Sunday Roundup

Happy 4th of July! This week, the House authorized an additional $30 billion to fund the war in Afghanistan. Any time the funding of jobs programs or unemployment benefits is raised, our leaders immediately go into sticker shock. But they don't bat an eye when it's time to sign the next check for our wars of choice in Afghanistan and Iraq (2010 price tag: $161 billion). We are letting the American Dream die here at home while pursuing military adventures abroad that ultimately leave our nation less safe. To highlight this red, white, and blue tragedy, Robert Greenwald has put together this powerful video, and our HuffPost bloggers have weighed in. And don't miss Arthur Delaney's interview with the family of Marine Cpl. Jacob Leicht, the 1,000th U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan. Jacob was born on the 4th of July; he would have turned 25 today.

 

 

 

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[Jack Green Jr]

11:27 AM on 07/05/2010

I think our senators are loosing touch with the working class americans that pay taxes.Unbeliveble because our taxes pay for there jobs.They say dont pass the debt onto our children and cut off unemployment benifits,my children need food now !! How do they think they are going to survive now when millions of american familys are barely surviving on unemployment !! Just goes to show how out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent !!

[Glen Parks]

12:21 PM on 07/06/2010

Right Jack. Few will admit to the fact the middle working class are the basis of our economy along with many of the working poor . Unlike the wealthy, they spend the money they get and that keeps it circulating. It is a shame whenever There is a recession, it is the working class that gets it in the neck first. No Jobs, no pay. and where does the suppliers of our need get his paycheck? Of course, he can survive if a good busines man. Makles a profit and banks his profits. The working stiff only gets enough to pay his weakly expences. How about cutting the working hours of the CEO's and the wealthy? limit their income and see what happens then. lets give to the working classes rather than the Corporations. then they will spend and buy , that is how our economy works.

[carlotta35]

12:31 AM on 07/05/2010

Living on the border next to the murderous city Juarez it seems to me that our military would be better deployed next door in Mexico. But I don't really want our military to be there. Let's bring them home from everywhere. South America, Germany, Cuba (Guantanamo), Korea... I don't think Americans realize in how many countries the U.S. has military. A terrible waste of $$$.

[MinerSam]

11:59 PM on 07/04/2010

"Our Leaders"?

Do you mean your Republican Leaders?

[cberkland]

10:11 PM on 07/04/2010

"This week, the House authorized an additional $30 billion to fund the war in Afghanistan. Any time the funding of jobs programs or unemployment benefits is raised, our leaders immediately go into sticker shock. But they don't bat an eye when it's time to sign the next check for our wars of choice in Afghanistan and Iraq (2010 price tag: $161 billion)."

If Congress represented the people, their behavior would be the exact opposite of what it is. They would hesitate to pour more money into the wars without end and would not bat an eye funding unemployment and jobs programs.

But since Congress represents corporate interests instead of the people, they do what they are dong.

So much for living in a democracy for and by the people.

Happy 4th.

[Levster the Hutt]

09:58 PM on 07/04/2010

Why do people call Afghanistan a "war of choice"? If someone attacks you, you have to defend yourself and/or respond to the assault, no? That's what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan. We're not there for oil, diamonds, or their prized farmland. We're trying to make sure that that country isn't used as a base for attacks on the U.S. in the future.
If you take the view that Afghanistan is a "war of choice", then what you're essentially saying is that all wars are "wars of choice". The phrase itself then loses all meaning and people begin thinking "Gee, we don't have to be there. It's a choice we made, and since we're not doing so well over there at the moment, it must have been a bad choice..."
Yeah, we also "chose" to fight WWII and the US Civil War, among others. Let's drop the meaningless "war of choice" phrase once and for all and replace it with "war that needs to be won". Maybe that'll remind some folks as to why we're in Afghanistan in the first place.

[cberkland]

10:25 PM on 07/04/2010

Yeah, I'm sure a few hundred lice covered men with no teeth living in the mountains of Afghanistan are about to invade our country so we need to be fighting them over there.

Get real. Didn't you learn anything from Vietnam? There are wars you can not "win" and this is one of them.

[Levster the Hutt]

12:17 AM on 07/05/2010

We need to be fighting those "lice covered men with no teeth" because the men they harbored, supported, and fought side-by-side with killed a few thousand Americans one fine September morning. Otherwise, being a slug, I have no problem with lice-covered men with no teeth. It's when they start helping people mass-murder my countrymen that I get a little vexed.
One thing I learned from Vietnam is that you can't a win a war if the people don't support it and the political leaders restrain the military in a way that keeps them from defeating the enemy. I don't believe it's a question of whether or not we can "win" in Afghanistan. I think it's a question of whether or not we really want to.

[Kahni]

10:41 PM on 07/04/2010

It's not that the phrase is meaningless. It's that you don't understand the meaning.

This not just a game of words. Listen carefully to what so many of the people who post here repeat over and over; you'll get it sooner or later. I'm sure they will keep trying to explain to you why it really, genuinely is a "war of choice."

[Levster the Hutt]

12:13 AM on 07/05/2010

Of course this is a game of words; what else did you think it was? I think if you're going to call Afghanistan a "war of choice", then, objectively speaking, you have to call all of the wars in American history (happy I.D., btw) "wars of choice". The phrase is meaningless in the sense that it doesn't tell us anything about why we're there, what we're fighting for (or against), or whether or not this is a just effort.
The phrase "war of choice" is typically used to demonstrate unhappiness, unease, or misgivings about the war in question. One typically chooses a different phrase to describe a war that one is in favor of, generally popular, or going your way. If we were done with Afghanistan in four years or so, like WWII, no one would be walking around calling it a "war of choice" today. The fact is that Afghanistan is drawn-out, complicated, and with no end in sight - these are the reasons why we're seeing "war of choice" and "war of Obama's choosing" being thrown about as they are.

[garystartswithg]

08:59 PM on 07/04/2010

its dependence on oil, banks, insurance, pharma, and the war machine day! happy dependence day!

[Bill Burk]

10:06 PM on 07/04/2010

Our country has worked for our freedom without the help of there countries. Our civil war was of our doing and brought our country together. Why do we as a country have to involve ourselves in the civil wars of other countries? ALl the money being spent can be put to better use here, so we can continue to be the strong country that our founders wanted it to be

[ncmom54]

08:33 PM on 07/04/2010

Do Military advisers know how to pursue Peace?
This nation deserves a Dept of Peace
http://www.thepeacealliance.org/

Do our leaders view the world as their Coliseum?

[garystartswithg]

09:00 PM on 07/04/2010

if only -- there are lots of neo-con "chrisitans" that would make pretty garden candles.

[Yasmine]

11:04 PM on 07/04/2010

YOU say do our LEADERS view the world as their coliseum ?
it seems so now.
But PLEASE do not use the word OUR LEADERS............they are MISLEADERS
and also
they are just our elected OFFICIALS.
in a Democracy we should not have LEADERS ............because that makes us all FOLLOWERS..........
I prefer to have CERTAIN POLITICAL VALUES as our GUIDE.

[angryoldman]

07:34 PM on 07/04/2010

Republicans:
SPENDING OUR MONEY OVER THERE, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND IT OVER HERE!

[angryoldman]

07:36 PM on 07/04/2010

Democrats too!

[bacaja]

08:31 PM on 07/04/2010

Well, our enemies, you know..the terrorists, Al queda and them guys they hate our freedoms.
Well..those guys are real smart..they figured they could destroy our constitution (our freedoms)
and our economy simply by nudging the insane elephant herd, that was in charge at the time, and
they would stampede the whole country off a cliff. And which is exactly what happened, and we
think they're just stupid, third world cave people.

[garystartswithg]

09:01 PM on 07/04/2010

the terrorists live next door and watch fox news.

[Gasparilla]

07:32 PM on 07/04/2010

At one time this country was very reluctant to get into foreign wars. Now it's like some mantra. Must kill Al qaeda so we must invade, must stay. The truth is that there are people that want to do us harm. But they are in countries all over the world and we cannot invade and occupy all those countries. If, and it's a big if, we could "secure" Afghanistan, terrorists are right next door in Pakistan, a lot of them part of the government there. It's like you can't go invade every house in your neighborhood because there might be a bank robber there. We had a situation in this country, the Fort Hood shooting, where we ignored the statements and contacts of the shooter, because no one wanted to take the heat for being politically incorrect. We need to be sensible, and use the military sparingly and only when needed. Being in Afghanistan did not stop Fort Hood, Times Square, or the underwear bomber. So the "they're going to get us" theory if we don't occupy Iraq and Afghanistan didn't work too well in those cases. And I do not for a minute dismiss that there is a threat. But draining our treasury and depleting our army is not the way to react.

[Yasmine]

11:15 PM on 07/04/2010

Al-Qaeda is bleeding us BROKE and that was its stated GOAL.

we fell into the trap.
It is a pity because i think that Al-Qaeda has lost the public relations battle and we have won it .SO why on earth are we not declaring VICTORY.
the terrorists are dispised world wide. ............they have LOST.

[captainindustry]

07:21 PM on 07/04/2010

wow. 30 billion here, 40 billion over there,

it starts to add up.

[traynorjf]

07:15 PM on 07/04/2010

You are forgetting the real enemy, the Republican Party (The American Falange). They are traitors to the American Republic, representatives of the laissize faire capitalists of Wall Street and the big banks. They must be destroyed before they destroy us.

[Friction57]

06:28 PM on 07/04/2010

The US spends OVER 50% of our budget on the military.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

We spend more on military than the rest of the world COMBINED
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

When will enough be enough?

[Thor Larson]

05:49 PM on 07/04/2010

You are right Arienna, Obama is screwing up big time, such a disappointment he has become, keep holding his feet to the fire!

[Dembabe40]

08:28 PM on 07/04/2010

Yes, because Obama alone can pass laws against the best interest of the country he's trying to rule. Congress is completely innocent and unable to stop him.

In case you didn't get it, this is SARCASM!!!

[Yasmine]

11:22 PM on 07/04/2010

the dems are really in a tight spot.........the GOP has defined them WEAK on Defense.
as long as the majority of american voters are pro-war ...............the Dems will fall into the pro-war trap.
and will you be there to defend and vote for the dems that stop FUNDING ?
I hope General Patraeus who is respected will have the guts to evaluate properly and stop the wasting money and blood there.......because if he does not do that HE is GOING to LOSE HIS PRESTIGE.
so He is the one who will have to SHOW COURAGE.

[bostinks123]

05:30 PM on 07/04/2010

The democrats are breaking this country on purpose, look up Cloward and Piven and their ties to Bill And Hillary Clinton. Now look at how Clinton did it. NAFTA, GATT, repeal of the Glass-Stegal Act which together with the no credit loans caused the banking problems. Then look at Obama's ties to Saul Alinskey (he taught his ways as a professor) and you can easily see their agenda. Democrats out there you have to realize your party has been hijacked or this country is headed down a road of ruin.

[Dembabe40]

08:29 PM on 07/04/2010

...and the Republicans have nothing to do with any of this.

[ThruSpaceAndTime]

09:18 PM on 07/04/2010

All political Parties are suspect at this point. Sellout is not the property of any one politician or Party. The Democrats do have a few good men and women, where the Republicans are united in clinging to a failed and flawed world view. I cannot find a glimmer of hope amongst them.

[Yasmine]

11:28 PM on 07/04/2010

I agree with your way of describing things but i still hope that in NOV if the DEMS can keep their majority...........it will be a new day in America.
remember progress comes a step at a time.

[Gussmith]

05:02 PM on 07/04/2010

What is it...? Pride, hubris, madness? Eventually, painfully, we will cut our losses but so much loss and destruction has to continue until a true presidential patriot say "Stop, there are better ways out of this and I will find them in spite of the political ramifications".

[StevenWells]

07:37 PM on 07/04/2010

Eisenhower explained it all 40 years ago.

[Yasmine]

11:31 PM on 07/04/2010

I remember ...................americans seem to dismiss warnings.
they did it with Carter too .........
Carter could say now I TOLD YOU SO.