And so, apparently, was Omooex. But at least he was a smart one. Great thread today, with notable exceptions that proved the rule. Tick tick tick tick...

Thanks for the response.

"And all the while, Miles Davis-fashion, he plays to the hazy middle, and perpetually keeps his back to the left side of the audience."

My gut tells me Obama is a smart guy. But I can't figure out why he is ignoring his supporters and why he trying to seduce his enemies.

IMHO war crimes should transcend politics but that isn't reality. How sad!

"WITH MALICE TOWARD SOME" - shouted from the rooftops no doubt.

As long as you are bastardizing quotations from Lincoln why not try your hand at "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men".

That is the title of a movie that is airing on HBO right now, and this month, that I highly recommend that you all watch. If you don't have HBO, rent it.

The list is rather long...

1) Invading Iraq on false pretenses - the WMD story was cooked up using British and Italian intelligence, and was completely false - an impeachable crime, lying to Congress to start a war. In reality, it was all about the oil - and since the same people who own the oil corporations also own the media corporations, the media corporations promoted the lies - a good argument for anti-trust action against the corporate media if I've ever heard one.

2) The illegal domestic spying, which the Democratic Party tried to clear up with a bogus act that protected the private contractors and telecoms from investigation or punishment - that's the Democratic Party for you - they give lip service to the public's concerns, but not much more. However, it was initiated by Rumsfeld and Cheney, and they belong behind bars for that, as well as for the torture program.

So, there are at least three major crimes that have gone unpunished: the illegal invasion of Iraq, the illegal domestic spying program, and the illegal torture program. If they go unpunished, it means that justice in the United States no longer exists.

Why do we need to outspend the entire world on war making every year?

We don't need to - you and I. In fact, the vast majority of Americans don't need to. We need things like access to health care and a clean and safe environment to pursue our liberty and happiness. I need access to a good single malt scotch. I don't need, let alone want, my country to outspend the rest of the world combined. It ain't us babe - well, it is in that we allow them to use our taxes for such an outrageous purpose but, regardless, we don't need it. And I think you already know that. I think you know who it is that needs to outspend the entire world on war making.

They need to. The establishment elite minority who rule this country through the two tiered system of justice they control. Them and their idiotic, sycophantic, sociopathic, warmongering followers. They are the ones who need to outspend the rest of the world combined. Their very existence may depend on it at this point. The Neo-cons and neo-libs. The MIC. The Dick Cheney's and Haliburton's. The Wal-Mart's and Disney's. The Ken Lay's, GE's and the Comcast's. The Pelosi's and Reid's and Bush's an Rockefeller's. The AIPAC's and the Saudi royal family... etc. etc. etc.

You want to get rid of war and warmongers? Either burn the mother'fuckers at the stake everytime they try it or take the profit out of it. I assume you have read Gen. Smedley Butler's thoughts on the issue? (link at sig)

If you build an Army, it will be used. If used, it will be misused. Even if not used directly, it will be used to intimidate and coerce.

Yes it will. If we let them use it for such things, it will be used to "intimidate and coerce." But I think you and I may have different working definitions of intimidate and coerce. It takes two to tango. Someone has to be willing to play the victim. If not used directly and the subject of attempted intimidation and/or coercion are unwilling to be intimidated and/or coerced then, well, it doesn't much matter what the aggressor wants does it?

For the record I am for a small standing army with very limited (if any) forward bases.

Why do people volunteer for service when they know they will be called upon to be part of horrible crimes against humanity?

Why? -- heru-ur

For a myriad of reasons including: poverty, ignorance, exceptionalism and propaganda. And I think your premise is wrong in the first place to a certain extent Heru-ur. Most of them don't know, don't realize and/or don't see it that way - that "they will be called upon to be part of horrible crimes against humanity." They don't see it that way because we haven't done our job. We haven't been successful in disseminating truth. We haven't shown them that what is really happening is their ruling elite are using them as cannon fodder for private gain. They haven't read Gen. Butler's book. They don't know The People's History of the United States. They don't know about Mossadegh in '53. They don't know about the Gulf of Tonkin. Iran-Contra was a war fought between the evil Arabs in Iran and the Contras from Narnia, right?

They don't know Heru-ur. They need information and unselfish, humanitarian, principled leaders. They have neither. What they have is wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America known as the Republicrats. What they have is this...

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials