<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
What would we have said of a liberal political group in Germany in
1944 that complained that it was too expensive to run both the
concentration camps <i>and</i> the war in Russia, and therefore
that it was time to economize, downsizing each operation...? I
don't think that would have saved them at Nuremberg.<br>
<br>
On 11/26/10 10:22 PM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> <br>
> <br>
> Is America on the path to 'permanent war'?<br>
> <br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/23/war.afghan/index.html">http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/23/war.afghan/index.html</a><br>
> <br>
> "...John Cioffi, a political science professor at University
of<br>
> California, Riverside, says the nation's "increasingly
unhinged<br>
> ideological politics" makes it difficult for the country to
extract<br>
> itself from battles in Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Asia.
_"The<br>
> U.S. is not on the path to permanent war; it is in the midst
of a<br>
> permanent war,"_ Cioffi says. Permanent war is made possible
by<br>
> massive defense spending that has been viewed as untouchable.
But<br>
> that may change with the recent financial crisis and the
decline of<br>
> the nation's industry, Cioffi says. More ordinary Americans
might<br>
> conclude that they can't have a vibrant domestic economy and<br>
> unquestioned military spending, Cioffi says. /"All this
points to a<br>
> time in the future when the government will no longer have
the<br>
> resources or popular support to maintain what amounts to an
imperial<br>
> military presence around the world/," he says.<br>
> <br>
> ****<br>
> </span><br>
</body>
</html>