Clear losers in US foreign policy debate

President Bush and Senator John Kerry last night supposedly clashed over issues concerning United States foreign policy. There were clear losers in that debate -- the people of the world upon whom both candidates promised to prosecute a vigorous and unrelenting Terror War.

Off the table were most aspects of US foreign policy -- from the effect of imperial control of resources by US-based multinational corporations to torture at the hands of the shock troops of the US Terror War. Not one breath was wasted by either candidate about the backlashes caused by literal global occupation by corportations and the far-flung US military bases that support them. Routine brutalization of people has its costs that neither candidate saw fit to address and in fact tacitly endorsed.

I'll leave this for now with one positive note in favor of John Kerry -- I fully appreciated his comments about bunker buster nuclear weapons. His argument against them exactly mirrored my own. Thank you for that much, Senator Kerry. But expect plenty of protest on foreign policy should you become president.

Update 1:00pm: I'm reading through the transcript of last night's presidential debate. While I think my statement concerning global corporations and military bases is quite true, in fact there was a bit of truth uttered, by Senator Kerry, on this matter with respect to Iraq. So I want to give Kerry additional credit for this remark:

As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them.

When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

Maybe this line was a throw-away. The Democrats are tied into oil interests just like the Republicans. I have a gut feeling that a Kerry Administration would not just admit and reverse imperial control of Iraqi oil.