Bill, this is what is truly frightening. Any criticism of Harris or her campaign is met with that response - "so you want Trump to win?"
One of these people needs to explain how the administration she's part of can condone and support genocide and risk nuclear war - and how that makes Harris the better choice, even if Oprah and Beyonce support her?
Someone needs to explain to American voters how they have been suckered into the belief that a vote for a third party or independent candidate is a vote for Trump (or whoever you dislike the most).
We clearly need to strengthen alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties.
Dennis, basically you're angry that we won't vote for Trump, so you tell us we're wasting our vote by voting for someone other than Trump or Harris. (If we said we're voting for Harris, you'd attack us as "libtards.")
We don't tell you not to vote for Trump. though we may question your reasoning and "facts." Why presume to tell us how dumb we are for "wasting" our votes? Is this a lesson from Dale Carnegie?
Dennis, you say "It's a systemic problem" and tell us to vote as that system wants us to vote. You are so fierce in your view, it almost seems you do not want a third party to get any votes, condemning the system only to defend it with your advice.
That many of us don't want either of the two candidates doesn't seem to reach you. You appear to be convinced that the future is locked in the iron grip of the past. It isn't. Things change. The future is not fixed. We don't vote on the past, but on what we want for the future. We all know that you feel a third party effort is hopeless, but there is no logic in thinking that one must be bound to keep it that way by not choosing a third party. Repetition of a view doesn't give it force. Please allow us to depart from your view and vote as we think best.
Each voter is not to blame for other voter's poor choices. Just think what COULD happen is everyone actually voted for the best candidate instead of (blindly, in the secret ballot) attempting to follow all the other sheeple?
Dennis has drunk the Kool-Aid, Clif. For him, anything that has never happened or hasn't happened recently is impossible and that it hasn't happened is proof that it's impossible.
In 1492, Dennis would have bet that Columbus would perish sailing over the edge of the earth.
Britain and the US are locked in to the two-party systems. Other countries, e.g. France and Germany seem more open to third parties, although the ones in power fight it. Interestingly the third parties there can be characterized as wanting cessation of hostilities in Ukraine and control of their respective borders. In this case the systems of France and Germany seem superior to the two-party ones.
This is the argument everyone needs to use against the "waste your vote" people. As has been said many times, there is only one party in DC and that is the war party. A vote for either of the war teams is wasted if your goal is peace. In fact, you are sabotaging your own goals in a vain attempt to "not waste your vote".
As you've pointed out your vote won't matter in your state, which will end up voting for Harris regardless. Ditto for my vote, as my state will vote for Trump regardless. Hey, the way things are developing in Ukraine this may be the last vote we ever get to take (if we get there). It may as well be for the people you actually prefer.
When Voting I may have to possibly write in my Fave. "Permanent Major" from when I was a Sky-Cop, Sgt. in SAC Strategic Air Command-- Major King Kong, Slim Pickens! :/ :o)
I see your point, Bill. Stein seems saner than the other choices, BUT I'm focused on an issue bigger than sanity at the moment.
Trump doesn't like WAR.
Biden/Harris/Democrats immediately got into office and pushed the Ukraine war, and are now pouring our money into BOTH Ukraine and Israel.
KILLING innocents is something I cannot support.
Both financing it and pulling the triggers are immoral.
Harris will continue this path. This is beyond a doubt. She is clearly a puppet, mouth piece for the neo-cons. Biden loves WAR. He's yet to vote against one.
So it's TRUMP for me. Not a vote for him. A vote against KILLING and WAR.
It's about time someone included the media as part of the war mongering machine. The media profits from war as much as (if not more than) the weapons makers.
You are so right and I speak as someone with over two decades working for ABC-TV. For the 1991 Iraq War the graphics department was busy working on the lineup of weapons available to each side, but not just war is profitable, so is fear. The "Ten o'clock News" was teased (that means a snippet promo during prime time to get people to watch the news) with such stuff as "Children's nightgowns found to be flammable - details at ten!" and then the endless stories of this or that awful killing or crime in the inner city that would make the fearful white audience feel lucky to be far away from it. I mentioned here long ago that I couldn't bear it and quit the industry.
I've often thought - would it make a difference in anyone's life if they never watched "the news" on commercial TV? It never has anything to do with their own lives. I think psychologically a person would be healthier and happier without it. Need I say I don't have a TV? (or a smartphone).
It did make a big difference when I stopped watching "the news" and discontinued my subscription to NYT soon after the "weapons of mass destruction" fraud. Since then
I have more time to research what is happening
I don't get a lot of bullshit
I enjoy reading and hearing alternative views
I don't have to watch the f'king commercials
I get the news I want when I want it and don't have to wait for 50 stupid announements.
and several other benefits.
Try it. You'll like it.
Truth in advertising: I used to watch the Daily Show with John Stewart on the Comedy Channel. That was the best news source on TV. But it's not the same since he retired.
I saw an AI generated Flyover of Fighter Jets last Nite. on my Thursday Nite. Football Streaming Jets Vs. N.E. Patriots-- Live from the Met Life Stadium in New Jersey....!
Scott Ritter wrote a column yesterday for ConsortiumNews titled '72 Minutes' where he speculated on how events might have transpired if Biden had authorized US support for Ukraine's long range strikes on Russia. It was plausible and terrifying as escalation to nuclear war took only a few exchanges of conventional strikes.
It's unclear if it was DOD and Austin, supported by Jake Sullivan that stopped the rush by Blinken and the neocons to war - but whoever it was deserves our profound gratitude.
A question for both Harris and Trump supporters- who will be the ones whispering in their ears, and who will they be listening to in the first grave crisis in their administrations?
Excellent column by Scott Ritter. Thanks for mentioning it and luckily we didn't have a nuclear war this time. But we are dancing hourly on the knife edge of nuclear war and I fear for the future. Perhaps if our "wise leaders" would read Annie Jacobsen’s alarming must-read book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, it might bring us hope.
JFK read The Guns of August a few months before the Cuban Missile Crisis; that informed him about the ways in which events spin out of control. I can't see Harris or Trump, or any of their acolytes, spending any time reading or reflecting on anything but popularity polls. They reflect a country that now reads little and understands less.
Absolutely. All of us owe our existence to Vasili Arkhipov who was aboard the B-59 Foxtrot that day. The same with Stansilav Petrov, who was the watch officer in 1983 during the KAL 007/Able Archer tensions and decided an incoming missile alert was a computer issue.
Whenever the psychopaths here talk about how the Russians are monsters, I remember those two Russian men whose humanity saved the world from destruction.
My understanding is that it's the military that's been restraining the civilians (Blinken and Sullivan). Exactly the opposite of the original design, in which the civilians are supposed to restrain the hotheads in the military. Biden seems to be siding with the military for now, although his history is that eventually he gives in to B & S. The stakes get increasingly higher. Trump is on record that he would talk to Putin and that the killing needs to stop, which is also what Vance and Don Jr. (a chief DJT advisor) seem to think. What Harris thinks about all this is anybody's guess. Her goal seems to be to get the Presidency without telling anyone what's going on in her head.
I wonder if the military brass, given the terrible record of US actions, is reluctant to jump into dicey situations. When you figure that the real purpose of our huge military budget is to pump money into the US economy and help the foreign exchange deficit, who needs actual wars that we fight?
... leading our government and ourselves into this mess, where we are now stuck every election cycle picking individuals keeping the entire scheme rolling along
... acting like it all can just keep on indefinitely w/o change... clueless
To your list of MICIMATT players, all you need to add are the billionaires, and you can simplify the whole shebang to The Blob. Billionaires are at the top of the food chain, and have lots of control over all of the MICIMATT. Think of all the gigantic contracts that people like Musk and Bezos have with the military and 3 letter agencies. Think of all the control they have over university agendas through endowments, and control over the news media by literally owning them. Very often, CIA covert operations involve off the books financing by the donor class. You know that Musk has been bankrolling some of the coup attempts in Venezuela and other South American socialist countries. When people talk about the MICIMATT, they often leave out some of the bigger players, which happen to be some of the richest people in the world who desperately want cheaper access to resources in other people's countries.
Common Dreams recently reported: New report: $1.1 trillion – or 62% – of the federal discretionary budget was spent on militarism and war last year. “When we invest so heavily in militarism at home and abroad, we deprive our own communities and people of solutions to problems that pose immediate security threats.” WASHINGTON - On May 24, the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies released a critical new analysis of the militarized budget in the United States, “The Warfare State: How Funding for Militarism Compromises our Welfare.” The new report found that this past year, out of a $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget, the U.S. spent a staggering $1.1 trillion – or 62% – of that budget on militarism and war. Threats to cut spending for vital domestic programs have featured prominently in the debt ceiling debate in recent weeks, but spending on militarism has been almost entirely exempt from the discussion. Meanwhile, clawing back failed military, homeland security and law enforcement spending could instead fund programs and measures to address the true needs of American communities. When all you got is a huge hammer a hammer that keeps growing everything at home and aboard looks like a nail." Trudeau, please ignore NATO's demand of spending as much as America trys to muscle you too. Actually, he has done as good of job as possible of not being bullied. The JFK administration campaigned against Canada's sitting prime minister Diefenbaker who said no to Canada having nuclear warheads on our soil. Diefenbaker lost the election, and the Liberal leader welcomed nuclear war heads. You read a lot about American interference around the world but not much is reported on Canada-your next- door neighbor. Zelensky replaced a Ukrainian leader who knew about the dangers of provoking Russia with talk of joining NATO. And America played a big role there too. Not much reported on that.
I think one of the hallmarks of the Biden administration is that they let agencies etc. do whatever they wanted to, subject to the law and sometimes beyond it. The number of new rules and regulations published in the Federal Register was very high under Biden. I think Harris would be similar and possibly worse as regards foreign policy and our various wars throughout the globe - she seems more interested in extending government power as regards prices and hence supply of groceries and who knows what else. I think there's a chance Trump would be somewhat better especially as he's chosen Vance who has made clear his skepticism about Project Ukraine and our war on Russia.
If you don't know, after the last 3 years of WAR, that the Democrats are totally owned by the MIC and the Neo-cons in Congress, your head is clearly in the sand.
The US is now supporting TWO WARS. We may not be pulling the triggers, but we are supplying the weapons.
Antiwar.con has two articles for anybody wondering where America’s Next War will be,,, :
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: CHINA IS THE ‘MOST SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE’ IN US HISTORY: Kurt Campbell says the Cold War with the Soviet Union 'pales in comparison' to the "challenges" presented by China / by Dave DeCamp 19 Sep 24 2024
Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said on Wednesday that China is the “most significant challenge” the United States has ever faced.
“THERE IS A RECOGNITION THAT THIS IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE IN OUR HISTORY,” CAMPBELL TOLD THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, ACCORDING TO AFP. “FRANKLY, THE COLD WAR PALES IN COMPARISON TO THE MULTIFACETED CHALLENGES THAT CHINA PRESENTS.”
Campbell is a long-time China hawk and has been pushing for more of a focus on the Asia Pacific since the Obama administration and is considered the architect of the so-called “Asia pivot.” He was confirmed as the deputy secretary of state back in February and previously served as the top Asia official on President Biden’s National Security Council.
“IT’S NOT JUST A MILITARY CHALLENGE; IT’S ACROSS THE BOARD. IT IS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH. IT IS IN TECHNOLOGY. WE NEED TO STEP UP OUR GAME ACROSS THE BOARD,” CAMPBELL TOLD THE COMMITTEE. DURING THE HEARING, HE CALLED FOR EUROPE TO GET TOUGHER ON CHINA AND JOIN THE US IN SANCTIONS ON CHINESE COMPANIES.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian was asked to respond to Campbell’s remarks during a daily press conference and said they are “steeped in Cold War and zero-sum mentality.”
“China is committed to carrying out friendly cooperation with all countries in the world, and we do not target any third party when developing normal relations with other countries. By contrast, the US has been strengthening its military alliances, patching up small groupings against China, and coercing other countries to choose sides,” Lin added.
Campbell’s view that Beijing is the top threat facing the US is shared by the Pentagon. In the 2022 National Defense Strategy, the Pentagon declared China the “most comprehensive and serious challenge to US national security strategy,” with Russia named the second leading threat.
US military leaders are openly planning for a direct war with China in the future despite the risk of the conflict turning nuclear. This week, THE US NAVY UNVEILED A PLAN TO PREPARE FOR A DIRECT FIGHT WITH CHINA BY 2027 [see Reply].
~ US NAVY CHIEF UNVEILS PLAN TO BE READY FOR WAR WITH CHINA BY 2027: The US is preparing for a direct fight with China despite the risk of it turning into a nuclear war
/ by Dave DeCamp 18 Sep24
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the highest ranking officer in the US Navy, unveiled a plan on Wednesday to be ready for a war with China by 2027 as THE US MILITARY IS PREPARING FOR A DIRECT FIGHT WITH BEIJING DESPITE THE RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR.
The plan lays out goals to be reached by 2027, including making 80% of the naval force ready for combat deployments on short notice. Franchetti told The Associated Press she wants to increase combat readiness so “if the nation calls us, we can push the ‘go’ button, and we can surge our forces to be able to meet the call.”
Other goals include increasing recruitment, improving Navy infrastructure, removing delays in ship maintenance, and increasing the use of drones and other autonomous systems.
Franchetti said THE US IS TAKING LESSONS FROM UKRAINE’S OPERATIONS AGAINST RUSSIA IN THE BLACK SEA AND THE US’S NEW WAR AGAINST THE HOUTHIS IN YEMEN. US NAVY SHIPS HAVE BATTLED THE HOUTHIS SINCE JANUARY IN WHAT US COMMANDERS HAVE CALLED THE LARGEST US NAVAL BATTLE SINCE WORLD WAR II, BUT THE CAMPAIGN HAS FAILED TO DETER OR STOP HOUTHI ATTACKS.
Franchetti said that she is focusing on getting ready for war with China by 2027 because that is “the year that that President Xi (Jinping) told his forces to be ready to invade Taiwan.” However, that idea is only based on claims from US intelligence officials.
While China has ambitious goals for its military, there’s no evidence of a direct order to be ready for an invasion of Taiwan by 2027. Earlier this year, Defense News reported that Xi raised the issue with President Biden when the two leaders met in San Francisco in November 2023.
Recounting the meeting, a US official said: “Xi basically said: ‘Look, I hear all these reports in the United States [of] how we’re planning for military action in 2027 or 2035. There are no such plans. No one has talked to me about this.'”
The Defense News report noted how the CLAIMS ABOUT A CHINESE INVASION OF TAIWAN HAVE HELPED FUNNEL MONEY TO A US MILITARY BUILDUP IN THE ASIA PACIFIC. The claim about a 2027 invasion was first made in 2021 by Retired Adm. Phil Davidson, the former head of US Indo-Pacific Command.
“The concern it generated earned a nickname: the ‘Davidson window,’ shorthand for the near-term threat of an attack on Taiwan,” Defense News reported. “And that changed how Congress spent money. The Pacific Deterrence Initiative doesn’t have its own budget, but in the last few years the US has spent more on its forces in the region.”
Mr. President, The ongoing wars in Gaza, the West Bank and Ukraine raise serious questions about American foreign policy, questions that call for honest
And good article (and questions) in your article at Counterpunch. If I were Biden and was being honest, these would be my answers:
1. Israel and AIPAC have paid me nearly $6 million over the years, so I do what Israel wants. Plus I don't want to denounced as anti-semitic by Trump and MAGA.
2. Same answer. Plus I simply don't care about the Palestinians.
3. It's popular to be anti-Putin and anti-Russia, plus a lot of people are making lots of money from this war. Besides, Americans aren't being killed, and Ukrainians aren't being forced to fight, so what's the problem?
What astounds me is that Biden openly says he is a Zionist. The President of the country of liberty and justice for all is a supporter of an ethnic cleansing project to the point of supplying it unlimited weapons and ammo to do what it was founded to do. Can there be greater hypocrisy? And Biden had the gall to say "WE stand with Israel"
The daily killing of Palestinians now has dropped below the MSM radar. AOC's office door was splashed with (I think it was) red paint for her daring to criticize the exploding pager operation by Israel. She was under attack for supporting terrorists, Hezbollah, not Israel. How can we shake off Zionism in the US? It is armed with mountains of money and in the US money gets its way.
That's interesting, Dennis. But can you get past your own insecurities and your own tribal loyalties?
What you're claiming here is that "thinking men" who are secure and not tribal are Trump supporters.
But, if you support any other candidate, you're unthinking, you're insecure, and you're tribal.
Did I read you right? So I must vote for Trump since he's the best and only choice?
Your loyalty to Trump and MAGA seems "tribal" to me. And your acceptance of his almost fanatical support of Israel as it commits genocide in Gaza suggests a lack of thought.
Dennis, suggesting that you've shown "a lack of thought" over Trump's position on Israel, Gaza, and genocide isn't meant as an insult. It's a way of saying that I believe you should rethink your position. Trump is on record as being even more outspoken in his support of Israel than Biden is. In fact, Trump has been saying all American Jews should vote for him--that voting Democrat is a betrayal. As if Jewish-Americans are defined strictly by their faith and identity as Jews.
If I were Jewish, I'd be insulted by Trump telling me that I must vote for him. That he was my only choice.
Dennis, Trump had the US embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem as a thank you to his biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson. Adelson was seated in the front row at the Trump inauguration and also in the front row with his wife Miriam at the Jerusalem embassy opening. Adelson is now deceased but his wife, Miriam, was given a box seat at the Republican convention in Milwaukee. She has pledged at least $100 million to Trump's campaign and her ask is that the West Bank be annexed by Israel with US approval. I am not hopeful that Trump will say no.
A couple of things to add as I just read today's issue of Haaretz. Two stories caught my eye: "Trump Warns US Jews They are Responsible if he Loses to Harris" and "Megadonor (Miriam) Adelson is Going All-In for Trump as Savior of the Jews"
As received Buddhist wisdom tells us: "You can't give offense to anyone who refuses to take it." Note the active, transitive nature of the verb "to take."
" ... all those tribal brainless Karens ..." sounds a lot like J. C. Vance's "childless cat women" comment which, I assume, many women voters (over half the electorate) find insulting, if not misogynistic. Probably not the best way to win election to our hopelessly corrupt bureaucracy, which seems to be your only concern. For my part, rather than interesting myself in the petty partisan squabbles over official political privilege -- and the lavish gravy train that feeds both Republican and Democratic corporations -- I want to cut the Imperial Military budget by 50% and stop the Zionist genocide of the Palestinian people (ongoing for the past 70 years). Both Donald Trump and Kamala Biden/Harris have had four years in the White House without enacting anything approaching these policies, in fact they have only made matters worse, alienating most of the planet against my country.
As one who has voted for Ralph Nader twice and Dr. Jill Stein once, I have personally experienced the frenetic efforts of the Democratic Party to deny my preferred candidates access to the ballot box, a sure admission of what and whom they truly fear. Not fearful enough, though. Not yet. Either we get more ballot access to more parties and candidates or we get some other form of government. This corporate-captured oligarchy no longer deserves the name of Republic, let alone Democracy.
I vote for what I want to see happen, not for whatever two private corporations (colluding in secrecy) tell me they've decided among themselves that I can have. The same goes for my dreams. And as a former swab jockey in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club (a.k.a., the U S Navy) I learned long ago neither to spit or to piss to windward. If only some of my starboard-side shipmates had learned the same lesson -- or ever intended to.
I've been reading about the Socialist Party and Eugene Debs. It was proposed that there be no private companies making profit off of weaponry; that the arms industry should be exclusively government run. This was a topic 105 years ago. Anyone heard about it since?
It is very concerning that at this time, when we face two great dangers - nuclear war and climate change out of control - that the two big money makers for the United States are arms and oil/gas. I heard Harris lauding the fossil fuel industry and she has never said anything against the arms industry, not surprisingly, since without those two our foreign exchange deficit would bury us as we have ceded almost all manufacturing to China. Trump is no different and for the same reason, he can't be. The economy, and that means profit making, rules. So add a third thing - nuclear war, climate change and capitalism demanding growth.
I look at my children, now 38 and 40, but much more at my grandchildren and shudder, because there is a cavalier attitude about all three problems by both the public and our "leaders". These three things are existential problems the like of which has never been seen in the history of humanity. If a giant meteorite was headed toward Earth, everyone would be in a panic, but these three threats that will not go away and are increasingly threatening with no known antidote are, at least in America, beneath notice.
Good grief. Somebody just wrote to me and said I "prefer" Harris to Trump.
I'm against the bombastic billionaire and the joy-touting neocon puppet. I hate this blue team/red team shite.
I'm voting for Jill Stein.
Bill, this is what is truly frightening. Any criticism of Harris or her campaign is met with that response - "so you want Trump to win?"
One of these people needs to explain how the administration she's part of can condone and support genocide and risk nuclear war - and how that makes Harris the better choice, even if Oprah and Beyonce support her?
Someone needs to explain to American voters how they have been suckered into the belief that a vote for a third party or independent candidate is a vote for Trump (or whoever you dislike the most).
We clearly need to strengthen alternatives to the Democratic and Republican parties.
Dennis, basically you're angry that we won't vote for Trump, so you tell us we're wasting our vote by voting for someone other than Trump or Harris. (If we said we're voting for Harris, you'd attack us as "libtards.")
We don't tell you not to vote for Trump. though we may question your reasoning and "facts." Why presume to tell us how dumb we are for "wasting" our votes? Is this a lesson from Dale Carnegie?
Dennis, you say "It's a systemic problem" and tell us to vote as that system wants us to vote. You are so fierce in your view, it almost seems you do not want a third party to get any votes, condemning the system only to defend it with your advice.
That many of us don't want either of the two candidates doesn't seem to reach you. You appear to be convinced that the future is locked in the iron grip of the past. It isn't. Things change. The future is not fixed. We don't vote on the past, but on what we want for the future. We all know that you feel a third party effort is hopeless, but there is no logic in thinking that one must be bound to keep it that way by not choosing a third party. Repetition of a view doesn't give it force. Please allow us to depart from your view and vote as we think best.
Each voter is not to blame for other voter's poor choices. Just think what COULD happen is everyone actually voted for the best candidate instead of (blindly, in the secret ballot) attempting to follow all the other sheeple?
Dennis has drunk the Kool-Aid, Clif. For him, anything that has never happened or hasn't happened recently is impossible and that it hasn't happened is proof that it's impossible.
In 1492, Dennis would have bet that Columbus would perish sailing over the edge of the earth.
Britain and the US are locked in to the two-party systems. Other countries, e.g. France and Germany seem more open to third parties, although the ones in power fight it. Interestingly the third parties there can be characterized as wanting cessation of hostilities in Ukraine and control of their respective borders. In this case the systems of France and Germany seem superior to the two-party ones.
In so many ways, sadly, America basically has one party. As the joke goes, one bird with two right wings.
This is the argument everyone needs to use against the "waste your vote" people. As has been said many times, there is only one party in DC and that is the war party. A vote for either of the war teams is wasted if your goal is peace. In fact, you are sabotaging your own goals in a vain attempt to "not waste your vote".
Oh..
And BTW, what do either Oprah and Beyonce know about kindness and moral behavior? They are supporting Harris. So, they support WAR and KILLING.
Totally agree. The choice is the US continues to kill innocents, not pulling triggers, but paying others to do so, OR....TRUMP.
I'll vote for Trump anytime before WAR and KILLING.
Exactly right, Tom.
Are we suppose to choose between FEAR and HATRED of TRUMP, as opposed to FEAR and HATRED of WAR and the KILLING of innocents?
This is the choice we get?
I'm voting TRUMP. I don't have to love the guy to remember there were no WARS in his administration.
As you've pointed out your vote won't matter in your state, which will end up voting for Harris regardless. Ditto for my vote, as my state will vote for Trump regardless. Hey, the way things are developing in Ukraine this may be the last vote we ever get to take (if we get there). It may as well be for the people you actually prefer.
When Voting I may have to possibly write in my Fave. "Permanent Major" from when I was a Sky-Cop, Sgt. in SAC Strategic Air Command-- Major King Kong, Slim Pickens! :/ :o)
I see your point, Bill. Stein seems saner than the other choices, BUT I'm focused on an issue bigger than sanity at the moment.
Trump doesn't like WAR.
Biden/Harris/Democrats immediately got into office and pushed the Ukraine war, and are now pouring our money into BOTH Ukraine and Israel.
KILLING innocents is something I cannot support.
Both financing it and pulling the triggers are immoral.
Harris will continue this path. This is beyond a doubt. She is clearly a puppet, mouth piece for the neo-cons. Biden loves WAR. He's yet to vote against one.
So it's TRUMP for me. Not a vote for him. A vote against KILLING and WAR.
If Trump wins, I hope you're right about him.
It's about time someone included the media as part of the war mongering machine. The media profits from war as much as (if not more than) the weapons makers.
You are so right and I speak as someone with over two decades working for ABC-TV. For the 1991 Iraq War the graphics department was busy working on the lineup of weapons available to each side, but not just war is profitable, so is fear. The "Ten o'clock News" was teased (that means a snippet promo during prime time to get people to watch the news) with such stuff as "Children's nightgowns found to be flammable - details at ten!" and then the endless stories of this or that awful killing or crime in the inner city that would make the fearful white audience feel lucky to be far away from it. I mentioned here long ago that I couldn't bear it and quit the industry.
I've often thought - would it make a difference in anyone's life if they never watched "the news" on commercial TV? It never has anything to do with their own lives. I think psychologically a person would be healthier and happier without it. Need I say I don't have a TV? (or a smartphone).
It did make a big difference when I stopped watching "the news" and discontinued my subscription to NYT soon after the "weapons of mass destruction" fraud. Since then
I have more time to research what is happening
I don't get a lot of bullshit
I enjoy reading and hearing alternative views
I don't have to watch the f'king commercials
I get the news I want when I want it and don't have to wait for 50 stupid announements.
and several other benefits.
Try it. You'll like it.
Truth in advertising: I used to watch the Daily Show with John Stewart on the Comedy Channel. That was the best news source on TV. But it's not the same since he retired.
I saw an AI generated Flyover of Fighter Jets last Nite. on my Thursday Nite. Football Streaming Jets Vs. N.E. Patriots-- Live from the Met Life Stadium in New Jersey....!
Yes, I saw that too! Unbelievable.
I only saw part of the game and I missed the, um, flyover. Hey at least it saves on fuel.
Scott Ritter wrote a column yesterday for ConsortiumNews titled '72 Minutes' where he speculated on how events might have transpired if Biden had authorized US support for Ukraine's long range strikes on Russia. It was plausible and terrifying as escalation to nuclear war took only a few exchanges of conventional strikes.
It's unclear if it was DOD and Austin, supported by Jake Sullivan that stopped the rush by Blinken and the neocons to war - but whoever it was deserves our profound gratitude.
A question for both Harris and Trump supporters- who will be the ones whispering in their ears, and who will they be listening to in the first grave crisis in their administrations?
Excellent column by Scott Ritter. Thanks for mentioning it and luckily we didn't have a nuclear war this time. But we are dancing hourly on the knife edge of nuclear war and I fear for the future. Perhaps if our "wise leaders" would read Annie Jacobsen’s alarming must-read book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, it might bring us hope.
JFK read The Guns of August a few months before the Cuban Missile Crisis; that informed him about the ways in which events spin out of control. I can't see Harris or Trump, or any of their acolytes, spending any time reading or reflecting on anything but popularity polls. They reflect a country that now reads little and understands less.
And yet it was a Soviet officer on a submarine that stopped a nuclear torpedo from being launched. JFK was lucky.
Absolutely. All of us owe our existence to Vasili Arkhipov who was aboard the B-59 Foxtrot that day. The same with Stansilav Petrov, who was the watch officer in 1983 during the KAL 007/Able Archer tensions and decided an incoming missile alert was a computer issue.
Whenever the psychopaths here talk about how the Russians are monsters, I remember those two Russian men whose humanity saved the world from destruction.
My understanding is that it's the military that's been restraining the civilians (Blinken and Sullivan). Exactly the opposite of the original design, in which the civilians are supposed to restrain the hotheads in the military. Biden seems to be siding with the military for now, although his history is that eventually he gives in to B & S. The stakes get increasingly higher. Trump is on record that he would talk to Putin and that the killing needs to stop, which is also what Vance and Don Jr. (a chief DJT advisor) seem to think. What Harris thinks about all this is anybody's guess. Her goal seems to be to get the Presidency without telling anyone what's going on in her head.
I wonder if the military brass, given the terrible record of US actions, is reluctant to jump into dicey situations. When you figure that the real purpose of our huge military budget is to pump money into the US economy and help the foreign exchange deficit, who needs actual wars that we fight?
Dennis, I think the more voices any of these candidates actually listen to would be an improvement over the tight controls they seem to be under.
... leading our government and ourselves into this mess, where we are now stuck every election cycle picking individuals keeping the entire scheme rolling along
... acting like it all can just keep on indefinitely w/o change... clueless
To your list of MICIMATT players, all you need to add are the billionaires, and you can simplify the whole shebang to The Blob. Billionaires are at the top of the food chain, and have lots of control over all of the MICIMATT. Think of all the gigantic contracts that people like Musk and Bezos have with the military and 3 letter agencies. Think of all the control they have over university agendas through endowments, and control over the news media by literally owning them. Very often, CIA covert operations involve off the books financing by the donor class. You know that Musk has been bankrolling some of the coup attempts in Venezuela and other South American socialist countries. When people talk about the MICIMATT, they often leave out some of the bigger players, which happen to be some of the richest people in the world who desperately want cheaper access to resources in other people's countries.
Common Dreams recently reported: New report: $1.1 trillion – or 62% – of the federal discretionary budget was spent on militarism and war last year. “When we invest so heavily in militarism at home and abroad, we deprive our own communities and people of solutions to problems that pose immediate security threats.” WASHINGTON - On May 24, the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies released a critical new analysis of the militarized budget in the United States, “The Warfare State: How Funding for Militarism Compromises our Welfare.” The new report found that this past year, out of a $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget, the U.S. spent a staggering $1.1 trillion – or 62% – of that budget on militarism and war. Threats to cut spending for vital domestic programs have featured prominently in the debt ceiling debate in recent weeks, but spending on militarism has been almost entirely exempt from the discussion. Meanwhile, clawing back failed military, homeland security and law enforcement spending could instead fund programs and measures to address the true needs of American communities. When all you got is a huge hammer a hammer that keeps growing everything at home and aboard looks like a nail." Trudeau, please ignore NATO's demand of spending as much as America trys to muscle you too. Actually, he has done as good of job as possible of not being bullied. The JFK administration campaigned against Canada's sitting prime minister Diefenbaker who said no to Canada having nuclear warheads on our soil. Diefenbaker lost the election, and the Liberal leader welcomed nuclear war heads. You read a lot about American interference around the world but not much is reported on Canada-your next- door neighbor. Zelensky replaced a Ukrainian leader who knew about the dangers of provoking Russia with talk of joining NATO. And America played a big role there too. Not much reported on that.
"Cleaning up corruption in Ukraine" was code name for getting a war mongering fool-puppet leader that supported American/NATO expansion-militarism.
I think one of the hallmarks of the Biden administration is that they let agencies etc. do whatever they wanted to, subject to the law and sometimes beyond it. The number of new rules and regulations published in the Federal Register was very high under Biden. I think Harris would be similar and possibly worse as regards foreign policy and our various wars throughout the globe - she seems more interested in extending government power as regards prices and hence supply of groceries and who knows what else. I think there's a chance Trump would be somewhat better especially as he's chosen Vance who has made clear his skepticism about Project Ukraine and our war on Russia.
Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about the danger of the military-industrial-complex.
https://warismakinguspoor.com/2024/04/16/dwight-d-eisenhower-warned-us-about-the-danger-of-the-military-industrial-complex-video/ ... and again, the solution is to mount a "people's" challenge to the centrist establishment candidates who are paid well to keep the MIC in place ... https://warismakinguspoor.com/a-nation-at-peace/
If you don't know, after the last 3 years of WAR, that the Democrats are totally owned by the MIC and the Neo-cons in Congress, your head is clearly in the sand.
The US is now supporting TWO WARS. We may not be pulling the triggers, but we are supplying the weapons.
We are KILLING innocents.
Stop the WARS.
Stop the KILLING.
Antiwar.con has two articles for anybody wondering where America’s Next War will be,,, :
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: CHINA IS THE ‘MOST SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE’ IN US HISTORY: Kurt Campbell says the Cold War with the Soviet Union 'pales in comparison' to the "challenges" presented by China / by Dave DeCamp 19 Sep 24 2024
Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said on Wednesday that China is the “most significant challenge” the United States has ever faced.
“THERE IS A RECOGNITION THAT THIS IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE IN OUR HISTORY,” CAMPBELL TOLD THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, ACCORDING TO AFP. “FRANKLY, THE COLD WAR PALES IN COMPARISON TO THE MULTIFACETED CHALLENGES THAT CHINA PRESENTS.”
Campbell is a long-time China hawk and has been pushing for more of a focus on the Asia Pacific since the Obama administration and is considered the architect of the so-called “Asia pivot.” He was confirmed as the deputy secretary of state back in February and previously served as the top Asia official on President Biden’s National Security Council.
“IT’S NOT JUST A MILITARY CHALLENGE; IT’S ACROSS THE BOARD. IT IS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH. IT IS IN TECHNOLOGY. WE NEED TO STEP UP OUR GAME ACROSS THE BOARD,” CAMPBELL TOLD THE COMMITTEE. DURING THE HEARING, HE CALLED FOR EUROPE TO GET TOUGHER ON CHINA AND JOIN THE US IN SANCTIONS ON CHINESE COMPANIES.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian was asked to respond to Campbell’s remarks during a daily press conference and said they are “steeped in Cold War and zero-sum mentality.”
“China is committed to carrying out friendly cooperation with all countries in the world, and we do not target any third party when developing normal relations with other countries. By contrast, the US has been strengthening its military alliances, patching up small groupings against China, and coercing other countries to choose sides,” Lin added.
Campbell’s view that Beijing is the top threat facing the US is shared by the Pentagon. In the 2022 National Defense Strategy, the Pentagon declared China the “most comprehensive and serious challenge to US national security strategy,” with Russia named the second leading threat.
US military leaders are openly planning for a direct war with China in the future despite the risk of the conflict turning nuclear. This week, THE US NAVY UNVEILED A PLAN TO PREPARE FOR A DIRECT FIGHT WITH CHINA BY 2027 [see Reply].
Source: https://news.antiwar.com/2024/09/19/deputy-secretary-of-state-china-is-the-most-significant-challenge-in-us-history/ ; EMPHASES added.
~ US NAVY CHIEF UNVEILS PLAN TO BE READY FOR WAR WITH CHINA BY 2027: The US is preparing for a direct fight with China despite the risk of it turning into a nuclear war
/ by Dave DeCamp 18 Sep24
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the highest ranking officer in the US Navy, unveiled a plan on Wednesday to be ready for a war with China by 2027 as THE US MILITARY IS PREPARING FOR A DIRECT FIGHT WITH BEIJING DESPITE THE RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR.
The plan lays out goals to be reached by 2027, including making 80% of the naval force ready for combat deployments on short notice. Franchetti told The Associated Press she wants to increase combat readiness so “if the nation calls us, we can push the ‘go’ button, and we can surge our forces to be able to meet the call.”
Other goals include increasing recruitment, improving Navy infrastructure, removing delays in ship maintenance, and increasing the use of drones and other autonomous systems.
Franchetti said THE US IS TAKING LESSONS FROM UKRAINE’S OPERATIONS AGAINST RUSSIA IN THE BLACK SEA AND THE US’S NEW WAR AGAINST THE HOUTHIS IN YEMEN. US NAVY SHIPS HAVE BATTLED THE HOUTHIS SINCE JANUARY IN WHAT US COMMANDERS HAVE CALLED THE LARGEST US NAVAL BATTLE SINCE WORLD WAR II, BUT THE CAMPAIGN HAS FAILED TO DETER OR STOP HOUTHI ATTACKS.
Franchetti said that she is focusing on getting ready for war with China by 2027 because that is “the year that that President Xi (Jinping) told his forces to be ready to invade Taiwan.” However, that idea is only based on claims from US intelligence officials.
While China has ambitious goals for its military, there’s no evidence of a direct order to be ready for an invasion of Taiwan by 2027. Earlier this year, Defense News reported that Xi raised the issue with President Biden when the two leaders met in San Francisco in November 2023.
Recounting the meeting, a US official said: “Xi basically said: ‘Look, I hear all these reports in the United States [of] how we’re planning for military action in 2027 or 2035. There are no such plans. No one has talked to me about this.'”
The Defense News report noted how the CLAIMS ABOUT A CHINESE INVASION OF TAIWAN HAVE HELPED FUNNEL MONEY TO A US MILITARY BUILDUP IN THE ASIA PACIFIC. The claim about a 2027 invasion was first made in 2021 by Retired Adm. Phil Davidson, the former head of US Indo-Pacific Command.
“The concern it generated earned a nickname: the ‘Davidson window,’ shorthand for the near-term threat of an attack on Taiwan,” Defense News reported. “And that changed how Congress spent money. The Pacific Deterrence Initiative doesn’t have its own budget, but in the last few years the US has spent more on its forces in the region.”
Source: https://news.antiwar.com/2024/09/18/us-navy-chief-unveils-plan-to-be-ready-for-war-with-china-by-2027/ ; EMPHASES added.
URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/09/18/some-whys-an-open-letter-to-president-biden/
Some Whys? An Open Letter to President Biden
Mr. President, The ongoing wars in Gaza, the West Bank and Ukraine raise serious questions about American foreign policy, questions that call for honest
www.counterpunch.org
Bill, please note I have a paid subscription. Mike
Thanks so much, Mike. I appreciate it.
And good article (and questions) in your article at Counterpunch. If I were Biden and was being honest, these would be my answers:
1. Israel and AIPAC have paid me nearly $6 million over the years, so I do what Israel wants. Plus I don't want to denounced as anti-semitic by Trump and MAGA.
2. Same answer. Plus I simply don't care about the Palestinians.
3. It's popular to be anti-Putin and anti-Russia, plus a lot of people are making lots of money from this war. Besides, Americans aren't being killed, and Ukrainians aren't being forced to fight, so what's the problem?
What astounds me is that Biden openly says he is a Zionist. The President of the country of liberty and justice for all is a supporter of an ethnic cleansing project to the point of supplying it unlimited weapons and ammo to do what it was founded to do. Can there be greater hypocrisy? And Biden had the gall to say "WE stand with Israel"
The daily killing of Palestinians now has dropped below the MSM radar. AOC's office door was splashed with (I think it was) red paint for her daring to criticize the exploding pager operation by Israel. She was under attack for supporting terrorists, Hezbollah, not Israel. How can we shake off Zionism in the US? It is armed with mountains of money and in the US money gets its way.
That's interesting, Dennis. But can you get past your own insecurities and your own tribal loyalties?
What you're claiming here is that "thinking men" who are secure and not tribal are Trump supporters.
But, if you support any other candidate, you're unthinking, you're insecure, and you're tribal.
Did I read you right? So I must vote for Trump since he's the best and only choice?
Your loyalty to Trump and MAGA seems "tribal" to me. And your acceptance of his almost fanatical support of Israel as it commits genocide in Gaza suggests a lack of thought.
I'm no fan of Kamala, that's for sure.
But how did I insult you? Please explain.
Dennis, suggesting that you've shown "a lack of thought" over Trump's position on Israel, Gaza, and genocide isn't meant as an insult. It's a way of saying that I believe you should rethink your position. Trump is on record as being even more outspoken in his support of Israel than Biden is. In fact, Trump has been saying all American Jews should vote for him--that voting Democrat is a betrayal. As if Jewish-Americans are defined strictly by their faith and identity as Jews.
If I were Jewish, I'd be insulted by Trump telling me that I must vote for him. That he was my only choice.
Dennis, Trump had the US embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem as a thank you to his biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson. Adelson was seated in the front row at the Trump inauguration and also in the front row with his wife Miriam at the Jerusalem embassy opening. Adelson is now deceased but his wife, Miriam, was given a box seat at the Republican convention in Milwaukee. She has pledged at least $100 million to Trump's campaign and her ask is that the West Bank be annexed by Israel with US approval. I am not hopeful that Trump will say no.
A couple of things to add as I just read today's issue of Haaretz. Two stories caught my eye: "Trump Warns US Jews They are Responsible if he Loses to Harris" and "Megadonor (Miriam) Adelson is Going All-In for Trump as Savior of the Jews"
As received Buddhist wisdom tells us: "You can't give offense to anyone who refuses to take it." Note the active, transitive nature of the verb "to take."
" ... all those tribal brainless Karens ..." sounds a lot like J. C. Vance's "childless cat women" comment which, I assume, many women voters (over half the electorate) find insulting, if not misogynistic. Probably not the best way to win election to our hopelessly corrupt bureaucracy, which seems to be your only concern. For my part, rather than interesting myself in the petty partisan squabbles over official political privilege -- and the lavish gravy train that feeds both Republican and Democratic corporations -- I want to cut the Imperial Military budget by 50% and stop the Zionist genocide of the Palestinian people (ongoing for the past 70 years). Both Donald Trump and Kamala Biden/Harris have had four years in the White House without enacting anything approaching these policies, in fact they have only made matters worse, alienating most of the planet against my country.
As one who has voted for Ralph Nader twice and Dr. Jill Stein once, I have personally experienced the frenetic efforts of the Democratic Party to deny my preferred candidates access to the ballot box, a sure admission of what and whom they truly fear. Not fearful enough, though. Not yet. Either we get more ballot access to more parties and candidates or we get some other form of government. This corporate-captured oligarchy no longer deserves the name of Republic, let alone Democracy.
I vote for what I want to see happen, not for whatever two private corporations (colluding in secrecy) tell me they've decided among themselves that I can have. The same goes for my dreams. And as a former swab jockey in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club (a.k.a., the U S Navy) I learned long ago neither to spit or to piss to windward. If only some of my starboard-side shipmates had learned the same lesson -- or ever intended to.
I've been reading about the Socialist Party and Eugene Debs. It was proposed that there be no private companies making profit off of weaponry; that the arms industry should be exclusively government run. This was a topic 105 years ago. Anyone heard about it since?
It is very concerning that at this time, when we face two great dangers - nuclear war and climate change out of control - that the two big money makers for the United States are arms and oil/gas. I heard Harris lauding the fossil fuel industry and she has never said anything against the arms industry, not surprisingly, since without those two our foreign exchange deficit would bury us as we have ceded almost all manufacturing to China. Trump is no different and for the same reason, he can't be. The economy, and that means profit making, rules. So add a third thing - nuclear war, climate change and capitalism demanding growth.
I look at my children, now 38 and 40, but much more at my grandchildren and shudder, because there is a cavalier attitude about all three problems by both the public and our "leaders". These three things are existential problems the like of which has never been seen in the history of humanity. If a giant meteorite was headed toward Earth, everyone would be in a panic, but these three threats that will not go away and are increasingly threatening with no known antidote are, at least in America, beneath notice.
Thanks Karl. Any reference to Tacitus and his history of Rome and the relevance to the world of today are much appreciated.