Martin Shrekreli, an ex-hedge find manager, bought a phamaceutical company, Turing, and raised the price of the drug Daraprim from $13.50 to $750.00 per pill. Daraprim is known to treat cancer and AIDS.
democracy means a government of the people, socialism means a sharing of (or
government controlling) the means of production and distribution of goods. But
is there really a difference? It ain't necessarily so.
government has a public obligation, through a constitution, to uphold
fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, labor rights, access to free and/or affordable healthcare,
voting rights and is representative by and for the people, then socialism is
another word for democracy. After all, socialism is supposed to be
representative of people having power, e.g., the working class controlling the
means of production. Democracy is similar where power is supposed to be in the
hands of the people through their representatives. (But it's not just about
government is reflective of the people having political and economic power. And
whether it's representatives in government or workers in a business, power is
shared among them within a reasonable framework as they play their respective
roles in the maintaining of a society. For example, economic power: workers
having decision-making powers in a business, such as voting for their managers
or board of directors, setting policies and creating a fairer distribution of
profits; something like workers' cooperatives. Government and its
representatives, making laws, would step in a regulatory role to see that the
laws, in this case pertaining to the economy, are reasonably upheld. In certain
situations, referendums could be held to decide on a particular policy
involving the economy.
capitalism wouldn't disappear, a socialist government would regulate it. This
is on par with Abraham Lincoln's statement that labor is superior to capital.
The Failed Stalinist Model
has shown that Stalinism failed to live up to its "socialist"
standards, although certain successes were produced such as rapid industrialization,
free healthcare and education and repelling the Nazi invasion of the USSR during
WWII. (Perhaps despite Stalinism.) At one point, a few years after the 1917
October Revolution in Russia, Bolsheviks like Vladimir Lenin and Nicholai
Bucharin were introducing the New Economic Policy whereby capitalism would be
utilized but under socialism. There would be negotiations with the peasants as
opposed to conducting forced requisition of grain from them that occurred after
the Revolution, during the Civil War between the Reds and Whites, and the
invasion of the Western Powers and Japan.
some years after Lenin died, Stalin ordered the NEP stopped. His goal was
"full socialism." (An interesting term since socialism is an
intermediary step, in Marxist terms, between capitalism and communism.) It was
also called "socialism in one country." The Soviet Union had to
industrialize quickly to ward off any foreign threats. But this could have been
done with the NEP.
introduced forced collectivization and state ownership of everything (“public
the late 1930s, a great purge began resulting in the Show Trials. Stalin had
accused his own "comrades" of launching all sorts of conspiracies
against him, calling them "enemies of the people," and had them
executed. Many in the rank-and-file of the Communist Party were purged.
the early 1990s, the Soviet Union dissolved, ending whatever what was left of
the Stalinist model in the former USSR.
Bernie Sanders and the
socialist Bernie Sanders has touted the Scandinavian countries as having an
answer to governing a country. The Scandinavian countries combine capitalism
with low barriers to "free" trade and a strong public sector. There
is a strong social safety net, free education and universal healthcare. There
are also partnerships between unions, employers and the government to negotiate
the conditions in a workplace where it would be self-regulated.
favors using Scandinavianpractices for
the United States.
neoliberal reforms have been introduced, notably in Sweden, where there has
been a rise in inequality. Workers and unions worry that these reforms would
make further inroads. And neoliberal reforms and "free" trade can
tend to go hand-in-hand.
the success, the Scandinavian countries are not entirely immune to the current
world economic order. Neoliberals and neoconservatives want to go far and wide
to attain their ideological objectives.
Albert Einstein's Views on
Einstein's credentials as a socialist are reflected in his piece, "Why
Socialism?," published in the Monthly Review in 1949. Einstein wrote about
the "predatory phase" of human development, and asserted that
"the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond
the predatory phase..." He also asserted that "socialism is directed
towards a social-ethical end."
here is additional information:
also wrote about the role of private capital:
capital tends to become concentrated in a few hands, partly because of
competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development
and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of
production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments
is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be
effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society [at
least the bourgeois concept of it]."
roles of the individual and society are also touched upon:
abstract concept 'society' means to the individual human being the sum total of
his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people
of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive and work
by himself; but he depends so much on society-in his physical, intellectual,
and emotional existence. It is 'society' which provides man with food,
clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought. However,
the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings is variable and
susceptible to change."
the individual and socialism:
is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned
economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the
individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely
difficult socio-political problems: How can the rights of the individual be
protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy
For a Democratic/Socialist
is still taboo, at least in U.S. society, to openly talk about and debate
socialism without the demonic stereotypes. Whatever is mentioned of it is
strongly negative and biased. But the U.S. population has been conditioned to
immediately think that socialism is "evil" by a capitalist-owned media
and a capitalist-ruled government. Thus, having a balanced narrative on the
subject is near to impossible.
as conditions get harder for the average citizen, there may be more attention
drawn to asking questions about socialism. In the United States today, 36% view
socialism favorably. And in a 6/24/2015 Gallup poll, 47% said they would
consider voting for a socialist candidate. There may come a time where the
citizenry will get fed up with the boom and bust cycles of capitalist rule (and
imperial wars that help it).
Perhaps then, the masses will recognize that not
only is socialism another word for democracy, but an advanced form of
David Starr writes on various issues, both
national and international.
Dick Cheney's responses to the Obama
administration's Iran peace deal come as no surprise. The word
"peace" is not in Cheney's vocabulary.
In one FOX "news" interview,
Cheney compared Obama to Britain's prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who
tried using diplomacy with Nazi Germany. This is hardly a valid accusation.
Cheney further discredits himself. Iran is in no position to attack another
country, much less conquer the world. True, Iran is a theocracy, where its
leaders live in a distant past characterized by Islamic fundamentalism. But it
doesn't have nuclear weapons, and it will remain as such since the deal
obligates Iran to not acquire, or use, the materials to make a nuclear weapon.
And Iran hasn't invaded a country in 500 years.
Cheney also said that "the deal
would put us closer to actual use of nuclear weapons than we've been at any
time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII." This is an obvious scare
tactic. But who would use nuclear weapons, really, if it came down to that?
With a Dick Cheney in power, it would be the United States.
In another interview, Cheney accused Iran
of getting conventional weapons, and, thus, cited Iran as a threat. But the
weapons are to fight against ISIS, not provoke an imperial war. ISIS is an
unintentional consequence of the Iraq War. The Sunnis were forced out of power
by the U.S. The Iraqi military was disbanded. That created a power vacuum which
was filled by the Shiites. And that created the chances for a backlash in the
form of ISIS.
Another consequence of the war is that
Shiite-led Iran now has an ally in Shiite-led Iraq. Thus, the spreading of the
Shiites' version of Islamic fundamentalism. An imperial war by the U.S. against
Iran would fuel more chaos in the region and another backlash, whereby
fundamentalism will further grow. Cheney doesn't seem to care, though.
That's because Cheney is not interested
in facts. He's got war on his warped mind. His rhetoric is Orwellian. That is,
Cheney's thinking is the opposite of a reality he doesn't want. And that
reality is peace being a threat to his imperial ambitions.
So, Cheney belched out the same "sky
is falling" propaganda against Iran as he did with Iraq. Same exact
propaganda in tone: Iran will acquire nuclear weapons to harm Israel and the
United States. "This deal gives Tehran the means to launch a nuclear
attack on the U.S. homeland." Iran's leaders are not that crazy. They know
what the consequences would be. (They may find out anyway if Cheney gets his
Why does Cheney want war? One reason is
geopolitical. The former Halliburton honcho wants the U.S. to dominate the
Middle East, where much of the oil is. Plus, Cheney has connections of course
to the oil industry. Another reason is that Cheney is a war criminal.
Militarism is his favorite form of "negotiations." This is
characteristic of the GOP itself. For them, war is the answer, regardless of
the consequences. And they'll gloss this over with a facade of righteousness.
But the deal is done. This is a major
accomplishment for Obama, prioritizing peace over war. And Cheney can't stand
David Starr writes on various issues,
both national and international
World War II was the just war in the
sense of fighting against Nazism and fascism. It brought down a madman who was
trying to conquer the world with his Third Reich. It also destroyed the chance
for Imperial Japan to conquer all of Asia. (Most prevalent in this attempted
conquest was the Nanjing Massacre. This event stands out as one of the most
barbaric in history as the Japanese military reeked havoc and carnage on the
At the conclusion of World War II, most
U.S. citizens felt (and still feel) that to end the war and thus avoid further
casualties, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. It is
perceived as the final victory the U.S. military accomplished in ending WW II.
It is hard to break through the
myth-making within the U.S. mindset that atomic bombs needed to be used. But
back then after the fighting was done, there were some who thought the bombings
were not necessary; and this includes U.S. military leaders. Writer and
historian Gar Alperovitz mentions four:
Adm. william Leahy, President Harry
Truman's Chief of Staff - "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to
use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark
Henry Arnold, commanding general of the
U.S. Army Air Forces: "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the
first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz,
Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet - "The atomic bomb played no
decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. The
first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment."
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower - "I voiced
to him [Secretary of War Henry Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the
belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was
Daniel Ellsberg, who was part of the
secret Manhattan Project-involving the creation of and experimenting with
atomic weapons-also says that conventional bombing was enough to thrust Japan
into defeat. "On the night of the 14th [August], the [U.S.] Pacific Air
Force put 1,000 bombers in cities over Japan. About 15,000 Japanese were killed
by conventional bombing between August 5th and August 15th.
"On the night of March 10th
1945-five months before Hiroshima-the United States had 300 bombers over Tokyo
and killed between 80,000 to 100,000 people in one night. We tried to do it
again night after night against Kobe, Yokohama and 60 other Japanese cities. We
never got the same firestorm going, and never killed as many people as in that
"We killed about 500,000,
altogether, with firebombing. It's nothing we needed atom bombs to do."
The United States and its allies
confronted the evils of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. But
with most U.S. citizens believing that atomic bombs were necessary against
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, questioning the official narrative is not acceptable to
them, even though conventional bombing was enough.
Starr writes on various issues, both national and international.
If "U.S. President" Ted Cruz
had his way, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would be altered to
deny citizenship to those born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants. It's quite
ironic what the Canadian-born Cruz is proposing. (Where are the birthers now? I
haven't seen any signs saying, "Cruz, Go Back to Canada!")
The 14th Amendment, Section 1, is as
follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject
to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." (There is
more, but this is the jist of it.)
The 14th Amendment clearly states the
obvious about birthright citizenship.
Cruz and his fellow exceptionalists make
illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children scapegoats for a problem that
has been exacerbated by economic policies imposed by the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and U.S. foreign policy. The problem is poverty in
other countries, and anyone desperate enough would want to escape it somehow.
If Cruz were on the level, he'd realize that the real cause of illegal
immigration is poverty and that austerity measures are at the root of it. This
is what Cruz should be opposing.
But Cruz (and other politicians) will
stay oblivious to this problem. He doesn't want to alienate his base and his
donors as he contends for the Republican nomination for president. But more
tragic, Cruz doesn't seem to sympathize with the powerless. His and the GOP's
xenophobic attitude toward illegal immigration pushes them to step on those
with no institutional power, illegals and citizens.
What about deportation? There are 11
million illegals in the U.S. How could this be done? A mass deportation of
millions of people, legal and illegal, as a final solution to the problem? A
gradual deportation? Either way, it sounds impossible. For one thing, there are
simply too many to begin with. What about citizenship for illegals? Would that
be a better, and fairer, solution?
The GOP, the party of the rich (with
Democrats sharing that distinction), feed, and feed off of, the current world
order of capitalist chaos. So, why should someone like Cruz pay attention to
its consequences, like perpetuating poverty? No, the Canadian-born Cruz will
carry on, acting like a "True American," i.e., an ultra-nationalist patriot
(which perverts the idea of patriotism).
Fortunately, the odds of Ted Cruz
actually winning the presidency are remote. (No candidate on the Republican
side is qualified to take on a job like the presidency.)
His proposal for denying citizens of
their birthright is an unfair and intolerable solution, given the
circumstances. Stop the austerity measures, eliminate (or greatly curb) the
poverty, and you will stop illegal immigration. If not, it will continue.
David Starr writes on various issues, both
national and international
On Fox & Friends, right-wing talk
show host Mark Levin made one of those bizarre comments the right is known for.
He claimed that the Democratic Party is to the left of the socialists.
"It's this hard-left, radical party," Levin said, that once supported
blue collar workers. It is a kooky statement in which Levin has gone out on a
Given Levin's "shock and awe"
statement, it is necessary to write the following to counter his view:
Since 1992, with the ascendence of the
Clinton "new" Democrats, the Democratic Party has gradually shifted
rightward. President Clinton supported fast-track legislation to enact the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has resulted in the loss of
700,000 U.S. jobs. Also, jobs going to Mexico pay poor wages. The real benefit
has been to the corporations taking advantage of the poverty there.
There were those among the
"new" Democrats who participated in and contributed to the wild
speculation that occured when increasing deregulation spread. Former Clinton
cabinet member Robert Rubin was one of them. The speculation was a major part
of the problem leading up to the 2008 Great Recession where the masses were the
real victims. (Inside Job, directed by Charles Ferguson, gives a
"nuts-and-bolts" look at the overall situation.)
When Barack Obama became president, he
overly-compromised with the GOP. But almost any proposal he put forth for
consideration was greeted with a no answer from the Republicans (the Party of
No). Still, Obama was behaving like a "new" Democrat. That was his
first term. In his second term, Obama did come out fighting on some issues. His
refusal to go to war with Iran is one of them.
But he has been in lockstep with
Republicans on other issues. Obama's signing of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA)-which militarized the police- was supported by
Republicans. And the Trans Pacific Partnership(TPP), which Obama actually
called "progressive" but is based on corporate domination, was
supported by the GOP.
There are a few progressives in the
Democratic Party, but it has been difficult for them to carry out their agenda
to fruition. Elizabeth Warren, e.g., has been outspoken about women's rights,
Wall Street reform and other issues. But it is a tough struggle having to deal
with both Democrats and Republicans who want to maintain the status quo
While the Democratic Party has moved
rightward, the Republican Party has moved near to the far right. The GOP's
agenda is like some Gilded Age/Medieval mutation. It wants 19th century-like
economics and way less government, like it was during the 1890s. It also wants
a 14th century-like, blind conformity to religion.
Meanwhile, socialists go further than
Democrats when it comes to "bread and butter" issues, justice and
equality. (The left has traditionally
prioritized these kinds of issues.) Socialists generally want free and/or
affordable education and healthcare, union representation, favor workers
control over the means of production and are anti-imperialists. Democratic
socialist Bernie Sanders is more or less one example.
With both Republicans and Democrats
entangled with big capital, and being both capitalist parties, they are
ideologically the same. They differ, however, in TACTICS, but agree on the same
objective: "free" trade.
Levin's claim is way off base. Saying
that the Democrats are on the left side of the political spectrum is like
saying that socialists are on the right side. But that's the crazy, mixed up
world of the right-wing.
Starr writes on various issues, both national and international
The two activists who stormed on stage to shut down a Bernie Sanders rally may have a justifiable message but not a justifiable method. Sanders is an ally and should have been treated as such. Their action came off as grandstanding, and may hurt the Black Lives Matter movement.
They should take their action to the GOP candidates. The latter deserve to be shouted down given the amount of racial neglect, and greed, in the Republican Party. That would be a more appropriate target. (Even despite security.)
(Image: Mike Nicht, www.notionscapital.wordpress.com)
By David Starr
Outrageous, bizarre and nonsensical
statements continue to be heard, and read, from the right-wing.
Among them, Bryan Fisher, founder of
American Family Radio, and James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family,
claimed that the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut was God's way of punishing
us for the practice of abortion (and the
gay lifestyle). Fisher quoted from the Book of Isaiah to back his claim:
"[O]ur iniquities have made a separation between you and God and your sins
have hidden his face from you so he does not hear, your hands are defiled with
blood." Dobson said," I think we have turned our back on the
Scripture and God Almighty and I think he has allowed his judgement to fall
As with other passages in the Bible, the
Isaiah quote is so vague that Fisher could conjure up anything as an
interpretation of the quote. I could just as well say that God is punishing us
with the Newtown (and other) shootings because of the million Iraqi deaths in
the Iraq War. Whatever the case, Fisher and Dobson are crazy to make such a
claim for the obvious reason that the Newtown shootings and abortion are two
Another way to question the claim is to
put forth the idea that God could have prevented the shootings, life being
precious, rather than let them happen.
Fisher called God a "gentleman" who doesn't go where he/she/it
isn't wanted. First, millions have worshipped God rather than turn their backs
on him/her/it. Second, in the Old Testament, God is no gentleman, ordering the
Israelites to slaughter neighboring tribes because he/she/it is vengeful and
jealous. In this case, it sounds like God isn't too concerned with the living.
Fisher's and Dobson's claims aren't
anything new. Religious zealots have made absurd claims before, and will probably
continue to do so. They are reminiscent of the charlatans of the 19th century
who sold "magic" potions to cure anything and everything. And they
always seem to find an audience willing to listen. Fisher and Dobson do have
their audiences. But it's based on the prioritization of ignorance, rather than
reasoning. That's how religious empires have been built a la the Jimmy
Swaggerts and Ted Haggertys.
Fisher, Dobson and other religious
fanatics mentally live in a medieval past. In a 21st century world with its
high technology and major gains in science, Fisher and Dobson are passe in when
it comes to their religious claims. They adhere to 2,000+ year old writings
whose authors couldn't even imagine what the world would be like today. Their
claim is on par with using leeches as a medical aid or throwing someone into a
lake to see if he/she is a witch. (If he/she floats, that's a witch. If not,
then he/she is innocent, but dead.)
It goes without saying, but I'll say it
anyway, that Fisher's and Dobson's goal is to outlaw Roe v Wade. Similar to a
pre-Roe v Wade world, a post-Roe v Wade world would bring back "back
alley" abortions, coat hangers, unclean procedures and quite a number of
women's deaths. It would be especially hard on low-income women as opposed to
high-income women (who can get an abortion secretly and with the proper
The murders in Newtown were the result of
a sick individual who finally cracked. Like other shootings, it is predicated
on an acceptance and the glorification of violence in society.
It is a comedy of the absurd that Fisher
and Dobson preach in. It's a shame that it's also tragic.
Starr writes on various issues, both national and international
Svoboda march in honor of WWII Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera
By David Starr
The Obama Administration and U.S.
neoconservatives are supporting democracy and freedom fighters in the Ukrainian
conflict. So they say.
They and the U.S. media have pegged Russia
as the aggressor in the conflict, while downplaying the fact that the Ukrainian
government the U.S. is supporting contains neo-fascists and neo-Nazis.
Professor Michel Chossudovsky (Global Research, 2/26/2015) put it more bluntly:
"The U.S. has installed a Neo-Nazi government in Ukraine."
Two major entities, Svoboda (meaning
"Freedom"), formerly the neo-Nazi Social National Party of Ukraine
(the name inspired by WWII Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera), and the neo-fascist
Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) have de facto control over key government posts
such as the Armed Forces, Police and Justice, and hold positions in Education,
Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs, Chossudovsky wrote.
One of the common threads within the
Ukrainian Nazi/fascist movement is that it's anti-Russian. The armed conflict
between the Ukrainian army and right-wing paramilitaries against ethnic Russian
rebels in Ukraine bears this out. One major reason for this conflict was
revealed by Robert Parry (Consortium News - republished in Reader Supported
News, 7/13/2015): "[W]e now know that Kiev [Ukraine's capital] has
dispatched a military force spearheaded by neoNazis, who are eager to
ethnically cleanse those ethnic Russians from Ukraine..."
In an RT interview (2/20/2015),
journalist Neil Clark condemned the West for not spelling out what is really
being supported in Ukraine. "We are not supposed to notice the very strong
element of neo-Nazism, fascist and far-right elements on the pro-Western side
in UKraine." He added, "[T]he West knows what is going on and we are
supposed to turn a blind eye..." The Obama Administration is compliant in
And Obama has allowed neoconservatives to
take a lead in directing his foreign policy. They have insisted that the U.S.
defend the Ukrainian government. This ties in with the U.S., the EU and NATO
wanting to control Ukraine with a wishful, long-term strategy, being on
Russia's border. They would then want to impose regime change in Russia itself,
if it were possible. And regime change are code words for imperial war. Russia,
knowing this, supports the ethnic Russians in Ukraine (seeing that Ukrainian
Nazi/fascist movement is an obvious threat) and is protecting its own interests
(which are not entirely altruistic). One doesn't need to wonder what the U.S.
would do if Mexico or Canada established a socialist government on its borders.
Besides, there already is an imbalance of power in the world today, with the
U.S. leading it.
While Ukrainian sovereignty is an
important factor, it is comprised of right-wing nationalism, given those who
are in power along with their supporters. It is, thus, equally, if not more,
important to oppose neo-fascism and neo-Nazism in Ukraine, whether it is in the
government or not.
As Robert Parry concluded, if Obama doesn't
change course on his policy toward Ukraine and Russia, "he will leave
behind a grim legacy of a bloated military-industrial complex and a new Cold
Starr writes on various issues, both national and international
John "Bombs Away!" McCain is
the prototype of the gung-ho, imperial war monger. He is fetishistic about war.
Whether dealing with Iran, Syria, Russia or Ukraine, McCain salivates as a
McCain wants the United States to get
more involved in the Ukraine. Having rubbed elbows with its neo-fascist rulers,
McCain wants weapons sent to Ukrainian forces and threatens Russia's President
Vladimir Putin with imperial war. McCain also wants military intervention in
Syria to support the "Free Syrian Army." And McCain isn't in the mood
to have dialogue with Iran, wanting military action against it.
On these "fronts," McCain has
chided U.S. President Barack Obama for not accepting McCain's "final
solutions." "This is more of the same old, same old from ultra-hawk
McCain," writes Justin Baragona in Politicus (4/22/2014). "Whatever
POTUS decides, McCain has to make the talk show rounds and point out how wrong
In the Daily Banter (6/03/2013), Ben
Cohen makes eight points to show that McCain is "an unhinged
"1) McCain is trying to up American
involvement in the civil war raging in Syria. Apparently not bothered by the
disasters of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the raging
anti-Americanism in the Middle East, McCain thinks more involvement will
improve the situation. Or maybe he doesn't care about that either, and just
wants more war.
2) He helped the Bush Administration
build a case for war in Iraq, despite any evidence of WMDs or Saddam's links to
Al-Qaeda, building a fictitious case against Saddam that led to one of the
greatest strategic disasters in U.S. military history.
3) Unwilling to accept that America's
role in Iraq was increasingly pointless, McCain was a huge supporter of 'the
surge' in 2007.
4) McCain believes in America's divine
right to occupy a country for as long as it likes in order to achieve its
objectives. [He favored occupying Iraq for 100 years.]
5) McCain has long been a proponent of
attacking Iran, being 'a) fabulously uninformed and b) dangerously bellicose'
[quoting Joe Klein].
6) Regardless of its illegality, McCain
has advocated bombing the infrastructure of enemy countries. Under Article 54
of Protocol I of the 1977 Geneva Conventions, it is prohibited to attack,
destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the
7) McCain doesn't believe in torture
unless the CIA does it.
8) There is good evidence to believe that
John McCain's thirst for war is almost entirely down to political ambition."
McCain's service in Vietnam earned him
numerous awards and citations. But the "war hero," before being
captured, "spent his 22 missions bombing mostly civilian targets in North
Vietnam," according to Phillip Gerardi in a Global Research article
(6/01/2013). (Gerardi's article also asserts that McCain was possibly a
collaborator for the North Vietnamese, getting preferential treatment for his
information. Alexander Cockburn also provides details in Counterpunch,
It is high time that U.S. citizens stop
supporting imperial war. And that means not supporting John McCain and other
Starr writes on various issues, both national and international