"The United States is better than that."
No, it's not. Maybe it was once, or will be, but for now this is Wishful thinking.

hamster is right. The US has become a thug, a global bully and is overdue for a reality check and course adjustment. All of these greedy capitalists, who are already obscenely rich, are busy draining what is left of America's life blood, trashing all the things that were great, and living with no thought for anyone but themselves and their own fat, bloated lives.

The United States is not just rearranging deck chairs on The Titanic. The ship has already gone down and ghouls like Ray Hunt and George Anheuser Busch are selling the chairs to the people quickly freezing to death in the water. And they're buying the chairs, even though they won't float or otherwise save their lives. America. We're Number One!

this is business as usual writ small. war profiteering, nationalistic fervor, head-in-the-sand-let-others-take-care-of-it-all general populations would seem to be combining in a sort of mega darwin award competition. trouble is a lot of bysitters/standers/resisters will go down in the process.

Pedestrian palp that states the obvious in an sophomoric "There could be fraud in them thar war plans". The United States is a war profiteer in the spirit of Bugsy Segal.
Why would people even elect a dirt bag who shorted his own corrupt little oil company in the first place? Other countries have scoundrels just as evil as we have here, so regular folk have to suffer under these barbarians. In conclusion, F&*k Las Vegas, a town built by defense contractors.

Portfolio Hygiene

On this issue, Commondreams for some reason removes any post regarding a question I've championed for years (ironically they did reprint an editorial by the Seattle Post Intelligencer).

There's a way to make it up close & per$onal, in any case--just ask--one by one--the Bush War Cabinet (the wealthiest in U.S. history, on the most chickenhawked warpath in U.S. history) to "recu$e themselves" from any personal profit traceable to any bloodshed on their watch...

and BTW, the actual purpose is larger than to merely "secure their agreement"--it's to put it on the table. I.e., Mr. Cheney, what are your thoughts on this concept? "The question is an insult, the Iraq war's not about that..." but would you not agree then? "I'm a public servant in a free market economy...the chip$ should be allowed to fall where they may" ...could you elaborate on this entitlement sir?

etc. But we 'progressives' alas, are such wusses. Can you imagine the hard right, though, letting such a juicy issue go, such a policially weapons-grade moment pass? I mean, suppose, for example, like the De$ider, Clinton had a burgeoning family inheritance substantially connected to military industrial 'warfall'?

would they be too "bashful" to put it in his face? you think?

this may never post, but if it does you can google: (no quotes even necessary!) radical ethics no bucks from war

Who says we're not a 3rd world country of warlords and greedy cartels and a biiiiig gap bteween haves and have-nots and gated communities?

"But the Post reported that documents released by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform show that the State Department was aware of the Hunt oil deal with Kurdistan and raised no objections."

That article in the Post went on to quote an email from a State Dept official suggesting another potentially lucrative oil deal in another part of Iraq that Hunt might want to follow up.

State Dept officials didn't "just know about" Hunt's deal with the Kurds.

Anyone who thinks that this isn't a war for oil and profits is sadly mistaken. Yes, there were other reasons why some jumped on the bandwagon but if there wasn't oil in Iraq, we would not be there.

Don't support corporate millionaire candidates. Vote third party.

The only reason our military, corporations and government doesn't act in a more disgraceful manner (with more torture and oppression) is not because they think it is wrong, but just because they worry about the flack they would get.

In their mind, collateral damage, killing of civilians, destruction of environment etc is all acceptable cost of doing business as long as their perceived bottom line is in the black. Follow the money, from the spice wars 1,000s of years ago, to the oil war, to the future water and food wars.

The hell with human rights, it is all about the mighty dollar and who has the biggest stick.

Vote third party, don't buy into the corporate elite by supporting either of their parties (the democratic and republican).

Peace, justice, action

Vote third party because otherwise you are just throwing it away when you vote democratic or other corporate party.

"The United States is better than that. It should stand for more than war profiteering."

http://www.firstlookstudios.com/films/warinc/

People are moral, but I'm fairly convinced that nations--the aggregate of a bunch of moral people--operate amorally, like corporations. They basically follow the money and their own self-interest. The U.S. does this no more or no less than any other nation. It's just distinguished by its tremendous power which makes it more effective as doing the same thing other nations do.

I honestly don't think we're in an age of national immorality, or that there was ever a time when we acted by high moral intentions which we might aspire to return to. It's just like it's always been. I mean, just read about the Spanish-American War or the war with Mexico or the actual history of our getting into into WWII (it wasn't because we cared or even knew about the holocaust).

Plus all the interventions that fall short of full-blown war. Just to look at one region of the world, Latin America:
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

"Vote third party because otherwise you are just throwing it away when you vote democratic or other corporate party."

Correction:

Vote third party in safe states, otherwise you are throwing the election to the Repugs and pissing us all down the drain.

Hey, not to take you off this site as it's great. But, Ohio where I am from is a battle ground state and Obama has only a small lead. Anyway, a blog with many Neo-Cons who are just blinded by the right are on this site as follows: www.southeasternohiopreps.com, you'll have to register and then you can get to the political forum at the bottom of the page.

Anyways us Progessive in Ohio need your helps as there are many Independent voters on this site who are being brain washed into the PNAC agenda.

ezeflyer:

No. If third parties can't win in the U.S. (and they can't), then you identify the institutional factors which support the party duopoly and attack those with all your might. You don't throw your hands up and say "we have no other choice." When you find yourself in Omelas, you don't vote for the slightly better party, you walk away from the whole damn thing.

Sure the U.S. business class would prefer to roll back welfare and social programs in the U.S., but it also has bigger fish to fry, and it really doesn't really care that much about domestic policies as long as the government never tries to stop it from exploiting the rest of the world for all it is worth in both human and environmental terms. Who pushed through NAFTA? Clinton. Who imposed deadly sanctions on Iraq? The Clinton administration. Do you still think the Democrats are any better than the Republicans in terms of global issues? Ask the Zapatistas; I think they've made their disagreement on that point quite clear.

I'm not simply taking it for granted that world poverty is sustained by U.S./Western policies--I've actually done my homework on this. It's a question that you'll have to determine for yourself, but to me the evidence speaks with one clear voice. For economic imperialism, just take a look at Kicking Away The Ladder or Bad Samaritans by Ha-Joon Chang, anything by Eric Reinert, or most any book on the IMF, World Bank or WTO. For military imperialism, a million books have been written but I've learned from Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer, the Forging of the American Empire by Sydney Lens, Killing Hope by William Blum, and Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal (Howard Zinn's best book on U.S. foreign policy).

You know what? When I registered at this site about a month ago I still teetered back and forth on the issue of American electoral strategy: principled third party voting or pragmatic Democratic voting? Reading the comments here has totally pushed me over. The Democratic strategy is no strategy at all. In all the comments I've read on here over the past month I haven't heard one good argument for the Democrats. Only "b...b...but the Republicans!" Meanwhile I've heard more excellent arguments against the Dems and for principled third party voting than I can count. I don't believe I'll ever go back. Thanks to everyone on here who has dared to commit heresy and take full aim with their intellectual and critical power at the fake progressive party that passes for a Left in this nation.

So your point is don't vote and let the Republicans win? Vote third pary or for Nader and let the Republicans win? Vote Republican?

I say do what you want, but don't let the Republicans win!

God screwed up by placing the majority of petroleum reserves in the Middle East. Bush has been commissioned by Gawd to rectify this situation by appropriating these reserves for the USA. Arrorgance and ignorance must be allowed to run its' course.

I did not criticize Greenwald any more than I would any truth teller.

My criticism is directed toward Republican shills here and to those of the reactionary left who would rather have more Bush/McCain devastation than compromise or pragmatism.

To those insisting that Democrats are as bad or worse than Repugs because of a few bad apples so as to get us to accept Republican death as the solution. They are like the religious fanatics wanting to bring on Armageddon and the Rapture.

If you are not a Republican shill, insulting your own is at least bad strategy.

can anyone explain how a progressive-minded individual can't be both pragmatic and idealistic at the same time? if you even try, you are basically suggesting/positing a fundamental limitation on human potential/actual capability. there is no reason to do this. as free and soverign beings we are simulatneously capable of being for profound change and being "liberated" from any constraints/problems with the powers that be which would keep us separate and antagonistic. we can have vision, we can fix a toilet. we can be progressive and still hope and pray obama is the next president, because he is a step in the right direction not because he is "the answer".

this is how we must approach our discussions here. we need to stop fooling ourselves, believing the narrative of the world as seen by the insane. until we can step outside the influence of that very subjective reality, be "in it and not of it," we will be virtually powerless.

To the vast majority of conservative Americans, criticizing the President or any aspect of American policy is treasonous, but ripping off the taxpayers for billions is the very height of patriotism. Go figure.

Kant's Categorical Imperative directs you to vote your principles. If everyone votes their principles then a progressive majority achieves self-determination. But if everyone votes "lesser evil", then the whole shithouse goes up in flames - AGAIN! God Bless the United States of America!

Follow the money. Wheather it be war or sports or housing or commodities as long as there is money to be made the decision making paths will be forged by those with money and government policy connections.

The profits from war and the control of energy are so huge that we can hardly hope to manage change with votes. I have no faith left in politicians or the political process.

Either we rise up in revolt or patiently wait for the mighty to fall, as they do with some regularity. Note the financial markets be they loaning institutions, accounting firms or housing financiers.

ezeflyer,

With all due respect to your position on the political issues, the term "reactionary left" is a logical fallacy created by Fox News, Karl Rove. The original term is "reactionary right." This is due to the fact that The Right is regressive in it's thinking, most notably it's lack thereof. Look up the word "reactionary" in any dictionary and you may begin to understand the infuences you are under...You just might grow a little bit. The progressive left has always held the title of the "intellectual left" for the simple reason that to think about an issue before responding is antithetical to reacting before thinking. To think is to view all forms of discourse and perspectives and responding with wisdom, understanding, empathy and meaningful intent with corresponding action. Not common sense pragmatism that more often than not is a knee jerk reaction due to muddled thinking.
Just something for you to chew on. Step outside of yourself, observe yourself and listen to how you think to break the shackles of influences you may not want or know you have.
It is a helpful exercise to spend an entire day doing nothing but writing your signature until it morphs into what reflects your personal growth rather than the one you accept as yours simply because that is the way you have always done it.

ezeflyer-

I understand your position but think that it is simplistic and flawed.

People like you are the reason our country has turned into such a mess. Stop blaming Republicans and stop glorifying Democrats. They are two sides of the same corporate coin. Period.

After the last two elections many people told me "I voted for so-and-so [the Democrat] but I wanted to vote for [a third party candidate]. The media is powerful - it has brainwashed millions into believing that a person from one of only two political parties is capable of being elected and running the country.

Nader didn't help elect Bush. Gore lost. Get over it. Stop blaming him and others like him for the horrible job Bush has done.

ALEX LAWYER: I live among the types of people that respect authority. They are conditioned to do so. Many served in the military or their fathers and grandfathers did and "you better not say anything agains this great country." Then there is the important component related by John Dean in "Conservatives without Conscience." It explains that a certain percentage of the population (and I can cite the astrological influences at work to make this so) is by nature authoritarian. It wants a father-figure to tell it what to do. Churches that follow this pattern teach their followers, who are in the millions, NOT to question Divine or presidential authority. And not departing too far from the former belief in "Divine right of king," many fundamentalist churches have thusly anointed dear Bush with a similar status ("We now have a godly Christian in the White House" or however they define it.)

I liken this pattern to insights revealed by Wilhelm Reich. His theories were so radical (based mostly on sexual freedom, and note that in this puritanical nation with its twisted orientations towards sex, the president who had a sexual liason was chastised far more than the one who wantonly KILLS other human beings via a war based on naked imperialism) that they became marginalized. Essentially his conclusion was the extent to which human beings are divorced from their own basic instincts is the extent to which they reach for an OUTSIDE authority figure to provide them with direction.

Since the "Original sin" myth has worked so effectively to dislocate many people from basic instincts (this idea their desires cannot be trusted) the population becomes like cookie dough to the cookie cutters (authoritarians) who know how to shape that clay to their own specifications. Then all the economics that propel, sustain and justify hierarchies come into play to support the agendas of those who have seized power, or been granted it by those who have been trained to dispossess their own.

"You just might grow a little bit."

Condescension, like insults, will get you nowhere.

"People like you are the reason our country has turned into such a mess."

I thought it was people like Bush/McCain/Repug. And you want to let them back in?

eze-

Of course Bush and Co have made such a mess. And it is obvious that McCain will follow suit. I don't want to see that continue either.

I don't understand why that is the only response I continually get from Democrats. What has your party done to make things better since 2000 (or before)? Comparing/contrasting yourselves to the other side doesn't work for me. It's getting old. Democrats gained control of the Senate because they promised to "end" the war. And what have they done? Pissed even more money down the drain, over and over again.

You seem like a reasonable person - someone who could think of something different than the "Democracts are the lesser evil" bandwagon.

Obama is not that much different. The FISA bill was bad enough but it was his comment about his Iraq exit strategy that really threw me. He seems to be all about corporate money making during war time - just like McCain.

Everyone is so leary to talk about race. Why is that?

How is this "Change!"

Recu$al for Life / "Oath" of Martial Office

"Would you agree never to take any personal profit traceable to any war or bloodshed on your watch--and if discovered or exposed, to surrender said profit on demand to veteran benefit groups, college funds for children of the fallen--yes or no..."

It 'neo-continues' to amaze me how ignored, even by the commentary here, this question remains. I'm not alone--most of my friends & cohorts here in Berkeley also wonder "Why NOT" ASK?

MORAL ARGUMENT(S) AGAINST ASKING?

None.

WATCHIN' 'EM $QUIRM?

Priceless.

Funny thing is, if someone pressed its moral point (remember, we're talking about a war-cabinet (& blurry federal-payroll $pecial Interest Groups, i.e., the Whigs, PNAC Gallery hanger$-on, etc) of multi-millionaire chickenhawks.

Wouldn't it be riveting to see the sweaty dodge of each and all 'martial planners' asked? if nothing else, to put them on the $pot?!

It seems we have yet to learn what the right so well knows--you EAGERLY ASK questions of your opposition that promise or offer a Slippery Slope.

Instead, we 'overlook' the gift horse in the mouth, with a sort of cheesy confidence that it's not really worth the bother, 'cause, course, they'd just lie anyway. But it's the glistening moment of sweat on the brow. THAT's the beginning, the low-hanging fruit.

Until our 'side' GETS that, we shouldn't be surprised have our ass handed to us over and over and over again.

Actually, the United States is not better than that.

RichM - this is what I was referring to with "Omelas":

http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

I checked to make sure that a google for "omelas" gave the correct link as a top return, otherwise I would have posted a link.

The way I was using it, I was thinking of the U.S. as Omelas and the child as the rest of the world. Of course the story is about tremendous abundance built in a small amount of misery; whereas the real world (in my view of the global economy) turns this on its head, with small pockets of abundance in North America and Europe built on a huge amount of poverty.

So, *if* you would walk away from Omelas, how much more should you abandon or fight to radically alter the system that we Westerners actually are a part of?