the United States federal government often does shitty things in the name of national security. the U.S. foreign policy has been pretty nasty over the years as well.
HOW-FUCKING-EVER...you really ought to be careful to make a distinction between those specific policies and practices and the rest of the United States as a whole. We have 300+ million people and we don't all agree with this stuff in lockstep with the factions within the federal government that do it. The fact that you're reading an article in The New York Times (the "paper of record" in the U.S.) that is calling out bad behavior of the government ought to give you a clue that you're painting with too broad of a brush.
A pacifist would agree with you. In one of the founding documents of modern pacifism, the likes of which inspired Gandhi[1], Leo Tolstoy wrote
CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.
..
Q. Can a Christian give a vote at elections, or take part
in government or law business?
A. No; participation in election, government, or law
business is participation in government by force.
While it can be easy to point the finger at figures high up in government, any participation in that system is, as Tolstoy says, conducted "by force," and all participants share the blame to some extent. The argument follows that the only way to truly banish such abusive systems is to retract all endorsement and participation.
we vote for people, not for policies. we have almost no choice whatever about the policies, particularly with respect to foreign policy and security policy.
I understand what you mean but one of the big problems in US politics is that citizens vote for people not policies. Most people are uninformed and it's not completely their fault. It's because the politician's are allowed to attack each other, lie about each other and there isn't an unbiased major media outlet the public can turn to for the truth.
>How do you distinguish between options at the voting booths, if not by their policies?
You distinguish their policies when their policies are distinct. Obama hasn't closed Gitmo. Obama hasn't ended the warrantless wiretapping program. Obama hasn't discontinued the TPP negotiations or brought any useful transparency to the process. Obama hasn't refused to sign any budget unless it includes significant cuts to defense spending. I could go on. Which of these things do you imagine Romney would have done better?
Why was the contest only between Romney and Obama?
Why do you have to be uber wealthy to run in a country ruled "by the people"?
The U.S's primary problem seems to be that it has transformed into (or perhaps always was) a corporate run oligarchy. Except it walks around saying it's a democratic republic...
The newspeak runs so deep, that what I say is controversial, despite being quite factual... it's very saddening (if you care about such things).
"Why do you have to be uber wealthy to run in a country ruled "by the people"?"
Because of the logistical costs of running an election. Though, technically, you don't need to be uber-wealthy, you just need enough donors. Obama is not that wealthy.
"The U.S's primary problem seems to be that it has transformed into (or perhaps always was) a corporate run oligarchy. Except it walks around saying it's a democratic republic..."
It's not an oligarchy. There's a perception that wealth is what give people a political voice but that's only true up to a point. Yes, you need money to run a newspaper, buy campaign ads, or higher a lobbyist, but that's true in any country (that allows those things.) But the fact is that politics is quite a bit more subtle. US politics is driven primarily by groups of extremely dedicated voters who vote narrowly on an a small range of cultural issues which they perceive as moral issues and upon which they cannot compromise: guns, abortion, marriage. This leads to some ridiculous factionalism, which means subtler issues get ignored.
HOW-FUCKING-EVER...you really ought to be careful to make a distinction between those specific policies and practices and the rest of the United States as a whole. We have 300+ million people and we don't all agree with this stuff in lockstep with the factions within the federal government that do it. The fact that you're reading an article in The New York Times (the "paper of record" in the U.S.) that is calling out bad behavior of the government ought to give you a clue that you're painting with too broad of a brush.