From what I can tell from the crook media, our military is now largely recruited from gangs, who have the crook experience to do all the slaughtering that we want.  When the upscaled gangs come back, they should make a good foundation for a Nazi SA.  They can work with our mercenary stooges too.

Well CY the fact is we are the most advanced militarily. Our problem in warring is not in crushing a sovereign state, which we did rather quickly in Iraq, although the fact remains, we have never fought a major power since WW2. So your statements may have validity. But forgetting the fact Bush mismanaged the war, I think the real problem lies in maintaining control once the sovereign is gone, then getting our victims to agree with our idea of a free market society, or in other words, complete American corporate hegemony.

Of course in the case of Vietnam we never got Ho. We also didn’t have the technology back then either. The terrain was of course another factor. It’s harder to hide in a desert then a jungle. But one indisputable thing we proved in both wars is that we can inflict millions of casualties on the “enemy” without suffering anywhere near those kinds of losses ourselves.

In the case of Iraq, we thought we could easily fill the vacuum once Saddam was gone. We were obviously mistaken. Also McCain is right when he mentions our military presence being forever in Germany and Japan and Korea. But he doesn’t convey the real reasons why. If he did, his idea of a forever presence in Iraq would be deemed absurd. And of course it is!

Beyond Korea, there really is no reason for an American military presence anymore. In fact there’s no reason for NATO. The Soviets are gone. “Let the Europeans pay for their own defenses,” as they say. The trouble is our defense industry makes so much money out of it, it has less to do with letting the Europeans pay for their own defenses as it has to do with the continued government financing that would disappear as a result.

As for China, they have the technology to shoot down our satellites and they an immense conventional army that dwarfs our own. This means the only way we could fight them and win would be via the use in nuclear weapons. Since they know they cannot defeat us in that arena, it is highly doubtful China would shoot down one of our satellites, unless it was spying over their territory. The recent and periodical showboating of the combined fleets in the sea of China is more than naval maneuvers or war games, it is a blatant show of force directed at China. Even if they one day acquire a nuclear arsenal comparable to our own, it will be the same as it was with the Soviets. Mutually assured destruction will guarantee the peace. The opposite is too horrific to imagine. More importantly it wouldn’t be profitable.

John:

Re the second article, it is interesting (and suspicious) that the reporters does not even mention why the Vatican and Rome rescinded the licneses, much less provide any comment from them.  Talk about one-sided journalism!  For all we know, there was good reason to revoke those licenses.  I’m not saying there WAS; only that there MIGHT have been, but we don’t know because the reporter did not provide that info.

Peace.

Well hetzer if you’ll note, none of the leading candidates beyond Edwards is addressing the lobby system which is the real problem. Also concerning the war, although all the democrats say they will end it, all of them suggest there will always be a military presence of some kind. Even though Obama said he meant that presence as a way of protecting our embassy, what it really boils down to is we’ve killed a million Iraqi’s to supposedly get one guy (and to steal their oil), so as Kucinich says, we don’t deserve to have an embassy there, we should have an international coalition(UN) to fill the vacuum once we’re gone, we must pay them in retribution to rebuild for the destruction we’ve caused in this unnecessary and illegal war and give them control of their own oil. It will never happen, even though this would be helpful in restoring diplomatic faith in us, not only in Iraq and the Middle East, but in the rest of the world.

The military machine is too profitable, as is stealing a nation’s resources. Also who needs diplomacy when you have the strongest, most advanced military on the planet? Shotgun diplomacy is far more lucrative and another 9/11, as noted by Tommy Franks, will only further seal our fate.

As far as the rich go, I don’t see a need to get rid of them, only muzzle the tremendous power and influence they have unconstitutionally acquired. Since they finance the entire political system, this too will never happen, until the American people wise up and demand it to happen. By the looks of things, they never will. Their lack in understanding how the system really works, along with the distractions in their own personal concerns won’t allow it to. Perhaps after millions are starving on the streets they will finally wise up. Until then expect business as usual regardless of which handpicked puppet gets elected.

Well CY starving and freezing is what’s happening. The number in homeless has doubled in my community in the past year. It may not be evident in Maine but it certainly is out here in California. I agree with your analogy of Bush and Clinton though. You’re also right that Reagan won sweeping victories, but the voter turnout was the lowest in US history. And how did he get in there? He asked America if we were better off today then we were 5 years ago. And of course that was in the middle of the oil embargo and the Iranian revolution. Then he did a good job in selling that welfare queen-Cadillac crap, blaming the poor(and unions) for all our woes and making even more poor as a result. He sold the idea that the poor were the real culprits, the so called welfare state, yet failed to mention the fact that corporate welfare was 100 times greater. Today it’s a thousand times greater.

And you’re right, we could fill volumes analyzing Reagan. The real question is are we better off today because of Reaganomics. The answer is, that beyond a GDP standpoint, no. In fact we’re far worse off. Now I don’t think that Reagan necessarily meant it to be that way, but that’s the way it turned out. You can never give the rich money and expect it to trickle down to the poor. Reagan began this socialist economy for wealth by taking away the so called nanny state to the poor and making it a nanny state for the rich. And if he were alive today, I doubt he’d recall that either.

There is a piece I’ve just read on Truthout, regarding these latest comments from Obama on Regan. In in, John Edwards is taking him to task on that very thing. He (John Edwards) probably does a better job of it that most on this blog.

I certainly can’t answer for whatever Obama may be thinking in saying such. I don’t think most of us who were around at the time, had anything other than distain for his policies, but Obama is younger. I have no idea how much he has considered of what he’s actually saying, in evoking Reganomics.

So, I’m inclined to argee with Jaki, and pretty overwhelmingly. He’s caught up in the game of it all, and that’s what concerned me about him from the beginning. It’s next to impossible to avoid the the bumps of the high wire political balance when one is trying to satisfy the ideologies and concerns of such a diverse population, and at a time when the whole damn lot of us are hanging on the edge.

Still, I would agree that bringing Regan’s MO into this, isn’t gonna help him.

Here’s the link to the piece I mentioned.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011808N.shtml

Michael:

I agree that what Obama said was at best a faux pas, and at worst a sign that he is not the genius that everyone makes him out to be.

In fact, this is the third fairly stupid thing he’s said in the past three or four months.  First were comments he made about his health care plan vis-a-vis the others’ plans.  The second was comments he made about social security.  Both of these were addressed by economist Paul Krugman in his NYT column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.ht ml?sq=krugman obama&scp=2&pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.ht ml?sq=krugman obama&scp=3&pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.ht ml?sq=krugman obama&scp=8&pagewanted=print

Now Obama is suggesting that Reagan’s economic policies were positive in some ways.  Even if this is true, Reagan is hardly the person that a self-proclaimed progressive candidate like Obama should be invoking re economics.  Of course, Obama’s people are now backtracking, dissembling and spinning his comment.  But the intent was clear when he made it.

I know that Obama is a smart man, and that he has some very good ideas.  But if he keeps up with the gaffes, particular re economics, he may sabotage his own campaign.

Peace.

Re the wealth statistics in the U.S., the top 1% own about 40% of the wealth.  The top 10% own almost 70% of the wealth. [N.B.  These are 2006 statistics.] As well, in 1980, the average CEO’s pay was about 50 times the average employee.  By 1990, this figure had risen to 200 times.  By 2000, it was over 500 times.  It has since settled back to just over 400 times.

As well, don’t forget that the Saudis, Koreans, Chinese and Taiwan hold the vast majority of our debt.  And Taiwan just ousted the pro-U.S. candidate, which could itself lead to a dangerous situation re the dollar if the Taiwanese call in some of that debt.  But combine this with the fact that the Saudis are looking to unpeg oil from the dollar - and the increasingly complex and uneasy situation with the Chinese - and our economy could change DRAMATICALLY in the next 12-24 months.

Peace.

Well hetzer I think you’re right about the Weimar Republic. The conditions back then are uncannily similar today in America. Lot’s of things point that way, like the DHLS designating PETA as a terrorist organization on their new website but failing to list right wing extremist groups like the KKK. Then there’s the blatant and apparent corporatism. The unitary executive theory in full swing. The corporate controlled media, which is essentially the defense department and the MIC. Then of course the rolling back of our civil liberties, the removal of habeas corpus, the advent of “legalized” torture and even the slow but deliberate breaking down of organized labor are all parallels. Add those to the complete disregard of international laws and preemptive warfare and there you have it! It brings us to the study in the ten points in fascism, the things all fascist states have in common.

Perhaps this is why so many liberal Jews aren’t stepping up, though my hat goes off to all who have like the Israeli pilots who had the courage to stand up and say they would never strafe civilians in the West Bank again! So at least some are stepping up, but many others as you say aren’t. I think it all boils down to fear. Of course they have a right to be afraid. In fact we all do!

As far as Bushco being involved in the 9/11 attacks, it is obvious they were in one way or another. What we do know leads to them basically ignoring several warnings. Since it is obvious they are capable of anything, then anythings possible. I think they knew and let it happen to realize the project for a new American century. Whatever the case and at the very least, these people are dangerous and if we ever get them out of there, we must see to it they are never allowed to serve in a government role ever again.

Thanks for your comments!