Locals inspect the damaged outside a bombed house in the Libyan coatal town of Zliten, 150 kilometres (95 miles) east of Tripoli, that a government official said was destroyed in a NATO attack in which a mother and two children were killed early on August 4, 2011 (AFP Photo / Imed Lamloum)
That sounds like a good question to me. I think it contains the answer too, the military industrial complex. These are the guys behind all the wars. They are the ones who profit and they share those profits with the politicians in order to continue the cycle. It's been that way since at least the time of Viet Nam.Why do Democrats and Republicans - except Ron Paul - think perpetual war in breach of the Constitution, based on lies, killing large numbers of Americans and foreigners, with little or no connection to the defense of America, costing trillions, to benefit the military/industrial complex, is a good thing?
The hope? Well, I don't know if it's sufficient to overcome this powerful mechanism, but for me the hope is in the internet and social media. Awareness has never been as widespread, or at least information has never been as available.
People can put an end to the cycle of perpetual war. That's my prayer, anyway.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I wonder why obama violated the war powers act, adding to the perpetual way so despise?
ReplyDeleteOK, The US Constitution is pretty much a pacifist document with the original concept being that the military would follow the Swiss Model. That is there would be a small professional army tasked with training and administration that would support the larger amature (part-time/non-professional militia) Militia.
ReplyDeleteAs the Swiss model shows, that is an excellent defense force. But it's not very good for aggressive purposes.
We can also add in that the congress has the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12).
The real fear was standing armies, or to quote Elbridge Gerry:
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary.
In 1961, President Eisenhower says this in a speech:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
According to Carl Bogus for nearly a century, the collective right model remained not only widely accepted but uncontroversial.
The first article advocating the "individual right" interpretation appeared in 1960. Titled The Right To Bear Arms, A Study in Judicial Misinterpretation, it was a student article in the William and Mary Law Review.
Is it coincidence that the "individual" (non-Militia) right interpretation appears art roughly the same time as Eisenhower is warning about the influence of the Military-Industrial complex?
Moreover notice how what Bogus calls "widely accepted" and "uncontroversial" has become controversial--especially on the internet.
Is it a coincidence that this is happening at a time when the Military is being built up?