Why Is War Prioritized Over Poverty?

 

Is This Who We Really Are?

Based on recent policy positions, the Trump administration has prioritized military spending and federal budget cuts over funding social safety nets, which it often views as ineffective, arguing these programs ("little scams") should be managed at the state level. Critics argue these policies disproportionately affect low-income individuals. -The Nation 

Three Quotes and a Call to Action

"One cannot live with sighted eyes and feeling heart and not know or react to the miseries which afflict this world."
- Lorraine Hansberry

“A few years ago there was a shining moment … It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor—both black and white—through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.” MLK jr. (Beyond Vietnam)

"When Trump says “We can’t take care of day care,” we must expose the lie: Our nation absolutely could take care of child care and medical coverage; we’re just choosing to spend taxpayer money—to the tune of around $12 billion so far—on a war in Iran." -Russell Taylor

 
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy." -Proverbs 31:8-9

The war with Iran is neither a just war or a holy war. It is a war of choice. The Council on Foreign Relations thinks so. A classic example was the Iraq War.  It was not required for survival, but rather to change the Iraqi regime. Critics are labeling US military actions against Iran as a "war of choice" that was costly, risky, and lacked public or congressional support. Is the warrior mentality more important than treating the poor fairly, and offering the dignity they deserve? I hope not. But that would mean regime change, wouldn't it? How? Vote!

Why We're At War

A Gut Feeling

I noticed two things. First, if it is inconvenient or contrary to what he wants, Trump won't listen to people who know what they're talking about. Second, his closest advisors decline to offer any advice for fear of making him angry. The Trump cabinet is not made up of the best and the brightest. The chairs are filled with sycophants desperately clinging to power. A sycophant is a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite. They tell Trump that he is tall and tan, and wise and intelligent. Not to mention those great ties.

From The NYTimes:

 Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, who report on the White House, have uncovered new details about why, with little opposition from his closest aides, Trump attacked Iran.

The pitch came from Israel — in the Situation Room. Netanyahu made an hourlong presentation to Trump and his senior advisers on Feb. 11, arguing that a joint U.S.-Israeli campaign could destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, force regime change and bring down the Islamic republic. Sounds good to me, the president said.

The next morning, U.S. intelligence officials questioned that plan. Kill the ayatollah? Sure. Cripple Iran’s capacity to threaten its neighbors? Absolutely. But a popular uprising? A secular leader installed to govern the country? They found that “detached from reality.” The director of the C.I.A. called the scenario “farcical.” Trump, though, thought the campaign would be quick and decisive.

Previous victories filled him with confidence. He pointed to Iran’s muted response to the U.S. bombing of its nuclear facilities in June, and to the hasty seizure of the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January, an operation during which no American lives were lost. Tucker Carlson called the president to ask how he could be sure that everything would be OK in Iran. “Because it always is,” Trump replied.

Trump’s decision was gut-driven, and driven by Trump’s gut alone. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was enthusiastic about striking Tehran, of course. But Trump’s more equivocal advisers — Secretary of State Marco Rubio; his chief of staff, Susie Wiles; and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — did not push back on Trump’s plan. (His director of national intelligence and Treasury secretary weren’t even part of the final discussion.) Vice President JD Vance told the president: You know I think this is a bad idea, but if you want to do it, I’ll support you.

Read more of the inside story about how Trump decided to go to war with Iran. It’s reporting taken from a forthcoming book from Jonathan and Maggie, “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.”

Iran has proved to be difficult, problematic. His attention will drift elsewhere. Cuba? I hope for some rationality among his inner circle when it comes to Cuba. Russia is their closest ally. It is not likely they will stand idly by and let Trump swoop in for a regime change and takeover.

Did You Know?

In ancient Greece, sykophantēs meant "slanderer." It derives from two other Greek words, sykon (meaning "fig") and phainein (meaning "to show or reveal"). How did fig revealers become slanderers? One theory has to do with the taxes Greek farmers were required to pay on the figs they brought to market. Apparently, the farmers would sometimes try to avoid making the payments, but squealers—fig revealers—would fink on them, and they would be forced to pay. Another possible source is a sense of the word fig meaning "a gesture or sign of contempt" (as thrusting a thumb between two fingers). In any case, Latin retained the "slanderer" sense when it borrowed a version of sykophantēs, but by the time English speakers in the 16th century borrowed it as sycophant, the squealers had become flatterers. -webster