Is Bush Leading Us to Nuclear War?

While the United States demands that other countries end their nuclear programs, the Bush administration is busy planning a new generation of nuclear weapons known as "Complex 2030."

http://www.alternet.org/story/51368/

An opinion and one that I assume is shared by many Americans.

The operative words in "support the troops" are "support" and "troops".

I'll start with "troops."

I don't think that many if any Americans are concerned about the generals. The generals are the equivalent of Fortune 500 company VPs. It's their job to be generals. They worked all their lives to get to the top. They get paid a decent amount of money for it. They have a lot of perks that go with the job. When they leave the job, they will probably get snapped up by a defense contractor if for no other reason than that each general has a juicy Rolodex full of friends and politicos back at the Pentagon to sell stuff to.

The troops on the other hand are our kids and our neighbors kids, our siblings, our husbands and wives, brothers and sisters and children, in other words, people that we really love. Well, they're not really "ours", but we like to think that.

The soldiers in Iraq tend to come from lower income families. Middle and upper class families almost never see their children die in battle. But, in a volunteer army, it's supposed to be that way. You go to war with the Army made up of kids from lower income families that you've got. It's not that they are bad soldiers or make bad soldiers. America has amazing soldiers. Maybe the best soldiers the world has ever seen. We're like the Roman Empire in that regard. The thing is, those kids with any money and an education usually do something else instead. The exception is the National Guard soldiers who were sent to Iraq. They actually are mostly middle income professionals. So it's a mix of mostly high school educated career military and some professional class citizens.

I don't think there are very many liberals who think badly of the common soldier. And certainly no one wishes them harm. We want them to come home safe and we want to make sure they have every single thing they need to stay safe while they are there in that hellhole of a place that we created.

So, in summary, the troops are the average soldiers who, for reasons of patriotism, hope for a better future, a desire for excitement, or to get out their parents' house, are in Iraq trying to stay alive.

The "support" part has two meanings.

For most Americans support means things like training, body armor, the best possible equipment, the best possible emergency medical care and long-term medical care, the best food, the best of everything they need to do their jobs, stay alive and come home safe.

So when you hear the government say that if we don't do this or don't do that, we're not supporting the troops, it doesn't make any sense. We gave the government all the money in the world and we still hear stories about lack of body armor, lack of IED resistant vehicles, terrible VA hospital care, etc. You ask youself, "What the hell is our government doing with all that money?" So when the government says, support the troops, it translates in my mind to "Just give us the damn money and shut up, because if you don't you'll be personally responsible for the unnecessary deaths of American soldiers," which I know is a big lie. I know it's a lie because if we did cut off the money, the worst that would happen is that they wouldn't be able to have a war anymore and would have to wind things down. They might even have to "borrow" money from somewhere else, like maybe one of their multi-billion dollar defense projects.

Deep down inside, I know that America is never going to exit Iraq without leaving behind a few military bases and a giant embassy to make sure America's Big Oil interests get the benefit of all that Iraqi black gold.

So when average Americans say, support the troops, we mean the troops.

When the government says, support the troops, they mean oil companies, defense contractors and other big government military spending.

Should I cry or scream?

Just think Vietnam and it will all make sense.

It actually shouldn't take more than around 14 years total if history is any measure. If you think, as some do, that we've "been there" since the day Bush was elected, 7 more years sounds about right. If you think we've been there for four years, that means we've only got 10 more to go.

One should never forget how rich this war is making the people who created it and who support it. (Be sure and add in all the Homeland Security money.)