Why SHOULDN'T we nominate someone who doesn't think we're only here to invade other countries?

[Ken Burch]

We already know that there is no other country in which we can make anything better by using force...and certainly no place where a U.S. military intervention can ever have a progressive or even humane result(the Arab Muslim War of 2003-? proves that), so why should we feel obligated to nominate anyone as a Democrat who sees the use of force as the natural default move of U.S. foreign policy.

"Leading the world" is a right-wing, racist, sexist, homophobic and imperialist concept, anyway

It can't liberate anyone.

It can't free anyone from want.

It can't free anyone from oppression, bigotry or fear(no U.S. intervention has done that since VE Day).

And we've done it long enough now.

Let's find something ELSE to be good at as a nation. Something besides ending other people's lives in other people's lands.

It's enough to defend our own territory from outside attack. That is all any country should ever do with its armies.

[HassleCat]

1. When your only tool is a hammer

Everything looks like a nail.

[HereSince1628]

2. Please don't shoot me...but, it seems Ponzi schemes work only if

the bottom keeps getting bigger. Our capitalist empire is a Ponzi scheme, owned by corporations, dependent upon growing spheres of controlled interests.

The system we've been born into (or adopted) survives by expansion, colonization,or economic assimilation that is leveraged by coercion brought about by fettering financial relationships made possible by our almighty dollar and military power.

It's not right, of course.

But ending fear and financial control will be the end of life as we know it.

I fear that in the Oligarchs world view that sees war as good, peace promotes expensive domestic spending, peace is unproductive for the empire and probably only good in a strategic sense as a preparation for war.