Congress will be debating whether to intiate perpetual war worldwide this week

[MadHound]

"This week, the House begins debate on a defense spending bill that would authorize the president to attack al-Qaida and its associates all over the world.

Supporters say the measure would give the U.S. more leeway to fight terrorists after the death of Osama bin Laden. But critics worry that it hands the White House too much power."
<http://www.npr.org/2011/05/23/136500471/making-it-official-hunting-al-qaida-worldwide>

It's about to be official, perpetual war for perpetual profits for the MIC. Our money, our resources are going to be wasted on war. While our citizens suffer and want, instead of being helped, the military will continue to suck all of the oxygen out of the room.

I don't know about you, but I simply cannot support anybody in Congress who supports this legislation. That includes not just Democratic Congressmen, but the President as well. With his signature, he we consigning our people to poverty and our country to destruction.

Peace.

[spooked911]

1. yes, this is horrifying legislation and I hope some of our reps put up a fight

I doubt my rethug congressman will vote NO, but I will call before the vote.

[Fumesucker]

2. Kaa...

Booo..

Kiiii..

The outcome is preordained and will surprise no one who's been paying attention for the last few decades.

[MadHound]

4. No, it isn't surprising,

In fact in some ways it is rather refreshing that they are being so open about what they want.

But still and all, it is rather scary that we're about to embark on perpetual war. It means the painful destruction of our country.

[Tesha]

3. It's okay -- this is nothing new -- We've *ALWAYS* been at war with Eastasia. (NT)

[ixion]

11. Indeed.

Sad and scary, but true.

[MadHound]

18. True, but now we're codifying it into law,

Now permanent war will have a legal basis.

[liberal N proud]

5. I thought that was done in 2003

This nation always talks peace yet is always at war.

War for profit.

[Hannah Bell]

6. kr

[no_hypocrisy]

7. At least it's getting public debate instead of a stealth vote.

[MadHound]

10. For what that is worth

It is doubtful that the public at large is going to have much impact on this decision. The MIC has bought far too many politicians in DC for any significant opposition to this to emerge.

[Scuba]

12. What public debate? Not much coverage on the news. Most Americans don't know it's happening. n/t

[Obamanaut]

8. And these are the people who, by and large, will be reelected in

2012.

Doesn't say much for us, does it. We say we don't like what they are doing, and then we keep them in office.

And it goes all the way to "the buck stops here" desk.

[Gravel Democrat]

9. ^^^

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Freedoms Curtailed In Defense Of Liberty

"Our most basic American values are threatened by an enemy opposed to everything for which our flag stands. That is why I call upon all Americans to submit to wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, and racial profiling. Now is not the time to allow simplistic, romantic notions of 'civil liberties' and 'equal protection under the law' to get in the way of our battle with the enemies of freedom."

[MadHound]

14. Yep, bin Laden won

He supposedly hated us for our freedoms, well, they're gone now.

[themadstork]

15. imperial endgame

We're not even pretending anyore. Bombs, bombs, bombs.

[Romulox]

16. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to pass anything through the Senate, we are told.

Something tells me that that a quorum can be established in the Senate to approve of more war...

[MadHound]

17. As Howard Zinn once said,

Bipartisanship is nothing more than another name for one party rule. I think we will see bipartisanship on this issue.

[EFerrari]

19. Whaddaya mean, "initiate"?

:)

[MadHound]

20. Better phrasing,

Initiate a legal basis for permanent worldwide war.