Are you joking? Maybe the fact that we attacked their country without provocation, bombed their infrastructure into the stone age, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and turned some 20% of the population into refugees might have something to do with it.

I don’t think you can say there is no “real difference” between their positions.  Obama says he will get troops out of Iraq even if he does not set an exact date. McCain wants to stay in Iraq permanently. Obama strongly emphasizes diplomacy. You never hear a word about diplomacy from McCain (or any other Republican, except Ron Paul). Those are real and significant differences. Why blur them?

The more I look at this article the madder I get. 100 more years in current dollars means about 13.2 trillion dollars (we are spending about $11 billion per month now). That means 3.4 million Iraqi civilians dead. That means maybe 50,000 Americans dead.

But in a hundred years we may not be a country or Iraq would not have the population to sustain 3.4 million dead.

That’s good news isn’t it?

This is a youtube video that I saw on Huffpost that shows a Bill Moyers investigation regarding how the CIA overthrew the legitimate government of Iran in the 1950’s.  Ron Paul discusses this issue at one of the first Republican debates and this concept of ‘blowback’ is a key driver to his foreign policy.

How many Americans are aware of this history?  Very few…

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ldgbOxDX6DE

By cybergenie, January 7 at 9:41 pm #
(2 comments total)

Jeffrey writes:With regards to his
Jeffrey writes:

“With regards to his statement on Iraq - taken way out of context.

I agree with him completely. As long as no harm is done, who cares if Americans are in Iraq?

They’ve been in Cuba for 100 years”
—————————————————————————-
This is a good thing? In other words, the U.S. has dominated the Western Hemisphere for 100 years, supporting dictators and gansters and preventing democracy and social progress, so it’s perfectly fine and wonderful to do the same thing in the rest of the world for the next hundred years? Just great.

The idea of permanent US military bases helps prevent a political solution to the war, since so many Iraqis find such an idea unacceptable.

I would expect better from someone who has fought in a war.

South Korea has a clearly-delineated border secured by thousands of U.S. troops, backed up by the defending army who were sympathetic to the U.S. troops, and hundreds of thousands of mines to keep the sides apart. How is that model similar to Iraq?

Japan’s military and government were soundly beaten down and ultimately surrendered after massive sacrifice and expense. There was dissent among some of the population about whether to accept surrender, but there weren’t dozens of religious/tribal/sectarian factions looking for an opportunity to wipe out their competitors by civil war or ethnic cleansing. Again, how does he see this situation as proof that occupation will be peaceful?

Jeffrey writes:

With regards to his statement on Iraq - taken way out of context.

I agree with him completely. As long as no harm is done, who cares if Americans are in Iraq?

They’ve been in Cuba for 100 years…
———————————————————————————————————

You may not care, but you should acknowledge that the Iraqis do care. Poll after poll has shown that the vast majorities of Iraqis of all ethnicities and sects want U.S. troops out of their country. John McCain’s insistence that they should stay in Iraq clearly shows his blatant disregard of the Iraqis’ wishes for the complete withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq.

As for Cuba, I really don’t see how this is applicable to Iraq given that the situation between those two countries are completely different.

The same people that flew planes into our buildings on 9-11 care. The Iraqi people care. The Iranians care. The Saudis care. The Jordanians care. The Syrians care.

Pointing to Cuba, in my opinion, is hardly a model of beneficial American presence.  We don’t trade or talk to Cuba (and have no plans to) and our military presence there largely consists of a prison where in the eyes of most of the world we violate Geneva convention and our own moral standards.

Consider this… Our military presence in Japan, in South Korea, in Germany, and in most of the 700 bases in 130 countries around the world is a direct subsidy of those nations.  So the American taxpayer is paying for the defense of other nations.  You wonder why we spend more money on defense than everyone else in the world combined?  Because we pay for the defense of so many nations out of our own pockets.  Who does this benefit and who does this hurt?

Here’s an article on McCain from an editor at the Los Angeles Times that was featured in Reason online:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html

Worth a read.

“All repugs just LOOK dishonest.” - Cyrena

Ahh yes. With such deep and convincing insights, arguments, and observations like these we all owe Cyrena an enormous debt. Furthemore, Cyrena, thank you for the physical threat!  That was a nice touch of intellectual vigor that was unexpected but very satisfying to receive. It really warms my heart! I only wish you added your typical touch of mature barbs such as, and I quote, “MORON” “DUMBASS” and all of the other schoolyard insults you employ.

The physical threat is the icing on the cake though. Now I am convinced that you have completely gone off the rails. 

In reality, the solution is simple.  Stop slandering Ron Paul and his supporters and I will stop correcting your constant stream of b.s. with supported facts, quotes, third party opinions, videos, and my own knowledge.  If you stop, I will stop for there will be no need to constantly demonstrate the truth in the face of your lies your way off base ‘intuitions’, and your ‘gut feelings’. 

I am also certain that Tony doesn’t need your help in deciding who he wants to engage in a conversation with.  You aren’t Tony’s nanny (as far as I know).  I am sure that as a grown up man, Tony is capable of taking care of himself (despite his longings for the government teet) I am certain that his own sense of self-respect and self-worth does not rely on your intervention Cyrena.

Any chance you go completely bonkers and have to throw something at the computer and it breaks?  That would be a nice outcome.

Yeah, now that you mention it…where does Ron Paul think he’s going with those suitcases under his eyes anyway? How do we know he hasn’t already stolen a bunch of our money, and stashed it under those shifty eyes? Seems to me like if he’s a doc and all, he should be able to inject some botox or something in those bags, so at least we wouldn’t be suspicious that he’s hiding anything there.

Same with McCain and those chipmunk cheeks. All repugs just LOOK dishonest.

Hi Tony,

First, let me say what I didn’t before, (taking for granted that you would already know), we’re really glad to have you back and posting on a regular basis. (or at least I am ).

Needless to say, since you’ve been posting here as long or longer than I, we’re all familiar with each other, even though most of us may become involved in other things, and not necessarily post at any one place on a daily or even weekly basis. I do myself, at this site, just because it’s easier for me to stick with one, and while I certainly read several others, (and recommend them….my favorite is truthout.org) I generally keep my posting limited to just this site.

Now, I said all of that to suggest that - because you’ve had some breaks in posting, and possibly even from reading everything on Truthdig, you may have ‘missed’ some of the posters who have begun regular ‘contributions’ (if you wanna call it that) during the past few months, give or take. I admit that’s just a ‘presumption’ on my part, because you might certainly be reading all of it, and have simply not chosen to respond in the type of ‘volume’ that we have done in the past.

So, just take it for whatever it might be worth to you, to know that among the Ron Paulie groupies that have descended upon the site in the past several months, nomascerdo is probable THE most annoying, and the most out of touch with reality. And, while it doesn’t take long to figure this out, a review of past posts, (and the trajectory they’ve taken) will prove the inconsistencies, and the basic lack of any reasoned or logical thinking. He/She (I suspect she) speaks from and to nothing more than a totally ideological mentality, far removed from the kinds of rational conclusions that the average person can and will make, in considering the big picture.

I have no idea whether it is intentional, (like, they know they’re full of shit, but this is a way to dupe people into following their own tortured and twisted logic) or if they honestly believe all of the BS themselves. Probably a little of both, which is usually the case.

Be that as it may, this is just a sort of ‘heads-up’ to forewarn about getting caught up on the hamster wheel, (not my term, I have to credit another poster with that) with nomascerdo, or any of the others. (like I said, s/he is the most obvious, but there are others). They seem to be best at distortion, mimicking, and twisting the facts to suit their agenda, nearly ALWAYS avoiding the real questions when they are forced to examine what they’ve postulated. And ALWAYS trying to use somebody else’s words to do it.

After a while, they ultimately expose themselves for what they are, so this is only a forewarning so that you don’t waste a whole lot of time (like I did) in first extending the benefit of the doubt, as if you might be engaging with a rational mind. Because.. that is NOT the case here. Oh no. No rational stuff at all coming from this nomascerdo person. Rather, it’s generally only enough to make ya wanna reach through your computer and just choke the shit out of him/her.

So, avoid the hamster wheel. (I do love that – I have to try to remember who coined that, to give due credit, since it’s the perfect ‘fit’)

thermonuclear holocaust. it would be glorious.

I know that Ron Paul is just a man with flaws, warts and all.  I do think he is honest or more honest relatively speaking to who is out there.  What I do know is that he wants to limit the influence of the federal government.  That is an honest solution to an intractable problem.  I appreciate that.

Washington was a reluctant hero. Lincoln was arguably a tyrant and a racist despite the propaganda to the contrary. Jefferson was a hero.

I consider Ron Paul to be a hero.  Obama might be one but I’m not convinced frankly.  I think he has a long way to go and more track record to lay down before I become a believer. He is an inspiring speaker and an attractive candidate and I think his time will come, I just don’t think it is now.  Edwards is a limousine liberal phony. Clinton is a neo-liberal war monger. My jaw dropped when I saw Madeleine Albright standing behind her in Iowa after her 3rd place finish.

This Madeleine Albright who in an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS’s 60 Minutes when asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”

Giuliani is a tyrant. Romney IS corporate special interests.  Thompson is a phony. Huckabee is an evangelical pastor who is far too fundamentalist. McCain is a war monger globalist who believes in American empire.

I would love to see Paul vs Obama.  The rhetoric of ‘hope’ will not stand up to the real concepts of applied liberty in an intellectual debate.

I also want to point out that my view as a libertarian expects there to be government.  That said, I prefer local government to central leviathan government.  I want more influence over how my tax dollars are spent and where, not less.  You hold a common misconception that since Ron Paul wants to limit the Federal government that there will be a free for all anarchy.  The truth is, local government actually gives you a chance at honest government because you can actually see what local government is doing.  Good luck trying to figure out what is going on in Washington and where all of the money is going.

Doesnt that just make more sense to you from a logic perspective.  Not to mention the FACT that local governments have a history of being FAR more progressive than Federal government.  You want socialism?  Push the federal government out of your state’s business and then elect state and local leaders that share your vision.  Just don’t force folks who DONT want socialism to be forced to live under your system.  Stop being such a tyrant!

Besides, If there is no possibility of honest government, what makes you think Ron Paul will be honest either? Just wondering.

Is the Constitution a worthless scrap of paper, then? Under the Bush Administration it is. Has our government never had principled people who really believe in the Constitution? What about George Washington? What about Abe Lincoln? Is the idea of a government of the people, by the people and for the people completely preposterous? The United States is defined by its government. It is not defined by what people do as individuals. The government is the expression of our collective will as citizens. If there is no government, there is no United States, just random individuals looking out for themselves. Under the Bush administration, our government defines us as the meanest, greediest bullies on the face of the earth. The whole world hates pig nation. But hope springs eternal. I’m pinning mine on Obama as our best chance for an honest government that will really serve the people.

Also please outline your detailed plan sprinkled with magic fairy dust that is going to separate the influence of big business from the power of government.

Ooh and can I borrow your rose colored glasses too?

Tony - I don’t understand this idealism that wants to believe that government is suddenly going to become honest.  Where does that come from?  What evidence do you have that this has ever happened or can ever happen?  I’m looking for precedence for this view.

Please give me examples of honest government at any time in our nation’s history and I will gladly jump on your magical fantasy spaceship!

Re Comment By Nomascerdo, January 6 at 2:36 pm #

Tony - think about what you JUST wrote!  You said exactly what Ron Paul has been complaining about ALL ALONG.  It is the CORPORATIONS that run our government, not the people.  Therefore, following logic, if we give MORE power to the government we are giving more power to the corporations!
——————————————————————————
No, this is totally ILLOGICAL. The only power and the only freedom we the people have is the power of a democratic government which we elect and which looks out for our interests. To the extent that our elected officials are bought by corporations, we have no freedom or power at all. The only solution is democratic election of a strong, honest government with the power to regulate corporations. The trouble with you libertarians is that you don’t believe in democracy at all. And democracy IS socialism. 

I know what I want. I’m tired of living in the meanest, most backward industrialized country in the world. I would like our country to catch up with the more civilized and humanitarian countries that currently lead the world in freedom and democracy, such as the Netherlands, and Germany, and France, and Canada, and Switzerland, and Norway and Sweden and Finland. Universal health care for all citzens! A guaranteed minimum national income! A 30 hour work week! At least six weeks of paid vacation every year! Free higher education for all! That’s what we could have, if we can just get the damn corporations off our backs.

Nomacerdo writes:

“...Tony you know not what you wish for and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works and how libertarians want it to work…”

This is SO typical of what we’ve been plagued with from nomascerdo. Everybody (else) is stupid, and needs to wake up.

They’ll never get it. So, let them continue to entertain themselves. I have no doubts that most folks can see below the surface of the bullshit.

Still, just like the radical Christian right ‘movement’ that so many have so readily dismissed, that same danger could come from dismissing the Ron Paul crazies as well. So, better to be on guard, than dismissive. I’ve learned after 8 years of the neoconners creating THEIR own reality, that just about anybody with a product to sell can do the same thing…especially to a desperate population that isn’t particularly bright.

Tony - think about what you JUST wrote!  You said exactly what Ron Paul has been complaining about ALL ALONG.  It is the CORPORATIONS that run our government, not the people.  Therefore, following logic, if we give MORE power to the government we are giving more power to the corporations!  It is all so very obvious to every libertarian in the room but the “socialist democrats” are still hoodwinked apparently.

Ask yourself what force or power is going to remove the influence of corporations from government?  It isn’t a politician with a (D) next to their name.  Just follow the money.  The Democrats have received by far, more money from corporate special interests than even the Republicans this year.  Why is that?

Literally the ONLY way to remove the influence of the corporations from government is to remove the incentive.  The incentive is MONEY.  When the governemnt has an unlimited ability to tax, borrow, spend and print, the corporations will and do spend hundreds of billions of dollars to influence where that money ends up.

You have to kill it at the source.  The source is the money, size and power of government.  Stop kidding yourself that some feel good Democrat wrapped in populism is going to stop any of this.

Wake up already!

” In reality, what Ron Paul offers is absolutely NO different than what we’ve got now, and that’s why he’s been a repug for so many years. It’s the same shit, with a new name.”
-Cyrena

That is really a ridiculous statement. Ron Paul’s platform is dramatically different than the Bush administration, dramatically different than every other Republican running, and dramatically different than the Democratic candidates.

1. Sound money.  No other candidate is running on a sound money platform. This is a MAJOR departure from all other platforms and is a cornerstone of his platform.  Ending the inflationary economic policy, which is the single biggest threat to the lower and middle class of this country is Ron Paul’s aim and policy ALONE.

2. Humble foreign policy.  Practically no other candidate is running on this platform and certainly no other candidate ACTUALLY MEANS it the way Ron Paul does (Kucinich aside).  I reference his speeches to Congress discussing this concept since 1974 which are all in his book “A Foreign Policy of Freedom”.  The Bush admin plans on being in Iraq for 100 years (thanks for the honesty John McCain). Show me another candidate discussing the American Empire and its threat to our security, financial wellbeing, and standing in the world. Cornerstone #2.

3. Re-balancing of government balance aka removing usurpation of power by the executive branch, reinstatement of habeus corpus, privacy, following the Constitutional limits on Federal power and overreach, stopping torture, secret rendition, etc etc.  Again, practically no other candidate is discussing this (Kucinich aside). Ron Paul has stated EXPLICITY he will remove powers from the executive branch.  No other candidate is discussing the privacy and liberty of every American as seriously as Ron Paul.  Cornerstone #3

4. True free market capitalism.  REMOVING the massive power of the military-industrial complex, medical industrial complex, and media-industrial complex over the Federal government. Corporate welfare, neo-mercantilism, etc etc.  Again, no other candidate is talking about this. THIS is why FOX is excluding Ron Paul from their forum today.  Silencing the critic of the status quo.  Make no mistake about it.

So that statement was ‘almost’ as ridiculous as this one (but not quite):

“Libertarians do not seem to understand that the “free market” is completely undemocratic and totalitarian.”
- Tony Wicher

Tony you know not what you wish for and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works and how libertarians want it to work.  The role of government is to provide for the rule of law and to promote competition in the marketplace which allows free associating individuals to participate in the economy as they choose.  That is not the direction we are heading towards and certainly not where we have been for the past 50 years.  Listen to Ron Paul’s speeches where he warns us of ‘corporatism’ which he equates to a ‘soft fascism’.  Learn something and start to appreciate that it is ECONOMIC LIBERTY that is absolutely CRUCIAL in preserving individual freedom and liberty.

Who controls the production of wealth, then? Not the government, and not individuals. Corporations are what control the production of wealth. Big business. Big oil. Big pharma. Big defense contractors. Big insurance companies. They are running our government and every one of us. Corporations are not people. They have no feelings. They have no consciences. They are totally undemocratic, totalitarian institutions accountable to nothing but the “free market” (which isn’t free anyway; it’s really a monopoly) and to the almighty bottom line.

“The common features of all collectivist systems may be described, in a phrase ever dear to socialists of all schools, as the deliberate organization of the labours of society for a definite social goal.  That our present society lacks such “conscious” direction towards a single aim, that its activities are guided by the whims and fancies of irresponsible individuals, has always been one of the main complaints of its socialist critics.

In many ways this puts the basic issue very clearly. And it directs us at once to hte point where the conflict arises between individual freedom and collectivism. The various kinds of collectivism, communism, fascism, etc, differ between themselves in the nature of the goal towards which they want to direct the efforts of society.  But they all differ from liberalism and individualism in wanting to organize the whole of society and all its resources for this unitary end, and in refusing to recognize autonomous spheres in which the ends of the individuals are supreme.  In short, they are totalitarian in the true sense of this new work which we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call collectivism.”
- F.A. Hayek -  The Road to Serfdom, 1944

One more to ponder:

“The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself.”
  -Hilaire Belloc

I have to agree with you.  The Bush League used 911 as an opportunity to seize control of a mideast country, manufactured evidence to suggest that Iraq was the scene for the war on terror, and moved in.  Any military strategist would have immediately protected the borders to prevent terrorists from pouring in.  But Bush leaves borders unprotected for a reason, both here at home and abroad.  Those who trespass serve a purpose.

But they would rather suffer being called “stupid” than being charged with war crimes for an unjustified invasion and takeover of a sovereign country.  Not to mention the profits that are appearing in many portfolios because of this act.

People better wake up!

Paolo,

I’ve said this before, just because I’ve noticed it before, and it’s not a criticism as much as it is an observation.

I think you really trip yourself up in your rush to designate hard core left and even ‘right and left.” I’m not sure how to make the point, that you confuse your issues this way. In reality, if the really WAS such a thing as a ‘hard core’ left, they would probable be OK with the Ron Paul agenda. At least that’s my guess, even though I have a difficult time trying to pin point a particular set of beliefs that would figure into ‘hard core left’. Seriously, I can’t. Now if you can help me understand what you mean by a ‘hard core left’ ideology, then maybe I can understand better, how you’re hooking this all up.

But, speaking for myself, and those whom I know that would be totally opposed to the sort of agenda that Ron Paul suggests, we are not ‘hard core left’. I wouldn’t even call myself ‘left’. I’d call myself moderate and most importantly, BALANCED, on the big picture scale.

And, what I personally interpret from the RP agenda, is indeed very RADICAL. So, that’s why I would agree in part, that if there was a ‘hard core left’ mentality, than maybe it would synchronize. Anything RADICAL would in fact fall in with that agenda.

It does not suit a moderate ideology though, and it will never support the whole.

So, if you can think of what you might consider to be hard core left, please let us know, so that we have a general idea of what you’re talking about. That would give a better idea of how you think this plan works for more than a handful of those who are already totally independent of any system of government, or totally independent of any interaction with their fellow citizens. 

As for persuasion by gun barrel, I have no problems with giving up guns entirely. Just don’t like ‘em and don’t see a need for them. Now of course Ron Paul wouldn’t like that idea at all.

Excellent post here Tony. (but then, I too am a Michael Moore type socialist).

I think what you see here from those who claim to be Libertarians, (specifically of the Ron Paul supporters) is a lack of vision as to the reality of what he suggests, in a 21st Century nation of 300 million people.

In other words, they just don’t get it. It’s myopic vision at best, and stupidy at worse. They are unable to see beyond the ‘ideal’ and incoroporate the reality of how it all ties together. Or…in this case, how it would all fall completely apart.

And, I’d be willing to bet, that for the most part, NONE of those who support this new flavor that Ron Paul is brandishing, (he’s been a conservative repug for 20 plus years, and his congressional record proves it) have even the tiniest of clues, as to how it all works out.

If I was at all vindictive, or even got any ‘satisfaction’ from the ‘I told you so’ mentality, I’d say…let ‘em find out. Unfortunately, the rest of us would have to go down as well, and that accomplishes nothing for anyone. (except the handful that might survive under such a system).

In reality, what Ron Paul offers is absolutely NO different than what we’ve got now, and that’s why he’s been a repug for so many years. It’s the same shit, with a new name.

And in the end, even if this WAS allowed to play out, these people STILL wouldn’t be able to connect the dots. So, it would all be for naught. No lessons learned.

Actually, the private sector cannot compete with government plans.  That is why the private insurance plans require government subsidies in order to compete with traditional Medicare.  Without subsidies, people will choose traditional Medicare.  The private system is too inefficient to compete.

As a Michael Moore democratic socialist, I believe health care is the right of every citizen. Please explain to me how your wonderful “free market” is going to provide health care for all Americans, regardless of their ability to pay? What you have right now is that rich people can afford medical care and poor people can’t. What’s your plan, or do you think that that’s the way it should be? Libertarians do not seem to understand that the “free market” is completely undemocratic and totalitarian. The boss is the dictator, perhaps benevolent in some cases, coldly and visciously greedy in others, but there is not democracy involved. Corporations are the very antithesis of democracies. The purpose of representative democracy is to regulate the “free market” in the interest of the people as a whole.

As a libertarian, Ron Paul and I have a lot of disagreements with most of the posters on this rather establishment-liberal website. My view is that we need to prevent the government from stealing our money to finance occupations of countries on the far side of the globe; most on the left agree with this. But I also say we need to prevent the government from stealing our money to create boondoggles like government control of health care, public skools, and Social Security.

I fully understand I will probably never get hard-core leftists to agree with this. But I only need to observe that, if these programs are so obviously beneficial, why not make them voluntary? That is (for example), if you have a great scheme for financing health care, why not offer it voluntarily, on the open market? Because people are too stupid to support your obviously superior health care system? Therefore, you have to put a gun to their heads and MAKE THEM do what you, the enlightened ones, have determined is in their best interest?

A core principle of libertarianism is that interactions between reasoning adults should be voluntary. If you have a great idea about a better health care system, then persuade me with the power of your ideas, rather than with the barrel of a gun.

In McCain’s candid comments, we probably see part of the original true plan of the invasion of Iraq: to establish a permanent US presence there in order to secure energy supplies and have a US military platform in that region.

The plan was perhaps not to establish peace, order and democracy, then get US troops out. The plan might have been to create the chaos that justified US troops staying indefinitely.

And, of course, there are critical related factors worth thinking about, as in the article ...

‘Mistakes’ or ‘plans’ in 9/11, Iraq invasion and occupation, War on Terror?

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11401

I watched that Bill Moyers program and CUFI sure is scary - though no more scary than the Zionists themselves. Religious fundamentalist fanatics is what they are.

Paolo#124492
PT #124564

Paolo,

•  For advocating this, Ron Paul is called “loony.” Makes me wonder if we’re just a highly defective species….
Herein lies the confusion and the incongruity. This is NOT why Ron Paul is considered ‘loony’, and you guys need to stop ignoring what it is that DOES make him ‘loony’, (if that’s what people want to call it). I personally don’t think that he is necessarily ‘loony’, since I believe he’s so far done a pretty damn good job of hiding his real agenda.

And, this proves it. If the only thing you focus on, is the fact that Ron Paul is advocating the removal of the US military presence from around the globe, in places where we do not belong, and are NOT WANTED, then you miss the reality of the other things that he advocates. And the other things that he advocates, is what will rip this country apart, right here at home, and you won’t have to worry about what the hell is happening anyplace else, because you’ll be too busy trying to survive right HERE.

Now, RP is NOT the only candidate who is advocating a reduction in US military presence, in places where we are not wanted or needed, to advance anything other than the military industrial complex, and the never-ending quest for US hegemony throughout the world. So, what I’m saying, is that we don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, by considering those OTHER really ‘loony’ policies that he advocates.

And, if we’re such a defective species, is that why Ron Paul would like to starve us all, and run us right into the cemetary, to be replaced by a gigantic population expansion of a newer (and possibly purer) breed?

And NO, we don’t want John McCain either. It’s not an ‘either or world’.

P.T.

As usual, you’re right on the mark. I would only quibble with this, in comparison to Iraq and Vietnam,

•  The U.S. is stuck with a puppet regime in Baghdad (as in South Vietnam) that cannot govern.

I don’t think the US is ‘STUCK’ with a puppet regime in Baghdad. (well, maybe ‘we the people’ are.) No, the puppet regime in Baghdad was very carefully CHOSEN by the ‘regime’ in the District of Cheney.

Remember if we think back, one of the first elected persons of the regime in Baghdad was literally run out of the job by the neoconners in DC. Specifically, (at the instructions of Dick Bush) by Condi the Rice, and the other thugs at the time. (Paul Bremer being one). That was al-Jaafari. And, they’ve run others out as well, until they could get the regime they wanted, which is the one they have now.

So, they aren’t STUCK with a puppet government in Iraq. They CHOSE who they believed would be the best ‘partners in crime’, to do their bidding. And, they Maliki et al has done exactly that. Or, at least to the extent that their own corruption will allow.

So, while it would seem that the current Baghdad regime ‘cannot govern’ (and that would be true) it’s more that they’ve been unable (and unwilling) to govern in the way that the DC thugs intended, because they’ve not been able to force the Iraqis to hand over all of their oil. They’ve certainly tried, (to a greater or lesser extent) to follow the agenda of the Dick Bush mob, based on their promise of their own ‘cut’. It just hasn’t worked out that way, because the majority of the Iraqis have been wise to that. They KNOW the deal, and they know that Maliki works for Dick Cheney, and NOT for them.

Ergo, it would ‘appear’ that the regime ‘cannot govern’. It would also appear that the scheme, (at least on that front) has backfired on the gangsters in DC. A little bit of double-cross is evident as well.

Iraq has already been lost, as predicted by anybody with the slightest foresight.  Shia militants (with whom Bush is afraid to tangle) control southern Iraq (where over 80% of the oil is).  Northern Iraq is under attack by Turkey.  The U.S. is stuck with a puppet regime in Baghdad (as in South Vietnam) that cannot govern.  By the way, Afghanistan is lost, too.

The ruling class’s problem:  Who will tell the people?

Nothing is worse than seeing John McCain in bed with the scary folks over CUFI - Christians United for Israel.  Watch Bill Moyers Journal program on Hagee and CUFI which is available on his website.

Then watch Ron Paul’s and then Dennis Kucinich’s interview on The Journal from last night.

It doesn’t matter who wins the election, the USA will be in Iraq for a very long time.  Even though the current crop of candidates may advocate a withdrawal; however, when they get into office the reality of the situation sets in and dictates policy.  Iraq will be no Vietnam.  Iraq is a strategic as well as economic asset and an American presence is needed to compete with Russian and Chinese advances.

100 years or until we suck out all their oil, whichever comes first.

To all who think it’s just fine to fight ILLEGAL, unnecessary wars using MY MONEY…. Get Stuffed!

John… if you want to continue warring… USE YOUR OWN MONEY.

The Empire has existed since WWII, thanks to both Republicans and Democrats (aka the two wings of the War Party). McCain just makes it a lot more obvious.

We have troops stationed in 130 countries around the globe (there are only 191 countries in the world). We have gigantic military presence in Europe and Asia. We will soon have an even bigger presence in the Middle East—the latest frontier of the Empire.

Empires—from Rome to Britain—depend on pretty much constant warfare and skirmishing to keep the populace in fear and willing to support them. They also depend on tribute from the colonies. But eventually, they go bankrupt. I’d hate to see my country go through that sort of protracted agony, when all we have to do is give it all up, return our boys from the far-flung corners of the globe, and spend our time making life better.

For advocating this, Ron Paul is called “loony.” Makes me wonder if we’re just a highly defective species….

If it taskes us 50 nor 100 years to steal every drop of oil that the Iraqi’s have McCain is all for it.These comparisons to Korea are absurd on their face.I remember when the comparison was to the revolutionary war and then to ww2.The thing McCain forgets to mention is that to maintain these commitments we will need a draft.So if you are willing to sacrifice your son or daughter so Exxon Mobil can make billions McCain is your candidate.Do not worry the Republican kids will be in new units that avoid the conflict.

When it comes to supporting U.S. imperialism and ruling class interests, John McCain is quite frank.  He doesn’t much try to dress it up like his colleagues do with talk about support for democracy and all that.

This is what used to be called a “war psychosis.”  War for the sake of war.  McCain is really too disturbed to have his finger on the nuclear button.

Once upon a time, I had respect for John McCain. Now I have none. He wants to be president so badly that he overlooked BushCo trashing him in the 2000 South Carolina primary. Believing it was the road to the White House, he forsook his maverick mantra and joined himself at the hip to the corrupt Bush. He supports a war Bush lied us into, a war wasting our precious resources. He is so bent on being manly on the war he has lost sight of where the fight against terrorism must take place, in the minds and hearts of free people.

His wish to be president overrules what is really good for our country and our people.