Thanks for your message. I am an atheist, yet we share the same views on our country's behavior. More than simply the politics of it, we share the same moral views of its deadly consequences to millions of innocent people.

I don't know how to convince people who have families to support to give up their "defense" jobs for unemployment. That is the terrible reality. People will not just say, "Sorry, what can I do?" They will find rationalizations for what they are doing: the Taliban are terrorists, Saddam was a bad man, etc.

Frankly, were I a young man, I would emigrate. We are locked in until a disaster frees us from our militarism. Not much consolation there!

Best wishes,

Mr Clemens, I replied to your question, but strangely my reply does not appear. I try again in much more concise form:

We are constantly at war, because being at war creates in time an economy dependent on war. When so many workers, shopkeepers, corporations depend on "defense" budgets for their income, directly or indirectly, the economy no longer competes with foreign economies in producing consumer goods. They are instead imported and the dependence on "defense" budgets is increased. These budgets, in turn, depend on foreign lenders, such as China, to provide the money to keep all the wheels turning. It continues until the empire (the US) suffers an intolerable military defeat, or until the lenders find other markets. Then the roof falls in, and what cannot be continued forever finally stops but with great suffering and impoverishment.

Why are we there? Why do we have endless wars? Good questions, Mr Clemens. Here are some possible answers: We have a middle-class (still some remain) many of whom are employed in "defense" industries. Their children are not being drafted. They may not like the endless wars, but they are not going to risk their prosperity by becoming anti-war activists. The big corporations are tied into the "defense" industry, one way or another. Even PBS depends on good relations with the Pentagon for many of its so-called documentaries and for its visuals (Nova, for example). The pols get campaign funding from the Boeings, GDs, Grummans, etc., and their districts usually have "defense" jobs.

It is very hard to change the addiction to one of employment by non-military industries that outsource or no longer exist in the US.

The only ways I can project an end to this militarism are 1) if the ruling-elite enacts a draft; 2) if China and other lenders decide they have had enough of the US dollar. That would bring this country into a profound depression. Unless China finds substitute markets for its goods - at home or in Latin America or Africa - I don't see them giving up as lenders.

The short answer is: until conditions become terribly bad in the US for enough people to change the politics, we are stuck!

Obama's future is of no concern to me. His failures as a president do concern me, because they affect my life, my country, my prosperity. In some regards, an Obama sent back to Chicago as was LBJ to Texas would be good. There is so little accountability in our federal government that a rebuke to a president would be a breath of fresh air.

Surprisingly, I find, that no one has raised questions about BOs early decision, while a candidate, to make intensified commitments to war in Afstan. His resume does not show any experience in Afstan, military strategy or in foreign policy. What gave him the nerve to make such a declaration at that time? I'll tell you!

Google "Ali Sina" and see his video on BO's NPD (narcissistic personality disorder). It explains almost everything BO has done, and the video was made in 2008, while BO was still a candidate! I know that almost all politicians are narcissistic, but there is a difference between that as a personality-type and the pathology of NPD, a sickness. Obama's reality does not include such characteristics as concern for others, recognition of his mistakes, an assessment of his own limitations. He is "can do", because he sees himself as especially gifted and justified in leading others wherever BO wants to go. He is as dangerous as the religious leader who induced hundreds to commit suicide on Jonesville.

In comparison with LBJ, BO is far more culpable. LBJ had less opportunity to veer from the policiies of JFK and Eisenhower in Vietnam. Johnson was hounded by a Republican right-wing and would have been burnt toast if he had withdrawn from Vietnam in 1964.

BO came in with a popular mandate. He could have set his own policiies with regard to Iraq and Afstan. He chose war in both countries, intensified in Afstan. He sees himself as a great leader, a powerful CIC, and - like all NPDs - he never doubts that he "can".

Drunkenatheist, I don't blame you for drinking. What I cannot understand is why Barack Obama is given credit for brains. It seems to me that he is not at all profound in his thinking; very superficial. Otherwise, why would he have allowed himself (and us) to become committed to war in Afghanistan? Why would he have appointed as his advisers the very people who are responsible for the bubble of financial paper and the opponents of regulation?

As a strategist, our President is inept. His strength is in oratory. He makes good speeches. Otherwise, there is nothing to him. He'll go back to Chicago in 2013 much as LBJ went back to Texas in 1969. Our country will be in much worse shape by then.

Pres Obama has not established a record of fortitude in dealing with powerful corporate persons in the US. On the other hand, it is possible that he is in agreement with Wall Street, the health industry and the imperialist foreign policy of America. I tend to think both: he is a wimp and a willing tool of power.

PM Netanyahu's power in the US is not clear. Possibly, through the Israel lobby and through the favor of the US defense establishment, Netanyahu does have considerable influence in the US. If true, it will be hard to tell if silence on Obama's part to further expansions on the West Bank will be due to his lack of fortitude or his willingness to please the corporate interests that funded his expensive campaign for the presidency.