Hulver's site || Heroes

Heroes

for comic books	2 votes - 33 %
ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances	4 votes - 66 %
WIPO - my hero is . . .	0 votes - 0 %

6 Total Votes

Been At War So Long, Forgot About Peace | 76 comments (76 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Oceania has always by sasquatchan (4.00 / 3) #1 Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:51:01 AM EST

been at war with Eastasia.

: Great minds by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #5 Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM EST

think alike.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

Thanks for thoughts. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #2 Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:57:34 AM EST

Perhaps the tide will change. Let's hope it does so soon.

Out of curiosity, Canadian soldiers are deployed in both the wars Americans currently find themselves in. What's going on up there? Are the common folks taking to the streets?

I don't here much about sweeping anti-war movements in Canada and I notice you almost never mention Canadian involvement when you discuss the wars.

Funny thing is . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:02:01 PM EST

. . . even though you are correct - we are involved in two wars - most Canadians would argue vociferously that it's only one (the righteous one, of course).

You don't hear much about anti-war movements anywhere in the MSM, but they are happening here, there, and everywhere.

I consider Canada a proxy and puppet of the US military industrial complex.

[ Parent ]

(Comment Deleted) by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #35 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by Billy Goat

[ Parent ]

My wife knows what life was like . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #38 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:43:49 PM EST

. . . in China very well, as she was born there, and lived in it, including her young adulthood. I lived there for a year myself, as you know. Your caricature of the Chinese totalitarian regime seems very quaint to me, as it would also seem to her, btw.

What I am trying to say is that, my wife is fairly politically aware, and we mostly agree on these issues. She takes the brunt of criticism much more personally when the odd retarded and misguided opinion is offered on a country most westerners know nothing of. She got a lot of flak over Tibet, while China was involved in no bombing raids on a helpless populace. She has come over to Canada to such an incredibly biased and misinformed opinion of China (as you well demonstrate) that it has brought her to near tears. She has had to suffer questions over photos depicting rural, backward peasants with plows when she herself has never even seen that level of poverty in her entire province - yet this is the sort of propoganda reprinted ad nauseum in most media outlets. I could go on and on about the mis and dis information, but what's the point . . . for the west, that's the truth.

I mean really - are you serious? Yes, she thinks the west is murderous and corrupt. We are. No, not all officials are appointed, btw - I bet you didn't know that local politicians are voted in by the public. MSM probably failed to mention that one. No, China's human rights record is not very good, but the US is making up ground fast. A Chinese cultural and political revolution has been slowly happening for about 15 years, any faster and it's an armed one. You're talking about two countries headed in different directions, except one is the imperial power with troops and bases all around the world promoting democracy.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[ Parent ]

(Comment Deleted) by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:10:59 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by Billy Goat

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry. by Billy Goat (4.00 / 1) #52 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:19:10 PM EST

Sorry about the political BS. It just occurred to me, 'cause I'm an insensitive prick, but I sincerely hope that the quake left your wife's loved ones alone.

I don't know the geography well enough to know off-hand if it was anywhere close. But I hope all's well.

Please forgive the running off of the mouth. It's not important.

[ Parent ]

: I actually read the comment . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #54 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM EST

. . . before you deleted it, good timing I guess. There was no offense taken, as I am a big boy and you are a pretty well-informed individual in general.
Your apology is touching though, and I thank you for the kind wishes. I apologise in kind, as I tend to act a little reflexively on these issues.
I actively have to defend China and the Chinese almost everyday, an indirect fault of western media's prejudice and ignorance, despite the fact that I am no big fan of the PRC or any other non publicly elected government officials, whether they be Chinese party members or Canadian senators and judges.
Her family is fine, they are east/central coast by Shanghai. Earthquake was central and south central, hitting hardest in the big city of Chenngdu, which I visited on my way to and from Tibet. We haven't heard yet from some friends we made there, though.

[ Parent ]

They're at the corner of East and Goodman by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:57:38 AM EST

and have a storefront on Monroe, our local anti-war activists.

What are you looking for, hundreds of thousands marching on the Pentagon and exorcising it?

: That's Peace Activists . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:17:01 PM EST

. . . not anti-war. And you have already had your hundred thousand person march on the white house, actually, even though it got very scant mention for a protest of that size.
I'm not looking for anything from other people that I don't expect of myself. Prepare for the worst, and hope to be able to handle any dire situation valiantly if it comes down to that. I'm pretty far from being in that situation; but many of you are not . . .

[ Parent ]

Hey hey! Ho ho! We support the majority! by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST

Doesn't have much of a ring to it...

where is the counteraction to the war movement?
Ummm, in polls a consistent majority, over 60%, wants the US out of Iraq within 4 years. Around 40% wants the US out of Iraq immediately. Something like 75% want the US out within 8 years.

George Will's latest column has some interesting questions for McCain:

is not a vote for you a vote for war with Iran?
...
Does that mean war can be avoided only if France, Germany, Japan and China, which have important commercial relations with Iran, impose severe sanctions, and they break Iran's nuclear ambitions?
...
Does the task of making your four adjectives descriptive of Iraq require and therefore justify more years of military involvement in the suppression of groups that are manifestations of sectarianism, criminality and warlordism? What other nations should we police?
...
how long is your list of nations eligible for "rogue-state rollback"?

Remember, George Will is a mainstream Republican conservative.

Oh, and then there are all the elections the Republicans are losing these days.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}

Just a quick note . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:18:56 PM EST

. . . sentiment is not action, and please to be never confusing the two.

[ Parent ]

What action do you want? by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:34:54 PM EST

We're having an election in November, during which the Republicans will be repudiated, at least, and possibly humiliated. The war in Iraq will be done, at least the USian part of it, by 2012.

This isn't the 60's.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

You're right there . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:10 PM EST

. . . it isn't the 60s.

[ Parent ]

The sixties by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST

The time period where people held mass protests against a war resulting in said war going on for enough 7-8 years and Nixon getting elected.

The effectiveness of protests is overrated.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I agree . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:48:55 PM EST

. . . now imagine a public that protests even less than that, despite an international military presence that dwarfs the former.

Unending war.

[ Parent ]

Nope by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:07:00 PM EST

You assume that the anti-war protests actually do anything to stop war. They don't. They may in fact lengthen it by allowing the right to discredit the anti-war movement as a bunch of loony nutjobs. That's certainly how it went down in 2003.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

You assume too much . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:13:38 PM EST

. . . I don't think protests are very effective at all at affecting change in government policy. I never advocated for more protests, simply wondered aloud at the lack of them. I do think protests are a relevent reflection of the popular opinion . . . and the lack of protests, contrasted with disasterous foreign policy, is a big sign of apathy for me.

But I'm just a crazy Canadian with crazy ideas about democratic accountability and public responsibility and civic duty . . .

[ Parent ]

: The lack of protests by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:18:30 PM EST

Mostly caused by those that did go to the large protests we did have in 2003 noticing that a) they had no effect and b) that they merely gave Fox news an excuse to plaster dickwad anarchists smashing windows all over TV screens.
I ride by an indication of noncomplacency every day.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Right let's look at the results by lm (2.00 / 0) #72 Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:27:54 AM EST

In the sixties, massive and sometimes violent protests led to a continuation and even escalation of the war.

In the present, virtually no protests have led to 2 of the three remaining serious contenders for the presidency arguing over who can end the war the most quickly.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

By the time the protests . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #73 Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM EST

. . . in the 60s reached the massive and violent stage, movements had already started for de-escalation, I thought. At any rate, we are talking about a lag of two to three years, so that by 73 there was a clear pullback.

In the present, there have actually been many large protests - just because the MSM doesn't advertise them to the public doesn't mean they didn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war
And . . . 2/3?

Clinton can't be one of those . . . not with statements like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/juan-cole-clintons-iran-c_n_100327.html
I'm not buying a single piece of anti-war rhetoric coming from Clinton or even Obama, and I'm not sure why anyone else would be fooled. Both have declared the saintly state of Israel to be a continued close ally, with a built-in mutual defence agreement. Israel has been conducting practice bombing runs, public drills for missile attacks, and has ratchetted up the shrill "attack Iran NOW" scream to a dog-whistle pitch. I also don't see Obama actually winning without huge concessions/promises to Big Oil or the Military Industrial Complex.

Again, history will reveal me to be either a keen predictor or fearful pessimist; but I really don't see an end to war happening in the middle east. I see shifts to different regions and escalation in the future . . .

[ Parent ]

That page you linked to by lm (2.00 / 0) #74 Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:18:21 PM EST

According to that Wiki page, the largest single protest in the US was numbered at somewhere between 150k to 200k. Compare that to protests as large as 400k against the Vietnam War in 67 and 68, 600k in 69, and 500k in 70.

As far as Clinton and Obama, feel free to not take them at their word, but both have put forth concrete proposals to begin drawing down US troops as soon as they take office.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Yes, aware of the numbers there . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #75 Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:42:57 PM EST

. . . and aware that they are smaller than the Vietnam ones. Hence, my initial comment that I am surprised that there are not more/larger protests now, despite similar approval ratings, a larger population, and supposedly better informed populace. I realise this is countered by no draft and less deaths for the invading army; but still, my opinion stands. The protests have been sizeable, but opposition has been well stifled considering the people's mood and situation, not mentioning the criminals in office directing things.

We'll see. Maybe.

[ Parent ]

: opposition has been well stifled? by lm (2.00 / 0) #76 Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:55:09 PM EST

Not sure what you mean by that. In the Vietnam era, opposition to the war was stifled, sometimes at gunpoint. The few, sporadic incidents of escorting folks wearing protest tee-shirts out of a handful of events today barely compares to what some Vietnam protesters went through.
I suppose you can call the protests of the Iraq war in the US sizable, but given that there have been larger protests in nations ranging from Canada to Spain and Germany, and given that the protests in the US are less than a third of the size of the protests against Vietnam despite forty years of population growth, I'm not so certain that is a good assessment.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Protests are a part of it by theboz (4.00 / 2) #39 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:46:52 PM EST

There are far more effective ways of making change, and far more radical eras in our history than the tame 60's. The 1880s up through the 1920's made the hippies of the 60's look like a bunch of right-wing sissies. Have you ever heard of Eugene V. Debbs or Emma Goodman? I'm not saying we need to go to the same level they did, but we need to do something other than live under the lie that voting is good enough. Want to know what I think can be done? Organize with other people and support candidates for lower level offices that are attainable, and build our way up to the top offices. Stage boycotts of certain products and services that are easy for people to do without being self-destructive. There are many more things we can do that although they won't enable instant change, will start us in the right direction. Sitting on our asses and voting is not enough anymore, and probably never has been.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

Goldman not Goodman by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #42 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:54:37 PM EST

she's part of the local history.

[ Parent ]

: Doh! by theboz (2.00 / 0) #53 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:24:57 PM EST

I don't know why I wrote it that way. I must have been mixing her up with the obese actor, John Goldman.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

I cannot give you enough 4s . . . by slozo (4.00 / 1) #43 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:01:13 PM EST

. . . for this rather sane and rational comment.

Last good protest? The Bonus Army March, 1932.

[ Parent ]

The difference now... by atreides (4.00 / 1) #7 Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:32:48 PM EST

...is that so few of those over here are in danger of being sent. Not only has war become remote controlled (air power, robots, unmanned drones, stuff like that to minimize casualties), but it has become something that other people (read lower class people) do in other places. When the war is fought by everyone's sons and daughters, it matters more. When the war is here, it matters more. And note that the most widely listened to reasons for ending the war are now the economic reasons (war profiteering, veteran's costs, mismanagement of money in Iraq, neglect of infrastructure here, instability creating oil speculation jacking up gas prices, etc.)...

Just a thought...

_{He sails from world to world in a flying tomb, serving gods who eat hope.}

I actually disagree with your assertion . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:34:59 PM EST

. . . that you are not in danger of being sent over - I think you have a 50/50 chance of having a draft in the coming months. Your forces are stretched super thin, and it shows. More and more, the missions are being extended to an alarming degree. Any further conflict would absolutely demand a draft, and this would be especially possible contingent on a dramatic event with great loss of american life. And herein lies the real danger: the complacency of the populace, until some defining event like that happens.

I agree that out of sight is out of mind. Just like your observations on the reasons to end the war being economic, rather than humanitarian or moral . . . this is partly why I have often become derisive and sarcastic on the subject.

[ Parent ]

I see the draft at about .1 % of happening by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:40:27 PM EST

The volunteer armed forces don't want it, no sane politician wants, barring a huge attack on the mainland by an aggressor nation, I don't see it happening.

[ Parent ]

You just described . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:22:31 PM EST

. . . the situation before the draft lottery was instilled for the war in Vietnam. That was with no attack on the mailand, save for reports of the My Lai massacre and costly Tet offensive. That draft lottery, btw, happened right after Nixon won the election somehow . . . hopefully, that isn't prescience.

[ Parent ]

Tens of thousands were being drafted long before by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #22 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:37:33 PM EST

Nixon got elected.

[ Parent ]

The draft by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #48 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:11:52 PM EST

The draft was in place long before the war in Vietnam. It was in place for WWII, expired in 1947, quickly reinstated in 1948 for Korea and left in place until discontinued for good in 1973.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I think I'm seeing . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #66 Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:28:52 AM EST

. . . some of the confusion over the draft thing. Like I said earlier, the lottery draft was instilled (perhaps I should have said first employed for Vietnam) in 1969 - Dec 1, 1969 to be exact. What you and georgha are referring to is perhaps the selective training and service act of 1940, and the fact that from 1948-73 that draft was in place. According to sources I looked up, the 1969 draft lottery was the first since 1942.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/bldrafthistory.htm

http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm

[ Parent ]

Right, but prior to 1969 many men were drafted by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #67 Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:55:03 AM EST

something like 300,000 in 1965.

It wasn't a case of no draftees until 1969, men were being drafted to figth in Vietnam all through the 1960s.

[ Parent ]

: And before Vietnam, Korea by lm (4.00 / 1) #69 Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:04:04 PM EST

I believe the only difference was that without the institution of the lottery, only those that scored well on an exam and didn't have grounds for a deferment were being drafted. A lottery is certainly more egalitarian. Arguably, taking the top scorers is better for the military.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

further conflict would absolutely demand a draft by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #17 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST

Which is why there won't be a further conflict. Have you considered how a draft would have to work? The Army doesn't need, or want, low IQ cannon fodder, nor will the Army take them. What would they do with them? (There's another rant, on the loss of a good welfare program, in here, btw).

No, the Army wants at least a high school diploma. Sure, you can get a waiver if you test high enough on the Army's IQ test. But if you test low, and haven't graduated high school, you can't function in the infantry or other copmbat arms.

So the draft would preferentially get middle-class college kids.

If President Bush, or any president, said "We must bring back the draft, else we lose in Iraq" then the troops will be home very quickly.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

I don't see a draft happening. by atreides (4.00 / 1) #18 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:10:16 PM EST

First of all, an all volunteer force is ultimately superior to a drafted force. Volunteers are motivated, draftees are not. Add to that the time, infrastructure and manpower required to train the draftees which is not in place because it's been wasted in Iraq and it looks even less likely.

Second, it would be political suicide to the President who suggests it and the Congress that approves it. Nobody wants to go, nobody wants to support the effort (though every one wants to support the troops and rightly so), very few want politicians who do right now so nobody would dare.

Third, if you have a draft, you have to have more transparency in what you're doing or you end up back in issue the Second. You can't force everyone's sons and daughters to go to war without really putting the real story or a really convincing lie on the table and nobody who makes those decisions is going to do that now. They don't have the moral high ground or imagination and even if they did, it's far too late. They could tell a burning man he was on fire and not be trusted.

Fourth, those are the smallest reasons it won't happen. There are class issues, front line leadership issues, upper echelon leadership resistance, the aforementioned economic issues, materiel issues and, ultimately, we're already being floated by a bunch of other countries. Where would we get the money? Either other countries who are already floating us and probably wouldn't give us more money to waste unless they really want to destabilize us (maybe China) or from ourselves which is unlikely since too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands, hands that don't want to give money to anyone, much less the government, and could probably abscond with funds if forced.

I don't see a draft coming. They'll try to call me back before they try a draft and I'm pretty sure I'm in no danger...

_{He sails from world to world in a flying tomb, serving gods who eat hope.}
[ Parent ]

I certainly hope . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #23 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:45:10 PM EST

. . . wiredog and yourself are correct and that I am being silly in my fears.

But to clarify on my use of the word "draft" - I think it would come in the form of a sort of lottery draft as in Vietnam, or some other variation of a backdoor draft. The way the reservists and volunteers are being used and redeployed could also be considered a mini-draft already . . .

[ Parent ]

I don't draft means what you think it does by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #25 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:50:19 PM EST

reservists signed up know that they could be called up for active duty.

[ Parent ]

I don't think you realise . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #27 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:53:01 PM EST

. . . the terms of contract reservists signed up for, and how that contract has been twisted around and amended to mean "you serve when we want you to, for however long we decide".

[ Parent ]

That's still not a draft by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #30 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:00:28 PM EST

they initially volunteered.

I'm not saying it's right, I am saying it's not conscription.

[ Parent ]

the power to do that by aphrael (4.00 / 2) #31 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:00:54 PM EST

has always been in the contract.

lots of people signed up because they thought that provision would be ignored because it always had been before, and were surprised when things changed.

more fool them.

If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]

I certainly knew that when I enlisted. by wiredog (4.00 / 2) #32 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:08:01 PM EST

3 years active duty, plus 5 years in the reserves. The reserves could be IRR, Guard, or Reserves. But I knew it was an 8 year commitment.

Now, once the 8 years are up they can't be recalled. They can be kept in if they are on active duty (via stop-loss orders), but once their 8 years is up they can't be recalled.

Unless they're officers. Those guys can get recalled to active duty at any time. But enlisted men, like me, are safe after their 8 years are up.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

Fair enough, I'm glad you knew then . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #46 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:07:25 PM EST

. . . because most don't, from what I understand.

[ Parent ]

In 85, most did. by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #56 Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:52:19 PM EST

I suspect that most do now. Especially since most of the people in the IRR enlisted after the Iraq War started. Most of the IRR people enlisted after stop-loss, and callups of the IRR, became common 3 or 4 years ago.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

Reserves by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #62 Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:20 PM EST

Since some were called up in the '91 Gulf War, I'd be surprised if many didn't know.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I got warning orders in 91. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #63 Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:44:14 AM EST

I was "on the list", as my job was communications.

Want to find the company commander so you can drop a mortar round on him? Look for the antenna waving in the air. The CO is at the bottom of it. Right next to him is the radio operator. Me.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

: Yeah by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #68 Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST

My stepdad did that while defending Germany from the Ruskis in the early sixties.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

The IRR callups aren't a draft. by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #28 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:53:04 PM EST

A lottery is exactly what would be used (as the Army doesn't need millions of people), but participation would be limited by education and test scores. Which would still limit the draft (mostly) to the middle and upper classes.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

No draft will happen by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #21 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:14 PM EST

No congress would pass such a bill, and any president we are likely to get (including McCain) would veto it. The draft is a third rail of American politics.

You also need to consider in reference to your general comments about the current wars and the potential for their spread that the chance of those that support the current war and might want to see more wars in places like Iran being in power in nine month's time is exceedingly low.

When you call the American populous "complacent" about the war, you ignore the very real facts that the war in Iraq is currently less popular amoung that "complacent" populous than Vietnam ever was and that candidates that support that war are getting their asses handed to them at the polling places.

Every indication is that the Democrats will increase their presence in both the House and the Senate and capture the Presidency mostly because of the public attitude towards the war in Iraq and the "War on Terror". Your posts sound like they were written in 2005. They completely ignore the 2006 decimation of the Republican party.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Overly confident. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #37 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:43:46 PM EST

The 2006 "decimation" took fewer chairs away from the GOP than the Dems lost during the Clinton years. Despite the horrific performance of Bush, the Dems were unable to take the Senate and their lead in the House is considerably smaller now than it was before the Clinton years.

Weirdly, success hurt the Dems more than failure has hurt the GOP.

As for the upcoming election, the Congressional data is strange. When asked if they'd like to see a majority of the current Congressional crop lose their seats, an overwhelming number of Americans say yes (sometimes more than 60%). A majority of people also say that they'd like to see a Democratically controlled Congress, but not so many that the undecideds don't flip the data completely (about 40/30 with 10 undecided and the rest somehow not caring).

But when asked if they want to keep their particular incumbent, more than 60% of America says yes.

I'm not sure what to make of it, but we might not being seeing a substantial change this year. People seem to be saying "My guy's all right, it's all those other jackasses who need to lose their jobs!" If enough people feel that way, we get record levels of disgust with Congress but little actual change.

Personally, I'd love to see the GOP kicked to the curb. But I don't think its a sure thing.

[ Parent ]

Well, yes by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #44 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:04:42 PM EST

The 2006 decimation (literal in magnitude if not fatality) took fewer chairs than 1994/1996/1998/2000/2002 elections combined.

But it is stuff like this that makes me optimistic as does the raft of Republican retirements.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I'm just saying we should be cautious. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:13:07 PM EST

I remember when everybody was convinced Bush couldn't possibly get re-elected.

Once bitten, twice shy.

Still, I hope you're right. We need the new leadership desperately.

[ Parent ]

: to wit by sasquatchan (4.00 / 3) #58 Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:11:19 PM EST

if you run a giant douche against a shit sandwich, there ain't no winners.

[ Parent ]

a few points by lm (4.00 / 1) #8 Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:41:17 PM EST

The US is involved in more than two wars. You're leaving out N. Korea, Kosovo, and others.

Second, it is rare in the US to have an anti-war movement for a conflict being fought with an all-volunteer army. Although, to be fair, that may just be a function of the US so seldom going to war with an all-volunteer army.

Third, the war has had almost negligible impact on the lives of everyday Americans save for an increase in the cost of gas. The middle class would almost certainly have a different view of this war would have been paid for responsibly rather than being foisted onto the children, grand-children and great-grand-children of those of us who live in the US.

Fourth, public opinion has only recently really turned against the war. 2006 was the first election in the US where being for the war in Iraq was a liability rather than an advantage. At present, US citizens concerned about the war think that there is something concrete that they can do, vote for anti-war candidates come November.

All of the above add up to most people seeing no need to protest. And yet, some are protesting. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at how much protesting is still going on.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

Not to mention by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #11 Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:30:58 PM EST

The protests that do happen tend to get coopted by the loony left protest brigade.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Don't forget the ridiculous right . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:50:53 PM EST

. . . provocateur brigade.

[ Parent ]

: International ANSWER is right wing? by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #29 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:55:56 PM EST

Who knew?
Seriously, the Right doesn't need (and doesn't use) provocateurs when it has groups like International ANSWER around.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

Good point . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:05:09 PM EST

. . . on the other wars - I was focussing on the main ones in the public periphery.

I suppose you are correct on the all-volunteer army thing not engendering a huge upswell of protest. That ties in with mostly the poor and disadvantaged seeing the armed forces as an option.

I really don't think the war has had a neglibible impact, however - but we'd have to wait a bit longer to see if I am correct on that point. Either way, it is clear that people still believe in the US system of democracy as being in working order.

I used to be quite surprised by this point of view, but now it seems par for the course in this crazy, spin-addled world . . .

[ Parent ]

N. Korea by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #34 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM EST

But that war has been going on for 58 years, was started by North Korea, and the US presence is accepted by the South Koreans.

I spent a year in the 2nd ID in Toko-Ri in 85/86. Had a RoK Army sergeant (Sgt Kim) as a squad leader for a couple months.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

And when was the last protest against it? by lm (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST

I can't say that I recall a protest against the Korean War occurring at any point in my lifetime.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Why would anyone protest? by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #55 Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:48:02 PM EST

The general feeling is that the United Nations Force in Korea (which is what the US is part of) is there for the right reason, and doing a good job.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

I get the feeling ... by lm (4.00 / 1) #57 Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:09:54 PM EST

... that some folks, like the individual I saw driving a car last week with a bumper sticker that said `I'm already against the next war', don't like wars of any color.

And this diary, after all, was asking why there haven't been any protests for the wars the US is presently involved with.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Well, I don't like wars of any color. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #64 Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:20 AM EST

But I do recognize that sometimes going to war is less bad than the alternative.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

: I would agree with the view that war is always bad by lm (2.00 / 0) #65 Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:16:42 AM EST

I would even agree with the premise that war is always morally wrong.
But in my world of gray, sometimes I think all the options available are morally wrong and that, sometimes, war is less morally wrong than all the alternatives. At these times, I think it imperative to go to war. Further I think that those who decide ahead of time that they are against doing such are almost all deluded about the nature of reality.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

the average american by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #33 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:10:03 PM EST

is too busy struggling to make ends meet to care enough to go protest a war that doesn't actively affect them.

why you might be living the good life up in Canada, people here are having a tough time of things.

Not too tough by theboz (2.00 / 0) #40 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:50:53 PM EST

I see you have internet again.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

: it was a close one! by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #59 Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:04:10 PM EST

Sunday morning we went to clock's dad's place for connection.
Sunday afternoon we rebooted the cable modem yet again in the desperate hope it would work....it did!

[ Parent ]

I'm aware of the troubles down there . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #41 Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST

. . . and frankly, I am living the good life right now. I'm also aware of a trickledown effect on the Canadian economy, and have prepared my family for it to the best of my abilities.

Big GM layoffs announced again here. Plants closing down. Contractors I run into here scrambling for new business. Slight trepidation setting in generally, slight panic in the manufacturing sector. As the US goes, so goes Canada eventually . . .

[ Parent ]

something to note by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 1) #60 Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:58:12 PM EST

many of our troubles have nothing to do with layoffs. hell, there are a TON of available jobs in Houston right now.

unfortunately, people can't afford to drive to work, or buy food for their families, etc.

[ Parent ]

: Houston is an exception by theboz (2.00 / 0) #61 Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:52 PM EST

Some areas of the U.S. are facing layoffs, and some cities and sectors are worse than others. Since we have the energy companies here, amongst other non-optional businesses, we're doing good. In talking with people in other states, things are not as good elsewhere.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

You are an ignorant cunt by debacle (1.33 / 3) #70 Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:11:48 PM EST

And no, I didn't read your stupid drivel.

"I'm very responsive to certain stimuli, and pain is pretty much at the top of that list." - BadDoggie

: So, now that you've waited . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #71 Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:16:03 AM EST

. . . for the comment stream to die down in my diary, and I'm not on the first page anymore, you get up the courage to call me names on the internet. Kudos! That's one shaky step forward to manhood, keep going!
But seriously, what makes you froth so? If you didn't read my article, why did you bother to comment?
I'm guessing you're too chicken to give me an honest answer, judging by your cowardly and childish deportment . . .

[ Parent ]

Been At War So Long, Forgot About Peace | 76 comments (76 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: