Iraq, the dems, the future

The invasion and occupation were a bad idea and American forces should not continue to occupy Iraq.

They are not creating peace or stability and are likely doing everything to escalate the civil war because to have civil war is to Amerikkka's advantage at this point.

Instability is exactly what the neoCONS want as it gives them an excuse to use more military force. This is the center piece of their class war strategy. How better to reroute the productivity of the nation than through the excuse of war?

With the unpopularity of Bush and the occasional democratic grunt or growl from the normally ESPN- FOX mesmerized masses the neocons now seem to want more public support for their lunatic pursuits.

The occupation is not only responsible for the implosion of Iraq, but is seriously destabilizing the entire area, the entire planet really.

The possibilities for General Dynamics, Lockheed, Raytheon, Halliburton, BIG OIL, etc., are enormous.
If you can make a few thousand bucks in the market on the Bush Perpetual Wars you might look the other way.

And if you can make millions upon millions by owning some piece of the war machine, you are almost certainly supporting the US effort to colonize the middle east, and you're probably paying lobbyists to drum up more war.

And Dick Cheney is probably shooting his duck hunting pals in the face on your or your lobbyist's property.

If this country is to ever even vaguely resemble a republic again, it is imperative that the US pull out of Iraq ASAP. The "war" is the agent of change the neocons are using to undo the way we live, to hijack the apparatus of government.
Staying does not limit or suppress violence in Iraq - it is our presence that is the catalyst for it. And it provides an excuse for more suppression and oppression and manipulation and structural change at home.

I expect we are staying anyway unless Bush is forcibly removed from power and I find that unlikely. We are staying. Hence the gigantic, elaborate permanent bases.
We are staying and the majority of representatives in both parties seem fine with this idea of occupation. We are staying and we are expanding into Iran. The PR Blitz is under way.

Iran can nuklur bomb you after all.

Regardless, all those running for office in 2006 and 2008 have to take some kind of public stance on this. What concerns me is the mainstream democratic party will agree that we need to occupy Iraq to keep the peace, reasoning that I view as Orwellian double think and the most dangerous possible course of action for us as a country and the world as a whole.
And an instant replay of Kerry's failed run for the presidency, the fucking moron.

We'll end up with president McCain and he is as bad as Bush.

If we have only 2 viable parties and both represent the same segments of society and espouse the same colonizer philosophy and differ only on a few of the details of how to wage class war on a world scale, well, Jesus, it makes me nuts to think about.

I see no good reason for the democrats not to come out swinging against this extremely unpopular war and this extremely unpopular president and try to educate the public as to what is happening, if they are not on the same side.

Which is what puzzles me. Is there any difference in the parties?

I don't see how right wing extremists can be removed from power from inside this country without using the democratic party organization to do it, because there is no other organization big enough to do it, yet the democrats are also right wing. Yes, there are a few exceptions. Feingold seems to be one. But there are only a few exceptions.

It isn't just that they support the war - they've supported one right wing, pro business, screw the public and ravage the environment policy after another for a good 15 years.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone every time I hear some red neck or media creep call Clinton left wing. I always ask for examples when it happens to me in person. The telcom act, welfare reform and NAFTA were all heavy right endeavors birthed by Bill Clinton. We are still suffering the results of each of those things, and the corporations are still profiting from them.

And that is the short list of Clinton's rightist activities.

Obama, the darling of the party, is in that mold. I really don't get his popularity or his party darling status. That is a media creation IMO. The voters I know are ALL furious with him and feel betrayed by how he has performed in office.

I don't want to support that. I don't want to support any corporatist politician or policies of any kind. That means I have virtually no representation in government at any level.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war on behalf of corporate interests. There is no other way for me to look at it.
And the pending attack on Iran is that also.

Exactly who is making decisions within the democratic party that they should continue to tilt more and more right? That they are not breathing fire in public over the mere suggestion of a preemptive nuclear attack?

Certainly not Howard Dean. It has to be corporate money making the decisions, framing the policies.

It is simply IMMORAL, what they're doing, those who support this kind of foreign policy, like the Christians who carp and whine about immoral homosexuals and never say a word about social justice. It 's so Fucked UP, so mentally unbalanced, such a game, but very revealing as to what they are really about.

Though Amerikkkan foreign policy has been immoral for a long time, and under both parties, which makes it hard for me to explain my continuous shock at what is going on.

Not only do the democrats need to loudly, publicly denounce the occupation in Iraq and demand a troop pullout, they need to block the coming military action in Iran which is being sold exactly like Iraq was.

No credible person claims Iran is a nuclear threat.
In fact the most credible analysis of the whole mess says Ahmadnejad attained power with the help of Amerikkkan interference in Iran and the Iranians are years away from having a bomb.

I believe the United States is about to launch a preemptive nuclear war. And I see in the papers that 48% of the public supports military action there if Iran is nuclear capable.

Is that not at least in part because the democrats are not really opposing it, are not countering the spin in the media, do not express positions much different from the republikkkans? ?
I know part of it is the media system and the fact that a large portion of Amerikkka appears incapable of asking a single critical question about anything, but NUCLEAR WAR? Is this not a big deal with anyone anymore?

I had the misfortune to catch part of Rummy's press conference the other day, the one with his perfect Peter pet, General Pace.
Rummy is so abusive to the reporters, so sneering and condescending, accusing them of living in fantasy... this from a man who said Iraq would view us as liberators and toss flowers at the marines. Who lives in fantasy?
Why aren't the dem party leaders talking about that? And every other crazy thing these lying bastards say?

And the link between NAFTA and the "immigration" issue " is undeniable. But I have seen no mention of it in the media until Alternet finally ran something on it today. I know why democrats like Obama can't talk about it, since he is a Clinton doo doo pile, but how about the progressives still in the dem party? Are they saying it and I'm missing it? If the public isn't neurologically empowered to make these connections, the democrats need to do it for them.