Had you been reading Glenn Greenwald's blog for a longer period of time, or perhaps more consistently, you would know that quite a few of the regular commenters here (perhaps most) have some connection of their own with the military. Either they have served themselves, or have family members or friends, etc. who have served in the past or are currently serving.

Despite the anti-(this)war tone that has pushed your buttons, I can't think of anyone here whom I would describe as hating either the military, in general, or its rank and file members. Nor can I think of anyone who blames those rank and file members for the debacle created by our fearless leaders.

However, most of us despise the absolute (and completely unnecessary) waste of human lives (as well as other material resources) that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have wrought. Both our own casualties, and those of the tens or hundreds of thousands (who really knows?) of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Are too many of our national resources (and state resources, too) devoted to military purposes? Many or most here would probably say yes. Glenn's post today demonstrates why that is a valid argument. And the commenters have demonstrated why it is such a complex issue to resolve, given the dependence of our economy on military expenditures.

Too bad that we can't have a real debate on priorities in this electoral/media climate.

PW writes at a much higher level than Col. Boylan, particularly with respect to noun & verb agreement. Must be someone else.

Ondelette:

I heard an interesting idea yesterday, that citizens (voters) need to create a form of collective bargaining, to approach the government with the aggregate clout that the corporations now do. Would something like that work?

This is an intriguing idea... (Can't you just hear the GOP pushback already though... calling such a union a "special interests group?")

Depending on what happens over the next few weeks, wouldn't John Edwards be just the person to head up such an effort? Of course, there would be nothing to stop him from doing so no matter how things turn out. ;~)

I'm up to page 10 of the comments, and your post was the only one (so far) citing that quote by RFK.

However, even if it were a duplicate, it bears repeating. And repeating.

The three of you should find some way to get together, even if only virtually for now, and collaborate on some kind of white paper that would outline a vision of how to transition those industries. I suspect that Jim W might like to help, too.

* * *

I even have some ideas of my own. Ages ago, I came up with my own "platform" as a voter. One small part of it was to rehabilitate the tobacco industry into growing hemp, which could also rehabilitate our textile industry (and maybe paper, too?) since hemp is such a superior fiber for all kinds of textiles. (And paper. "The Declaration of Independence was drafted by Jefferson on hemp paper." See wiki entry.)

Of course, there are barriers to cultivating hemp, legal and tax issues, among others. But it's just crazy that we don't have some leadership who can see what an integrating force it would be in so many important spheres right now. Engaging in a bit of hyperbole for just a moment, I have a hunch that revitalizing what was once a thriving industry for hemp, coupled with all of the spin-offs, could replace a significant chunk of the MIC "budgets," ...AND contribute to better public health right here at home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

The only free-and-fair elected goverment by brown-skinned people in the Middle East is the one you lefties opposed from the get-go and are now determined to see fail at any cost. PW

Democracy didn't happen that way here, and to my knowledge, it hasn't happened that way anywhere else, either, unless the "gun" was pointing from those seeking democracy and towards those denying it to them. [That did happen here.]

Can anyone else name any examples of a democracy that was created by pointing guns at the beneficiaries? I can't.

And, even if one wanted to help create the conditions necessary for a democracy to flourish, e.g., by strafing a country's entire infrastructure, decreasing their access to basic utilities and safe drinking water (not to mention medical care), depriving a plurality of the population of employment or the means to provide for their family by demolishing the few economic structures and industries there were, as well as killing some tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of innocent civilians... these would not really be the first steps to achieving that goal, now, would they?

[/sarcasm]

Of course, that these were actually the first steps taken makes one wonder what the real motivation was, since it was obviously not to help create the conditions needed for a democracy to flourish.

Well, there was the Oil, and then there was also the opportunity to use Iraq as a guinea pig and try out all of the Neocons' pet projects on how an ideal society should be set up. Doesn't sound very conservative to me. Nope. But... Meddlesome. Arrogant. Aggressive. Unrealistic. Etc., etc. And these attributes (plus many more) are what we opposed. Not Democracy.

Yes, that Countdown link was really good. Of course, Turley always does come across as a grownup.

You did some good work over on Joan's post about the Times hiring Bill Kristol. I would have acknowledged it there, but by the time I returned to the thread, it was closed.

If that [convention of citizens] happens, [Edwards] can let those citizens experience waterboarding or other torture and the tipping point will be realized.

And maybe then we'll start calling it the waterboarding point.