In Wisconsin - taking it back from teh evil republicans.

And where is all the applause form the right-wingers for this atrocious war?

Let's see: Bush sets up a narco-state in Afghanistan, run by fundamentalist Islamics who have state executions for people who convert to Christianity. The Taliban has eliminated opium, but it becomes 99 percent of the economy under Bush.

Afghanistan is considered one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet by Transparency International. US Marines sometimes guard poppyfields of farmers loyal to the Islamic ruler Karzai.

And then Obama ups the ante and sends in another 30,000 troops!

But hey--we only spent $1.5 trillion or so to obtain these results. And another $1.5 trillion to set up another Islamic state in Iraq, also deeply corrupt, and where women's right have gone backward and religious minorities have had to leave the country (after surviving even Saddam!).

Total war costs are $3-$4 trillion and counting.

Let's cut Medicaid for American children.

I think we need to prevail in Suriname and Upper Volta, btw. The business of occupations can be profitable if you have the right links to Defense contractors.

1. Why do you presume we have to "cut Medicaid for American children" to have sufficient funds for the war. I think there is plenty in the Federal Budget that could be cut before "Medicaid for American children."

2. Do you realize that children of middle class families are eligible for Medicaid? In Oregon a family of 2 with an income of up to $44,280 per year is eligible for subsidized Medicaid for Children. http://www.oregonhealthykids.gov/families/qualifications.html Raising a question, why should less fortunate individuals be paying taxes to directly or indirectly subsidize medical care for middle class children?

The Taliban has eliminated opium

You gotta source for that, bunkie? if Afghanistan is off the opium market, I'm buying heroin futures.

I was on main street in downtown Tempe AZ when we invaded Iraq. There was a protest that night. I was going to say big protest, but only a few hundred people were there, and I bet many of them were people like me who were just out and found a protest going on.

Anyway, the majority of protesters were kids. This makes sense because Tempe is a college town. (ASU)

I talked to a bunch of the kids. Few of them knew anything about why we were invading. It seemed to me at the time that the protesters weren't protesting the war because they didn't like the war, but rather they were protesting because protesting was romantic.

It was just a way to protest like in the '60s. Remember, this was BEFORE we didn't find WMD.

If I'm correct in thinking the majority of protesters were protesting to be a part of the protest, rather than as a result of beliefs, then it makes sense that the protests would dwindle away.

There's no involvement. It's like going to a big concert.

For example, I saw Pink Floyd do The Wall in 1980. Now, 30 years later, I can still tell people I was there.

Thinking about it some more, protesting because it's romantic explains the furor over not finding WMD in Iraq.

It's a way to justify prior actions based on later information.

If you asked protesters in 2007 why they were against the war, they usually answered "Bush Lied." This was not a reason given when the war started.

"Bush Lied" also allowed people who were originally for the war to reverse themselves and become a part of the protest without questioning their earlier decision.

People are no longer protesting Afghanistan and Iraq as much because they've been going on forever and folks are burnt out. There was also a sense that it's hard to start a war that was dragging on.

I was more surprised at the lack of Libya protests. That one was new, and all Obama.

As of 1/20/09, dissent is the highest form of racism.

You know, I really try to refrain from commenting here, and then bungholio jumps back in with his bogus statistics. I am a peaceful man by nature, but if I ever come across Bunghole, I will take him out to honor my father, nephews, and any other veteran he pisses on with his idiotic diatribes. Marines guarding poppy fields, proof please. My nephews have taken great pics of marijuana fields that they burned. Perhaps reality gets in the way of his stupid views. Know that people want you to fi away prick

Re: "Is war only bad when a Republican is behind it?"

That certainly wasn't the case in the 1960s when Johnson was president, and the Vietnam War was developing into a great national tragedy. Towards the end of his administration there was regular talk about a "credibility gap."

Americans aren't very good in knowing their history. For about 40 years there has not been a draft in this country. The last federal administration did a lot to take people's minds off the cost of war by cutting taxes roughly concurrent with the start of the Iraq invasion. So nowadays these wars are experiences that most people hear about & see on TV, but which do not impact them as in times past. (It's a dramatically different experience for those in the military, however, and their families.) These days people who might advocate a war tax would be harshly criticized. More recently, Obama ordered the U.S. military to assist NATO in the Libyan intervention, again without asking the public to make any sacrifices. The record suggests because of the anesthetizing (for lack of a better term), Americans have become too casual about engaging in war.

"Re: 'Is war only bad when a Republican is behind it?'

That certainly wasn't the case in the 1960s when Johnson was president, and the Vietnam War was developing into a great national tragedy."

That was because the Democratic Party of the time did not take the GOP seriously as political opposition. The Democrats assumed that, after JFK and the Civil Rights Act, that Washington was theirs for a generation. Few of them took Richard Nixon seriously as a Presidential candidate, and that's one reason they were so stunned when Nixon won the 1968 election. By 1971, everything that had ever happened in Vietnam was Nixon's fault, and LBJ was a demigod. That's the way it's been since.

Here's the thing about what the anti-war activists have done with their partisanship: they have killed internationalism in the United States. Here's an outline of an international-relations platform plank that could ensure a landslide victory for a GOP candidate:
* Total withdrawal of all American troops abroad, and closure of all overseas bases.
* Total withdrawal from all multi-national organizations, and repudiation of all multi-national treaties. Immediate cessation of all foreign aid.
* Closure of the borders and a complete shutoff of immigration.
* Trade protectionism, with high tariffs on all imports except those from a select few close allies.
* An English-only amendment to the Constitution.

The first, second, and particularly fourth planks of this platform would draw a lot of blue-collar Democrat voters. The first and second would draw a lot of anti-foreign-entanglement libertarians. The second, third and fifth would be popular with social conservatives, and the protectionism stance would go over well with many small business owners.

The thing is, I think this is a platform that would be bad for America in a lot of ways. But, in the hands of the right candidate, it could draw near 60% of the popular vote in 2012. And the partisan antiwar left would have to face themselves in the mirror for enabling it.

CD,

I'm not as drastic as that -- but we could do a lot to make a difference.

Europe bases cut back to real caretaker status. The large majority being nothing but cantonment areas. There is no reason to have 60K troops in Germany today.

Closure of borders needs to be done, no matter the reason.

The English only amendment is a little over the top.

cd, agree with everything. However, I would only cut immigration as fae as tying it to the economy. If unemployment is above 5 percent, no immigration. And yes, tariff the shit out of china, they make a mockery out of patent laws and copyright protection. Force manufacturing back to our shores. Screw the third world.

Re: "The Democrats assumed that, after JFK and the Civil Rights Act, that Washington was theirs for a generation. Few of them took Richard Nixon seriously as a Presidential candidate, and that's one reason they were so stunned when Nixon won the 1968 election."

I hadn't thought of that, but that's an interesting take.

Re: "By 1971, everything that had ever happened in Vietnam was Nixon's fault, and LBJ was a demigod. That's the way it's been since."

I remember the Nixon era. In '71, the Pentagon Papers, on the development of U.S. involvement in Indochina, were released. I find the idea that LBJ was a demigod. He laid low in retirement, dying in early '73. The Pentagon Papers revealed that Kennedy, Johnson and Defense Secretary McNamara has misled and outright lied to the people about the Vietnam War. When Nixon didn't liquidate U.S. involvement in that war, the people became increasingly disenchanted, and protests grew for a while. With regards to politics, despite his merits, Nixon was a practitioner of brass knuckle politics, and that enraged many Democrats, and many ordinary people, too. A rough analogy about perceptions of Nixon then to the present would be the way many people are now disillusioned with Obama about the state of the economy in his 3rd year as president. But Nixon went on to win be re-elected in a blowout.

The true cost of these wars, when all is said and done, is actually estimate to be $6 trillion.

And we wonder why there are no jobs.

I like this last thing a lot, Lobster.

Why?

Think: how do you spend $6T and not pay anyone?

There are accounting shenanigans. The "credibility gap" was manufactured specifically by those who could not admit that the Chinese were sending troops to Vietnam. They were.

Now, there's a "dollar gap". Where's the money going, really?

Remember, if it's going to an American contractor:
a) The money really is going to jobs;
b) The current Administration thinks that's just dandy.

I get a pal who's going to be some sort of lawyer, and the man usually informs me to protect yourself from courtroom lawsuits if it is possible. The only method he would think about it a good option is when we have a lot of financial backing, the way it is can be quite offering, and that we are fully willing to gain the case.