try to strike a balance between material developments on the one hand and the development of spiritual, human values on the other. In order to bring about this great adjustment, we need to revive our humanitarian values.
 
I am sure that many people share my concern about the present worldwide moral crisis and will join in my appeal to all humanitarians and religious practitioners who also share this concern to help make our societies more compassionate, just, and equitable. I do not speak as a Buddhist or even as a Tibetan. Nor do I speak as an expert on international politics (though I unavoidably comment on these matters). Rather, I speak simply as a human being, as an upholder of the humanitarian values that are the bedrock not only of Mahayana Buddhism but of all the great world religions. From this perspective I share with you my personal outlook - that:
Universal humanitarianism is essential to solve global problems;
Compassion is the pillar of world peace;
All world religions are already for world peace in this way, as are all humanitarians of whatever ideology;
Each individual has a universal responsibility to shape institutions to serve human needs.

Solving Human Problems through Transforming Human Attitudes
Of the many problems we face today, some are natural calamities and must be accepted and faced with equanimity. Others, however, are of our own making, created by misunderstanding, and can be corrected. One such type arises from the conflict of ideologies, political or religious, when people fight each other for petty ends, losing sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a single human family. We must remember that the different religions, ideologies, and political systems of the world are meant for human beings to achieve happiness. We must not lose sight of this fundamental goal and at no time should we place means above ends; the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained.
 
By far the greatest single danger facing humankind - in fact, all living beings on our planet - is the threat of nuclear destruction. I need not elaborate on this danger, but I would like to appeal to all the leaders of the nuclear powers who literally hold the future of the world in their hands, to the scientists and technicians who continue to create these awesome weapons of destruction, and to all the people at large who are in a position to influence their leaders: I appeal to them to exercise their sanity and begin to work at dismantling and destroying all nuclear weapons. We know that in the event of a nuclear war there will be no victors because there will be no survivors! Is it not frightening just to contemplate such inhuman and heartless destruction? And, is it not logical that we should remove the cause for our own destruction when we know the cause and have both the time and the means to do so? Often we cannot overcome our problems because we either do not know the cause or, if we understand it, do not have the means to remove it. This is not the case with the nuclear threat.
 
Whether they belong to more evolved species like humans or to simpler ones such as animals, all beings primarily seek peace, comfort, and security. Life is as dear to the mute animal as it is to any human being; even the simplest insect strives for protection from dangers that threaten its life. Just as each one of us wants to live and does not wish to die, so it is with all other creatures in the universe, though their power to effect this is a different matter.
 
Broadly speaking there are two types of happiness and suffering, mental and physical, and of the two, I believe that mental suffering and happiness are the more acute. Hence, I stress the training of the mind to endure suffering and attain a more lasting state of happiness. However, I also have a more general and concrete idea of happiness: a combination of inner peace, economic development, and, above all, world peace. To achieve such goals I feel it is necessary to develop a sense of universal responsibility, a deep concern for all irrespective of creed, colour, sex, or nationality.
 
The premise behind this idea of universal responsibility is the simple fact that, in general terms, all others' desires are the same as mine. Every being wants happiness and does not want suffering. If we, as intelligent human beings, do not accept this fact, there will be more and more suffering on this planet. If we adopt a self-centred approach to life and constantly try to use others for our own self-interest, we may gain temporary benefits, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even personal happiness, and world peace will be completely out of the question.
 
In their quest for happiness, humans have used different methods, which all too often have been cruel and repellent. Behaving in ways utterly unbecoming to their status as humans, they inflict suffering upon fellow humans and other living beings for their own selfish gains. In the end, such shortsighted actions bring suffering to oneself as well as to others. To be born a human being is a rare event in itself, and it is wise to use this opportunity as effectively and skillfully as possible. We must have the proper perspective that of the universal life process, so that the happiness or glory of one person or group is not sought at the expense of others.
 
All this calls for a new approach to global problems. The world is becoming smaller and smaller - and more and more interdependent - as a result of rapid technological advances and international trade as well as increasing trans-national relations. We now depend very much on each other. In ancient times problems were mostly family-size, and they were naturally tackled at the family level, but the situation has changed. Today we are so interdependent, so closely interconnected with each other, that without a sense of universal responsibility, a feeling of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, and an understanding and belief that we really are part of one big human family, we cannot hope to overcome the dangers to our very existence - let alone bring about peace and happiness.
 
One nation's problems can no longer be satisfactorily solved by itself alone; too much depends on the interest, attitude, and cooperation of other nations. A universal humanitarian approach to world problems seems the only sound basis for world peace. What does this mean? We begin from the recognition mentioned previously that all beings cherish happiness and do not want suffering. It then becomes both morally wrong and pragmatically unwise to pursue only one's own happiness oblivious to the feelings and aspirations of all others who surround us as members of the same human family. The wiser course is to think of others also when pursuing our own happiness. This will lead to what I call 'wise self-interest', which hopefully will transform itself into 'compromised self-interest', or better still, 'mutual interest'.
 
Although the increasing interdependence among nations might be expected to generate more sympathetic cooperation, it is difficult to achieve a spirit of genuine cooperation as long as people remain indifferent to the feelings and happiness of others. When people are motivated mostly by greed and jealousy, it is not possible for them to live in harmony. A spiritual approach may not solve all the political problems that have been caused by the existing self-centered approach, but in the long run it will overcome the very basis of the problems that we face today.
 
On the other hand, if humankind continues to approach its problems considering only temporary expediency, future generations will have to face tremendous difficulties. The global population is increasing, and our resources are being rapidly depleted. Look at the trees, for example. No one knows exactly what adverse effects massive deforestation will have on the climate, the soil, and global ecology as a whole. We are facing problems because people are concentrating only on their short-term, selfish interests, not thinking of the entire human family. They are not thinking of the earth and the long-term effects on universal life as a whole. If we of the present generation do not think about these now, future generations may not be able to cope with them.
 

Compassion as the Pillar of World Peace
According to Buddhist psychology, most of our troubles are due to our passionate desire for and attachment to things that we misapprehend as enduring entities. The pursuit of the objects of our desire and attachment involves the use of aggression and competitiveness as supposedly efficacious instruments. These mental processes easily translate into actions, breeding belligerence as an obvious effect. Such processes have been going on in the human mind since time immemorial, but their execution has become more effective under modern conditions. What can we do to control and regulate these 'poisons' - delusion, greed, and aggression? For it is these poisons that are behind almost every trouble in the world.
 
As one brought up in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, I feel that love and compassion are the moral fabric of world peace. Let me first define what I mean by compassion. When you have pity or compassion for a very poor person, you are showing sympathy because he or she is poor; your compassion is based on altruistic considerations. On the other hand, love towards your wife, your husband, your children, or a close friend is usually based on attachment. When your attachment changes, your kindness also changes; it may disappear. This is not true love. Real love is not based on attachment, but on altruism. In this case your compassion will remain as a humane response to suffering as long as beings continue to suffer.
 
This type of compassion is what we must strive to cultivate in ourselves, and we must develop it from a limited amount to the limitless. Undiscriminating, spontaneous, and unlimited compassion for all sentient beings is obviously not the usual love that one has for friends or family, which is alloyed with ignorance, desire, and attachment. The kind of love we should advocate is this wider love that you can have even for someone who has done harm to you: your enemy.
 
The rationale for compassion is that every one of us wants to avoid suffering and gain happiness. This, in turn, is based on the valid feeling of '1', which determines the universal desire for happiness. Indeed, all beings are born with similar desires and should have an equal right to fulfill them. If I compare myself with others, who are countless, I feel that others are more important because I am just one person whereas others are many. Further, the Tibetan Buddhist tradition teaches us to view all sentient beings as our dear mothers and to show our gratitude by loving them all. For, according to Buddhist theory, we are born and reborn countless numbers of times, and it is conceivable that each being has been our parent at one time or another. In this way all beings in the universe share a family relationship.
 
Whether one believes in religion or not, there is no one who does not appreciate love and compassion. Right from the moment of our birth, we are under the care and kindness of our parents; later in life, when facing the sufferings of disease and old age, we are again dependent on the kindness of others. If at the beginning and end of our lives we depend upon others' kindness, why then in the middle should we not act kindly towards others?
The development of a kind heart (a feeling of closeness for all human beings) does not involve the religiosity we normally associate with conventional religious practice. It is not only for people who believe in religion, but is for everyone regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. It is for anyone who considers himself or herself, above all, a member of the human family and who sees things from this larger and longer perspective. This is a powerful feeling that we should develop and apply; instead, we often neglect it, particularly in our prime years when we experience a false sense of security.
 
When we take into account a longer perspective, the fact that all wish to gain happiness and avoid suffering, and keep in mind our relative unimportance in relation to countless others, we can conclude that it is worthwhile to share our possessions with others. When you train in this sort of outlook, a true sense of compassion - a true sense of love and respect for others – becomes possible. Individual happiness ceases to be a conscious self-seeking effort; it becomes an automatic and far superior by-product of the whole process of loving and serving others.
 
Another result of spiritual development, most useful in day-to-day life, is that it gives a calmness and presence of mind. Our lives are in constant flux, bringing many difficulties. When faced with a calm and clear mind, problems can be successfully resolved. When, instead, we lose control over our minds through hatred, selfishness, jealousy, and anger, we lose our sense of judgement. Our minds are blinded and at those wild moments anything can happen, including war. Thus, the practice of compassion and wisdom is useful to all, especially to those responsible for running national affairs, in whose hands lie the power and opportunity to create the structure of world peace.


 
World Religions for World Peace
The principles discussed so far are in accordance with the ethical teachings of all world religions. I maintain that every major religion of the world - Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism - has similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefiting humanity through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers into better human beings. All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech. All teach us not to lie or steal or take others' lives, and so on. The common goal of all moral precepts laid down by the great teachers of humanity is unselfishness. The great teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness.
 
All religions agree upon the necessity to control the undisciplined mind that harbours selfishness and other roots of trouble, and each teaches a path leading to a spiritual state that is peaceful, disciplined, ethical, and wise. It is in this sense that I believe all religions have essentially the same message. Differences of dogma may be ascribed to differences of time and circumstance as well as cultural influences; indeed, there is no end to scholastic argument when we consider the purely metaphysical side of religion. However, it is much more beneficial to try to implement in daily life the shared precepts for goodness taught by all religions rather than to argue about minor differences in approach.
 
There are many different religions to bring comfort and happiness to humanity in much the same way as there are particular treatments for different diseases. For, all religions endeavour in their own way to help living beings avoid misery and gain happiness. And, although we can find causes for preferring certain interpretations of religious truths, there is much greater cause for unity, stemming from the human heart. Each religion works in its own way to lessen human suffering and contribute to world civilization. Conversion is not the point. For instance, I do not think of converting others to Buddhism or merely furthering the Buddhist cause. Rather, I try to think of how I as a Buddhist humanitarian can contribute to human happiness.
 
While pointing out the fundamental similarities between world religions, I do not advocate one particular religion at the expense of all others, nor do I seek a new 'world religion'. All the different religions of the world are needed to enrich human experience and world civilization. Our human minds, being of different calibre and disposition, need different approaches to peace and happiness. It is just like food. Certain people find Christianity more appealing, others prefer Buddhism because there is no creator in it and everything depends upon your own actions. We can make similar arguments for other religions as well. Thus, the point is clear: humanity needs all the world's religions to suit the ways of life, diverse spiritual needs, and inherited national traditions of individual human beings.
 
It is from this perspective that I welcome efforts being made in various parts of the world for better understanding among religions. The need for this is particularly urgent now. If all religions make the betterment of humanity their main concern, then they can easily work together in harmony for world peace. Interfaith understanding will bring about the unity necessary for all religions to work together. However, although this is indeed an important step, we must remember that there are no quick or easy solutions. We cannot hide the doctrinal differences that exist among various faiths, nor can we hope to replace the existing religions by a new universal belief. Each religion has its own distinctive contributions to make, and each in its own way is suitable to a particular group of people as they understand life. The world needs them all.
 
There are two primary tasks facing religious practitioners who are concerned with world peace. First, we must promote better interfaith understanding so as to create a workable degree of unity among all religions. This may be achieved in part by respecting each other's beliefs and by emphasizing our common concern for human well-being. Second, we must bring about a viable consensus on basic spiritual values that touch every human heart and enhance general human happiness. This means we must emphasize the common denominator of all world religions – humanitarian ideals. These two steps will enable us to act both individually and together to create the necessary spiritual conditions for world peace.
 
We practitioners of different faiths can work together for world peace when we view different religions as essentially instruments to develop a good heart - love and respect for others, a true sense of community. The most important thing is to look at the purpose of religion and not at the details of theology or metaphysics, which can lead to mere intellectualism. I believe that all the major religions of the world can contribute to world peace and work together for the benefit of humanity if we put aside subtle metaphysical differences, which are really the internal business of each religion.
 
Despite the progressive secularization brought about by worldwide modernization and despite systematic attempts in some parts of the world to destroy spiritual values, the vast majority of humanity continues to believe in one religion or another. The undying faith in religion, evident even under irreligious political systems, clearly demonstrates the potency of religion as such. This spiritual energy and power can be purposefully used to bring about the spiritual conditions necessary for world peace. Religious leaders and humanitarians all over the world have a special role to play in this respect.
 
Whether we will be able to achieve world peace or not, we have no choice but to work towards that goal. If our minds are dominated by anger, we will lose the best part of human intelligence - wisdom, the ability to decide between right and wrong. Anger is one of the most serious problems facing the world today.


Individual Power to Shape Institution
Anger plays no small role in current conflicts such as those in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the North-South problem, and so forth. These conflicts arise from a failure to understand one another's humanness. The answer is not the development and use of greater military force, nor an arms race. Nor is it purely political or purely technological. Basically it is spiritual, in the sense that what is required is a sensitive understanding of our common human situation. Hatred and fighting cannot bring happiness to anyone, even to the winners of battles. Violence always produces misery and thus is essentially counter-productive. It is, therefore, time for world leaders to learn to transcend the differences of race, culture, and ideology and to regard one another through eyes that see the common human situation. To do so would benefit individuals, communities, nations, and the world at large.
 
The greater part of present world tension seems to stem from the 'Eastern bloc' versus 'Western bloc' conflict that has been going on since World War II. These two blocs tend to describe and view each other in a totally unfavourable light. This continuing, unreasonable struggle is due to a lack of mutual affection and respect for each other as fellow human beings. Those of the Eastern bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Western bloc because the Western bloc is also made up of human beings - men, women, and children. Similarly those of the Western bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Eastern bloc because the Eastern bloc is also human beings. In such a reduction of mutual hatred, the leaders of both blocs have a powerful role to play. But first and foremost, leaders must realize their own and others' humanness. Without this basic realization, very little effective reduction of organized hatred can be achieved.
 
If, for example, the leader of the United States of America and the leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly met each other in the middle of a desolate island, I am sure they would respond to each other spontaneously as fellow human beings. But a wall of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding separates them the moment they are identified as the 'President of the USA' and the 'Secretary-General of the USSR'). More human contact in the form of informal extended meetings, without any agenda, would improve their mutual understanding; they would learn to relate to each other as human beings and could then try to tackle international problems based on this understanding. No two parties, especially those with a history of antagonism, can negotiate fruitfully in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and hatred.
 
I suggest that world leaders meet about once a year in a beautiful place without any business, just to get to know each other as human beings. Then, later, they could meet to discuss mutual and global problems. I am sure many others share my wish that world leaders meet at the conference table in such an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding of each other's humanness.
 
To improve person-to-person contact in the world at large, I would like to see greater encouragement of international tourism. Also, mass media, particularly in democratic societies, can make a considerable contribution to world peace by giving greater coverage to human interest items that reflect the ultimate oneness of humanity. With the rise of a few big powers in the international arena, the humanitarian role of international organizations is being bypassed and neglected. I hope that this will be corrected and that all international organizations, especially the United Nations, will be more active and effective in ensuring maximum benefit to humanity and promoting international understanding. It will indeed be tragic if the few powerful members continue to misuse world bodies like the UN for their one-sided interests. The UN must become the instrument of world peace. This world body must be respected by all, for the UN is the only source of hope for small oppressed nations and hence for the planet as a whole.
 
As all nations are economically dependent upon one another more than ever before, human understanding must go beyond national boundaries and embrace the international community at large. Indeed, unless we can create an atmosphere of genuine cooperation, gained not by threatened or actual use of force but by heartfelt understanding, world problems will only increase. If people in poorer countries are denied the happiness they desire and deserve, they will naturally be dissatisfied and pose problems for the rich. If unwanted social, political, and cultural forms continue to be imposed upon unwilling people, the attainment of world peace is doubtful. However, if we satisfy people at a heart-to-heart level, peace will surely come.
 
Within each nation, the individual ought to be given the right to happiness, and among nations, there must be equal concern for the welfare of even the smallest nations. I am not suggesting that one system is better than another and all should adopt it. On the contrary, a variety of political systems and ideologies is desirable and accords with the variety of dispositions within the human community. This variety enhances the ceaseless human quest for happiness. Thus each community should be free to evolve its own political and socio-economic system, based on the principle of self-determination.
 
The achievement of justice, harmony, and peace depends on many factors. We should think about them in terms of human benefit in the long run rather than the short term. I realize the enormity of the task before us, but I see no other alternative than the one I am proposing - which is based on our common humanity. Nations have no choice but to be concerned about the welfare of others, not so much because of their belief in humanity, but because it is in the mutual and long-term interest of all concerned. An appreciation of this new reality is indicated by the emergence of regional or continental economic organizations such as the European Economic Community, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and so forth. I hope more such trans-national organizations will be formed, particularly in regions where economic development and regional stability seem in short supply.
 
Under present conditions, there is definitely a growing need for human understanding and a sense of universal responsibility. In order to achieve such ideas, we must generate a good and kind heart, for without this, we can achieve neither universal happiness nor lasting world peace. We cannot create peace on paper. While advocating universal responsibility and universal brotherhood and sisterhood, the facts are that humanity is organized in separate entities in the form of national societies. Thus, in a realistic sense, I feel it is these societies that must act as the building-blocks for world peace. Attempts have been made in the past to create societies more just and equal. Institutions have been established with noble charters to combat anti-social forces. Unfortunately, such ideas have been cheated by selfishness. More than ever before, we witness today how ethics and noble principles are obscured by the shadow of self-interest, particularly in the political sphere. There is a school of thought that warns us to refrain from politics altogether, as politics has become synonymous with amorality. Politics devoid of ethics does not further human welfare, and life without morality reduces humans to the level of beasts. However, politics is not axiomatically 'dirty'. Rather, the instruments of our political culture have distorted the high ideals and noble concepts meant to further human welfare. Naturally, spiritual people express their concern about religious leaders 'messing' with politics, since they fear the contamination of religion by dirty politics.
 
I question the popular assumption that religion and ethics have no place in politics and that religious persons should seclude themselves as hermits. Such a view of religion is too one-sided; it lacks a proper perspective on the individual's relation to society and the role of religion in our lives. Ethics is as crucial to a politician as it is to a religious practitioner. Dangerous consequences will follow when politicians and rulers forget moral principles. Whether we believe in God or karma, ethics is the foundation of every religion.
 
Such human qualities as morality, compassion, decency, wisdom, and so forth have been the foundations of all civilizations. These qualities must be cultivated and sustained through systematic moral education in a conducive social environment so that a more humane world may emerge. The qualities required to create such a world must be inculcated right from the beginning, from childhood. We cannot wait for the next generation to make this change; the present generation must attempt a renewal of basic human values. If there is any hope, it is in the future generations, but not unless we institute major change on a worldwide scale in our present educational system. We need a revolution in our commitment to and practice of universal humanitarian values.
 
It is not enough to make noisy calls to halt moral degeneration; we must do something about it. Since present-day governments do not shoulder such 'religious' responsibilities, humanitarian and religious leaders must strengthen the existing civic, social, cultural, educational, and religious organizations to revive human and spiritual values. Where necessary, we must create new organizations to achieve these goals. Only in so doing can we hope to create a more stable basis for world peace.
 
Living in society, we should share the sufferings of our fellow citizens and practise compassion and tolerance not only towards our loved ones but also towards our enemies. This is the test of our moral strength. We must set an example by our own practice, for we cannot hope to convince others of the value of religion by mere words. We must live up to the same high standards of integrity and sacrifice that we ask of others. The ultimate purpose of all religions is to serve and benefit humanity. This is why it is so important that religion always be used to effect the happiness and peace of all beings and not merely to convert others.
 
Still, in religion there are no national boundaries. A religion can and should be used by any people or person who finds it beneficial. What is important for each seeker is to choose a religion that is most suitable to himself or herself. But, the embracing of a particular religion does not mean the rejection of another religion or one's own community. In fact, it is important that those who embrace a religion should not cut themselves off from their own society; they should continue to live within their own community and in harmony with its members. By escaping from your own community, you cannot benefit others, whereas benefiting others is actually the basic aim of religion.
 
In this regard there are two things important to keep in mind: self-examination and self-correction. We should constantly check our attitude toward others, examining ourselves carefully, and we should correct ourselves immediately when we find we are in the wrong.
 
Finally, a few words about material progress. I have heard a great deal of complaint against material progress from Westerners, and yet, paradoxically, it has been the very pride of the Western world. I see nothing wrong with material progress per se, provided people are always given precedence. It is my firm belief that in order to solve human problems in all their dimensions, we must combine and harmonize economic development with spiritual growth.
 
However, we must know its limitations. Although materialistic knowledge in the form of science and technology has contributed enormously to human welfare, it is not capable of creating lasting happiness. In America, for example, where technological development is perhaps more advanced than in any other country, there is still a great deal of mental suffering. This is because materialistic knowledge can only provide a type of happiness that is dependent upon physical conditions. It cannot provide happiness that springs from inner development independent of external factors.
 
For renewal of human values and attainment of lasting happiness, we need to look to the common humanitarian heritage of all nations the world over. May this essay serve as an urgent reminder lest we forget the human values that unite us all as a single family on this planet.
 
I have written the above lines
To tell my constant feeling.
Whenever I meet even a 'foreigner',
I have always the same feeling:
'I am meeting another member of the human family.,
This attitude has deepened

My affection and respect for all beings.

May this natural wish be
My small contribution to world peace.
I pray for a more friendly,
More caring, and more understanding
Human family on this planet.
To all who dislike suffering,
Who cherish lasting happiness -
This is my heartfelt appeal.

http://www.dalailama.com/page.62.htm
Logged
Bill Peckham
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3057


WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 05, 2007, 05:45:53 PM »

That would have been a good post to start a thread and discussion from, posted here it seems more like an attempted thread-jacking.

I would contrast the Dalai Lama's school of thought - let's slow change/technological advancement, through collective action (seems unlikely) - with Bob Wright's - the idea that there is an arrow of history - but really while both schools of thought would not lead to Iraq; neither does either really seem to connect well with this thread.
Logged

http://www.billpeckham.com  "Dialysis from the sharp end of the needle" tracking  industry news and trends - in advocacy, reimbursement, politics and the provision of dialysis
Incenter Hemodialysis: 1990 - 2001
Home Hemodialysis: 2001 - Present
NxStage System One Cycler 2007 - Present
        * 4 to 6 days a week 30 Liters (using PureFlow) @ ~250 Qb ~ 8 hour per treatment FF~28
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #91 on: June 05, 2007, 07:42:31 PM »

Well, Bill, I felt like it was appropriate.  There is no attempted threadjacking.  The article reflects a position on world events, including Iraq, that I believe in.  Anytime is a good time to read such words of wisdom.
Logged
BigSky
Elite Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2380


« Reply #92 on: June 06, 2007, 06:36:55 AM »

I still don't see the South Africa connection. I do understand the Sudan/OBL connection or at least the Sudan/Salafism/OBL connection but I don't know where I would put South Africa in that equation.


Sudan was bombed because of the Irag/OBL/Sudan link.

South Africa plays a role in it showing that even a country like South Africa which had little power was able to by pass resolutions and embargos.  These things never worked on SA for roughly 25 years and after 12+ on Saddam they were not working.  To think they would start to work is foolish, action needed taken now or later.  The only thing time would have brought would be more power to Saddam and countries like France, Russia, and Germany caving in even more on resolutions without holding Saddam to them.

1. They're both ideas Bush had when he came into office. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote about his first Oval Office meeting with Bush, a few weeks into Bush's presidency, at which the president explained his "determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq." About the same time, Bush was meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox to try to hammer out an immigration deal that would combine a guest worker program with legalization of existing illegal Mexican immigrants. (This was all before 9/11, although in both cases Bush has claimed that 9/11 made essential what he wanted to do all along. Funny how that happens.)


Actually the US goal of removing saddam was started under Clinton.  How soon you forget Clinton signing the "Iraqi Liberation Act".


Hammer out a deal?  Ya right.  The most that can be talked about generalities   The meeting was never about making decisions or going into some details because that power does not go to the executive branch.  Congress has ultimate say over what "deals" are done.







Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #93 on: June 06, 2007, 10:06:26 AM »

"I have, therefore chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived.  And that is the most important topic on earth: peace.  What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek?  Not a Pax American enforced on the world by American weapons of war.... I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children - not merely peace in our time but peace in all time."  - President John F. Kennedy

"World peace through nonviolent means is neither absurd nor unattainable.  All other methods have failed.  Thus we must begin anew.  Nonviolence is a good starting point.  - Martin Luther King

"America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq.  But the age of colonialism is over.  Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. 
 - Zbigniew Brzezinski
Logged
George Jung
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 892


« Reply #94 on: June 06, 2007, 10:14:23 AM »

WRL Homepage • WRL Programs • WRL Literature • WRL Actions • WRL Employment • About WRL


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Current Military
$727 billion:
• Military Personnel $136 billion
• Operation & Maint. $249 billion
• Procurement $111 billion
• Research & Dev. $70 billion
• Construction $10 billion
• Family Housing $4 billion
• DoD misc. $6 billion
• Retired Pay $52 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $9 billion
• International Security $10 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $31 billion
• Exec. Office of President $1 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $1 billion
• plus ... anticipated supplemental war spending requests of $20 billion in addition to $141 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan wars already incorporated into figures above

Past Military,
$461 billion:
• Veterans’ Benefits $85 billion
• Interest on national debt $376 billion (80% est. to be created by military spending)


Human Resources
$748 billion:
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.

General Government
$295 billion:
• Interest on debt (20%)
• Treasury • Government personnel • Justice Dept.
• State Dept.
• Homeland Security (17%)
• International Affairs
• NASA (50%)
• Judicial
• Legislative
• other general govt.

Physical Resources
$116 billion:
• Agriculture
• Interior
• Transportation
• Homeland Security (17%)
• HUD
• Commerce
• Energy (non-military)
• Environmental Protection
• Nat. Science Fdtn.
• Army Corps Engineers
• Fed. Comm. Commission
• other physical resources
 
Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion



HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

urrent military” includes Dept. of Defense ($585 billion), the military portion from other departments ($122 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($20 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

The Government Deception

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top).
 
 

Source:Washington Post , Feb. 6, 2007,
from Office of Management and Budget
 
These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 17, 2007, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.
 
MORE WAR MONEY

 
Cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
(billions of dollars)
 
 
U.S. Gov’t Accounting Office report, “Global War on Terrorism,” 7/18/06, www.gao.gov/new.items/d06885t.pdf (thru 2006); 2007 & 2008 numbers from current U.S. Budget; *Our FY2008 projected supplemental funding is based on estimates in the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments report by Steven Kosiak, 2/6/07, www.csbaonline.org, and because of the Administration’s past underprojections
MORE DEATHS

• More than 34,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in 2006 — twice as many as in 2005 — and 37,000 injured 1
• More than 12,000 Iraqi security forces killed since 2003 1
• More than 3,900 U.S. military and “coalition” forces dead with more than 38,400 U.S. military and coalition forces wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 2
• Twice as many Afghani deaths in 2006 — 4,400 (including 1,000 civilians) — compared to 2005 3

 LESS SECURITY 

“Rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position.”4

“It’s a very candid assessment . . . stating the obvious,” according to
one intelligence official.

1 UN report, 1/16/2007;
2 icasualties.org;
3 Human Rights Watch report (AP, 1/30/07);
4 A key finding of the National Intelligence Estimate, a 2006 report from 16 U.S. government spy agencies (“Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight,” Washington Post, 9/24/06)
 FEWER FRIENDS 

A poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries show the global view of the U.S. role in world affairs is deteriorating.
• 73% disapprove of U.S. role in Iraq
• 68% believe that the U.S. military presence in the middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents
• 49% believe the United States plays a mainly negative role in the world

source: BBC World Service poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion
 
 http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2019, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!