Democrats should give Big Business an aversion to war,..

[Parisle]

--- But they should NOT waste their time arguing with republicans about it. It's time to be a little more creative,.. Confining the debate to Congress is to relinquish the electoral advantage and momentum gained by the Democrats in the 2006 elections. Democrats should ignore republicans, and take their arguments directly to the American people.

--- Here is one case in point (although there are at least a dozen) just to illustrate the principle: Corporate profiteering and corruption in the Iraq War, obscene oil company record profits attendant to neocon perpetual war "foreign policy," and the overall "privatization" (profit motive) applied by this administration to the execution of foreign policy.

--- Well,.. we've already had a rather lame effort at a "windfall profits" tax for the oil companies. Maybe 1% of total corruption in the war will actually be prosecuted (the really clumsy ones) as a result of myriad congressional investigations. The general, war-based revenue flow to the military-industrial complex will not be significantly affected by anything that happens in the "world's greatest deliberative body." There are too many procedural barriers in Congress,... too much political industry collusion,.. too many ways to thwart the actual will of the people.

--- I'd like to see an "at-cost" rule applied to corporate & industrial contributions to the war effort. If young Americans can die by the thousands in such an effort, then it is only reasonable that the wealthy, industrial war-machine can forego the obscenity of profitting by those deaths. Hey, we ALL have to contribute somehow, eh? And the corporate and political classes sure don't contribute with the lives of their own offspring. We have to remove all profit from war. If you build an F-18 during "wartime," then you build it "at-cost." Period. Okay, maybe a couple percent for inflation. But that's it. When others are dying, isn't that the least you can do?

--- Now, the democrats could argue this concept in Congress 'til doomsday, and get absolutely nowhere with it. But I think the idea has considerable traction and appeal with the population-at-large. So talk to them, instead.

--- The democrats should get up off the ten million bucks (or whatever) it would cost to buy 30 minutes of air time,... and get Reid, Pelosi, Feingold, Webb, etc, sitting in front of the cameras to make this case directly to the American people. I can tell you with little fear of contradiction,.. that the general electorate would be extremely sympathetic to the notion that if the children of the lower classes can die in a conflict launched by the recipients of all those corporate campaign contributions, then those corporate donors can demonstrate their sincerity by doing the work "at cost." It is unconscionable for rich people to get richer by way of the same foreign policy actions that cost the very lives of so many young Americans. ANY decent patriotic American should feel exactly this way. Put it to the people exactly that way, and I guarantee that they will respond appropriately. This may also be looked upon as "setting the republicans up for another drubbing in 2008." Get the people riled up,... and let the republicans worry about them.

[Fresh_Start]

1. I think business should have to support war effort

below cost. If humans can sacrifice life, limb and loved ones, the very least business could do is sacrifice its income statement. I'd imagine if they were compelled to support war and lose money in the effort, they'd be a lot less eager for US to have continuous war.

[Parisle]

2. Thank you, NYC,....

--- I had not realized it was a concept which find so little support or agreement within the DU. But thanks, anyway...

[Fresh_Start]

3. Well corporations are treated as equal to human citizens

in other regards, its only fair they too should have 'sacrifice' and 'duty' as well as us mere mortals