[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'Y')es, PMS, I think threadbear said it best about what's taken over in Washington.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'T')his military occupation may have initially been an mis-guided and idiotic plan to gain control of Iraqi oil, but the cost has far exceeded any potential benefit to the USA and has, since the first day of the invasion, proved to be an increasingly depreciating investment in soldiers and material. In fact, regardless of what is said, it's sole purpose now is to maintain the pace of killing and destruction. Yet all the major US presidential candidates openly support indefinitely continuing the senseless killing and destruction.

Yes, PMS, it seems fewer and fewer are studing history anymore.

[eastbay]

Oh Shanny, I certainly don't approve, but can easily understand the rationale for getting military forces in place for the endgame. And when that time arrives the USA and China and whomever else wants to play can very quickly move forces into place to that effect. In fact, when that time arrives I wouldn't be surprised to see various military forces execute fast depopulation in the oil source regions. It will be messy.

But that time hasn't arrived yet. Maintaining military occupations in unfriendly places awaiting the arrival of this future event is very costly and wasteful. So what's preventing the withdrawl of US forces at this time? What's to gain by year after year maintaining these costly static occupations? The USA could easily move right in in a more serious fashion when that time arrives.

I don't get it.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'O')h Shanny, I certainly don't approve

[eastbay]

PMS, thanks, that's a perfect example of a popular occupation! The US occupation of The Philippines is another. The Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia is another. History holds many and we might discuss them someday.

Back to the point, these idiotic US occupations will never, never become popular. They are eroding into unspeakable suffering just like the rest of histories gruesome collection unpopular military occupations.

And Washington knows this. And wants it to continue. Interesting.

[eastbay]

As the Vietnam protests were first getting underway, in 1964, many were saying exactly that PMS. They were saying, 'why bother', or, 'There's nothing we can do anyhow', or, 'it really doesn't affect me.' That's why many of the protests up to that time consisted mainly of a few dozen grey haired CP members and their supporters.

But in four years, by 1968, that had all changed. It can change now too.
I have full confidence the US people will put an end to this madness in a mostly peaceful manner... just as they did to stop the Vietnam War. But it won't happen if we give up.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Interesting indeed, eastbay, that you cite the difference from 1964 to 1968. What do you suppose will be the shifting sentiments between 2007 and 2011? You really think it's going to mirror those old times? I don't think so. By 2011 I think the popular sentiment in the US will be "nuke 'em, get the gas!"

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lateStarter', 'F')rom a strategic POV however, where else would you rather have boots on the ground with PO approaching? Iraq has X known + Y unknown of LSC. How convenient that they are neighbors of Iran (what does Iran have that the US wants/uses/needs?). Plus, they are right next door to KSA, ready, able, and willing to assist as duty calls!
...

[eastbay]

History is filled with incredible surprises. So many. I was studying in the USSR in 1985 and it seemed at that time as thought the Soviet Union would last indefinitely. I'm sure the French in 1946 thought their Indochina colony would also last indefinitely. 75,000 dead French soldiers later they were forced out by a patriotic movement.

I think a better comparison would be, what change in public sentiment will there be from 2004 and 2008. There is no doubt the US will eventually be forced from Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take a combination of patriotic resistance and home-grown anti-war protests, both of which are getting stronger, more popular, and better organized.

Those who believe there is no end to this US sponsored terror and madness can expect a big surprise. History is filled with them.

[eastbay]

Threadbear, fungibility, as I understand it, is selling oil to the highest bidder on a worldwide scale causing the price to be fairly stable everywhere. It's what we have now and what we'll have until insane scarcity arrives... at that point in time, of course, fungibility will be thrown out the window, that's for sure.

It could be in sooner or it could be later. We just don't know. It's coming at us, and we can all agree on that. When that time comes there is no telling what will happen. We will most likely be in for a great big surprise. We will all say, 'I never expected that!'

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', ' ')
I think a better comparison would be, what change in public sentiment will there be from 2004 and 2008. There is no doubt the US will eventually be forced from Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take a combination of patriotic resistance and home-grown anti-war protests, both of which are getting stronger, more popular, and better organized.

Those who believe there is no end to this US sponsored terror and madness can expect a big surprise. History is filled with them.

[eastbay]

Well, if the Vietnam protests tell us anything, it's, 'expect surprises.'

From Wikipedia:

November 27, 1965 saw 25,000 protesting the Vietnam War in DC. On May 15, 1966 another 10,000 protested in Washington. The protests were rare and seemed to be getting smaller. Up to that time it was hardly what anyone would call, 'a mass movement against the war.'

But by 1967 they started getting larger with 400,000 protesting at the UN building. By late 1968 it was changing into a mass-movement.

A similar trend is now clearly developing. In 2005 150,000 attended an anti-Iraq war protest in DC. One big difference today is that most people want the occupations to end. In 1967 the US was still split on the war issue. Expect huge protests in the US and worldwide starting this spring and summer. The pressure is growing. Congressional and Senate candidates supporting the military occupations will be kicked out of office in NOV 08. The sooner the better.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '.')..Americans know, on one level or another, that it is about the "non-negotiable" American way of life. This will only become more explicit as time goes forward.

[eastbay]

Zardoz, Americans, generally, felt the same way about communism.

Democracy was non-negotiable and Americans took it upon themselves to do whatever it took to stop the spread of communism. It was widely believed at that time communism threatened the American way of life. By the time the war ended few bought that argument anymore.

I don't buy that argument. Not every American is a co-conspirator in continuing the military occupations.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'T')hreadbear, fungibility, as I understand it, is selling oil to the highest bidder on a worldwide scale causing the price to be fairly stable everywhere. It's what we have now and what we'll have until insane scarcity arrives... at that point in time, of course, fungibility will be thrown out the window, that's for sure.

It could be in sooner or it could be later. We just don't know. It's coming at us, and we can all agree on that. When that time comes there is no telling what will happen. We will most likely be in for a great big surprise. We will all say, 'I never expected that!'

[TheDude]

Don't you think that part of the attraction of protesting the war for youth in 1968 was the novelty, standing up against the massive bummer their square parents had laid down, and all those other hoary Life magazine stereotypes?

If you want to cut them slack you could take into consideration how the violence of war was being shown on TV for the first time, making a real impact. Course us young people are so desensitized to this stuff now that's not really in the cards either.

I don't think you'll see mass protests against the war until it really hits home. Course if it's oil shortages we're talking about you're as likely to see people marching in the streets demanding the military kill everyone in Iraq so we can get our shipments of Cheetos and XBoxes, which is what Zardoz is getting at with his comment about co-conspirators. Hard not to do without foreign oil these days.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'D')on't you think that part of the attraction of protesting the war for youth in 1968 was the novelty, standing up against the massive bummer their square parents had laid down, and all those other hoary Life magazine stereotypes?

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', '.')..However, we won't hear a major party candidate for the US presidency make such a demand. I wonder why?

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', ' ')It will take ...home-grown anti-war protests....getting stronger, more popular, and better organized.

[SinisterBlueCat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'D')on't you think that part of the attraction of protesting the war for youth in 1968 was the novelty, standing up against the massive bummer their square parents had laid down, and all those other hoary Life magazine stereotypes?