Be prepared: the war pigs are pissed!

[backscatter712]

See, with the bombing of Syria on hold, the military-industrial complex has been cock-blocked from a bunch of lucrative business deals. Raytheon's stock was rising, thanks to the potential for new contracts to replenish the Tomahawk cruise missile stockpiles after they've been depleted from the bombardment of Syria. The oil industry was looking forward to months of charging $4.50 per gallon for gas due to "uncertainty and risk" in the Middle East.

But now the war is on hold, which puts their blood money profits in doubt.

We're fucking with "their" money, which is actually our money, as the taxpayers get the bill for all the death toys for the MIC, and we're the ones paying at the pump when the Kochs are able to game oil futures using the wars as an excuse.

And because we're fucking with their money, they are pissed off, and this is when the war pigs fight dirtiest. Get ready...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Even if there is no war it will be hard to argue in favor of defense cuts.

Obama's presumed gambit only works if there is a credible threat of force. Defense cuts would undermine that credibility. Sequestration-wise the long cold winter of their discontent is probably over.

[Zorra]

4. We spend more money on our war machine than the rest of the world combined.

Seems to me we that could easily make defense cuts without undermining our credibility. Maybe we could impose a stiff Offshore Transnational Corporation Protection Tax to pay for 50% of the war machine budget.

Make them pay for their private world police war machine that protects their private profit making interests around the world.

Why should American taxpayers be forced to pay huge sums for the security of private interests that have no allegiance to our country?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. I'm not arguing against defense cuts

I'm stating how non-domestics observers may view the optics. A military exhausted by 12 years of war and undergoing budget cuts doesn't look very imposing.

[Divernan]

100. That is your simplistic spin & it remains spin no matter how often you repost!

When a country has stock piled enough weapons/aircraft/naval ships to do a job 10 times over, said country can reduce said stockpile without being perceived as being unable to carry out threats of military force (can't be called retaliation when the recipient of the threat has not attacked said country or its citizens). Your example re carriers is ludicrous "At worst he'd be laughed out of town saying he wants to cut down a carrier group while asking to deploy carrier groups." The math is SO simple. You have 10 weapons. You deploy one; you keep 2 in reserve; you mothball 7. That would reduce our capacity down to the level of China & still well more than the rest of the world's.

As to carriers, here's the latest cost overruns on the new class of carrier (starting out at modest $12.8 BILLION.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-huntington-carrier-idUSBRE98501U2013090

The US Navy currently has ELEVEN carriers, each with its own support strike group of 10,000 BILLETS EACH. Defense Sec. Hagel has proposed reducing that number to 8 or 9.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130804/DEFREG02/308040012/A-US-Navy-Only-8-Carriers-

As Blue Northwest posted: "We are spending about 680 billion on Defense a year. Next comes China, number two with 166 billion. I see plenty of room to cut back and still be the big swinging whatever it is we are supposed to swing big."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. The title of the post you're replying to says, "I'm not arguing against defense cuts."

I'm not arguing against defense cuts. I'm not saying the militarily isn't enormously honkin' huge. I'm not saying we don't have places to trim, reduce and cut. I'm not spinning anything because I am NOT DISPUTING what you say.

ALL I have said, up and down this thread, is the optics will rob the President of the political momentum to make cuts.

[JDPriestly]

86. I agree!

[Bluenorthwest]

15. We are currently the owners of the world's largest stash of chemical weapons

weapons we are currently trying to dispose of. It will take us another 10 years or so to destroy them, working full time.
We are spending about 680 billion on Defense a year. Next comes China, number two with 166 billion. I see plenty of room to cut back and still be the big swinging whatever it is we are supposed to swing big.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. I'm not arguing against cuts. I'm stating the reality of diplomatic and political optics.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Optics can be reframed easily. Optics as you use the term means 'false image'

and frankly Americans are aware that we spend fuck tons on 'defense' and that we could spend a few fuck tons less without anyone being able to touch the hem of our garment. The 'optics' employed by people who want to keep wasting our future on means of destruction are not the only game in town. It is foolish to buckle to a threat of public relations spin.
Diplomatic optics? As if some other country is going to think we are weak? Hilarious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. You left out palm greasing. The president still doesn't have his AUMF.

[robinlynne]

85. um. the "leader of the world"....

[avebury]

30. We spend an obsene amount of money

on the military, far more then we actually need. Just how many times over do you need to bomb someone? How can we have a Congress that complains about the need to cut the budget and yet we always seem to have money to bomb someone?

We have no business attacking another country until we have attacked and fixed our own problems.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. C'mon guys! This is the 3rd time this comment has been made. I've answered each time.

Please read. Pretty please.

[rhett o rick]

58. We could have a "credible threat of force" with a fourth of the defense budget.

The current defense budget is strangling our middle class, but the hawks among us support the MIC.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. For the fourth time

I'm not talking about or arguing against defense cuts on principle. I'm saying it will be damn hard for Obama to go to congress looking for cuts when he is simultaneously begging congress not to decapitate his leverage against Syria. If nothing else he'll need to horse trade, i.e. money for votes. At worst he'd be laughed out of town saying he wants to cut down a carrier group while asking to deploy carrier groups. Not to mention the headlines, "Obama disarms on eve of war!"

[unhappycamper]

97. Uuuuuh..

That big ass chunk o blue pie is the reason for many things bad in this country.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. And the fifth time.

I kindly direct your attention to my response to the other four incarnations of this exact same line of argument.

[riversedge]

101. The GOP was, just yesterday blaming Obama for the sequester

defense cuts--as if there were NO GOP members involved .

[jsr]

2. The MIC will not stand down on this one.

They're working on Plan B to make things happen.

[Little Star]

3. I'd bet money on that one.

[CoffeeCat]

81. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

You can damn well bet they have a plan; a retaliation plan. Nothing is off the table with these thugs. From concocting some fake drama in Syria--to a terrorist event on Ameican soil--nothing is too pathological for these neocon types.

And make no mistake--they're pissed. Pissed at Obama. He was supposed to lead us into a war and prop up the lies, like good little soldier Bush did with Iraq.

Obama took their ball, stole it, ran down the court, head faked Congress, then passed it to Putin and Syrian leaders.

Not what the neocons expected. They're fuming. Syria is on the PNAC/neocon bucket list. This was supposed to be their next big "get".

So, not only do they not get their precious war; Obama is practically neutralizing them as a potential enemy. If they join the international community, sign treaties and agreements, holy buckets this thwarts the neocon grand war plan. Syria was to be next.

The only President who has come close to this kind of neocon smack down, was JFK. He flatly refused to toe the neocon line during the Bay of Pigs crisis. It's scary if you think about it.

I really wonder what they will do. They're capable of anything. Sick bastards.

[sendero]

99. Cynically..

... I have to agree with you. I hope Obama is careful here, and watches his back.

[malaise]

5. The neo-cons have been crushed like bugs

Fugg 'em - even their own party faithful are finished with them.

[snappyturtle]

8. Unfortunately, they have Phoenix like powers....they will

get what they want in the end. imho

[2banon]

80. nope.. they're down, but they're not out..

not by a long shot, unfortunately.

[nikto]

96. WE wish...

If it were only true!

[markiv]

7. David Koch came out AGAINST the war

it's intelectually lazy to lump the Kochs in on this one - those who spoke out against this attack are not 'warmongers'


http://news.yahoo.com/david-koch--attacking-syria-would-be--dead-wrong---165731555.html



Chris Moody, Yahoo! News August 30, 2013 12:57 PM .ORLANDO, Fla. — President Barack Obama would be “dead wrong” to order a military strike against Syria, billionaire political activist David Koch said Friday.

In an exclusive interview with Yahoo News, Koch, who finances several conservative and libertarian political causes, warned that attacking the country would harm the United States' image in the region.

“I do not think we should get involved in attacks on Syria. It’s like putting your head into a hornet’s nest,” Koch told Yahoo News at a conference sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group he backs financially. “You’re going to get shot at from all directions. There’s all this talk about attacking the bad guys in Syria, but whom do you attack? Where do you find the people who put these chemical weapons together, this poisonous gas? To me it’s an impossibility, and we’re just going to generate a huge increase in the hostility to the United States in my opinion.”

[Whisp]

9. Koch's are greedy liars. Don't believe one word of theirs.

They are gaming.

[markiv]

11. it's easy to dismiss progressives as fools when

you just flat out ignore evidence

you're not helping this cause any

to make accusations stick, they cant be false

you're arguement seems little more than

'Kochs are bad, this war is bad, therefore kochs are for this war' even though if you read that from anyone else, you would say they were against the war

[Whisp]

18. well, I'm not surprised.

Let Alan Sort Them Out, Pootin/Snowden are heroes, Ron Paul is all that and a bag of chips, and now Koch snorting is in too.

[markiv]

19. a complex world too tough for you?

perhaps you should leave it to those more qualified

'politics makes strange bedfellows' is an old cliche, because it's true

and if your position is 'there are no strange bedfellows in politics', you will lose all credibility

ever notice that OUR opposition is always trying to divide and conquer us?

why then would you artificially unite them, when they already have divisions?

whose cause, do you think that serves?

[Whisp]

20. o my, aren't you spritely today.

bad news lately?

[markiv]

38. ignorance is always bad news

the middle/working classes of this country have been hit with 20 years of bad news

the 1990s characterized by 'free trade' kool-aid pushed by Koch's CATO institute, supported by Ron Paul (and the Clintons)

the 2000s characterized by post 911 military industrial complex mania (pushed hard by Bush, pushed soft by DLC types like Kerry, Hillary, opposed by Ron Paul, this latest effort opposed by Koch), and a continuation of the free trade kool aid supported by the usual suspects mentioned above

the only hope to reverse any of this, is to sort out the issues and take the support of anyone on your side (by the way, many fundamentalist Christians, while supporting pro-israel warmongering, are fed up with the free trade kool-aid)

you artificially unite those you are against, you've already lost

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

39. Alan who?

Alan Hale, the skipper on Gilligan?

[Whisp]

40. Grayson and his Palin salad of: Let Allah Sort it Out. n/t

[azurnoir]

51. oh really Grayson said "Let Allah sort it out"

Link us to it pretty please?

[Whisp]

54. sorry, I can't find it.

and I don't recall who posted it.

But yeh, he said something like he'd have to agree with Palin and used those words of hers in an interview. ouch.

[azurnoir]

57. ah hah okay n/t

[Whisp]

65. I found it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023620807#post43

[azurnoir]

66. Did you miss the part about sarcasm accidently?

yes I sure that was it

but then again there is that stopped clock thingy too

[Whisp]

67. ah, yah yah, sure.

Alan Sorting Out might have even gotten some Palin fan fan money out of that line.

[azurnoir]

68. are you saying it came from the peopl here on DU?

please elaborate

[Whisp]

69. I don't understand. those palin words came from Grayson's mouth...

[azurnoir]

74. what don't you understand your own claims?

you said it probably got someone some money from fans, but at least you admit or apparently that you do not understand what you wrote

[Whisp]

75. oh That. Yes, I am sure Grayson got extra bucks for going there. Bucks from all kinds. n/t

[azurnoir]

76. you said from Grayson likely got money from Sarah Palin's fans

do you think that was his motive?

[Whisp]

77. I think it was just casting a wider net for money.

he may have been counting on people that hate Obama, and there are plenty to make his donation bank account a bit stuffier, both from the *ahem, left and Sarah's kind.

of course I don't know for sure, but that was such a stupid thing to quote I have no idea what his brain was thinking.

[iamthebandfanman]

88. now guys

its clear that neither of you are going to concede.. someone has a big ego and refuses to be proven wrong...

*cough right wing think cough*....

someone feels it in their gut, and can read between the lines...

no need for silly links, even if asked for.. no no...

the gut knows all.. it conquers all..

breathe it in .

[azurnoir]

89. or perhaps there is a bit more going on

I think the other posters charge that Grayson is pandering rGOP money was worth 10seconds of appearing wrong, you see sometimes you have to give your opponent some **cough** confidence to get them to ah speak what they really think and it can be worth while too, with all of th accusations of Obama hatred you see where the real hate is coming from

[iamthebandfanman]

90. Has it come to that?

You see others as 'opponents' on DU ?

Hey, at least the word enemy hasn't shown its ugly head....

I do agree though.. that notion is pretty silly , that mr grayson would be doing it make money off of right wingers...

BUT , it is disturbing to me that he parroted her word for word. I definitely think less of him now more than ever..

Man I cant wait to get back to domestic issues once this thing is settled.. then Mr Grayson can win me back over again, im sure..

but for now..
totally lame thing to do.

[azurnoir]

91. first off opponate is a term used in debating someone else

and you think it was lame, really keep in mind I've read some of your own comments too, now do I agree with Grayson's words no, but it is beyond silly to accuse a Democratic Congressman on a Democratic board of pandering GOP funds, quite a bit beyond silly in fact

[Tiredofthesame]

94. Ignoring evidence?

You claim words spoken by a Koch brother to yahoo news is evidence of what?
That they are not for a new war? That's ridiculous. EVIDENCE would be a financial record of donations made by the kochs to an anti war effort, or to politicians that are against the war, for example. Spoken words by one of the neocon kings to yahoo news isn't evidence of shit.
Holy shit people, I'm a progressive that can be easily dismissed because I didn't believe a Koch brothers statement to yahoo news.
Give me a break.
How you can even bring this up is ridiculous.

[markiv]

103. 'financial record of donations'

like 20 million to the ACLU to fight the PATRIOT act? (they didnt want the government snopping through their files)

source (search for ACLU) http://www.lasocialdiary.com/node/125921

David Koch was Liberatarian party VP candidate for 1980

Liberatarians while for nearly unlimited private power (which has it's problems), tend NOT to be for war or snooping

liberatarians are very much opposed to neocons - that doesnt automatically make liberatarians good, but it does make it important to understand who and what they are, if you want to stop needless, endless wars

it's always dumb to assume that all of your opponents are united, because they almost never are, and you make them look bigger and stronger than they really are when you do

[rl6214]

29. Of course he came out against the President.

The President could say the sun is bright and Koch would say no it's dark.

[markiv]

35. David Koch ran as Liberatarian VP candidate in 1980

against both Reagan and Carter

[rl6214]

36. Didn't know that

Thank you

[bullwinkle428]

10. Sen. Angry Grumpy Grandpa was pushing their talking points on NPR this A.M.

[kentuck]

12. BINGO!

And they are not happy with Barack Obama right now.

[kelliekat44]

13. If the MIC wants to go to war, the Congress or the President should impose a war tax on each

major industry ...call it a war insurance fund... where they put at least 5 billion into the social safety net pot to be distributed to Medicare, Medicaid, Education, ACA, unemployment, and natural disasters. A major industry would be one that profits over 50 billion per year.,,and there are plenty of them out there. The money can be raised by a surcharge on investors stocks, net profits, and CEO and top management pay reductions.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. The Dogs of War

Dogs of war and men of hate
With no cause, we don't discriminate
Discovery is to be disowned
Our currency is flesh and bone
Hell opened up and put on sale
Gather 'round and haggle
For hard cash, we will lie and deceive
Even our masters don't know the web we weave
One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world ... One world
Invisible transfers, long distance calls,
Hollow laughter in marble halls
Steps have been taken, a silent uproar
Has unleashed the dogs of war
You can't stop what has begun
Signed, sealed, they deliver oblivion
We all have a dark side, to say the least
And dealing in death is the nature of the beast
One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world ... One world
The dogs of war don't negotiate
The dogs of war won't capitulate,
They will take and you will give,
And you must die so that they may live
You can knock at any door,
But wherever you go, you know they've been there before
Well winners can lose and things can get strained
But whatever you change, you know the dogs remain.
One world, it's a battleground
One world, and we will smash it down
One world ... One world

[Enthusiast]

93. Plus One!

Love it.

[valerief]

17. and there's this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/09/1237500/-The-PetroDollar-Why-Syria

[Hotler]

21. Ding ding ding ding we have a winner. n/t

[KittyWampus]

22. According to you and your clique, Obama & Kerry themselves are war pigs or at least their stooges.

Funny how you can gloss right over that.

[Fuddnik]

24. If the costume fits.....

[L0oniX]

26. Getting a little upset are we? oh ...btw ...nice start on your transparency page. n/t

[KittyWampus]

72. yeah… pretty funny how the delicate flowers can do that to people they don't agree with.

Been here since the beginning. When DU had moderators who would terminate the trolls.

All five posts are my responding to bullies.

So, do you agree with bullying behavior?

Says volumes.

[freshwest]

47. Look to see DU Admin thrown under the bus in 3... 2... 1...

[frylock]

56. Kerry is consulting with a fucking war criminal in Henry Killinger..

gloss over that.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. No one can gloss over the venomous bullshit displayed on your tranparency page

as if you needed a page to qualify as transparent. Look at this comment, snappy, sappy, personal and without any intellectual content.

[KittyWampus]

73. LOL! Venomous hate? what the hell are you talking about? My responding to the bullies?

pretty damned funny coming from the likes of you.

Especially since the bullies are in the same clique as yourself.

EVery one of the posts on my Transparency page are me responding to hateful bullies.

[BlueStreak]

23. Special interests versus the broad interests of the American people

You hit the nail on the head. But let me emphasize the parties you are talking about are the tiny tail that wags the big dog.

Notice what the broad stock market indexes did when the war drums started slowing down? It took a big dive when the saber rattling was at its peak and has rebounded strongly now that it looks like the MIC's plan to start the next cycle of wars in the Middle East are on hold, at least for the moment.

The parties you identified are the narrowest of special interests, and that is what is wrong with this damned system now. Our government no longer represents the interests of Americans -- only the interests of the few very well connected.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. Oh brother.

What a pantload.

[rl6214]

27. Where did the term

Military industrial complex come from?

Just curious.

[snagglepuss]

31. President Eisenhower in his exit speech. A speech every America should know by heart but sadly don't

[rl6214]

32. Thank you

[markiv]

45. it's a term that sounds like it came from a leftist acedemic

yet, it came from a 5 star general/republican us president

the highest possible credibility for that topic

[Fuddnik]

41. The original copy of the speech was "Military-Industrial- Congressional Complex".

For some reason, the "Congressional" was edited out before the speech.

[markiv]

46. because it's safer to attack the Pentagon, than the Congress?

what other explanation can there be?

[snagglepuss]

49. That deserves it's own thread. I'm sure there's lots of people including

myself who don't know this. I'm bowled over how Ike nailed what had developed. "Military-Industrial- Congressional Complex" should be required on DU.

[Fuddnik]

50. Heres a link. I'll start a thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex

The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military" in later drafts of Eisenhower's speech, a claim passed on only by oral history.[6] Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials.[7] James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally "military–industrial–scientific complex".[7][8] Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that it was originally "military–industrial–academic complex".[9] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.[10]

Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern "military–industrial complex" existed before Eisenhower's address. Ledbetter finds the precise term used in 1947 in close to its later meaning in an article in Foreign Affairs by Winfield W. Riefler.[7][11] In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills had claimed in his book The Power Elite that a class of military, business, and political leaders, driven by mutual interests, were the real leaders of the state, and were effectively beyond democratic control. Friedrich Hayek mentions in his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom the danger of a support of monopolistic organisation of industry from WWII political remnants:

Also:

[greiner3]

79. Eisenhower;

Knew about power.

His warnings were from the great powers he saw and knew were coming.

Military and Industrial are powers.

Congressional power, as the article mentions, is the power giving out the money.

There is no upward power in either scientific or academia.

These last two derive any power, little as it may be, from the above 3 powers.

Case in point; can you imagine if Neil Degrasse Tyson had some real power?

He champions science and chides the government in its scientific budget yearly.

If Tyson had power he would triple, or more, the US scientific budget and have scientists rolling out of colleges within a decade.

As for the academic claim of power; surely he jests: "And don't call me..."

[CountAllVotes]

28. Have you seen the little piggies crawling in the dirt?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. You got it. We are messing with their money. You can expect a false-flag attack.

[whistler162]

37. You are! Bummer!

[Tay123]

42. There dislike for Obama = So far a win for all

The conservatives/republicans did not want to support Obama in regards to Syria. Unfortunately for Obama the country as hold did not want this war. This is not say the republican listen to the people, the republicans just found themselves on the side with the majority of the country. Remember Linsey Graham and McCain advocated for more involvement into Syria. Now that McCain got ear full from his constituents, McCain is stating if Obama put in ground forces he would call for impeachment. Go figure!!!!

[Ian_rd]

43. As we speak, the Committee to Free Syria is forming

... or some organization with a similar name, filled with very serious and very concerned Americans (who also happen to be connected to military contractors and weapons manufacturers, but shhhhhh) who will lobby Congress and the White House on the importance of preserving freedom by dropping lots of bombs. Lots, lots, lots!

[Taverner]

44. I know, huh?

According to the MIC, all of the US budget is theirs, not ours.

And they won't sleep until they take every last red cent

[KansDem]

52. And with war in the oil-rich mid-East...

The Keystone XL pipeline will have an easier time of passing here in the US.

The oil industry was looking forward to months of charging $4.50 per gallon for gas due to "uncertainty and risk" in the Middle East.

Watch for "We can't depend on foreign oil. We need to use the oil we have here!" along with the ol' "it'll create jobs" horse shit.

[nikto]

95. The entire purpose of the Keystone Pipeline...

... is to transfer the oil down to the Texas ports,
where it is exported at a sweet profit for the oil companies.

It ain't rocket science.

[woo me with science]

53. kick

[Raksha]

55. Thanks for the heads-up. A good reminder,

although probably not absolutely necessary. But it doesn't hurt to remain on alert for their next dirty trick. Something tells me it won't be long in coming.

[kentuck]

60. I have a hunch they are going to be pissed even more...

The President is showing signs of thinking for himself... He never pretended to know more than the experts but he has seen, from experience, that the experts can be very, very wrong...

Being the pragmatist that he is, when he came into office, he turned to people with experience and more knowledge than he. He would not pretend to know more than the so-called "experts". We all know what happened with the economy and the wars and the attempted negotiations with Congress.

But now that he is into his second term, he is thinking of history and his own standing. He is more tempted to listen to his own gut than the "experts". I am of the opinion that he surprised everyone when he decided to take the Syria issue to the Congress. Why not just attack like most of the recent Presidents before him?

The President is beginning to think for himself and that is a dangerous thing in Washington, especially in military matters. He has gone off script and they have not yet figured out a way to corral him?

The last thing the corporate masters want is to go to the UN. But that is what the President is proposing. He appears to have decided to lead and to follow his conscience. In his heart, he is a man of peace. But when wars were raging, he thought it would be very unwise to not listen to the generals and the Republicans that were previously in charge of the wars.

It took him a while but the Afghanistan War is winding down. The last thing he wants is to get involved in another military adventure. But the MIC and all their spokesmen want him to bomb Syria. Who in the hell does he think he is to go against their wishes?

I think that is the reality that the President is facing?

It really doesn't matter if his recent speeches sounded incoherent or confused, the President is changing course, in my opinion. And that is very important for our country. He is working to earn the Nobel Peace Prize but the opposition is very, very organized and they are a dangerous group to have for enemies.

[forestpath]

64. K&R

[Corruption Inc]

70. Exactly right.

Some other "atrocity" will occur, be exploited by our lapdog propaganda networks, more fake evidence will be provided and off to war they will go with our money and other peoples kids.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

71. Good post!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

78. This whole Syria thing is because Raytheon and the other military corps want an infusion of our $

This is not about saving little children, or the U.S. would have been involved everywhere in the globe where little children are dying of hunger.

This is about:

1) The parasitic military-industrial corporations needing another war to keep up their profits. (The day after Obama first made mention of intervention, Raytheon stock shot through the roof). Military corporations finance Congress and keep the Congress finely fed and well-hired after the Congressional politicians' terms are up.

2) Saudi royalty, the world's #1 financiers of terrorists on the planet, but a great friend to the American wealthy. The Saudi royalty fears being overthrown, so it suits them for the U.S. to lay waste to the rest of the Middle East.

3) Iran. Israel has wanted to be rid of Iran for a long time, and they have been lobbying for the U.S. to intervene militarily in any and every way in the Middle East.

All we're hearing is propaganda - "the little children.". The little children nothing. Money and power is behind this. While so many suffer in my economically it cashed country, the rich and powerful are only focusing on greed and control.

[2banon]

82. you got that right...

Tonight on Charlie puke Rose show tonight, he had these war hawk journalists foaming at the mouth over Obama setting the pause button (attack on Syria) .. it was sickening... so much reminded me of the mouthpieces supporting the WMD in Iraq during the run up to one.

[Lonr]

84. Indeed

if the war in Syria is blocked, look for another "terrorist" attack on U.S. soil to sway public opinion in favor of war...

[iamthebandfanman]

87. the oil industry doesnt need a war

to jack up prices..

where have you been the last 4 years?

they'll use ANYTHING as an excuse...
heck, sometimes they just raise it for the hell of it.. cause they know we will pay!

sure, they'll use the war as an excuse .. as they do anything else... even a small earthquake in a place with no oil ... lol...
but they don't NEED the war to do it.
I can promise you that.

[Enthusiast]

92. The war pigs will have to fake up ANOTHER false flag opp.

They don't have a patriotic bone in their body.