afghan war public support negative impressions rand paul

Rand Paul tries to stop harsher sanctions on Iran
sanction iran bill amendment

Americans' support for Afghan war drops sharply

Demanding peace takes courage. Some are finding it. We trim, blend, and append two 2012 articles from (1) Reuters, Mar 26, on a poll, and (2) Russia Times (interesting to see the US from a perspective halfway around the world), Mar 29, on Rand Paul.

by Reuters and by Russia Times

Support for the war in Afghanistan has dropped sharply among Americans in recent months as they grow increasingly disillusioned with the conflict that began more than a decade ago.

Two-thirds of those polled -- 69 percent -- said the United States should no longer be fighting in Afghanistan, up from 53 percent in November and the highest percentage since the New York Times/CBS News poll started asking that question in 2009.

Sixty-eight percent said the fighting was going "somewhat badly" or "very badly," compared with 42 percent who voiced those views last November.

The Times/CBS News survey results are in line with other recent polls that show a drop in support for the war. The survey comes after the massacre of 17 Afghan civilians in which a U.S. soldier has been charged, violence set off by the burning of Korans by American troops last month and a number of killings of U.S. troops by Afghan security forces.

According to the poll, negative impressions of the war have increased among both Democrats and Republicans.

Sixty percent of Republicans said the war was going somewhat or very badly, compared with 40 percent in November. Among Democrats, 68 percent said the war was going somewhat or very badly, compared with 38 percent in November.

NATO plans to hand over security responsibilities to Afghan forces by the end of 2014. Forty-four percent of respondents said the United States should withdraw sooner than the planned transition; 33 percent said the Obama administration should stick to the current timetable; and 3 percent said it should withdraw now. Seventeen percent said the United States should stay as long as it would take to stabilize the situation.

To read more .

JJS: The people have created a parade that at least one politician may try to lead.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) summoned the US Constitution in an attempt to block even harsher sanction against Iran in fears of another war America could potentially be involved in.

Paul took the Senate floor to oppose the undivided approval of a new set of sanctions on Iran and introduced an amendment.

“My amendment is one sentence long; it states that nothing in this act is to be construed as a declaration of war or as an authorization of the use of military force in Iran or Syria,” Paul told his colleagues.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) was eager to hastily authorize the bill, but Paul’s objection required that any use of military force against Iran had to be approved by Congress and wanted Congress to confirm that the US wasn’t rushing into another endless conflict.

“Before sending our young men and women into combat we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of war, over the advisability of war, and over the objectives of the war,” Paul added.

According to Politico.Com, the bill which easily made it through the Senate Banking Committee and the House would authorize the administration new power to pressure Iran over its controversial nuclear program.

The bill would also require companies traded on the US stock exchanges to act as somewhat of a spy and reveal activities done by the Middle-Eastern country. If passed it would also punish US parent companies whose affiliates have relations with the Islamic Republic as well.

“Many in this body cannot get boots on the ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya, to Iran,” criticized Senator Paul.

“James Madison wrote that the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the Executive is a Branch most interested in war and most prone to it,” he added.

Although the US has been hesitant to publicly endorse Israel in their plans to attack Iran, many like Rand Paul are opposed to Obama putting even more pressure on Iran.

President Obama has been criticized by many Americans who claim he has been doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

As we reported earlier this month, Pentagon officials are saying that the act of war against Iran has already been set in motion. During the latest American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC, many feel the particulars of when and how to attack Iran were under discussion by the two world leaders.

All these talks have been fueled by the rumors that Iran is developing a nuclear warhead in a secret facility. Islamic Republic's leaders have denied the allegations.

Although Reid wasn’t to please with Paul’s objection, Paul felt that “without a vote and without careful consideration of the ramifications of third or even a fourth war in this past decade” there is no legitimate need to send young soldiers into war.

In response to Paul’s amendment Reid stated, "There's nothing in the resolution that talks about war. In fact, it's quite to the contrary. … I read the Constitution a few times. My friend says he wants to restate the Constitution. That's a strange version he just stated," Reid added.

To read more .

JJS: What causes war? One big factor we don't hear much about is that war does bring in the money for certain insiders. And those politicians and owners of major assets need not worry about getting shot up themselves, so what's to stop them?

It’s hard to know what those in power are actually thinking. Some oil companies might want war to keep oil-rich countries in line and to keep the price for oil high. But they make so much money without war it's hard to know. Yet even when oil is not at stake, modern developed nations still wage war. Why?

War is expensive. The companies supplying what's needed for war makes lots of money, easy money, without much competition, and more than they can make during peacetime. That's the political spending side. But the money must come from somewhere, which takes us to the taxing side. War keeps people fearful and keeps citizens paying taxes, in ever increasing amounts.

If politicians could not tax and spend willy-nilly but instead had to offer services that people could reject and had to raise funds only by tapping our common wealth (the values of nature and of government-granted privileges like corporate charters), then I bet those old guys in high political office would not be as able, and thus not as willing, to rattle their sabers and become known as war mongerers who lead their country to ruin.

Indeed, if our public revenue policy were geonomic, I bet our leaders would be rational, tolerant, and truly peace-loving "matriots" (lovers of Mother Earth), like statesmen of the past.

We are worthy of peace, justice, and prosperity, and we should demand them.

---------------------

Editor Jeffery J. Smith runs the Forum on Geonomics and helped prepare a course for the UN on geonomics. To take the “Land Rights” course, click here .

Also see:

For the US Government ...
http://www.progress.org/2011/boxer.htm

Senator Levin Questions U.S. Aid
http://www.progress.org/2011/levin.htm

How should US engage the world?
http://www.progress.org/2011/deploy.htm

Email this articleSign up for free Progress Report updates via email


What are your views? Share your opinions with The Progress Report:

Your name

Your email address

Your nation (or your state, if you're in the USA)

Check this box if you'd like to receive occasional Economic Justice announcements via email. No more than one every three weeks on average.


Page One Page Two Archive
Discussion Room Letters What's Geoism?

Henry Search Engine