airmonkey1001

Are they insulted by the rich and powerful typifying them as plumbers who drink a lot? If not, should they be?

I mean, they think Obama is a socialist which is totally ridiculous - sure it's because the Repubs are saying that but to believe that you must have no idea about socialism.

Being so completely ignorant, do normal Americans deserve to remain over-worked, stressed out, friendless (and by that I mean having no real friends just people who are friends with you from selfish interest) and poor?

Let's face it McCain does not come across well on TV - he's old, has had lots of plastic surgery because he's ashamed of his age and cannot express himself very well just keeps saying the same old worn out nonsense. He's like an angry old man.

And let's not even get into Palin who uses power to settle family disputes and is a maniac religious knows nothing about the World redneck.

My question is this - do the Republican want to lose so the Iraq/ Afghanistan mess gets blamed on the Democrats (as in many ways it should be as they went along with it all with few protests) and the economy so the Republicans can then be re-elected and carry on with their radical give rich people everything and kill foreigners policies???

That's right they've got a guy who drove for Osama in Gitmo.

And how about Bin Laden's teachers at school? How about his family - oh no sorry they are close personal Friends of the Bush Dynasty so they must be great people.

How about Bin Laden's neighbours? What about the guy that makes him tea? And the owner of the company that handles his mobile phone calls from that cave where he is hiding and directing all terrorist activity in the World?

Let's face it, this guy has had plastic surgery on his face. He looks like an alien or a siamese cat and his old skin is bunched up by his ears.

He's trying to hide his age so: -

1) should a guy that is so old he needs plastic surgery on his face be allowed to run? What if he keels over mid-term?

2)should a guy that pretends he is a younger than he is be allowed to run? He is not even honest looking in the mirror.

3)should some metro-sexual vain guy who has plastic surgery on his face be allowed to run?

I mean, I know McCain is so loaded he's forgotten how many houses he owns (could it be Altzheimers?) and all these super rich elite yankee royalty are probably doing it now, but this really takes the biscuit!

What do you think of razor-face?

Ok, bombing is cost effective, you don't risk your own troops and if you can dominate the skies you can do it without those on the ground being able to fight back.

But let's face it, this is overkill and leads to a large number of civilian casualties.

During the 2nd World War the only time the US got bombed was Pearl Harbour which was after all a military target and the US, although not involved in the War militarily, was helping the allied powers. Big mistake Japan - one that led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were cities, civilian targets, which the US nuked when they had more or less won the war anyway.

The US conducted a huge bombing campaign of Germany - bombing far more than the Germans did (and let's not forget the US was not being bombed) and the Dresden Fire Bombings resulted in the largest massacre in European History.

The US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than were dropped in the 2nd World War by both sides -and they also bombed Cambodia into the bargain (a country they weren't even at war with) creating a power vacuum into which Polpot and the Khmer Rouger serged.

I could go on.

Hamad Karzai - a puppet dictator who the US have installed - has got so fed up with US bombing he's told them to stop after 60 kids were killed in one strike.

Is bombing really the best way to go? I don't think so.

So why does the US, a country with so much respect for human rights, like bombing so much?

Sixty children were killed in air strikes by US-led coalition warplanes in western Afghanistan last week, a UN investigation has found. UN investigators said they discovered "convincing evidence" that a total of 90 Afghan civilians died in the incident.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/27/afghan...

How would the US react if terrorists killed 60 kids in the US?

antiwar.com has this to say about Obama's appointment of Biden.

Given the dangerous precedent set by the Iraq war resolution, naming one of its principal supporters as potentially the next vice president of the United States has raised serious questions regarding Obama's commitment to international law. This comes at a time when the global community is so desperately hoping for a more responsible U.S. foreign policy following eight years of Bush.

Early in his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to not only end the war in Iraq, but to also challenge the mindset that got the United States into Iraq in the first place. Choosing Biden as his running mate, however, raises doubts regarding Obama's actual commitment to "change we can believe in."

Does this mean that the US will continue in its disregard for International Law and the independence of other nations? And if so, are we seeing the end of the US Empire or will it continue until we have a One World Government?

http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=13361

Here's the situation -

President George Bush wants the pact to authorise a troop presence at least until 2011 so that he can trumpet it as proof of his policy's success. But the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has adopted the rise in nationalist feeling in the Iraqi parliament and among the public and is insisting on a clear timetable for withdrawal, the lifting of judicial immunity for US troops who commit abuses, and a veto on US military operations, including the arrest of Iraqis.

Here's the link: - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/22/iraq.u...

So, the question is this - if the invasion and occupation of Iraq are to help the Iraqis establish democracy, why don't Dubya and Friends do what the democratically elected government ask them?

Does the US army push around the US government too? I think not.

I mean, watch anything about America and the stars and stripes will be hanging there somewhere. Watch a film and the hero has to have that flag hanging outside his door and now with the elections you're seeing those massive flags with crowds of Americans standing around waving more flags.

Why are they so obsessed with their flag?

In Slaughter House 5 (a book) it talks about the fact that in the States the poor are blamed for their own poverty - you know all that American Dream stuff you make your own luck anyone can be a millionaire nonsense.

And of course if you don't you're a useless human being and a disgrace to society etc.

So, is this true? Do Americans hate poor people and do poor Americans (ie most Americans and I don't mean very poor just not well off) blame themselves?

PS- in the rest of the World it isn't like this. People realise that it is not so easy to make lots of money.

And not only poor - also young, far too young to understand the World and far too young to die.

And yes, Afghanistan is about oil (pipelines) and so is Iraq - these are wars fought by poor people who join the army so they may make some money for their future and they are fighting them so rich people who own oil companies can get richer.

The West supported Kosovo's bid for independence and that was great but now if you listen to the Western Media it seems that South Ossetia has no right to be a small independent country and it's perfectly ok for Georgia to invade and take over.

Is it just about surrounding Russia with Nato members (contrary to treaty obligations) and US missiles? Does Russia have a right to equality with the West?

Let's face it, China owns the US - they're holding 4 trillion dollars and at any moment can destroy the US economy.

So, when are they going to do it?

Then spout nonsense about freedom? Are people in prison free?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration#Incarce...

And for that matter a mercenary or an assassin or someone that you give some money to to kill someone else???

Does anyone know what the policies of the candidates are?

What are the differences if any? And I'm not talking about their personlities or personal history, I'm talking in terms of what they say they're going to do.

Would they invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Bomb the hell out of Vietnam killing half the people there then spray the country with deadly chemicals? What would they do to the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama and Yugoslavia? Would they do all they could to keep countries like Mexico and Cuba in abject poverty? Would they start supporting the Israelis in the genocide of the Palestinians? Would they help Indonesia kill everyone in East Timor? Would they brainwash everyone in Iran so they believe that Iran has a god given right to rape the planet and the World actually loves them for it?

Or would they just pop over to North America murder the native population then kidnap a bunch of Africans to create a new super state?

Let's face it, torture has been around for a long time and even though the Geneva Convention banned it it was still going on secretely.

Now however we see that Bush and Friends have decided that torture is ok again in this dangerous world we live in (even though the US has no rival to its enormous military power unequalled in history). It's get killed by nasty terrorists or allow us to torture people so we can protect you.

At the moment this is confined to a military setting - although they can just decide you are a terrorist and torture the hell out of you anyway.

It can't stay that way for long and the World can see the direction the US is going in so I was just wondering how will it be until the police can routinely torture suspects? This has to be the next step in oppressing the population and it's going to be neccessary once people realise their jobs are all going to places where labour is much cheaper...

That's right according to Dick Cheney and I though he was supposed to be intelligent.

You know what I think it is? Arrogance. These yanks have lorded it over the World for so long they just don't give a ...