In reply to “Is Adulation of the Military Really Patriotic?” by Ivan Eland, 10/21/09:

I have always considered myself to be quite the outcast for holding so many “conflicting views” according to the defined liberal or conservative. Both parties run on platforms that split the public on all issues … except the military. Bravo for a great article that is long overdue.

Walker Carter

In reply to “The Reverse Midas Effect,” by Justin Raimondo, 10/16/09:

I would like to know more about how a company such as Dyncorp International, [which] specializes in aviation support, is a “US mercenary” organization Can you tell me more about how Justin Raimondo comes to this conclusion? A fraction of a fraction of people working for Dyncorp possess weapons on a daily basis and none of them are “guns hired solely for the purpose of money,” my own paraphrasing of Webster’s definition of a mercenary.

“Robbie”

In reply to “The Nobel War Prize,” by Paul Craig Roberts, 10/10/09:

I think people could use a reminder about past wars like Vietnam where the justifications for war and strategies for winning it and the goals that consitute victory somehow ke[pt] changing and morphing. Our leaders can’t even tell us what victory is supposed to look like. People who live in caves and mud huts voting? Women’s rights? The Afghan collaborator regime (the looting Karzai clan) winning yet another rigged election? What is victory in Afghanistan anyway? Since the military estimates 100 or fewer actual al-Qaeda in Afghanistan now, what is the objective, other than killing Afghan (Pashtun) freedom-fighters who are repelling invaders, just as their ancestors have always done?

When the establishment keeps changing what they’re fighting, why they’re fighting, what they are trying to accomplish, it is a sure sign of an empire diddling about and the military-industrial complex reaping huge profits.

Ray Ward