Since I began posting articles on this site, I've yet to go on an angry rant--Well that's about to change folks, becaused there is something that has got me just pi##ed off! What is it you may ask that has fired me up?? Well you may be sorry you asked that question, because it is the person who sits on the curb and complains about how bad things are in Harrisburg or Washington, but does not exercise his/her right to VOTE. This in my judgment is the one true voice we, as American citizens, have and there are those who take that right for granted, AND THAT'S JUST WRONG! Here's an example of what I mean:
My Brother-in-Law called me a few days ago, he was upset about the 16% pay raise the PA General Assembly had voted for themselves. He wanted the list of how the Legislature voted--Please do not misunderstand me, he is right to be upset, as should every citizen in Pennsylvania--the problem is-- MY BROTHER-IN-LAW DOES NOT VOTE!! So technically he has no right to complain ABOUT ANYTHING!
One of the things that sets America apart from any other country in the world, is that we have the ability to choose the individuals who will be our leaders, and to replace those "leaders" if they are not acting consistent to the will of the "people." We also have the freedom to voice our approval or disapproval of how those "leaders" do their respective jobs. This is especially true when WE THE PEOPLE go to the POLLS to elect our President, Representatives/Senators in Washington, and our State Legislators and of course our Governor (in Harrisburg).
I take my responsibility as a citizen very seriously. I research issues, and I let my elected officials in Harrisburg and Washington, know what I am thinking--AND ABOVE ALL I VOTE!!
DO YOU??
Jul 10, 2005
I'M PI##ED!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
I would also be pissed off at non-voters complaining about their country.
But there's something else you need to be even more pissed off with. And that's the fact that even if you do vote, it still doesn't make any difference! Bush lost the election in florida in 2000 but was still installed by the supreme court at the eleventh hour (check out Greg Palast's BBC reports about that). And then 4 years later he did it again in Ohio. Don't believe it?
Check out this link to read up on what really happened in Ohio on november 2nd.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1318
Needless to say, you won't find this kind of information in the MSM.
That's what I'm pissed about.
Hey Baffeled...GET OVER IT. The divel that you have sited in that website has been blown out of the water so many times its not even funny.
Recount after independant recount affirmed the electoral win in Florida in 2000 and your boy Kerry wasn't even as close in ohio in 04.
You people just can't deal with the fact that you LOST! TWICE.
IF it had been Gore winning Florida, the demogoggery would have pushed it aside immediately. -
This time 2004 - Bush won the popular vote by 3 MILLION (COUNT THEM MILLION) VOTES! - The End.
You know,Baffeled--I agree with Pa on this all the way. And that's just one more thing that honks me off is people who cannot deal with defeat--not once but twice-and in 2004 it wasn't even close All Al Gore proved in 2000 was that he was a sore loser. So please save the "sour grapes".
Gentlemen,
I understand your assumption that I'm nothing more than a democrat unable to accept defeat and eager to avenge our loss at the polls last year. However, nothing is further from the truth. I don't consider Kerry 'our boy' any more than I do Bush. I am no democrat and certainly would not want Kerry to be running the country. It wouldn't make any difference to the direction the US has taken since 2001.
So don't read my comments as the mere rantings of a sore loser. I'm angry not because 'our boy' lost the election but because our people, the people of the USA were cheated out of their democratic right to a free and fair election.
To claim that the info in the website has been blown out of the water is simply ill-informed. There are countless points mentioned in the article that absolutely stand up to further scrutiny. Take for example the phenomenon of outrageously long voter queues in predominantly black (democratic) precincts. And the letter from the Diebold chief is also well known. He wrote that he was committed to delivering the 2004 Ohio vote to George Bush. Hardly a statement that inspires confidence in the maker of electoral machines that have been specifically designed to avoid leaving a paper trail in case the vote has to be checked. (Could anyone explain to me the logic of that decision 'cos I sure as hell don't understand it). Then there are the exit poll discrepancies that everyone has heard of. What was the official explanation for that? Oh yeah, the poll-takers were too young and inexperienced. Yeah right. How experienced do you have to be to ask someone "excuse me sir/madam, could I ask you which way you voted?"
And I'm sure that recount after recount in Florida 2000 did indeed show that Bush had won. But remember, this was before Palast's excellent investigation into the illegal elimination of thousands of black voters from the electoral rolls.
But remember, all this is info that the MSM does not want you to see. That is why it's hard for many people to accept what I say here. The mentality is mostly: if it's not in the mainstream news then it didn't happen.
I'll admit, that's a difficult mentality to fight against. But if you take the time to look up alternative sources of information, you'll inevitably come to the conclusion that the MSM is often selling you a particular agenda that just happens to be what the White House wants you to hear, instead of what the world is trying to tell you.
As an example, in the run up to the Iraq war, the White House had managed to convince 70% of americans that Saddam was involved in 911. 70%! That's a hell of a figure. The rest of the world knew this to be patently false, but Bush and Cheney managed to convince their own public that this was so. Without ever having said it explicitly either! They could never have done this without the tacit support of the MSM to spread their message.
Sorry for the long rant here but I had to reply to your accusation that I'm simply a sore democrat loser who can't handle the fact that Kerry lost in 2004.
I'm not angry about Kerry losing to Bush. I’m angry that the election in 2004 was so flawed and that the MSM has actively tried to cover this up.
Please don't take my silence for acceptance of your arugument, I will repond later today...
You're Baffled--I'm confused. You go to extreme lengths to criticize the American electoral process, considering that you don't live in the USA--You explain this how??? I'm hoping you are an American who is working in the Netherlands-because if this is not the case, that's really going to pi## me off. If there's one thing we do not need it is folks from foreign countries reminding us of how flawed things are in the USA. I think we know better than anyone what our shortcomings are, so rubbing our noses in those problems is really counterproductive. And in case you're not aware of it, MSN isn't the only news show on the block, so I hope you have other points of reference besides MSN and the BBC. Looking forward to your reply.
I find it amusing that the apparent mindset of most outspoken Republicans is that everything associated with Democrats is absolutely wrong. Just as no one can be 100% "right", no one can be 100% "wrong". Also, it strikes me as odd and perhaps childish that these same Republicans usually are name callers, ranters, canned-facts-they-have-no-realistic-way-of-knowing-if-they-are-valid-or-not regurgitators, willing and eager repeaters of government generated misinformation, often vehement, always right and never wrong, on God's side, etc. etc. etc. I also will add that "outspoken" Democrats fit the same description. Does anyone else find this utterly ridiculous derisive behavior from both sides of the coin even a tad bizarre and counterproductive for our country?
It saddens me that our nation is divided to such a point over something that really is out of the grasp of control of the average American citizen... our government. Anyone who truly believes that any one individual has a real say in our government is brainwashed or absolutely ignorant of what is really going on in our world. The United States is not alone in this world. We are not God's chosen enforcers of His divine will.
Bush was elected because that is what the "Powers" wanted (for whatever reason) not because the majority wanted him as it made no difference what the masses had to say. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world that I too wish existed. The United States is much bigger than George W. Bush and much more than he could ever handle or lead as an individual. Hell, before 9/11 the man couldn't even walk and chew gum at the same time but as the body count has risen so has his status as a true "world leader". The reality is Bush does not have absolute power and authority but is only doing as he is directed by his huge staff of advisors, consultants, researchers, financial backers, corporate interests and even religious "advisors". Just like every other president who's ever held the office.
No, I was not for Kerry and knew he would not be elected and have no "sour grapes" over his or Gore's loss to the presidency. I am not a Democrat nor a Republican. I vote for the person who I think will best lead our country in the coming years no matter what their party affiliation. I am not "anti-Bush" just because I may disagree with some of the current administration's policies and actions. I am not Anti-American nor unpatriotic because I happen to think for myself and have an opinion outside of what my government may like me to have. I am not evil nor stupid because my opinion may sometimes differ from a Republican's or a Democrat's. Believe it or not, there are many things I do agree with in both parties.
I support our troops with all I can and served my country with pride in military active duty for ten years. I cry when the Star Spangled Banner is played and am thankful for those who have sacrificed their lives for the continuation of our nation and its freedoms. I would die for my country today if I thought it would help ensure the safety and freedoms of my family and friends.
All of this to say that we all expend too much energy in debating and striving to prove "our side" is right when all it leads to is further misunderstanding and division. Especially when the "facts" from both sides are usually construed and fabricated in order to propagate the agenda of whichever party is presenting them. The actual truth is somewhere in between and it takes a wise discernment to listen and "take what you need and leave the rest".
David, first of all, when I say MSM I mean the Mainstream Media, not MSN. BY mainstream media I mean predominantly: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek. In other words, the media outlets that are owned by the big 6 corporations. See http://www.corporations.org/media/ for more information.
Secondly, I am not an american living abroad, but I have lived and worked in the states in the past. That's partly why I am so concerned about the country. I have great memories of my time and friendships in the states and hate to see this wonderful country being manipulated by a small war-hungry clique at the top. However, I'm the first to admit that it isn't only in the states that we have this problem. The UK after all has Tony Blair and we here in holland have a government that willingly joined Bush's coalition of the killing in Iraq in order to make sure they could get their man chosen as General Secretary of NATO for a few years.
So please don't see me as someone who blindly criticises other countries from the comfort of my own armchair. The reason I'm so concerned with the states at the moment is that it's enormous military power is being abused by a small fanatical extreme right-wing cabal of unelected men who are hell-bent on stamping their authority on any country that stands in their way. And if this means hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens being killed in the process, then that is absolutely alright with them, as long as they can call it collateral damage. And since the US media refuse to adequately portray the horror of the war that Bush has unleashed, most people in the states do not know what is really going on in Iraq. Most people for example know nothing of the depleted uranium munitions that are being deployed in Iraq and their terrible side effects. Most people know nothing of what happened in Falluja in nov/dec 2004 (ie. genocide, illegal use of napalm etc). That is what I'm pissed off about, that the american people are being deliberately misled into thinking that the iraq war is just and good and will reduce terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. So many more muslim men have been driven to radicalism because of what they see happening to their fellow muslims in Iraq than if the US had stayed out of that country.
Thirdly, I would argue that we can learn a lot from what other people think of us. If an american has opinions about holland, I'll be much more inclined to listen to them than another dutch person, for the simple reason that an american will probably offer me a fresh perspective on all things dutch compared to the dutchman. So don't get angry when a non-american comments about your political or media system. Listen to what they have to say first and then form your opinion. Why would a foreigner by default know less about what he is arguing than an american? Let go of your ego and listen with an open mind to all people. Only in that way will you better be able to sort the bullshit from the real info.
This is exactly what Bush should have done before invading Iraq. The whole world tried to tell him that Saddam was not worth it, that we needed to wait and give the inspections more time. But of course Dubya didn't want to listen to all those foreigners. Since they weren't american, they didn't know what they were talking about and Iraq would have to be invaded. Now it's become clear that the invasion of Iraq has only made matters infinitesimally worse not only for Bush but for all americans, and especially the armed forces.
OK - TONY,
Regardless of whether anyone here agrees or disagrees with your comment, let me be the first to congratulate you on how well it was communicated. So many times we have commenter’s here who would simply rather (pardon the expression) spew BULLSHIT about everything under the sun. Your comment was well thought out and well communicated and it is appreciated.
You are right on so many points but I don't believe for the same reason that you made them to me. The vast majority of Americans ARE ignorant to the ways of Government but that is not entirely their fault. Most do not take the time to know and have been void of any education on the matter. The legislators are happy with that since it allows them the cover to perform actions that would most likely be voted down in a true democracy.
I do NOT agree with you that we do not have control. Any lack of control is a relinquishment of that control by the voters. We by means of our constitution (and subsequent amendment) rights are able to organize in opposition and take up arms (if necessary) to keep our government from taking action of which we are not agreed. The unfortunate situation is that for the past half century or so, American history has been taught in revisionist fashion… “Our founders meant this,” “our constitution says this but means THAT”
The topic of this post that we are commenting in today (taking the voting privilege seriously) is our greatest defense against the oppression of this or any other administration. The ability to vote is the greatest of all freedoms and our sword against tyranny. This needs to be taught to the current youth of our generation so that this politically debilitating dogma can stop fragmenting us further. People of strong conviction and dedication to our system of government and our constitution need to stand firmly in its defense or all WILL be lost to the revisionists.
The elections of 2000 and 2004, while surely divisive, provided a true reflection of why our democratic system of government does work. In so many other countries, what happened in the US would have cause killings and violence in the streets. In the US it was decided in the court of law and for this we should be proud (both sides of the Isle).
Baffeled - I think the United States has suffered too many times due to the "sit back wait and see attitudes" of those over seas..
Read post from 7/11 - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
pa-conservative - does the fact that the US has suffered too many times due to 'sit back and wait' justify the attack on Iraq? Just interested to know how you feel about the iraq war.
No that doesn't justify it... what does is that the man and regime responsible for hundreds of thousands of atrocities against the Iraqi people as well as IRAN and Kuwait are now gone. The people of Iraq, not unlike the people of France and Germany will one day thank us for their liberation.
What sticks out is the steadfastness of France and Germany against coming in and helping Iraq - "Let's wait and see"... and then find out what some of us knew all along.. they were profiting from Hussein all along -
American Lives for European Liberty - Its becoming a pattern that is grotesque.
Everyone profited from Hussein, not least of whom the USA (I expect you've seen the film of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 1980's when Hussein was our man in the middle east). But please don't mistake what Bush has done to Iraq with what Roosevelt did for Europe during WW2. Back in the 1940's Europe really was liberated by the US. What we have in Iraq now is certainly no liberation. If it were, the US would never have planned to build several PERMANENT military bases in that country. No. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq for one reason only: oil. Cheney's task force papers are, if anything, supporting evidence for this theory. He was already talking about Iraq and its oil long before 911.
Baffled--for now, my apologies for my confusion of MSM-I printed off the several comments from this posting and will be responding later--stay tuned and fasten your seat belts!!!
Ah the oil argument again... ok you keep thinking that.
I love the oil argument. If that is the case then why have the gas prices risen to record level in the states. No it was not for oil, however, I have no problem pumped the oil to pay for the liberation of the country, but that won't happen. Don't give me the Halliburton argument either. There are 2 other companies in the world that does what Halliburton does, one French and one Russian. Why would we send any money their way way, didn't they get enough from the manipulation of the Oil for Food program?
Note to all--My apologies because these comments may be somewhat long, since I will be responding to more than one person-although I will be doing so individually.
First to baffled simian--You must excuse the "dismissing" tone in my comments, but frankly what can you expect--you're not even an American, yet you are ready to criticize the United States and its policies. From where I sit this really takes crust. In all honesty I would be more inclined to listen to the opinions of someone from the USA before that of someone from a foreign country, who really does not comprehend what is means to be an American--It really doesn't matter how many years you lived in this country. BTW excuse my confusion about MSM. While I certainly do not agree with every word that proceeds out of the mouth of President Bush, I support his actions in Iraq. Perhaps if Holland had experienced the horror and destruction of 9/11 you might feel differently. I honestly hope your country NEVER experiences such a horrific and dastardly thing! I'm not familiar with the Haliburton or "Oil for Food" business, but from what gathered from your comments they seem somewhat thin. And maybe you can explain to me how the United States profited from the Regime of Despot like Sadamm Hussein? And a final word-The attack and invasion of Iraq was a necessary response to the vicious actions of people who geniuenly hate the United States and what WE stand for. Would you suggest waiting for another terrorist attack before we responded?
To Tony: My compliments to you on well articulated arguments, although I must disagree. BTW--Who said one cannot be 100% wrong??? (LOL)
OK guys, I get the message. My posts are no longer appreciated since I am not an American. Shame really. I thought we were getting into a good conversation, regardless of what country we come from. Isn't that what the internet was all about? Breaking down borders in communication? I would understand you rejecting my opinions because you don't agree with them. But to imply that my arguments have no credibility because of the country I live in is taking it a bit far I think. But hey, this is your blog so you guys are the boss. Maybe you should put a sign at the top of the page: "No comments from foreigners please". See ya round. I'm off in search of some bloggers who are more interested in the words I write than with the country I live in.
Baffeled: I know without a doubt that this is not at all what Mr. Bowie is saying, nor is it what I am saying. What you have to acknolwedge is that there is much to understand about our system of government which we don't feel you gather completely.
Secondly you are very much entitled to voice your disagreement and your position on what you perceive. I for one am in agreement that you can shed a different perspective on the events. However, just as we cannot allow our MSM to cloud the facts, you must also look closely at them before saying that the president is doing x or y because of z. I truly hope you do continue to contribute. But as I explain to everyone here a position for or against does not need to be accepted. Only the allowance of strong opinions one way or another.
Thanks
Baffled--I did not mean to imply that your comments were not appreciated, and for that I apologize. What bothers me extremely is that folks from foreign countries are very quick to criticize and condemn the United States when they do not understand our system of Government. Our country was not founded as a Democracy but as a Constitutional Republic, which requires much of its citizens. This differs us from ALL OTHER nations of the world. Our citizens by virture of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are entrusted with liberties and freedoms that other countries do not have, however with those liberties also comes responsibility--The responsibility to hold our leaders to a higher standard of accountability simply by virture of the position they hold whether it is President or a Members of the United States Congress. We have the responsibility to inform our leaders of OUR thinking on the various issues of the day, and finally we have the obligation to VOTE those leaders out of office if they are not performing in a manner consistent with the will of the People of the United States.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and while I respece those opinions, I also respectfully disagree!
OK. I'll post again when I have some time. am at work now and should be doing something else....
I'm sorry I got to this so late. An interesting thread. To Baffled Simian's first comments (I will refrain from using his initials)about Bush stealing the election: only a person unfamiliar with our political system and the American MSM could truly believe that some kind of conspiracy put Bush into the White House in 2000 and 2004. Kerry conceded Ohio. Was he in on it? The Supreme Court has ruled consistently with the principles of the Dem. party for fifty years at least. Were they in on it? Are the majority of the Democratic leadership, who accept the 2004 and 2000 results, in on it? Our society is much too free and open for any one person to "Steal" an election. Granted, there were problems in Florida in 2000. The biggest was the press called the state for Gore before the polls were closed in the Fla Panhandle. This discouraged voters in the Panhandle (which is strongly Republican from voters. Estimates have put the number of voters who stayed home after the media called it from 20,000-80,000.
Okay. Maybe I'm not sorry. I just checked out Baffled Simian's blog. Apparently, the terrorist attacks (including 9/11) were the result of.....a conspiracy of Jews and Karl Rove. It is amazing how rationally and and sensibly one can lay out a believeable case for these accusations. Check it out. Follow his links. I'm convinced! I'll check in later, I got a hot tip that we didn't really land on the moon! It was done on a Hollywood sound stage and the Jews own Hollywood right?
Mr. Bowie, now I'm p##sed.
Another conversion! - Incredible isn't it splitcat?
I am convinced that there are two types of people that it is pointless to have rational discussions with:
1.) The irrational
2.) Conspiracy Theorists (see simian, baffled)
The more the merrier--Right PA?
Splitcat-Do you recall a movie called Capricorn One?? They "faked" a landing on Mars. Maybe our conspiracy therorist "friends" saw the same movie? BTW: I would add a third item to your list and that is folks who just do not understand the American system of Government. I fired up a fellow at my Church and now YOU--I LOVE IT! KEEP IT COMING!!!
I remember seeing that as kid. It freaked me out. The scary thing is that the ideas that you will find in Baffled Simian's blog are fairly widespread. It is expected to find these ideas (ie that it is a Bush/Rove/Zionist conspiracy) in Muslim countries; but the widespread acceptence in Europe and some in the US is frightening.
Hey "UBunchAAsshats" - You shouldn't have deleted your post...It is enlightening to hear from fringe elements of society. -
You peaked my curiosity--Anything in the deleted comment worth sharing???
I missed it...What got deleted?
The "gentlemen" noted above thought it cute to compare the current discussion with conspiracy theories such as the kennedy assassination and believes that the story of Genesis can be put in that category as well
Has anyone informed that "gentlemen" that Genisis is more than just another story??
Well - an honest commentor? - Well done
ubunchaasshats--You are to be complimented for your honesty and candor.
In all fairness, I was speaking of Mr. Baffled Simian, who, on his own blog, acknowledges that he is a conspiracy theorist (though he prefers another term--I'm too lazy to go back to and see what it was). Check out his blog and follow some of his links. If he doesn't fit the bill of a person who believes that the Jews and Bush were behind 9/11 and that Blair is behind 7/7 then butter me up and serve me for breakfast.
Okay, I don't even know what that means, "Butter me up and serve me for breakfast". Sometimes you just can't stop typing.
Who are you referring to split?
Hello guys, it's BS again (thanks for the heads up on my initials, I hadn't yet seen that;-) I guess the best thing for me to do is first come out with precisely where I stand on a couple of issues. I do indeed call myself a conspiracy researcher. Call it a conspiracy theorist if you want but that's just semantics. Yes I do believe that 911 was an inside job. And of course yes I do understand that that is a pretty way out accusation and that most people will be very reluctant to look into this scary scenario. But I don't mind if people see me as a nutcase and try to rubbish my theories, I've been getting that already for some time. As long as you don't use insults, I'm open to all arguments.
I guess it boils down in some ways to the fact that I believe that there is an amazing level of corruption at the highest levels of government, not just in the US but everywhere in the world. Look at Berlusconi in Italy for example. And in holland too I'm sure. And this corruption makes it possible to carry out things like 911, just like the assassination of JFK more than 40 years ago. And if you're not prepared to accept that such a level of corruption exists at the highest levels, then it makes it almost impossible to contemplate 911 being an inside job. I understand that very well.
But first of all I want to point out that I don't think 'the jews did it' any more than I think white people did it or black people did it. Splitcat chintzibobs, I'm sorry if I've given you the wrong impression. No offence to the jewish religion was intended in any way. I might be critical of the state of Israel and it's policies but to characterize me as someone who wants to blame the jews for everything is completely wrong. If I criticise the government of the USA that does not mean I am criticising the american people. So when I criticise the israeli government, it's not the israeli people I have an issue with, and certainly not jewish people in general. Unfortunately, there are many people and organizations in the world (for example the ADL) that will jump at the chance to brand any criticism of israel as antisemitic hate-speak. This only prevents intelligent discussion of real issues. Look at the USS Liberty story for example. Clear guilt on the part of the israeli government. Does that mean 'the jews did it'? Of course not. It means a small group of men who had the power did it. That's all. Antisemitism implies that all jewish people are inferior, bad, not to be trusted etc etc. That is a totally different thing to criticising a government. Let's not confuse one with the other.
Back to 911. Of course it seems ludicrous at first glance to imagine that a secret cabal within the political/military elite planned and executed 911 in order to be able to unleash war in the middle east to appropriate major iraqi oil reserves, install a government loyal to the US etc etc. But if you investigate the details of 911 (especially the details that were glaringly absent from the official 911 (C)ommission report, then there appear questions that are hard to answer. A few examples:
What the hell happened to WTC7 in NY on the morning of 911? Did it really collapse due to fires? Seems unlikely.
Why was the Bush administration so eager to fly half the Bin Laden family out of the US in the days following 911, especially when the rest of the country had been grounded?
Why was NORAD so slow to respond to the attacks of that morning? The official answer comes down to general incompetence. I don't buy that. I don't think they can be that incompetent.
Doesn't it seem suspicious that the video of Bin Laden talking about the 911 attacks that magically surfaced somewhere in Afghanistan in december 2001, when looked at more closely, shows a distinctly different looking Bin Laden than the real one we'd seen in the news?
check out http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html and look at the nose in picture E.
Why did the secret service not immediately come into action to whisk away the president to safety, away from his public appearance at Booker elementary school when it became clear that 'America was under attack' (the vey words Card used to inform Bush of what was happening during his time in the school) The secret service's first priority is to keep the prez safe from attack. At this particular point in time, america was under attack and the location of the prez was public knowledge. Reason enough to take him to a place of safety. That didn't happen and I find it strange to tell you the truth.
Doesn't it seem convenient that straight after 911, the US was able to complete the building of an oil/gas pipeline going through Afghanistan that they had been negotiating on with the Taliban for years, but that the Taliban still refused to approve?
Doesn't it seem strange that a flight-school dropout who never showed any interest in learning how to land a small Cessna plane could have expertly navigated a real-life Boeing 757 airliner at full speed into the side of the pentagon?
Doesn't it seem strange that the list of hijackers that the FBI released immediately after 911 turned out to include men who were still alive? i.e. that their list was just wrong?
As I always state when making such arguments, all of these points I raise do not individually and of themselves prove that 911 was an inside job. But taken together, they form a convincing argument. They should at least make you think and want to investigate further. That's all I ask of my readers, that they look into the details themselves instead of assuming by default that 911 could never have been organized from the inside.
And, for the record, I saw Capricorn One, thought it was an excellent thriller, but I absolutely don't buy the story that the moon landings were faked. I don't believe in little green men and alien abductions, I do believe in God, I also believe Saddam was a bad man and did bad things for his people. But I don't believe that Iraq now looks better under US occupation. I hope it'll get better but don't see it happening soon. And part of the fault lies with the neo-cons who showed a breathtaking disregard for the lives of the iraqi people in their planning for war (remember the 4 bunker busting bombs that were dropped on a residential district in Baghdad because Saddam 'might have been' in a certain restaurant at that moment in time. Those are the kinds of war tactics that we would have expected from Nazis, not from the United States Government.)
And as for the Oil, pa-conservative, I truly don't understand how you cannot make the link between the invasion of Iraq and the US quest to secure long-term future oil supplies. As we all know, oil is a finite resource, and with China, and to a lesser degree India, claiming ever more quantities of it, it will only become more scarce and more valuable. Without it, our economies are f*cked. At least in the short to medium term. Everything runs on oil. Even the food you eat uses oil-based fertilizers and is brought to your shops in oil-based plastic containers by oil powered machines. So we know oil is important. Secondly, our administration is made up of a lot of oil people: Bush, Rice (don't know exactly what her function was in the oil business but I do know that an oil supertanker was named after her so she must have done something pretty special), Cheney, even Hamid Karzai of afghanistan is an ex-UNOCAL consultant. So the people in the administration could be considered oil experts.
Thirdly, it was Paul Wolfowitz who admitted before the iraq war "Iraq is swimming on a sea of oil". Makes you think.
Fourthly, the oil ministry was the ONLY ministry that the US army came to protect from looters during the invasion of Iraq. No other ministry or government building was protected in this way. Gives you an idea how important oil was already then.
Fifthly, we know that Cheney's energy task force meetings in early 2001 included maps of iraqi oil fields. Anything you want to tell us about that Dick?
I think the link with oil is pretty self-explanatory. The fact that the price of a barrel of oil has skyrocketed in the last year is precisely in part due to the uncertainty generated on the oil markets by the war in Iraq. That and the fact that the supply of oil is getting smaller as we speak. The price will only go up. Already the analysts are talking about reaching the 100 dollars a barrel level.
Wars are always fought for control of strategic resources. And there is no greater strategic resource at this point in our history than oil. It's the life-blood of our economies. Securing an adequate supply of the stuff for the future is essential to maintaining the power of a nation state. Any economist will agree with you on that point. And if there's one thing the neo-cons in Washington are concerned with at the moment, it is maintaining the economic and political hegemony of the USA in the world. The PNAC mission statement of 2000 is adequate proof of this.
One more thing for David: you mention in your post here: "One of the things that sets America apart from any other country in the world, is that we have the ability to choose the individuals who will be our leaders"
I don't understand. Are you saying that America is the only country in the world where you can vote?
Surely you meant something else.
Most certainly NOT--But the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy, by virture of our Constitution, does set us apart from all other Nations--What remains to be seen from my point of view is just how long we will be able to keep them!
OK Baffel: Probably one of the most fluently layed out explanation of thought I've seen here yet. Thank you. I will address as the day goes forward.
Baffled: Here's a bit more clarification of my "I'M PI##ED" post. Being an American is somewhat complex, and it goes far beyond just voting for ones political leaders. The United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy as many folks think, and this requires much from its citizens. To be an American means that you have a responsibility to be informed about the issues of the day, and to inform our leaders of our opinion either for or against a particular issue. We are free to criticize our Government, within reason of course, without fear of reprisal or punishment. Folks from other countries are not so fortunate as those of us in the USA. Do not misunderstand, and think that this makes Americans better than everyone else, because it certainly does not, but ours is a unique situation which most folks don't understand.
Post a Comment