Let me see if I'm understanding this.

[Prism]

Our government will not provide the American people with universal health care.

However, our government will spend trillions on war because they deeply genuinely care for the welfare of civilians half way around the world?

Is this argument working on anyone?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Not me

[Clovis Sangrail]

2. obviously YES - that argument does work on some people

I've been pointing out the illogic of this to all the SFRs I can but it doesn't seem to click

[mnhtnbb]

3. It's all BS. The elected representatives deeply care about the deep pockets

of the war mongering corporations who make billions from selling arms, trading arms and blowing up
arms through the empire building process of war.

[Greyhound]

4. Too many, far too many.

It's the same people that want to tell us that coming up with a trillion in cash and unlimited credit @ no interest is fine when it goes to Wall Street, but that a fraction of that to help the people paying the bills is simply impossible and "our" team is helpless to do anything, as much as they want to, it simply can't be done...
:eyes:

[Prism]

8. Let's be fair

Sometimes it's entirely necessary for taxpayers to give banks money they can then lend back to the government at interest for a quick couple billion.

For example, sometimes a bank really wants a Wii for Christmas.

Wii's don't buy themselves, you know.

[Cerridwen]

5. One minor correction:

"However, our government will spend trillions on war <killing thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people 'they deeply genuinely care for' and calling them 'collateral damage'> because they deeply genuinely care for the welfare of civilians half way around the world?"

To paraphrase: "The bombings and killing will continue until morale improves."

[asdjrocky]

6. Shhhhh!

Don't you realize they're protecting us from brown people?

[Prism]

12. I see no military at the local beaches

It's been sunny here for months. There is nothing but brown people everywhere I look!

Save me, Uncle Sam, from the dread warlord General Coppertone.

[jp11]

7. You don't get it, this isn't about us spending money on americans vs foreigners

it is about being socialist and being conservative or 'strong on defense'. We can't spend money on giving Americans universal health care cause that would make us dirty filthy evil socialists but it is okay to take money and spend it to buy friends overseas even though it is doubtful they will ever be our 'real friends', at least not anytime soon.

[Prism]

10. I agree with your assessment.

Americans vs. foreigners is incidental. The juxtaposition is merely intended to highlight the absurdity of the arguments.

Politicians won't spend a few hundred billion on their own citizens, but they'll spend trillions because they care so much about people on the other side of the globe? It's almost parody at this point. It's as if they decided to come up with the most absurd arguments imaginable and throw them out there just to see how many people they could get to go along with it.

America is an empire on steroids. We want to project an image of strength, and we will wreck ourselves to do it.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Compare the percent of Americans who wanted these wars to the percent who want universal health care

Let us know what you come up with.

Don

[Prism]

11. I think we should let polls make all the decisions for us

And when it all falls apart, well, you know, polls . . .

65% wanted the public options, and that was ignored like it was nothing at all.

62% believe the war in Afghanistan is not going well at all.

A majority want us to withdraw.

Your response also leaves the essential problem unanswered. We have one political party that supports war and opposes universal health care. They're Republicans. My statement dismantles that nicely.

My question is why we have Democrats effecting the same mindset.

The public option just couldn't be fought for, but we must stay in Afghanistan because we care so deeply for the people there?

Uh huh.

[NNN0LHI]

13. What was the percentage of Americans who wanted to invade Afghanistan?

Do you remember?

Don

[Prism]

15. Of course I do. But it is not 2001, is it?

I also remember why we invaded - to dismantle Al Qaeda in response to 9/11. The why of thing does seem to have gotten lost, hasn't it? And now, when discussing withdrawal, we're seeing more and more stories about the welfare of Afghan civilians.

I'm pretty sure we didn't saunter on in because we cared so very much for the Afghan people. I'm also pretty sure if you polled the American people and asked them if we should stay out of concern for the welfare of Afghans, you'd get a fairly negative response.

[MedicalAdmin]

46. "My question is why we have Democrats effecting the same mindset."

I am a legal immigrant with hope for the USA, although not much anymore. To answer your question, it is because to an unbiasd outside observer I find not a lot of difference in the policy positions of the dems and the repubs. Nuance yes, but the basic policies are identical. IMO.

Is this my tombstone?

[tomp]

51. I've been making that same point for years on du.

expect people to call you a teabagger, among other things.

some people are hooked on the nuance. it's all they can see.

[Cerridwen]

19. You mean the socialized medicine versus the patriotic wars?

I guess marketing may influence outcomes and poll results. Ya think?

[NNN0LHI]

24. Don't know because the war propaganda didn't work on me

I was on this board in 2001 pleading with people to use their brains and not back this insane war. I think I almost got tombstoned over it at the time?

Don

[Cerridwen]

26. Your post implied you did know.

My apologies for asking you about a topic about which you "don't know."

[bvar22]

27. There were a bunch of us on DU who opposed the Military Invasion of Afghanistan.

...but I believe we were a minority.

The ONLY things I supported dropping on Afghanistan were Big Macs, Levis, and $20 Dollar Bills.

[NNN0LHI]

29. But we were all for actually catching and prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law ...

... any suspected conspirators in 9/11.

With a public trial so we could all be sure they caught the right perpetrators.

Not some schmucks that were tortured at Gitmo into admitting anything to get the pain to stop.

All the while the actual perpetrators are running free.

Yes, we were a minority. Very tiny minority.

Don

[bvar22]

31. International Law Enforcement.

Bill Clinton showed us HOW to do this.

Using International Law Enforcement, he successfully captured, prosecuted, and imprisoned the originals bombers of the WTC.

*No hostile invasions and occupations of foreign countries

*Probably spent less than $20 Million (? guess)

*No loss of American Life

*No "Collateral Damage"

*Didn't make a hero or martyr out of anyone

*Didn't radicalize the Muslim World

I'm NOT a big fan of Bill Clinton, but he got THIS ONE right.

[Hydra]

37. Not so tiny

I hadn't found DU back then, but even watching the MSM, I couldn't believe people were buying into the idea that we needed to invade a country to pick up a few people who weren't even convicted of the 9/11 actions. I told people this was the wrong thing to do, but no one cared to listen, even until last year.

I think a lot of sensible people were afraid to speak out against the more rabid "patriots" who were screaming for blood.

Little did they know, they really needed to be screaming for Bush's head. He got all of the warnings, but somehow he got all the political credit for botching a National Security issue. Crazy world.

[NNN0LHI]

49. I kept asking one question that nobody ever had an answer for

Why would the person(bin Laden), who supposedly was smart enough to plan 9/11, be stupid enough to wait around for the US Calvary to arrive?

No one ever had an answer to that question.

Maybe it was wishful thinking by some that he would hang around?

Needless to say he didn't.

Don

[Hydra]

56. No one in their right mind, guilty or not

Would wait around for that.

[rucky]

14. War is the only "social program" Conservatives support.

Where else can you choose who to help (military, contractors, docile civilians who don't get in the way), and who gets to die?

Plus, it's a perfect excuse to cut social programs domestically, and weed out the people unwilling or unable to enlist.

They're not against helping people, but they are against helping in any "universal" way (that's Socialism) because it's all about control. They want to pick and choose who's worthy of help and who deserves to die in neglect. They have no real concept of HUMAN rights.

[Prism]

16. It's a widespread misinformation campaign.

And why Democrats have now taken up the Republican propaganda mantle is totally beyond me.

[conscious evolution]

23. Why?Easy.

The democratic party,like the republican party,has been totally bought and paid for by large,multi-national corporations and their owners..
Want an example?Check out the majority stockholders of the company,Nalco, that makes Corexit.

[NorthCarolina]

45. Simple, the "Why"=DLC New 'Dems'.

eom

[kenny blankenship]

17. Bush Admin wrote single payer national healthcare guaranteed for life into Iraq's Constitution

Just try to wrap your head around that.

[Steely_Dan]

50. Wow! That's Right

This should be its own thread.

[tomp]

52. why do you hate obama? nt

[BadgerKid]

53. Article 31 according to HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html

[Hugabear]

61. I did not know that. Thanks a lot - will provide great ammo against right-wingers.

I would K&R your response if I could. I agree with the other poster, this should be its own thread.

[Sal Minella]

18. Maybe when/if the American people can provide the military-industrial complex

with the promise of unlimited oil reserves under our land, then we'll be worth building health clinics and schools for? That seems to be the key.

So long as we don't have oil under our feet, we can just get sick and die ignorant, I guess.

[Prism]

21. You mean one Gulf of Mexico for one health care system isn't an even trade?

Well, we have Alaska. Will they take Alaska?

I mean, more than they already have.

[jp11]

25. Our land would get seized or the laws would be changed to allow oil companies

the right to drill from adjacent locations to get the oil under your land and pay you nothing or a small pathetic fee to keep your mouth shut before they'd do anything 'nice' for us. You'd never be able to sell your land as it would likely get polluted or otherwise be contaminated so no one would ever want to buy it once it was disclosed assuming they couldn't tell from sight/smell.

[Orsino]

20. The TV tells us, and we obey.

It works just fine, thank you very much.

[AnArmyVeteran]

22. "Thou shall spend trillions to kill but nothing to heal" - The Consevative Bible

It's in all four books (Rush, Sean, Glenn & Billo) of the conservative bible.

[another saigon]

28. because when we help others it is not the dreaded SOCIALISM?

:shrug:

[lunatica]

30. Well, the war is to keep you safe, not healthy

Health is your problem. But at least you're safe.

edited to add this ----> :sarcasm:

[bigwillq]

32. Nope.

It's not working on me. At all. Sadly, it really doesn't matter which candidates we elect. We will never be able to nominate enough true progressives to really make that much of a difference on this issue, imo.

[Starry Messenger]

33. You radical, you.

Next you'll be attacking apple pie. Why do you hate America? :D

[RagAss]

34. Abandon all logic...this is America mind you....it's not ancient Greece.

[Curmudgeoness]

35. Nope, not buying it. Wish I wasn't buying the war either, but gotta pay taxes.

[donheld]

36. Good one!

[QC]

38. You never really loved him!

:cry:

[Stumbler]

39. Sadly, it is

It's very Orwellian, don't you think. It reminds me of folks who claim to be "Pro-life" because they oppose abortion, even thought they support endless wars for profit, the death penalty, environmental pollution, the use of high-fructose corn syrup, hunting wolves from airplanes, etc, etc...

[Enthusiast]

43. +1 nt

[RainDog]

40. no. this nation is fucked up

and those in positions of power don't give a shit about the american people.

so, I don't give a shit about them.

[Enthusiast]

41. It's just a tad flawed. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Yup, that's about it. And the message is coming from a Democratic administration.

But hey, there's that cute ...... and the . . . . and he's . . . . so its all good.

[WinkyDink]

44. Waging war is profitable. End of story.

[PJPhreak]

47. "Is this argument working on anyone?"

Nope,not me.

[ibegurpard]

48. yes this argument is working

just peruse the DU boards and you'll find defense of the indefensible all over the place.

[laughingliberal]

54. Doesn't work for me, no. nt

[Octafish]

55. What are you, a Communist? War is good for bidness.

Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

[LWolf]

57. Not working here. nt

[Martin Eden]

58. No, you're not understanding this.

The official rationale for continuing the war in Afghanistan is that a Taliban victory would pose a danger to our national security because that country would again become the base for 9/11-type attacks and because it could further destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Those are legitimate concerns, but the real reasons for continuing the war are more complicated and include the interests of the military-industrial complex and the unwillingness of a crumbling superpower to retreat or admit defeat. Also, the party of the president that is blamed for the defeat would suffer at the ballot box.

The welfare of the Afghan people takes a back seat in both the official and behind-the-scenes motivations for the war. I don't think the argument you cited in your OP is much of a factor, though it is sometimes cited along with the rest of the rationale.

[griffi94]

59. Not so much.

I had this conversation with my mother, who is a Fox News Republican.
She was bitching about the deficit, that being the FN current talking point.

I asked her why we didn't just call off the war and her reply was "You know those people just want what we have in this country" to which I repied "Are we obligated to pay for that" to which she replied "I have to go now"

[donco6]

60. It's the Christian thing to do.

Obamacare is soeshullizm. You commie.

[defendandprotect]

62. These are fake and illegal wars, based on lies -- and kept in place with lies . . .

END THE WARS -- !!!

Great post !!

:)