http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/29/military_marketing/index.html?source=newsletter

For the general public, the objective is sedation. New polls show the country strongly opposes the Afghanistan and Iraq wars — but military officials want to preserve the possibility of an escalation in Afghanistan and a permanent deployment in Iraq. So along with persuading President Obama to withhold photos documenting fog-of-war brutalities at Afghanistan and Iraq prisons, the Pentagon is seeking an opiate to placate the war-averse populace. What better anodyne than a marketing campaign implying wars are fun video games? ...

Weren't some of the secret prisons in Poland? I saw somehting about it on TV, but before I found out what this was all about the report ended with a sign Wstęp Wzbroniony, and the rst was about other military prisons? I don't think America really wants this war, but how to end it?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on August 30, 2009 4:23 PM Weren't some of the secret prisons in Poland?

That's what vassals are for, aren't they?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on August 30, 2009 4:23 PM I don't think America really wants this war, but how to end it?

By not starting the next one so the question will not have to be asked over and over again.

But how to practcally end it:  just say, ok, the war is over and withdraw the troops the next day?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on August 30, 2009 6:54 PM But how to practcally end it:  just say, ok, the war is over and withdraw the troops the next day?

Would this really be worse than what they did when they moved in?

This would be much better, but who would dare to do it like that. If President Obama could, he would, I think.   

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 9, 2009 4:30 PM From http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903u/eastern-europe-bailout: While Polish and Czech fears of Russia, their former Warsaw Pact overlord, are real enough, it’s hard to believe that they would shed more than crocodile tears over the loss of the U.S. missile defense system. To begin with, notwithstanding more than $150 billion in spending since the Reagan Administration, missile defense has about as much chance of working against a real threat as you have a chance of winning the lottery. The planned system in Europe can’t provide certain protection against missiles from Iran, much less from Russia. Or as one 2007 Pentagon study put it, “The proposed GMD expansion to the European theater has not accomplished system engineering adequate to support the development of a test program sufficiently detailed to certify a high probability of working in an operationally effective manner once deployed.” Translation: “Good luck with that.” The Polish and Czech publics never wanted the system, and for all Donald Rumsfeld’s chest-thumping about our buddies in the “New Europe,” never cared much for the Bush administration, either. In fact, according to a recent survey of European countries by the German Marshall Fund, the decline in trust in American leadership from 2002 to 2008 was steepest in Poland.

Poland Without Missile Defence

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on August 30, 2009 10:22 PM  If President Obama could, he would, I think.

A nice thought, although I have my doubts.  Since they created pretexts to move in, they could easily create others to move out.  But since the real reasons why they moved in are still not known exactly, these reasons may still be effective.

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on August 31, 2009 4:03 PM the real reasons why they moved in are still not known exactly...

...apart from the fact that they were in line with various guidelines:

The U.S. should assert its military dominance over the world to shape “the international security order in line with American principles and interests,” push for “regime change” in Iraq and China, among other countries, and “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars….While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” - Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century The Project for the New American Century [members include Cheney and Rumsfeld], Sept. 2000 (Post #29758)

The National Security Strategy issued on September 17, 2002 was released in the midst of controversy over the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war which is contained therein. It also contains the notion of military pre-eminence that was reflected in a Department of Defense paper of 1992, "Defense Policy Guidance", prepared by two principal authors (Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby) working under then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Strategy_of_the_United_States)

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 31, 2009 6:36 PM Originally written by Harry Bornemann on August 31, 2009 4:03 PM the real reasons why they moved in are still not known exactly... military dominance over the world  ... pre-emptive war  ... military pre-eminence

20 years ago I received a cassette tape from California, with a guy explaining the U.S. foreign policy by the (alleged) fact that the whole U.S. government are alcoholics, so they always have to bomb something.

I start to believe it.