EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Burning Tulsa: The Legacy of Black Dispossession
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Suffocatingly Narrow Afghanistan 'Debate'
McChrystal's assessment, in the view of two senior administration officials, is just "one input" in the White House's decision-making process. The president, another senior administration official said, "has embarked on a very, very serious review of all options."
Associated Press, October 5, 2009:
The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama is not considering a strategy for Afghanistan that would withdraw U.S. troops from the eroding war there.
Apparently, "all options" does not mean "all options." As usual for American wars, examining "all options" means everything other than "ending the war." That's what accounts for this:
If one were to add the various military actions from the last several decades that aren't on this list -- our constant covert wars in Central America; our involvement in the Balkans; our invasions of Somalia, Haiti, Grenada, and Panama, etc. etc. -- that is as pure a picture of a perpetual war state as one can imagine.
Despite that, Obama yesterday met with 30 members of Congress from both parties to discuss the various possibilities for Afghanistan and, according to The New York Times, "some Democrats said they would support whatever he decided." In particular:
"The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we’ll support it basically," said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader.
That's not how things are supposed to work. There's not really any point in having a Congress if its members are simply going to tell the President: "whatever decision you make, we’ll support it basically." That was the same mentality that led House Democrats -- reluctantly, they claimed -- to vote for the war supplemental bill two months ago, appropriating another $106 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
In the end, 19 House Democrats backed the bill who had opposed it the first time, although some cited loyalty, not agreement with Obama's plans, as their reason.
"I want to support my president," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who changed her no vote to a yes.
The Times article does note that some Democrats -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Carl Levin -- expressed strong resistance to any escalation in Afghanistan. But the option which large numbers of Americans support -- withdrawal within a year and, especially, within two years -- is not even part of the debate. It's not even an option that is being examined by the White House's supposedly "comprehensive" review. As a result, the discussion is almost exclusively about tactics (how many troops?; what should they be doing?; how much can we rely on air power?) and almost none about the still-towering mystery of what we're likely to achieve by continuing to occupy that country.
What makes that fact most remarkable is that we're less than a year away from what was alleged to be an extremely close call with full-scale financial collapse. All Serious people are required to proclaim the exploding national debt to be a potentially cataclysmic threat. Here's the uber-Serious Tom Friedman today:
The same is true with America’s debt bomb. To recover from the Great Recession, we’ve had to go even deeper into debt. One need only look at today’s record-setting price of gold, in a period of deflation, to know that a lot of people are worried that our next dollar of debt -- unbalanced by spending cuts or new tax revenues -- will trigger a nonlinear move out of the dollar and torpedo the U.S. currency.
Yet the staggering cost of our ongoing occupations is being funded exactly that way: "unbalanced by spending cuts or new tax revenues." In these two posts -- here and here -- Howie Klein details how Congressional Democrats are now working to ensure that funding for these wars will be exempt from "pay-go" budgte. Their inclusion at least required that Congress, in order to continue to fund these wars, would either have to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere.
By contrast, exempting war funding from this process would essentially enable Congressional Democrats to fund these wars through a process tantamount to the deceitful Bushian magic trick of appropriating money as part of the "supplemental budget" -- meaning, as Klein put it: "he just printed up hundreds of billions of dollars for all his misadventures without having to raise taxes or cut programs, in effect driving the country towards virtual bankruptcy and leaving the economy in a complete shambles." That was a process which Obama repeatedly condemned, yet Congress is conspiring to essentially replicate it. That, in turn, is all designed to enable the bizarre dynamic where the economic burden of continuing these wars is simply excluded from all discussions.
The great fallacy at the heart of discussions of Afghanistan is this: if one can plausibly argue that a war was originally justified, then that proves that the war should continue even eight years later (there's no need for us to leave because the Taliban let Al Qaeda use that country to attack us in 2001 and therefore it's self-defense). Often, the discussion, for many war supporters, rarely progresses beyond that point. But whether a war is "justified" is a completely separate question from whether it's "wise." Just as was true for Iraq, the supposed "costs" of leaving Afghanistan are endlessly highlighted (the Taliban will return, Al Qaeda will come back, it'll be a brutal and lawless state), while the costs to the U.S. from staying -- and from continuing to be a nation in a state of perpetual war and occupation -- are virtually ignored.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
57 Comments so far
Show AllWhat the great misinformed masses of the U.S. will discover all too late is that the ultimate war was waged against them.
They were forced to surrender their homes, pensions, savings, jobs, health care, social safety nets, freedoms and environment not for the cause of defeating the 21st century boogeyman but to erect a New World Oligarchy.
They were surrounded by enemies, not foreign, but the long forgotten domestic variety, who were picking them off by the thousands daily.
The American citizen was engaged in war, thirty-years ongoing, and hadn't a clue.
I agree with your sentiments but the Oligarchy has been running the global show long before TARP funds were dispensed to the elites.
Micheal Moore takes on this issue in his new film demonstrating how deep the rabbit hole goes.
In my view, things don't change precisely because most people (including those identigying as progressive) are tied to the same corporate nexus power grid, thus holding a vested interest in its continuation. When one is teethered via their paychecks to the same dysfuntion they are arguing against, what do you really expect to change?
elohim, you have correctly identified the problem...
the only way out is a unanimous, ambitious, global rejection of the monied, propertied, electrified and industrialized world...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...3 years out...acoustic, agrarian life...each indivdual directly engaged in their own physical survival, and that of their community members...we're going to need lots of local foods...let's get those gardens growing now!
Impossible? Perhaps...the current, titled system is held in place by violence...breaking free will probably require the same...it will depend on how complete the movement...if those who would enforce the old way of the banker and the landlord and the sheriff and the barrister and the farmer and the merchant were to join in the transition to the new way of the individual and the immediate community and the preservation of the watershed, violence might not be necessary...
not perfect, I know, but the only thing I can come up with...all other roads lead to ruin, in my opinion...and it doesn't matter about Afghanistan this or health care that...none of these issues address the dying planet in the immediate way necessary...nothing short of absolute cessation of all related activities...
if we do not abandon our current way of life, of course, doom is certain, as the planet's living systems (which includes humans, doesn't it?) will collapse eventually, as humans continue to destroy...
Well said.
Sioux Rose
CYGNUS: You're right on. That appears to be the ultimate chess game; and it chills the imagination to conceive of the types of minds that could conceive of this long-term plan, no less execute it.
Another first-class effort by Greenwald. Thanks.
We may be turning toward fighting terrorism instead of insurgency, as the new terminology goes. This means, as recommended by the vice-president, more use of drones. Yet there has been scant attention to the morality of use of drones. Is it acceptable to kill people or destroy infrastructure by rockets seeming to appear out of nowhere? Is is morally acceptable for people to sit in rooms thousands of miles from the scene of murderous destruction and cause such destruction the way kids play computer games? Would people targeted by such attacks be entitled to consider them terrorism? Would that really help us in the "war on terror" (or whatever they're calling it now)? These are very serious questions that should be the subject of extensive national discussion.
I shouldn't have given such short shrift to Greenwald's closing paragraph about the "great fallacy." This is a novel and important elucidation that we should all copy into our memory banks.
Sioux Rose
MANNING: Given the rapid speed at which modern war technology is speeding up, added to a sinister ambiance that brings a sci-fi component (think DARP) to the weapons being developed, how long will it be before today's ally becoming tomorrow's enemy has the means to send something akin to drones over our cities?
Just as the ground rules for how to treat enemy soldiers (combatants, or their likeness by any other nomenclature) were devised to protect our own troops on the occasion(s) they became captured, establishing universal ground rules with respect to allowable parameters pertaining to civilian populations is not only a wise thing, it represents pre-emptive self-defense, a tool that could potentially pre-empt collateral damage in our homeland. The negative side of this equation is that the U.S. already broke all the established rules of war by destroying so many civilians in such abhorrent ways in Iraq, with a similar pattern now extending into Afghanistan.
Reading yesterday about the dollar's imminent demise, I can only think that for a nation as materialistic as our own, this net loss mirrors the ethical bankruptcy that led to the making of war, rather than any constructive use of collective resources. In destroying other lands and their peoples, again and again, like a drunk driver who refuses to get sober or out from behind the wheel (in spite of the carnage created on his watch), it is only a CRASH that will save him (and everyone else) from himself.
Siouxrose October 7th, 2009 4:35 pm -- Thanks for the comment. You make a good point about preemptive defense. I think, in accord with your next comment, the U.S. has already complicated the situation by willy-nilly going after targets with drones without any thought being given to moral issues. The effort to minimize non-combatant casualties hasn't been enough of a priority.
If we had rules that drone attacks could be used only to attack field combatants or to destroy infrastructure like terrorist camps, or supply lines, that have been identified in a rigorous fashion, after warning people to get out, that would be an advance. To totally ban drones wouldn't make sense to me unless we do the same with the conventional weapons that, after all, are responsible for most of the civilian losses you mention.
Sioux Rose
MANNING: I agree with your concluding paragraph. Generally I do NOT advocate for war, particularly wars of aggression which as we both know constitute THE supreme crime against humanity. Having taken the international gloves off, the US has been guilty of a great many offenses, even illegal within the sinister framework of (the law of) war. All of the weapons, particularly those anointed with DU and items like the land mines that are left behind long after the peace treaties are signed, are in my view unacceptable, added to grossly immoral. I marched for peace back in my college days and have never seen any reason to deviate in/from that commitment. It was with sorrow that I watched Bush use 911 (which I take for an inside job) as a prompt to begin his "holy" wars across the M.E. That Obama has continued the same policies, if showing himself to be more mild mannered, is a sin against the very hope he rode in on. America will pay for these things.
And MAX PAYNE, should you tune in here, please don't say it's "GOD" punishing the U.S. Human beings bring things upon themselves through a misuse of Divine Law. When a nation, like our own, renders law and justice into counterfeits, it blasphemes the very spirit of Creation, and thus brings destruction, its boomerang, onto itself.
Siouxrose October 7th, 2009 5:22 pm -- I share your hatred for war, and was marching against the Vietnam war (and doing a lot more) back then. It disturbs me to even consider the matter of ethical use of weapons of war. However, I think at this moment, we have to look at how to respond to war waged AGAINST us. I consider only the exercise of genuine self defense to be justified, and I don't glory in it.
There are only two options....escalate or come home.
War is stupid, wasteful, and immoral. Tell me who wins a war.
General Electric
from wikipedia
In 2009, Forbes ranked GE as the world's largest company.[6][7][8] The company has 323,000 employees around the world.
Lockheed Martin
wikipedia:
Lockheed Martin employs 146,000 people worldwide.
Lockheed Martin is the world's largest defense contractor by revenue in 2008.[1] As of 2005[update], 95% of Lockheed Martin's revenues came from the United States Department of Defense, other U.S. federal government agencies, and foreign military customers.
Boeing and General Dynamics
ah, my 'home' company...wikipedia:
Boeing is the largest global aircraft manufacturer by revenue, orders and deliveries, and the second largest aerospace and defense contractor in the world.[3] Boeing is the largest exporter by value in the United States.[4]
163,851 international employees
General Dynamics Corporation (NYSE: GD) is a U.S. defense conglomerate formed by mergers and divestitures, and as of 2008 it is the fifth largest defense contractor in the world.
92,900 international employees
Halliburton, Xe fka Blackwater
Joe
wikipedia:
Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) is a US-based oilfield services corporation with international operations in more than 70 countries. It has close to 300 subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, brands and divisions worldwide.
52,000 international employees
Xe is currently the largest of the US State Department's three private security contractors. Of the 987 contractors Xe provides, 744 are US citizens.[11][12] At least 90 percent of the company's revenue comes from government contracts, of which two-thirds are no-bid contracts.[13] Xe provided security services in Iraq to the United States federal government, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency [1][14] on a contractual basis. They no longer have a license to operate in Iraq: the new Iraqi government made multiple attempts to expel them from their country,[15] and denied their application for an operating license in January 2009.[16] However, the company is still under contract with the State Department and some Xe personnel will likely remain working illegally in Iraq at least until September 2009.[17]
around 700,000 employees working in the companies mentioned above...many with rents or mortgages...many with no way or incentive to provide their own sustenance directly...what if they were able and motivated to provide their own sustenance, and did not need rent or mortgage money?
why not just quit working, and shut these companies down, along with all the others? this world is a living system, and could continue to be so, as long as we don't kill it with our industry and chemicals...our weaponry and technology and economy is not making things better, it is making things worse...we must return to natural, shared processes and systems, and not allow monetary obligation, based on ownership of property, to drive us, as complicit countrymen and women, to murder...
Aren't "narrowed debates" what politics in a corporate duopoly are all about? The military/industrial complex that controls both parties is not about to allow debate that includes the option of cessation of hostilities; any more than the health insurance/health care provider complex is about to allow debate on an option that would kill the private insurance system. If you want those "other options" that go beyond the "lesser evil" options made available in a 2-party system, you have to go beyond that system. Political Realism 101, wouldn't you think?
Sioux Rose
JERRY: Right on! You only left out the banks/bankers who designed the deregulation that allowed them to lose billions (maybe trillions), so that they could write in the bailouts and do it all over again! In the American institution, the inmates have become the guards, and whoa to those brave enough to be--or remain sane. And those braver still that seek to make known the quality of persons leading the pack. Given the bankrupt (spiritual) make-up of this group, war, ecological resource depletion, and poverty for the vast majority are natural outcomes.
"'The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we’ll support it basically,' said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader."
There's nothing new under the sun:
When the admirable Tiberius upon becoming emperor, received a message from the Senate in which the conscript fathers assured him that whatever legislation he wanted would be automatically passed by them, he sent back word that this was outrageous. "Suppose the emperor is ill or mad or incompetent?" He returned their message. They sent it again. His response: "How eager you are to be slaves."
-- Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [Taken from http://www.moonofalabama.org/2006/10/wb_the_boxer.html]
And this:
Tacitus himself observes that the condition of the Senatorial class following the Civil War won by Augustus Caesar was such that, "the remaining nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and promotion..." [Taken from http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/285137.html]
a narrowed debate? Bwahahahahaha!!
You mean like how almost nobody ('cept me) even mentions the law that created the mess and keeps us trapped?
I ask, is the Progressive position that America should stop fighting al-Qaeda (and its affiliates, don't forget) in Afghanistan while continuing to fight them in Pakistan and Iraq and Africa and anywhere that someone finds them in the future?
Calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan is like writing half a peace treaty.
Again, Progressives are not thinking globally. This war against future terrorism is a global DAFT war (previously GWOT, WOT and the Long War). Trying to solve the 'Afghanistan' problem alone will not succeed, because it is linked to the bigger problem that government and the media continue to ignore (and that seems to be fine with Progressives as well, strangely).
Meanwhile, Congress wishes for Santa Obama to do something (and take the blame when it fails), rather than take any responsibility themselves for the mess that they caused (all except Barbara Lee, who voted against Public Law 107-40).
Hear, hear. Excellent piece.
I was among those who did not support bombing Afghanistan into rubble because of 9-11. I didn't think the "case" was made. The evidence was shown to Tony Blair. And, the 9-11 commission itself now says its report was not the truth. We know that the case for the Iraq War was false; why not reconsider the case for the Afghanistan War?
War supporters who say we can't leave don't detail what staying means. I've read that we could be there for 20 years, that we need hundreds of thousands of troops to control and hold villages, that territory will have to have police, jobs, schools infrastructure and honest politicians installed, and that everyone who opposes us will have to be killed or bought off. And they say leaving would be a disaster. I bet there are people in any number of our crumbling cities who would be pleased if our government could bring nation building to us - preferably without the drones, but the way things are going that's the only element likely to be brought home.
"I bet there are people in any number of our crumbling cities who would be pleased if our government could bring nation building to us"
Cosign
One of the most alarming things is that, bad as Obama is, Congress is considerably to his right. They just voted another $680 billion for the military that specifically excluded bringing any Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland for trial or detention.
Our whole political process and culture is considerably more corrupted than our survival as a country requires.
. . . as Klein put it: "(George Wanker Bush) just printed up hundreds of billions of dollars for all his misadventures without having to raise taxes or cut programs, in effect driving the country towards virtual bankruptcy and leaving the economy in a complete shambles." That was a process which Obama repeatedly condemned, yet Congress is conspiring to essentially replicate it.
I've read this paragraph numerous times now. I'm going back to bed and pulling the covers up over my head.
Harry Reid sez: "The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we’ll support it basically."
***
More interesting or less interesting than your "basically supporting" every move of the Cheneybush syndicate for eight years?
Well, Obama doesn't take counsel from flaming right wingers either. He does not listen to the Libertarian "Americans for Prosperity" and he doesn't listen to Single Payer advocates such as Mad as Hell Doctors. In other words in his eyes we on the left, whether talking about economics, health care or foreign policy are as outside the realm of reasonable debate as the teabaggers are. Get it through your thick heads-- Obama doesn't include the left in his cousels because he doesn't respect you, doesn't think anything you say makes sense or has a chance of actually working. You are the rejected lover-- he wants to sever ties. Still I hear the forlorn left voices like Micheal Moore talk about how much they respect Obama, want him to succeeed and repeat endlessly that he is a decent, moral man. This guy is not going to reform Wall Street, give you meaningful health care reform, a fair trade inductrial policy or get us out of wars. Wake up you guys. Obama's not going to ask you to the prom.
We aren't the rejected lover, but the spurned whore. We turned the trick for him -- I did along with many others -- but we aren't respectable company.
They should break up with him. He's doin' 'em wrong!
Speaking of constricted debates:
What about the REAL reason for the war, control of the huge oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea basin?
(Sorry--forgot that this can't be mentioned in polite company..)
As of now, some 2,600 former military and civilian Pentagon officials have moved to the boards of defense industry corporations. There is no "revolving door" because there is no door. The defense industry runs everything now, including Congress.
Note: Bush/Carlyle Group; Cheney/Halliburton ... and on and on.
As of now, some 2,600 former military and civilian Pentagon officials have moved to the boards of defense industry corporations. There is no "revolving door" because there is no door. The defense industry runs everything now, including Congress.
Note: Bush/Carlyle Group; Cheney/Halliburton ... and on and on.
Obama made no bones last year about his promise to bomb and occupy Af/Pak last year. His hiring of Cheney-esque replacements already kills this so-called "debate". As for Congress, it has already proven itself capable of rubberstamping "war presidents" this decade alone so don't bother.
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate approved the largest military budget bill in US history: $626 billion.
Next, the bill will be sent to a conference committee and then back to the House and Senate for final passage.
There remains a short window of opportunity to stop this wasteful military madness.
Tell your members of Congress to vote "NO" on the 2010 defense appropriations bill.
http://bit.ly/stopfundingwar
My members of Congress in Florida never listen, but I signed anyway.
Thanks
Now is not the time to save government, time for a mass protest, time to blow the smoke screen away and expose to all that ours is a paid actor make believe government.
Can we exit Middle East ---- before our rich end their plunder?
Absolutely not, for that is the illusion that was destroyed by 9/1l, that our having the world's largest killing machine can terrorize into submission all those being made poor by plunder.
But what if after 9/11 our rich nobility knew exactly how all our wars would end, and how their War On Terror would play out? For the rich need to maximize profits by continuing to trade war materials for middle east oil, and that can happen only so long as the need for war continues.
bligh4
Bring the troops home. Who cares if the Taliban takes back the country? Who cares if they re-establish a religious theocracy that makes it illegal for women to work or go to school. Who cares if just 8 percent of the population supports the Taliban, it's their country-if they can't hold the Taliban in check then tough- they deserve them. There is not one thing in the whole damn country worth dying over.
Bring the troops home
Apparently everyone here recognizes that what Greenwald describes is academic. The only question allowed in public debate is not IF but HOW to wage war. It is what Orwell's character Winston observed in 1984 about perpetual war shifting between Eastasia or Eurasia and Oceana. For the "Ministry of Peace" (uh, "defense"), war is the only constant. One -ism replaces another -ism, and the perfect profit -generator today is terror-ism (theirs), because it is eternal. A tactic can always be incited but never ever vanquished.
Kevin Phillips describes the same cyclical inevitability of imperial decay and self-destruction in many of his books "Wealth and Democracy", "American Theocracy", "American Dynasty", and "Bad Money" ---an inescapable vortex of financialization, militarism, and nationalistic religion (churchianity today) that time and again empires are sucked into like a black hole, an inescapable psycho-social law of human nature.
I had naively once hoped that Obama could be a game-changer and actually break that vicious cycle, but although his decision has been “wisely” delayed for the circus of debate, I have little doubt what it will be---escalation. His pattern of capitulation to the masters of the universe is now too clear to expect any real change.
This is not all just a bummer. It is liberating to accept, even embrace the inevitable decline/collapse of empire, rather than rail against it. It lets us focusing on changing what is possible, in our own lives and communities (including cyber-communities :-).
"His pattern of capitulation to the masters of the universe is now too clear to expect any real change."
while it's true that Obama has capitulated on some things, like health care, he has consistently maintained his policy of escalation in Afghanistan. That's the main reason I didn't vote for him - that and the the Patriot Act, war funding, telecoms immunity impunity ... no cap on what lenders can charge borrowers .... there's more.
If the US exits Afghanistan, it will show that a TRILLION dollar a year Military is useless. It can not even pacify one of the worlds most primitive and poorest countries.
All of these fleets and all of these aircraft and all of those soldiers stationed the world over are POINTLESS if the US military pulls out of Afghanistan.
The POWERS that be can not and will not allow it. They have to maintain the ILLUSION that their prescence there keeps America safe so that American Citizens do not recognize the REALITY, that being they are to keep the ELITES rich and in control of the resources of other nations.
This is only ONE reason the wealthy should be paying tax rates of 91 percent . They are the TRUE parasites on society.
bligh4
Why not make it 110%? That will show them!
Dubet thinks America is the world. It is not. Fortunately.
The fact that the US is 39th on the global literacy scale might possibly point to the most serious US problem, which is the abysmal ignorance of 99% of Americans as to the reality of the rest of the world, and of world history.
The oligarchy referred to by wiser heads on this thread writes American history, the media news, and even the movies you watch. This has hidden past successful societies from your view.
Let me give you an example: Australia, from 1946 to 1971 was at that time the most genuinely prosperous nation on this planet, wealth enjoyed by virtually every citizen. This was due to a fortunate supply of resources, but also to tariffs that protected family farmers, manufacturers; and thence, workers, families and consumers.
Under the American system this would have resulted in a super wealthy elite, a well-off middle class, and 30% living in poverty (as measured by the UN in 1969).
However, in Australia, trade unions ensured that all citizens gained fair access to this prosperity. Thus, we all had a new car, and a second for mum to do the shopping. Life was very pleasant and social problems were few. We did not need to abandon technology or other Luddite measures.
The key element was people power. A more democratic system would have obviated the need for an activist union movement.
Now, back to the central reason for the Afghan war:
(1) Oil and gas supplies and pipeline routes;
(2) CIA access to heroin supplies.
Regarding the latter, the Taliban being literal-minded and fanatical adherants of the Qoran, banned poppy growing as forbidden by the Qoran. Any farmers who ignored this decree were shot. Europe suffered a complete famine of heroin as a result.
Two years after the US invasion Afghanistan was supplying 80% of Europe's heroin, and now provides 90% of the world's supply.
The CIA owned and operated the Golden triangle, and also managed Colombia's overseas coccaine trade. The profits from these enterprises paid for black ops. The CIA is now the world's largest crime organisation, and of course drug marketer. The DEA does PR.
hmmm...I'm not sure where I gave the impression I think America is the World, but...
I actually agree with your fundamental points...
My point is simply that the current man\planet system is too broken and misguided to warrant fixing, and that a global reawakening of our natural relationship to the living processes of this world, and our need to reduce our industrial and chemical impact to virtually nil, is the only way to avoid planetary death...I suggest the only way to accomplish such a thing is globally and unanimously, at an agreed upon time...I pick September 22, 2012...gardening would be a good alternative to watching television in the meantime...
I am aware that the changes required may be beyond us, and I know mahy of you feel that compromises in standard thinking and behavior will carry the day...I simply state what, to me, is obvious: that it will not...I would hope expanded freedoms at a personal level might offset perceived sacrifices made...I would also offer marijuana as an aid to psychological growth...
The planet will die if we do not stop altering it industrially and chemically...I also believe property ownership and sexual suppression have a great deal to do with our current psychological entrapment...might does, indeed, make right, even in a land where the notion of law is taken for the thing itself...only might, in the strength of billions of unified wills, in the direction of saving the living planet, accompanied by violent strength where needed, will turn the tide...
If Obama had a change of strategy and went against the war mongering Generals, the Pentagon, the MIC and its sychophants in Congress, you know he would be assassinated by some lone nut case, terrorist, probably a Muslim. The U.S. is an Industrial, Military Dictatorship, pure and simple. That is why leaving Afghanistan and Iraq is not an option and why impeaching Bush and Cheney for their most heinous war crimes was not an option; because face it folks: in terms of foreign policy, the U.S. is run by a cartel of war criminals posing as a Government to protect the American people.