There is no way in hell I'd want McCain/Palin to have won. I'm sorry. You can throw your hyperbole around all you want about all politicians being the same, but they sure as hell aren't in my book. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran wasn't going to win any nobel peace prize.

Yeah but Bomb bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, Afghanistan and you win the Nobel peace prize how does that make sense?

I am not saying McCain should have won but we need NEW political parties in America. The election in 2008 in the US was akin to the 1933 election in Germany between the Communists and the Nazis. No matter which way the country voted it was lose-lose.

Would you have preferred WWIII with Iran? How radically different does a president have to be to measure as change in your book? What are the odds that the red staters would have voted for a candidate who had a platform to pull all foreign troops back and reinstitute isolationism under the banner of "peace", only to see the return of Taliban rule in Afghanistan, the potential takeover of Pakistan and its nukes by Taliban, the invasion of South Korea by North Korea, etc... Cowboy diplomacy is one thing, but absolutist pacifists don't realize that the US military in fact serves a role on the world stage. Subtleties are lost on those with absolutist ideologies.

It's just plain silly to believe one can stop a Taliban 'takeover' of Pakistan by performing an illegal military occupation of Afghanistan by US ground forces. But otherwise smart people still believe this nonsense showing how effective the propaganda is. Such occupations are as idiotic as invading and performing a long term military occupation of Brazil to prevent Venezuela from becoming an anti-US communist nation.

Isolationism is a harsh term used when the pro-war proponents have run out of phony reasons for their killing. And in Afghanistan and Iraq there are no reasons whatsoever to keep the killing going so we more and more hear the term 'isolationist' to describe anti-war sentiment.

A nations military should only be used in a nations self defense, not to entertain liberal cravings for shaping poor nations into images of themselves by force.

Excellent. Sig material there, with your permission of course.

Ron Paul made a very good point last week about Obama's election and what it did to the 'anti-war' left.

They have dropped off the map.

Yet the wars continue. The cognitive dissonance present in most people who voted for Obama (I believe they did so with good intentions, even if it was naive to expect another corporate puppet to do anything different regardless of which wing of the war party they hailed from) must be truly monumental.

In reality it looks an awful lot like the W voters who thought they were voting for smaller government, reduced deficits, the protection of the Constitution and the cessation of nation building with US military units. The Dems blamed every problem on Bush while the Reps denied there were any problems.

Now the O voters are suffering the same way -- ie in denial about what is happening versus what they wish had happened, and the Reps are blaming every problem on Obama.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

The fall of nuclear-armed Pakistan to the Taliban is a national security concern for the US. Most pragmatists who advocate leaving Afghanistan concede that the Pakistan tribal regions should remain a focus. Isolationism didn't work prior to WWI and WWII. The theory that we can just get by without ever sending the military overseas is a failure. Those who push an absolutist hawkish or dovish stance are really not seeing all of the parameters.

My extrapolation of events starting from a Taliban takeover of Pakistan would be the eventual usage of Pakistan's nukes against either the US or our allies.

Were the Taliban to actually take over Pakistan, I'm not sure a pre-emptive nuclear strike to remove the entire gangenous limb would be off the table, regardless of civilian casalties.

Simple mental exercise. Your child is drowning on one side of a lake, and 10 people are drowning on the other side of the lake, and in your boat you only have enough time for rescuing your child OR the 10 strangers. Who do you rescue?

If it were me, I'd rescue my kid. 10 million (or more) dead Pakistanis should not trump 1 million dead Americans if you are POTUS. The problem some modern American leaders have is they sometimes act like they are elected leaders of the world, when in reality their only obligation is to serve the Constitution and the American people.

It's because they weren't SAVED by JESUS the LORD AND SAVIOR!!!



GTFOHWTBS, man.

It's amazing how selectively blind you can be. Obama is broadening war and the police state.

That is an absolute.

I am against our military having bases in over 160 countries. I am against 37.5¢ of each of my federal tax dollars to finance military budgets. Couldn't some of that money be spend to benefit the average American in such things as critical infrastructure or the rebuilding of our light rail system\?

It is such a waste to me.

It seems like you are saying that without a figurative gun to other country's heads, we would be left high and dry.

I don't think that is true. I think our foreign policy under both D and R administrations has caused a great deal of resentment in other countries, particularly those who are at the pointy end of our stick.

Whatever your or my beliefs, I don't think that there's any question that sooner or later, probably sooner, that the US will not be able to afford our current level of extravagant spending to maintain our empire, or network of military bases and foreign occupations. What happens then? Orderly withdrawal? Hasty retreat? Or Stalingrad (ie troops left behind to fend for themselves surrounded by hostiles)?

The anti-war left has disappeared with Obama's election yet no headway in their goals has been made.

I think they were more anti-Bush than anti-war.

Obama's election was a stunning victory for the oligarchy, as it has completely silenced what little bit of opposition that existed to our foreign occupations. Much of Obama's vote was based on his anti-war campaign promises and promises of transparency.

Yet the government is growing, the police state is becoming more pervasive, and the Pentagon's budget is increasing.

Whither change?

If we had stayed isolationist (and avoided foreign entanglements) instead of kicking off imperialism with the Spanish American War and took over the Phillippines and brutally suppressed the Filipino independence movement that followed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War, we probably would not have felt the need to contain Japan with a provocative oil embargo that led to WWII with Japan.

WWI we shouldn't have poked our nose into Europe's affairs, or continued shipping supplies to England (so much for neutrality) without also supplying Germany. Taking sides is taking sides. It was our intervention into WWI that ultimately led to the rise of Hitler and WWII (not to mention the Great Depression we caused).

Yep, considering S-A war, P-A War, WWI, WWII, I'd say isolationism was a REAL bad idea... NOT!

We wouldn't be dealing with radical Islamism if it weren't for overthrowing Iran's gov in 1953, and thus wouldn't have the issues we have now. Yep, isolationism doesn't work.

Permission granted. I am honored. Thank you.

Wise words from you as well.

Who just got all the oil contracts in Iraq?

Who just got the contract to mine Afghanistan's copper?

Who do we borrow 1.8 billion dollars a day from?

Who may have needed some collateral?

Truthout



US Foreign Policy remains remarkably consistent despite the supposed radical changes in ideology from one administration to the next.

If McCain had won, he'd be doing the same thing as what Obama is doing. There is no real difference between the two parties. It's mostly a Kabuki Theatre, or perhaps better, World Wrestling Federation theatre. If you think there is really a big difference between the two parties, you're a fool.

Besides, how many posters here believe both these things: (1) that Republican/Conservative principles can save the country, and (2) that civilization will shortly collapse due to peak oil. I mean, why would anyone care about Republicanism if he/she also believes that civilization will soon expire and zombies will soon roam the land? Isn't this a case of holding two conflicting ideas in the mind simultaneously?

I agree completely. I happen to like Barak Obama, but he is the new captain of the the Titanic and we've already hit the iceberg of peak oil.

He's going down with the ship too, but he's trying to make sure all the passengers are comfortable. He may even get us health care.

The lifeboats are all covered with TARPs, and are slipping away from the ship, which is listing badly now.

The band is playing, and we're all being given some champagne from the ship's stores.