Bush and Cheney are the perfect PNAC puppets. IIRC, the PNACers call for increases in "defense" spending of at least 15 to 20 billion annually. And it looks like the Bush/Cheney terror team intend to give them all of that and then some. Yes, the PNACers and their puppets are an evil infestation of biblical proportions.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:42:57 AM

  (0+)

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200707/missileshield.cfm

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:38:38 PM

  (0+)

While it takes nothing from his point, Mr. Ross mistakenly distorts the history of Stalin's military build up, having apparently bought into the cold war analysis of the NATO side of the dispute.  In reality, we must view the situation from the Soviet side of events to understand that Stalin's military build up was not one of choice, but of necessity.  

First, when the Communists took power during WWI under Lenin, their first major policy decision was to withdraw from the war.  For the "war culture seeking world domination" which we were taught the Soviets were, this decision was an inauspicious beginning.  Then, immediately upon cessation of WWI hostilities, the allies, led by the U.S. formed White Army, began a counter-revolution in Russia to overthrow the Socialists.  Thus, an immediate arms build-up began in Russia in what was a prelude to the Cold War.

Shortly thereafter, socialist political theorists began to postulate the theory of fascism as the last stages of capitalism, and fairly unanimously agreed that the terms of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles ending WWI had imposed such harsh conditions on Germany that fascism would arise first in that same country.  Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, in which he stressed the need for "leibenstraum," or living space for the Germanic peoples, to be found to the east of Germany by eliminating or enslaving the Slavic peoples, shortly made clear Germany's intentions regarding Soviet Russia. 

Thus, Stalin embarked upon one of the most massive military build-ups in history:  transforming a feudal society into an industrial and communal agrarian society in a mere decade.  His choices were to accept the fate of the Jews, or to rule with an iron fist and tranform Soviet society in a way it could defend itself against the German war machine.  

Estimates vary, but not by much, and from 85 to 90% of Hitler's forces were brought against the Soviets, exactly as foretold by Soviet theorists and by Hitler himself.  Many in the Allied Powers wanted to let Hitler finish the job before fully engaging him, but enough were fearful they could not defeat Germany after a Soviet loss, to hold the fragile East/West alliance together.  (One may recall Patton's countless protestations that the U.S. was on the wrong side.)  

The version of history Americans hear is that it is our entry into the Western Front that saved the day, and our courage on D-Day that liberated Western Europe.  Our total losses on the Western Front were a few thousand men.  The Soviets, on the other hand, in preparing and defeating 85 to 90% of the fascist German forces, lost somewhere between 20,000,000 and 50,000,000 human beings, depending upon how you count the losses.  

To compare Stalin and Hitler is to play into the hands of the American Cold Warriors, who have kept us at war in one place or another for well over 150 years.  Mr. Ross would do well to read the political theorists from the twenties and early thirties writing in the Soviet Union with the precision scapel of Marxist criticism so that he may objectively judge the actions of the players on the stage of history at that time.  

It may be that the dream of communist utopia is a failure.  But there can be no doubt that Marxist analysis of capitalism has been dead on point. 

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:21:17 PM

  (0+)

To begin, thank you for taking the time to write your letter; I enjoyed reading it. However, it is not correct to say I am unaware of the events that followed the Russian Revolution or that I have "bought into" the NATO version of Soviet perfidy.  My late father, a patriotic Russian,  fought for the Bolsheviks against the White Guards and was wounded in that campaign, so I heard the Soviet side as a child.  Stalin had reason aplenty to build an army not only to prevent further White Guard-type interventions from the United States or the Czech Legion, etc. , but also out of concern for Hitler's determination to destroy Soviet Russia. As well, Stalin was confronted by a hostile Japan that attacked Soviet forces in Mongolia. Every nation has the right of self-defense. My point, however, was that Stalin built up a war machine also with intent to commit aggression. He seized the Western half of Poland, based on a secret agreement made in 1939 when Russia inked its non-aggression pact with Hitler. The secret agreement, moreover, provided for the Soviet Union to seize the three Baltic states, also war crimes.  And Stalin also used the Red Army to invade Finland and bomb Helsinki. And by signing the nonagression pact with Hitler, Stalin allowed Germany to focus its war machine on attacking and defeating Western Europe which, by the way, sealed the doom of millions of Jews, for whom you expressed sympathy. That the Red Army carried the brunt of the battle of World War Two against Hitler is undeniable and to its credit and there was nothing in my article to suggest otherwise. But aggression is aggression, no matter who commits it, and Stalin's wars against his neighbors will be long remembered by them as unjust. All best, Sherwood Ross 

by Sherwood Ross (222 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 155 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:11:21 PM

  (0+)

I can only view the non-aggression pact with the Nazi's and the subsequent invasion of Poland as inherently defensive acts designed to buy time for the Soviets to continue their push for industrial production.  One must remember that the Soviets would have been conquered, and we would all be part of the  Third Reich if Stalingrad had not been able to hold out for even that extra week or two.  Whatever one thinks of Communism or Stalin or Marx, the fact remains that they dealt in "realpolitik," in a way no regime has ever done before.  Everything the Soviets did was with a specific goal in mind, and world domination was never that goal.  Why not?  Because according to their belief system, the world would turn socialist on its own, without any help from Soviet intervention.  Their razon de existence was merely to defend their hard fought gains against a world that stood against them.

That being said, I appreciate your delightful tone of discourse and note that this is all just an aside in any event.  Your point regarding Bush's war machine is well-taken, and should have garnered many more comments than it did.  But that is not unusual at OEN.  The best threads are always lost almost immediately by being delegated to a lesser column or overwhelmed by new articles. 

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:59:32 AM

  (0+)

Any time I see a writer comparing Bush to Hitler I know to expect overwrought comparisons and senseless statistics.  And yes, I know you included Stalin but still you did not disappoint.

You say the Bush arms buildup rivals Hitler and you even give stats to back up your position, such as it is.  Even assuming your numbers are correct; do you honestly believe 4,100% "rivals" 224%?  What are you using for your definition of "rival?"  Mine would be "match or emulate" which hardly fits this scenario at all, it seems to me.

You then go on to say, "The Friends Committee on National Legislation, of Washington, D.C. says that 44 cents out of every dollar in his 2009 budget will go for war, compared with 2.2 cents for social programs."  You're absolutely correct: that is what they say.  But do you believe it?  For one thing, they wish to count veterans programs and some payments on the national debt as going "for the war."  I guess by their logic we wouldn't have any veterans if it weren't for the war.   And God only knows how they calculate the amount of interest on the debt as going "for the war".  But even putting that aside, 2.2% of the federal budget for social programs?  You cannot possibly believe that.  Please enlighten us all with the definition of "social programs" that excludes food programs, housing assistance, income supports, energy assistance, Medicaid, parts of Medicare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and public health programs as FCNL does.  I would love to hear it.  What's more, according to their "analysis" of the federal budget, Social Security doesn't even exist.  Aside from being 21.5% of the federal budget (2007) all by itself, what is it if it's not a "social program?"

I won't bother wasting my time on the rest.

by Joe Reeser (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:47:01 PM

  (0+)

Now this is how a thread should develop, but I cannot even find the original article without using the search engine.  I would love to engage in this debate, as the last post contains many errors that are obvious on their face; i.e., expenses paid to wounded veterans of wars of aggression are still legitimately counted as expenses for Bush's military buildup.  After all, who will fight if they cannot see that the wounded are assured of continuing care.  But, what is the point of debating when some editor has decided that this article and thread deserved to be buried in favor of UFO theories?

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:22:33 PM

  (0+)

What President Bush has done, again like Hitler and Stalin before him, is to boost military spending at the expense of domestic human needs, and there are plenty of sources other than the Friends to demonstrate this. You may quarrel with the Friends' data but members of Congress are saying much the same on the floor: Bush is gung-ho for military spending at the expense of domestic programs. They're also saying he's been systematically keeping the costs of his wars out of his budget requests, to make the budgets look smaller.  To begin with, in  a prophetic article titled, “The Fog Of The Budget: How Bush Will Mask The Biggest National Debt in History,” Business Week magazine said on February 14, 2005, “He’ll propose boosting spending for the Pentagon and homeland security in 2006. But spending on the rest of government, from parks to cancer research, will be all but frozen at this year’s levels.” The article also notes Bush did not include funding for the war in Iraq, quoting University of Maryland political scientist Allen Schick as explaining the reason---because “it accentuates the cost of the war.” The magazine added that the U.S. “could well be looking at deficits in the range of $400 billion-plus for the rest of his presidency.” And, of course, that's just what happened, and it is continuing today, bringing America to the brink of bankruptcy.

In his 2009 budget, Bush slashes $603 billion over ten years from key entitlement programs, according to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, “most of that from Medicare and Medicaid” while “at the same time (his budget) leaves intact the wasteful and inefficient overpayments to large insurance companies under the private Medicare Advantage plans.” And rather than spend to stimulate housing, an urgent domestic necessity everywhere, Rep. Dennis Kucinich points out, “In the midst of the subprime foreclosure meltdown, the President wants to cut funding for the Section 8 housing voucher program for low-income housing assistance while giving the Defense department an increase of $35 billion to $515 billion for non-Iraq/Afghanistan war funding” and, yes, increasing “out-of-pocket costs for veterans’ health care.”

Or as Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, put it, “In my view, the President’s plan places the burden of balancing the budget too greatly on the backs of the least fortunate among us, and misplaces priorities in a number of key areas.” In her statement on the budget, Republican Snowe declares, “I am very troubled by the direction that the president has chosen by submitting only a limited funding request for the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The issue of full budgeting for wartime appropriations in the base budget has been discussed and debated in the Congress, with the near unanimous decision that full budget estimates should be submitted by the president.”

Now, go back to what Professor Schick said three years ago about how the president is keeping the full cost of his wars from the public.

You can make an argument that, statistically, Bush's arms buildup does not match Hitler, but (a) Bush has kept much of his arms spending out of the budget; (b) he is undeniably expanding Pentagon operations at the expense of the civilian sector. Whether his buildup rate is 20 percent or 44 percent, depending on whose figures you use, is really irrelevant. Some sources will include Social Security and others will not. Some will lump in interest on the national debt caused by wars and some will not. What's relevant is that this kind of military buildup is colossal no matter what percentage of increase is involved, and that theman in the White House has a dangerous proclivity to ignore diplomacy and to make costly wars.  And that IS a characteristic of tyrants.  Thanks for your letter.

Sherwood Ross

by Sherwood Ross (222 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 155 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:07:28 PM

  (0+)

Arming up is integrated component in warwaging.Cold and hot wars.

years before the first Artillerieround was fired in EUR 1939 the Armsrace

was up big time , full time . war production Cadence even ! England and Germany , both full in 1935 especially aircraft production . WHY ?

They all realized this is a matter of life or death. Costs numbers of

monetary funds (Reichsmarks  resp Pounds) , were not looked at . You cannot look at bagatelles when YOu struggle for life . Pres Reagan said "deficits don't matter."  ($'s)

Now IRAN is in the ARM's race with Nukes . Once the weapons available

to Iran all equations become changed drastically , enormious shift of

power balance in the middle east.

The SHift would be as significant as the availability and use of U=Boots was

in WWII . Most US Generals now 2008 would join GEN ODOM and say it is over. But some would immediately ,before the end of the day ,say , let's

establish the balance again m Arm up Kuwait ,Arm up Curdistan,ARm up

the Sunnies and Saudies ( US or F protectorate  treaties).

by hlg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 79 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:29:29 PM

  (0+)