I'm still a little confused how tossing a generation of servicemen and women into a meat grinder with no clearly defined or supported reason why, as well as a complete lack of plan on getting out of the aforementioned meat grinder, leads to a "concern for 'teh troops.'"

Oh, I'm sorry, I notice that I don't have enough personal attacks on Republicans in my post.  Do I need to make those?  I could call Republicans 'fascists' if you'd like (as in people who would abandon the rule of law for mob rule),

I could comment on how the GOP polarizes voters by appealing to the lowest common denominator,

 or I could comment on how the Republicans preach 'small government' out of one side of their mouths all the while seeking to legislate every aspect of personal and private behavior with which they don't agree (or rather with which the religious contingent of their party's base doesn't agree).

But, then, I don't actually believe that all of the Republicans can be painted with such a broad brushstroke.

...probably just those that call Democrats 'Bolsheviks' and claim that we don't care about people.

       The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
       Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are
unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
       These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
       Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally
applicable:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to  public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies,  especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of         children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
      When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means
of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

Shit, a hell of a lot more people die needless deaths right here in the good old US of A every year than die in Iraq, so why you whining? 

♥ Wendy

♥ Wendy

My father served in the Pacific theater, and my uncles in Europe in WWII. I live in a city of three military bases and know many fathers and sons who have served or are serving in Iraq. I am curious to know why 95% of the soldiers I talk to have opinions contrary to yours. The men of Fort Carson, Colorado, Home to the 3rd BCT, 43rd ASG, 3rd ACR, 5th Armored Brigade, 13th Air Support Operations Squadron, and the 10the Special Forces Group, in the majority, do not agree with your position. Also, my uncles see this conflict as having nothing to do with protecting our freedoms.

I would expect your highly valued skills are not wasted on sending you out into the streets of Iraq with a gun... where the clearest picture of what is happening can be witnessed.

I would be curious to hear you elaborate on your own personal ideals which justify our invasion and occupation as I, and many others, fail to see how this ununited effort is "protecting our rights".

I will save your comment for posterity under the heading of PEDANT.

... and of course, still no attribution for the undisclosed source letter.

I am sorry for the confusion. I admit that I did notice the shift from leaning to you, but assumed it was your playing field. I am not faultless and err as much as anyone. Ok.

Upon further reflection, I realized that the greater issue here became one of attribution. That is my point.

You will notice that I am tired of this ultimately unproductive trading of words. I don't know you, but am sure you are a fine person. So, at 6pm MST I will be removing todays blog entry in its entirety.

Pablo

I wrote to you with supplying you with information to illustrate what has informed my present opinion. It can not be shown that I was antagonistic. I asked one question of you. In your response you preferred to take a tone of being defensive. I was not, and am not fishing for a battle of misnomers and wit.  

In direct response to your question(s), I remind you of a simple fact and distinction.  Our elected leaders are not placed in their positions to be served, they are there to serve the people. The majority of this country, civilian citizens, do not take an oath to follow the orders of a commander in chief, and therefore do not serve him and his orders.

If you prefer to continue to answer simple questions with demands for statistical analysis on points which were already clearly explained, then you will be preaching to the choir.

Perhaps I should refer you to my cousin who was an Arabic interpreter intellegence officer for the US Army.

You also answered a question I did not ask being: Are you really a credentialed academic because it is not evident in your responses.