Antiwar activism is slowly increasing in this country and around the world.   Little wonder since we’ve been at war for eight years, with more wars threatened and no end in sight.  This weekend, a major conference was held in Washington D.C. called “Who Decides About War? National Conference on War Powers, Law and Democracy.”

http://www.whodecidesaboutwar….

The agenda featured Jeremy Scahill as the keynote speaker as well as politicians and noted activists.  There was backing from a large number of antiwar and progressive organizations such as  the Liberty Tree Foundation, the National Lawyers Guild at Georgetown Law School, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Democrats.com, the Institute for Policy Studies, After Downing Street, CODEPINK-Women for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, the National Coalition for Nonviolent Resistance, Peace Action USA and Progressive Democrats of America.  Topics discussed included:

• How can our democracy set in place consistent and durable criteria for considering when or if to use military force, within a broad range of scenarios that might–or might not–challenge national security or threaten world peace?

• Are our political institutions sufficiently robust to maintain and apply “consistent and durable” criteria in the face of the unforeseeable circumstances that typically precede the consideration of using military force?

• What is the proper composition, structure, and role of military forces in a modern democracy? Do the U.S. Armed Forces, as currently organized, best serve democracy? How should we respond to the increased reliance of the United States on Private Military Companies?

• When state National Guard units are called into federal military service, should states have a clear and defined role in evaluating whether that call up is proper and in accordance with the law?

• What is the proper balance of forces between the Guard and rest of the Armed Forces? Does the concept of the all-volunteer army need to be revisited, and if so, what are the options for the future?

• How should the decision about going to war be made, serving national security and honoring the constitutional system of checks and balances?

• Has the War Powers Act served its intended purposes, and how should it be updated or replaced?

• What should be the role of Congress in authorizing the use of military force, within a broad range of scenarios that might–or might not–challenge national security or threaten world peace? If the United States commences the use of military force, is there a role for Congress beyond its initial authorization of force and later appropriations in support of the military action? May an authorization for use of military force be conditional, and if so, should the conditions be enforceable? What mode of enforcement should be available?

• Should the scope of the President’s Article 2 powers as commander-in-chief be more clearly defined, and if so, how can that clarity be achieved, given that every war is unique and the role of the commander-in-chief hard to define in advance?

*Rethinking Empire, force projection, and the more than 1000 U.S. military bases located outside of the United States.

I don’t know exactly how these issues were discussed or the outcome of the conference.   I think this is encouraging and covers bases that need to be covered in the scheme of things.  What troubles me is the lack of discussion of the real reasons for the foreign policies of the United States, and all major countries for that matter.  I’m not sure discussing the laws and war powers of our government is going to do anything to stop a clearly imperialist nation, colluding with its allies and negotiating with it’s adversaries and neutrals to secure resources and maintain economic power.   Particularly when those resources are nearing the light at the end of the tunnel.  As with the MSM, there is no discussion of the root cause of wars, the Realpolitiks of the world.  

I notice that from the neocons as well.  Their argument in the MSM is always about the terrorists and the protection of American citizens from their evil ways.  The likes of William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer frame their support of these killing and plundering endeavors  based on the terrorist threat, the safety of the country.  “Obama is being soft on terror”!  They know darn well why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and have extended it into Pakistan.  They know why Africom was created.  They know why the DOD created Full Spectrum Dominance.  They know what happened in Honduras and why.  It’s not about terrorism.  There are terrorists if that’s the term you want to use.  We do more than our fair share of creating them, nurturing them, paying them and arming them.  But invading their countries turns the table and as such they are simply in the way of the official agenda.  Establishing a reasonably compliant government in resource rich nations, as well as those in bordering nations, as a means to control those resources, while keeping others, i.e., Russia and China primarily, from doing the same.  

Even most progressives seem to fall for that approach to foreign policy.  Believing the overall rationale, i.e., terrorism, nuclear bombs, keeping our country safe, etc., and not seeing those are the smokescreens to support the Realpoltik.   They fall into a trap and focus on how we can best contain the Taliban and wipe out Al Qaeda and prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon instead of focusing on the rationale for US foreign policy in the first place.  Where the Taliban and Al Qaeda and Iran are nuisances in the quest for natural resources and economic power.

There is no discussing 9/11, the event that jumpstarted the whole shebang.  Forbotten.  Conspiracists are crazy.  Even though on the rec list of the Orranged tonight is a diary basically saying there are financial conspiracies.  The progressives can buy that conspiracy, but toe the line on those that are deemed out of bounds.  It doesn’t matter whether someone is right about something else, if they are a truther, if they dare to question the official story, then nothing else matters.  They are not credible.  Let the Amish Shunning begin.    

“While I am in accord with most of what you say here, I can’t in good conscience support anything that Paul Craig Roberts has to say given his Trutherism and his work for CATO and the Hoover Institution, both much more recent than his support for supply-side economics. He’s like Pat Buchanan: Sometimes Pat’s views and mine (particularly on class issues) intersect, but I have to take into consideration his overall take on the world.”

So says the second most important person on that site.  A leader of the progressive movement who restricts his world view within the norms of society.  I’ve read alot of Paul Craig Roberts and he is usually right on the money.  

There is no true discussions of the role and intent of the government of Israel in all this either.  Israel has been so successful in exploiting the Holocaust and the dangers of anti-Semitism that it has created a lockstep of acquiesance across the progressive activist landscape.  You can’t truly join that party unless the rules are followed.

That can be seen from the agenda of this conference.  I greatly respect Jeremy Scahill and I’m sure, many of those that attended the conference.  But winning the battle with the elite will take more than discussions about the law and who has the authority for what.  Our government has proven the law doesn’t matter for the agenda that has been set.  Authority for war is in the hands of the empire, of which the entire political system is suitably accustomed.   Our government is in “no holds barred” territory and arguing about the law goes the way of torture investigations and state secrets.  Nowhere.  There is no discussion in the conference about the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations, of which the symmetry of members among Democratic and Republican administrations over the last fifty years should be a sign of concern when addressing foreign policy and war.  

It’s time to call a spade a spade.  The foreign policy of this country is about power, money and resources.  Keeping citizens safe from terrorists or nuclear bombs is merely a means to implement the overall agenda.  It’s about a delusional and perhaps unstoppable need to remain at the top of the heap while controlling the population.  It’s about feeding the corporate and MIC related beast and preventing other countries from securing first place.  It’s about time to call them on their bullshit.      

If there was any doubt about the primary mission of U.S. foreign policy, it should be clear based on the mission of Africom.  The mission is to protect and establish U.S. oil and mineral interests on the continent.  There is no other reason to establish a major military organization such as that.  It’s not about terrorism.  It’s not about defense of our nation.  It is simply about protecting our economic interests, of which the primary interest is oil.  

This is a truly savage foreign policy.  Still, no different from the foreign policies of past empires, before the Romans and since.  Perhaps more so because of the sheer numbers of people affected.   This is a foreign policy that causes people to die.  Millions of people.  This is an inhumane foreign policy that takes no interest in the havoc it reeks on innocent people.  This an idea from the minds of Dick Cheney and his ilk, who have no thoughts about the four year old kids who die because if it.  These are the same type of minds that promoted and accomplished slavery, the first exploitation of Africa’s resources.  

The Military Industrial Complex is the most powerful entity on earth.  The reason is the money involved and the power the U.S. military can wield..  The budget of the DOD and the interests that are affected assures it.  One can read about the money that affected the health care reform issue, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the reach of the MIC.   Oil and natural resources are the number one national interest of the elite.  It doesn’t matter if a million people must be killed to get it.  It doesn’t matter whether an entire continent must be kept in despair.  What matters is that the U.S. is able to continue it’s American way of life.  What matters is the corporate coffers continue to be filled, and the elite can continue to be the elite.

There probably is some small space in Dick Cheney’s mind that believes these efforts are in some way beneficial to the entire U.S. populace.  He knows darn well that peak oil has arrived and to continue our current way of life would require being at the head of the line for the last pickings.   But probably, he simply maintains the posture based on the acceptance he receives from the inner groupies patting his back.  

This whole Africom thing started shortly after the illegal attack on the nation of  Iraq.  It was partly DOD driven in it’s never ending organizational restructuring, and partly because of the Bush/Cheney policy that the U.S. needed to upgrade the pursuit of  oil and natural resources worldwide because of the impending shortages.   The US is the largest user and importer of oil in the world, by far.  Of course, that is exactly why we went into Iraq, holder of the fourth largest oil supply in the world.  

The U.S. created Africom because of the strategic oil interests on the continent.  As with the Middle East and Central Asia, some countries have the resources and some don’t.  But they are all affected because to get to the resources requires taming the boundaries.    Djibouti has become the largest U.S. military enclave in Africa , and the defacto Africom headquarters, because of it is the gateway to Ethiopia and Somalia, which are rich in resources.  U.S. involvement in Uganda is largely because of its’ proximity to Sudan, which has large deposits of oil, although recent discoveries in Uganda indicate a rich supply as well.  

Our military is there under the guise of “defense, diplomacy, and development”.  Whatever that means.  I’m not sure what defense we need against the Tutsi’s and I’m pretty sure the role of the military isn’t diplomacy and development of other countries.  

Africom represents the reach of the man.  The utter savagery and lack of moral conscience that afflicts the human race.  Four hundred years after the white people started  stealing precious resources from Africa, the rape continues.        

I need a little help.  Something is bothering me and it kind of relates to this whole political blogging thing and liberalism.  I’ve sought input from others, but not some as progressive and advanced in thinking as those on here.  

Back in early May, there was a diary on dkos from a guy who was about to become homeless.   He had a wife and a five year old child.  I had some interactions with him prior on the site which indicated a like minded approach to life.  He called himself a DFH, made all the right comments from a progressive point of view, and had a fairly pleasant online persona.  He wrote a GBCW diary because of his situation, not because of wanting to leave, and during the course of events, I offered to put him, his wife and child up in my house for a few months.  It required relocating from California to Washington, but he and his wife decided to take me up on the offer.  

I gave them $450 to help them get up here and they surely did.  They moved in the end of May, so now it’s been about 3 1/2 months.  Since that time, he has helped me around the house for about 5 hours total.  He has came out of their bedroom for about 5 hours total, not counting the time in the kitchen or bathroom.  I have had a couple talks with him telling him that in my house everyone helps with the dishes and cleaning the house.  He still doesn’t.  His wife, who is one of those American Idol Americans, does help a bit.  But this guy is absolutely amazing to me.  I honestly can say I have never seen anyone lazier in my life.  He searches all the time for jobs on the internet but never, NEVER, goes out of the house to look. He doesn’t go down to the employment center.  Nothing.   He sits in his chair between the TV and the computer all day and night.  He wakes up after noon, and by 6 PM is drinking beer.  That would be lunch for you and me.

I told him that I just can’t wait for him to get a job and that we would have to end this at the end of October.  He has had one job interview during this time and another that he cancelled because he had no dress pants he could fit into.  He should be out there earning any kind of money he can to help their situation, but he just sits, all day. I really don’t think they take anything seriously.  Their kid started kindergarten just last week and I’ve had to buy her birthday present (a bike), shoes, and other things because they don’t have any money.  She prefers to be the stay at home Mom while he works, yet he can’t get a job!  And even if he could get a job, his skills are warehousng which pays what, not much.  It’s fucking amazing.  

I’ve given up on them and am just biding my time for the end of October.  I will undoubtedly have to give them money to move out, but I will gladly do that.  I just can’t believe this situation.  A supposed progressive who says all the right things online, turns out to be worse than the fat beer drinking rednecks we rail against.  BTW, he’s about 300 pounds now and was recently crying to me about how he is gaining weight.  Yet he sits in that fucking chair all day and night.

I don’t know, in a way, I hope he sees this.  I tried to help someone who said all the right things, and they turn out to be helpless, lazy, welfare MoFo’s.  I’m disappointed.  My liberalness has taken a hit.  Now I have to think twice before helping someone.  

Yes, William “The Bloody” Kristol supports the Afghanistan occupation and the recommendations made by Torture Dude McCrystal and the call for more troops.  I’ve always thought “the Bloody”, which conjures images of medieval badass dudes, a wrong label tho.  Perhaps, William “The Wimp” Kristol or something of that nature would be better.  

The only person I despise more than Dick Cheney is Bill Kristol.  This little chickenhawk obviously has pictures of someone doing something they shouldn’t have done.  Just looking at him nearly makes me hurl.  And now  that Obama is making decisions that he supports, I feel like I’ve gone into the Twilight Zone.  The correlation is too much!  Please, I need help!  

Imagine that, Obama and Kristol on the same page.  Not only Obama of course, Hillary is there too, Robert “Little Napolean” Gates and Torture Dude McCrystal, General Betrayus under Bush but wise man under Obama, and Admiral “Torture isn’t necessarily immoral” Cullen, to name a few.  Man, this just makes me want to bang my head into the wall.  I’m beside myself.  That’s like being dumbfounded, speechless, bewildered, dazed and fucking confused.

I’ve seen alot in my life, the 60s’ Civil Rights movement, the assasination of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr., the moon landing, the Vietnam War and the protests, the Pet Rock.  I was and still am a fucking hippie.  But watching democrats support the same thing as Bill Kristol, I just don’t know what to say.  It really is like Rod Serling came into my house and told me I had just entered the “Twilight Zone”.

You never know.  Did you focus on that first sentence, “There is a sixth dimension beyond that which is known to man”.  That means we don’t know about it (I’m actually a high level government analyst).  We really could be there ya know.    

But at least now I can say I’ve seen it all.  Little Billy Kristol agreeing with Obamas decisions to escalate the bogus Afghanistan war.  Rod, come back please, make another episode.    

Disillusionment: A feeling that arises from the discovery that something is not what it was anticipated to be, commonly held to be stronger than disappointment especially when a belief central to one’s identity is shown to be false. (Wiktionary).

Ignorance:  the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. This should not be confused with being unintelligent, as one’s level of intelligence and level of education or general awareness are not the same. The word “Ignorant” is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware. (Wikipedia)

Disillusionment describes many of those who voted for Obama and the democrats, whether they were progressives, independents, or other groupings.  

Ignorance describes many of those on the right who still think the republicans are the answer to our problems.  

Of course, the two conditions or states aren’t exclusive to any definitional groupings of people.  They exist across all spectrums.  But generally, these two states of being are extremely prevalent in Amercian society today.  

Perfect Storm:  an expression that describes an event where a rare combination of circumstances will aggravate a situation drastically. (Wikipedia)

Has the overall disillusionment and ignorance of the American people ever been at a higher level?  Probably not, when considering the scope that exists now.  Have the stakes been any higher for the average American citizen?  Probably not, considering the numbers involved and the systems that are simultaneously crashing.  

Is a Perfect Storm developing among the American people?  Where the disillusioned and the ignorant “aggravate a situation drastically”?  I believe so.  It all depends on whether things actually improve.  If things don’t improve, the Perfect Storm could continue to develop to a point where it explodes.  

Time will tell.  I go back to the fifties and have never seen the levels of disillusionment and ignorance we have now.  We seem to be heading to an abyss where the entire concept of this country is completely lost.  How the disillusioned and the ignorant react as we get closer to the abyss may not be pleasant.

Dennis Kucinich is still going strong, fortunately.  July 21st, during a meeting of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he questioned Neil M. Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), about interest payments made to banks that keep their TARP funds and other government (taxpayer) bailout money with the Federal Reserve, instead of making loans to struggling Americans (the original intent of the TARP). The Fed is making generous interest payments to these banks for putting their excess reserves within Fed control.  

Oh, that Federal Reserve.  We can’t audit it, we can’t know who the major investors are, and we sure as hell can’t get in the way of their decision making.  Timmy Geithner said as much recently, “Audting the Federal Reserve is a line we don’t want to cross”, says Timmy.  He goes on to say that “we need to keep politics out of monetary policy”, and “we need to preserve what the Federal Reserve does independent of politics”.  That layed the groundwork for the completely explanatory statement: “it would be problematic to the country if you let politicians come in to shape monetary policy for the country”.

http://revolutionarypolitics.c…

I don’t know Timmy.  Seems to me the politicians represent us people.  And monetary policy seems pretty important, especially now, with the trillions given to banks and the jobs taken from the citizens.  You think it is problematic for we the people to know and be involved with what the fuck is going on with our monetary policy?  That just doesn’t make sense Timmy.  You’re better than that dude!  Maybe not though.  

So at least Dennis is still on the attack.  He explained how the purpose and application of the TARP funds has gone from “keeping people in their homes”, to “bailing out the banks to direct capital infusion”, to “the Fed paying banks not to use their excess capital to make loans”, i.e., the ole bait and switch.    

Ya, the Fed is up to something.  What monetary policy requires the tightening of credit?  It doesn’t seem to help small businesses and the average consumer.  It appears to be some kind of manipulation for the benefit of the few.  Are we headed for more deflation, inflation, or even stagflation?  Only the Federal Reserve knows for sure.  Because Timmy says it is best we don’t know.  

Survival of the Fittest.  Various meanings have been put forth by the likes of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase, but the context I refer to is that which is espoused by the free market, less government is better conservatives and libertarians.  I see not only the obvious problems with their thinkings, but obvious contradictions also.  I also see commonalities between the right and the left that although difficult to reconcile, appear to be an avenue of hope against the government kleptocracy and corporate plutocracy we must bring down in order for real change for all citizens to occur.  Perhaps a foundation for a viable third party.    

I read an article the other day about the antiwar movement from the right!  Yes, that’s right, antiwar from the right.  

http://original.antiwar.com/jo…

Here we are having a world of trouble getting the left to stand up on the issue, and now the right wants in on the action.  Of course, what they’re doing is veering into the Libertarian camp on foreign policy, with a bit of political party strategy thrown in.  But paleoconservatives are traditionally anti-imperialists also.  Libertarians, although with a contradictory message themselves that moves from libertarianism to liberalism to conservatism and back have always been antiwar/anti-imperialist.  The mainstream left is always antiwar unless there is a democratic President.  The desperate need to hold that power overpowers their natural instincts against killing and subjegation.  I say mainstream left because a significant minority of liberals are antiwar no matter the party in power.

Then this article from Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.commondreams.org/vi…

The New Republic, a bastion of right wing insensibilities, is telling the democrats they need to shitcan Joe Lieberman so they can “finally address the country’s actual needs”.  

What are you saying here New Republic?  Not long ago, you endorsed Leiberman for President!  Now you want the Democratic Party to get rid of him so we can pass some legislation that actually addresses the country’s needs? I’m astounded, yet not surprised.   New Republic, what difference does it make to you that the Democratic Party addresses the country’s actual needs when all you have wanted is for the Republican Party to be in power?  I don’t get it.

It appears what is happening is twofold.  A signal from the right that the majority really aren’t “Survival of the Fittest” types, i.e., those who are willing to let the less fortunate among us deal with life on their own.  They appear to be a very small minority, one which we will never be rid of, and needn’t worry about in the overall picture.  The second is a recognition of how the corporate plutocracy and the Military Industrial Complex, and the increasing wealth concentration at the top, is putting a heavy damper on the old American dream.

This all leads to the commonality issue and the seeds for a true revolution against the oligarchy.   There is a fine line between a revolution and a civil war.  A revolution requires a majority of the citizens united in a common cause.  At this point, the divisions caused by the propaganda machines appear to have us too divided.  But there are glimmers of hope, as the above citations might suggest.

It’s One, Two, Three, What are we fighting for?  What are we citizens fighting for, from the right to the left?  Is there that much difference in this age of corporate plutocracy, government kleptocracy, and US imperialism and hegemony?  In this age of rampant and evidently sustained

unemployment, decreased employment opportunities, and reduced hours and benefits.  In this age of wealth disparity amongst the classes that rivals any in US history and where the middle class is threatened as a viable entity, perhaps falling to the middle class percentages of third world countries?   The 1 to 10 percenters are pretty similar worldwide, but the middle class has been the American staple.  That is disappearing relative to the rest of the world.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

I think if we are going to have major changes in this country, it must come from the majority of people.  You know, like a democracy.  But the majority of people have to be on the same page, have the same basic agenda.  I think it is possible.  Look at the New Republic’s statement.  Maybe they wouldn’t be against a health care system that was fair to all citizens, as long as it was free from corporate and government corruption.  They’re skeptical and even adamantly opposed to government involvement, but then again, encouraging “addressing the country’s actual needs”.

Maybe they could be the key to an effective antiwar agenda that can raise enough pressure to stop the madness.  The conservatives were essentially taken over by the neocons.  But not all on the right are neocons, in fact they are the minority among conservatives.  Many are paleoconservatives who are generally anti-imperialist.  Many understand the need for government services but are disgusted with the quality, extent, corruption, and intrusion.  

Maybe if we want real health care reform, real economic and financial reform, and an end to the plutocracy, kleptocracy, and oligarchy, and an end to US imperialism, many of those on the right can help.  

I address this to all of those to which this applies.  Those in the government who advocate, initiate, enact, or tacitly ignore, those citizens who support or tacitly ignore, and those in the media who spread the propaganda, Fuck you.  

I really don’t give a shit anymore.  I’m a retired federal government employee, Vietnam Era Vet, with good health insurance and a lifetime pension, at least until Uncle Sam goes broke, which won’t surprise me.  So I’m not worried about myself and I don’t care what anyone else thinks about me anymore.  Therefore I’ll call out those I want when I want.  

I’ve seen enough war to know that innocent civilians get killed.  I was going to say “too many innocent civilians” get killed, but what is too many?   Five days ago, on a last trip before college, four teenagers were killed in a car accident on a highway to the coast.  The small town of Ridgefield, Washington is emersed in grief and confusion over the loss of these four kids.  Laments such as “They had so much to live for”, and “They were beautiful kids who loved life”, are all over the local blog boards.  Condolences and sympathies have been non-stop since the event.  And rightly so, it is a very sad thing to see a life cut short.

I see all human life as equal.  Maybe some kind of subliminal messaging I took to heart after learning about our Constitution.  So I really don’t differentiate from the four kids from Ridgefield, Washington getting killed in a car crash from the four kids who were killed in the drone attack in Afghanistan.  A life cut short is a life cut short, and it hurts all the same. Who’s to say who’s life is more promising?

Casualties of War?  That’s assuming war is necessary.  I don’t believe war is necessary, but just to focus on the current wars, no, these wars aren’t necessary.  The Iraq war is actually a criminal war, an aggressive war based on lies and deception.  I can say that because most agree by now.  But the Afghanistan war is no less criminal.  That’s harder for me to say because so many still believe the lies about that war.  Mainly because they saw the planes fly into the buildings.  The war on terrorism was a propaganda ploy by Dick Cheney and friends to commence the next steps in U.S. imperialism.  Do you agree with a war started by Dick Cheney?

There are people in the know stating we’ll be in Afghanistan until 2020.  That’s almost twenty years.  The pullout from Iraq appears to be bullshit.  The U.S. does not want to give up it’s bases in Iraq.  We appear to be in a perpetual war state.  The only question is what else is on the horizon?

So fuck all of you who support these wars.  I don’t care what you think any more.  My mind is made up, no changing it.  These wars are evil, are killing innocent people, are enriching the rich, and are waged solely for the rich and powerful.  

I’m not sure I buy all this stuff about the right wing crazies and the potential for violence and the assassination of President Obama.  It kind of goes against my overall views on how the government and corporations control the population.  And we should know by now that the assassination of Presidents is not done by lone crazies. Sure. there is alot of anger among the citizens, especially the rabid right.  And sure, some of those rapid right are mucho nutso.  Or as a truly liberal might say, they are extremely uninformed.  We’ve always had wackos and always will.  

But a few things give me pause about the progressives fearful response to what’s been happening, like the town hall meetings and the language from the MSM wackos like Limbaugh and Beck and Dobbs.   The overall agenda of the Obama administration in foreign policy is actually extending the framework laid by the last administration.  The health care debate has clearly shown the undue influence corporations, lobbies, and special interests have on the political process.  And Obama cooperated in the biggest theft in world history with the “bailouts” that some estimates amount to 24 trillion dollars.   While we’re talking about a health care plan that spends 700 billion over ten years.

Which leads me to John McCain.  What if McCain had won.  What would his first 200 days have been like?  I’ve no doubt the foreign policy approach would be exactly the same.  There is no way what has happened in Obama’s first 200 days would have been handled differently.  The agenda against China, Russia, and Iran is set, the only question is how it would be handled at it’s extreme.  

McCain promised during his campaign to make improvements in the health care system as well.  His approach was using tax credits to aid the purchase of health insurance.  I won’t get into the details, but suffice it to say, he also pledged to address this serious issue.  Obama of course pledged much more, but in the end, would there really have been much difference?  

As for the economy, I’m just guessing here, but I would bet my last paycheck that the bailouts and stimulus would have been quite similar.  

So back to the fear factor of the rabid right.  First, all I’ve seen is a bunch of plants and mostly older people yelling nonsensical bullshit while a politican is speaking.  Nothing new there, it’s been happening since this country was being developed.  That’s the right of citizens, and the game of using plants.  There have been some disturbing things being said on right wing blogs and the crazy Becks, Dobbs and Limbaughs, but what else is new.  They always spout their bullshit.  You want to start a civil war because of those fuckers?  

So what’s really going on?  It doesn’t appear that the overall agenda of a Democratic administration would be any different from a Republican adminstration.  Not much anyway.  But if a Republican President is in charge, say Bush the younger, the rabid right is kept in check while the angry left is up in arms, threatening revolution.  And now that a Democratic President is in charge, the progressives are kept in check while  the angry right is up in arms, threatening revolution.  It appears however, the angry left is still the angry left, and good for us.  

Divide and Conquer?  I think when it comes to the very top levels of government, the agenda is the same and the divide and conquer route must be a practiced ploy.  It’s too old, well known, and effective to not be used presently as well.  We use torture just as was done in the Medieval Ages, before and after, so why not the other well worn methods.

The fact is there are alot of very confused and angry people in this country.  Most really don’t understand the what’s, why’s and how’s of the issues.  They are operating on emotion and what information is fed to them from the MSM.  But they are Americans.  Many have been veterans.  Many have had relatives die for this country.  Are we to hold their ignorance against them or help them?  Should we fear our fellow Americans or try to embrace them, understand them, and educate them?  

There is not a single Iraq citizen alive who hasn’t lived through a period of aggression from imperialist nations.  That aggression goes back well over 100 years, but particularly since the beginning of the oil ages spurred by the Industrial Revolution. Air attacks on Iraq started nearly 100 years ago, not long after the capability for air attacks was created.

I find it amazing that a century after the first attacks on Arabs to gain control of their oil, it is still happening.  Discounting the horrendous death toll of innocent humans, it would seem the cost of such an agenda cannot possibly justify the means.  Counting the horrendous death and devastation toll, it is impossible to justify.

How can we as a people have believed that this current imperialist attack in the Middle East would have been for a different motive than nearly 100 years ago?    

There is ample information on the internet regarding the British occupation of Iraq and Iran in the early twentieth century.  The history is well documented and even made famous by the “Lawrence of Arabia” mainstream bullshit that rivals the treatment of Native Americans in early TV and radio.  

Prior to the current imperialist nation, our own United States, previous imperialist nation Britain occupied Iraq starting in 1917, and claimed they were their for “Full sovereignty” to Iraq, that’s what the British falsely claimed more than 80 years ago.  Sounds a little familiar doesn’t it.  In fact, the British imperialists believed that control of Mesopotamia (Iraq) would safeguard British oil interests in Persia (Iran).  Somewhat familiar but we lost Iran and need to get it back!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2…

Here we are almost a century later and we’re still talking about insurgencies and Fallujah.

“In 1920, an insurgency broke out in the area of Fallujah, where Sheikh Dhari killed a British officer, Colonel Leachman, and cut rail traffic between Fallujah and Baghdad. The British advanced towards Fallujah and inflicted “heavy punishment” on the tribe.  The Royal Air Force, with Churchill’s support, bombed rebellious villages and dissident tribesmen in Iraq.  Churchill urged the employment of mustard gas, which had been used against Shia rebels in 1920.”

Fuck ya, use mustard gas.  Teach Saddam how to do it for future purposes. Then we can put the blame on him and go on back in there.  People killed, no matter.  That’s the name of the game. The world is not a pretty place so deal with it.  

Wow, 89 years ago and those bastard insurgents in Fallujah were fucking with imperialist plans.  And they didn’t even have access to nuclear bombs because, as I recall, they weren’t fucking invented yet.  So I can understand why they didn’t call it the “Global War on Terrorism” back then.  That would have been a hard wood to saw.   But then again, the British imperialists made no bones about it, they were there for the oil and anyone that got in their way would be killed, along with whatever civilians might be there.  That seems a bit familiar as well.  

“These assertions ignore the deeply-felt hostility to decades of colonial and semi-colonial rule by the Western powers, who long plundered Iraq’s oil reserves. During World War I, Mesopotamia was occupied by British forces, and it became a British mandated territory in 1920. In 1921, a kingdom was established under Faisal I, son of King Hussein of Hejaz and leader of the Arab Army in World War I. Britain withdrew from Iraq in 1932, but British and American oil companies retained their grip over the country.”

We should have known, we American people.  Of course not just American people, all people.  Especially the British, WTF is up with them?  They’ve been thru this shit, why didn’t they stop it?  They frigging started it.  Is the brainwashing of all peoples through government and corporate propaganda that effective?  There were many who did know why we were attacking Iraq and Afghanistan.  Their warnings went unheeded by the masses.  The masses are conditioned now with the TV, internet, cell phones, all the gadgets necessary to keep their minds away from reality.  There are still millions, including many progressives, who believe we are “right” by being in Afghanistan.  Blows my mind because their reason isn’t the hard line, “we are the world power, we deserve to control the world resources” of the Neocons, but rather a belief in the war on terrorism.  

There is no other way to put it, this Global War on Terror (GWOT), is a fabrication by western elites, to continue pillaging the natural resources of the earth for their own benefit.  The game is more complicated now of course, but the goals are the same.  It’s very simple when you look at the history of imperialism.  It’s been going on a long time folks, thousands of years really, so isn’t it time to wake up and accept the evidence?