 sj |
||
|
||
BS: War on terror called 'bogus'
|
|
|
Subject: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 06 Sep 03 - 11:40 PM This won't be news to most folks here but at least Michael Meacher, MP and former environment minister, is brave enough to say so in public and to document his case. Check out the Guardian piece “This war on terror is bogus.” - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST Date: 07 Sep 03 - 12:07 AM The bombs, threats, killings are real, why is the war on terror bogus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 07 Sep 03 - 12:33 AM GUEST, I'm guesing you didn't read the piece but merely responded to the headline. Mr. Meacher is basically saying what DG, Bobert and a few other have been telling us for a long time. The difference is that now it's being said by a member of Parliment in broad daylight. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bill D Date: 07 Sep 03 - 01:27 AM I read the piece....and to dilute its message to "the war on terrorism is bogus" bothers me. (Yeah, I know...it's hard to cram a full paragraph into the title box) The war on terrorism is quite real, but the reasons we need the war, and what we really expect to accomplish, are suspect. If half the assertions in that piece is true, it's very scary stuff. I don't LIKE having to be suspicious of the basic motivations of my own government, nor do I appreciate being lied to...even if they explain "it's ultimately for your own good"! I think I'll re-read all this tomorrow in the light of day and see if I can sort out what seems to be 'truth' from what might be paranoid speculation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 07 Sep 03 - 03:55 AM Seems to me that war on an abstract noun is a bogus concept to begin with. What'll we do, get Terrorism to admit defeat and occupy it until it's ready for self-government? More likely we'll colonize it and then we'll have access to all its natural resources. The advantage to a War on Terrorism is that it can't be won, any more than a War on Bad Taste, and you can keep the country in a State of Emergency forever and justify anything you want as necessary for National Defense; the exact reasons, of course, being classified. Way more clever than a Cold War. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 07 Sep 03 - 04:38 AM I've been acquainted with the Project for the New American Century for over a year now and have posted links to their web site on these threads on Mudcat about umpteen times so far, so that people can go and read what I keep screaming about for themselves and verify that the neo-Conservatives actually exist and that they are indeed the ones who are running the country. It's very late at night here in Seattle and I want to go to bed, so I won't look it up and post it yet again. Just go to google, click on "Advanced Search," type "Project for a New American Century" in the "exact phrase" box, and let 'er rip! The first listing that comes up should take you to their home page. The one just below that (if I remember right) will take you to their "Statement of Principles." Scroll down to the bottom of the page and note the people who are signatories to the statement. They are the Bush administration. Also, in google's "exact phrase" box, type "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and you will be presented with enough material on the subject to fry your eyeballs and quite possibly make you mad enough to spit nails or incite you to bloody revolution. I recommend vigorous political action instead. There is a national election coming up in November 2004, so if we want it badly enough to get off our butts and work for it, regime change in the United States is in our hands. G'night, now. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 07 Sep 03 - 04:42 AM Pardon me. That's "Project for the New American Century." The former will probably get you there, but I just want to be sure. It's late and I'm getting punchy. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: kendall Date: 07 Sep 03 - 09:02 PM Anyone with more than a teaspoon full of brains knows this is about controlling the middle east, and the reason is OIL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Sep 03 - 09:21 PM The Project for the New American Century Scary stuff. I wish it was a forgery by some anti-American dirty tricks department. Unfortunately it isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 07 Sep 03 - 09:30 PM Looks like the big battle on the War on terrorism is shapin' up to be the 2004 Elections. The course that UIS is taking presently can only bring about another generation of terrorism.... Speakin' of terrorism. Wonder what it feels like to be 47 years old, a $1500 a month mortgage payment, one kid in college and another gettin' ready to graduate from high school and just found out that yer job has been shipped overseas and yer CEO is makin' $14.2M(*) a year? Or how the guy who's holding down two jobs to make ends meet and the first job is now becoming *salaried*, meaning that Boss Hog can work you as long as he likes with out havin' to pay you fir the overtime? Or the terrorism felf by folks who live in 14B states where they have "Right to Work" (fir peanuts)... Lots of ways of lookin' at terrorism. But rest assured, attackin' and killing folks who had nothin' to do with 9-11, ain't gonna make anyone safer... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Barry Finn Date: 07 Sep 03 - 09:44 PM Hey Kendall, it's more than just oil (though we may not ever know to what extent how much oil is part of the picture, no doubt quite a bit), which should've & could've become obsolete in the last century. Iraq is now a US colony, with Tony B as the US's international Ambassador, a promotion from his former position as the US Ambassador to Britain, Jeb Bush as the new Governor to the New State of Iraq (after this upcoming election things Fla will become a bit to hot for him) & Don Rum as the new Secretary of the Department of Muslim Affairs. Washington, Adams, Franklin & the rest of that lot were probably terrorists in todays terms by the English (funny how roles get reversed) & of course the frenchy Lafayette would have been one of those international border crossing terrorist who probably got his training in some foreign boot camp with the secret support of his own nation along with shipments of what could've been considered MWD of the times. When or if Iraq finally wins it's freedom or should we say revolution who'll be the nation that supports terrorism then? I don't think history will be as kind to us now as it was to US back then (I don't think so) or is the real prerequisite based on who won in the end or who lost & died giving up the most toys? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 08 Sep 03 - 11:13 AM Very interesting comment, Barry, on who won or who lost. By chance, I was rereading some old stuff by R. Buckminster Fuller and happend to pick up my old copy of Critical Path, © 1981. Chapter 3 is called Legally Piggily and deals with Fuller's insights into the history of world power as we see it today. It didn't really raise alarms when I read it in 1981 but in light of events since then, Fuller's insight seems remarkable. The link will take you to the entire chapter. It's 60 pages long in Fuller's book and I think the online version contains the whole chapter so only the serious reader will take the time to learn what Fuller has to say. Highlights include:
Anyway, I thought it was important enough to mention here. I hope someone takes the trouble to read through it. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: C-flat Date: 08 Sep 03 - 11:36 AM I read the Meacher peice in the Guardian and he seems to be saying that, while the war against terror may be legitimate, there were already plans in place to attack Afganistan and establish a strong military prescence in the gulf states well before the events of Sep11. He also suggests that at least 11 countries had provided advance warnings of the attack and that some specific details were known. The inference of this is that Bush was inviting an attack to give him the moral high-ground while pushing through those plans. It would be hard to imagine that anyone could accept the tragedy that occured as part of a game plan but when serious political figures start making these kind of statements in the national press it does make you wonder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: TIA Date: 08 Sep 03 - 04:46 PM The bogus War On Terror is now the centerpiece of the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign. In a 15 minute speech last night - supposedly on Iraq - Bush used the word terror in one form or another 28 times. Together with three mentions of Al Qaeda, and three references to 9/11, this was a blatant attempt to brainwash us into making a Pavlovian connection between Iraq and 9/11. The bastards have convinced 70 percent of Americans that Iraq was behind 9/11. Gawd I hope people are paying attention, and not fallng for this propaganda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bev and Jerry Date: 08 Sep 03 - 05:13 PM It's clear that 70% of us are not paying attentiona and are falling for this propoganda. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 08 Sep 03 - 05:36 PM C-flat, there's also the problem of explaining the military inaction that followed the 9/11 attacks - the more extraordinary now we know that this kind of attack had already been seen as a possibility. I think Bill's approach is the right one. This is a long and detailed article by a man who was until a few weeks ago a minister in Blair's government and who has an informed view of issues around the fowrld's fossil-fuel resources. It needs to be read carefully in the cold light of day. To me, at a first quick reading, it seemed to be well supported by sources and documents, much of them in the public domain. There will be much easier access to such raw material in the US than here in the UK, so I will await with interest any further contributions from Bill and others. Don, largely thanks to your counselling I've been watching the PNAC angle with interest and alarm. It's the sort of stuff that madcap think-tanks dream up while tripping out on adrenalin - the difference being that this time the people behind it are now running the show. Thanks for posting the link, Mark. I'd seen plenty references to it, but missed the article itself. To make it easy for anyone who hasn't followed it, here's the link again. Meacher's article in the London Guardian.It should be a must-read piece for anyone interested in where the Bush administration is taking us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bev and Jerry Date: 08 Sep 03 - 05:50 PM We went to the site of the Project for the New American Century yesterday but today it seems to be down. Have the terrorists struck again? Is anyone else seeing this? Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 08 Sep 03 - 05:57 PM I'll be very interested in comments once everyone has digested the Meacher piece. The long Fuller piece I linked above really provides the background to show why the Meacher piece is not just conjecture. Fuller wrote more than 20 years prior to 9/11 and could not have imagined events as they have unfolded. He had no motivation other than to show the politics of energy and its history. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Sep 03 - 06:00 PM Here's what it says now: Hey, it worked ! The SSL/TLS-aware Apache webserver was successfully installed on this website. If you can see this page, then the people who own this website have just installed the Apache Web server software and the Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) successfully. They now have to add content to this directory and replace this placeholder page, or else point the server at their real content. ATTENTION! If you are seeing this page instead of the site you expected, please contact the administrator of the site involved. (Try sending mail to I'd imagine the people with the best reason to sabatage that site would be the people who put it up in the first place - I imagine it's getting to be a serious embarassment to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,Mountain Tyme Date: 08 Sep 03 - 06:11 PM Kendall, yes, as many of us read between the lines OIL is the subject but... as I read, I see a revelation. The powers that ARE have invested in oil. They intend a return as long as possible for their investments. By keeping OIL in the forefront, they aim to keep the cheaper modern alternative energy sources off the front page otherwise we would begin to ask embarrassing questions wouldn't we? The cheap energy of the future is not OIL. nuff sed Say hi to bro Daryll for me. Bob Day at Smokey Greens "The House Next Door to Mine" NJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Sep 03 - 06:11 PM But it seems to be back now - Project for the New American Century Very curious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Gareth Date: 08 Sep 03 - 06:42 PM Not curious Kevin, would paranoic be apt ? Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 08 Sep 03 - 07:14 PM The New American Century site seems to be only intermittently available (probably too busy) but their defining document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, is available on other sites. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Amos Date: 08 Sep 03 - 07:34 PM The Chief Architect of the plan referenced above is Thomas Donnelly who is a double dipper on the board of Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin, in turn, is among the most aggressive, greedy and unconscientious of the the large Defense Complex contractors; in my experience they would do anything for a buck, including fail if that suited. A good portion of people in these circles are just straight zombies looking for people to infect... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 08 Sep 03 - 11:55 PM Mark, thanks for the info on the chapter by Fuller. I went to the web site and discovered that, as you said, this is some serious reading. A bit intimidated at the idea of reading something that long on the computer screen, I'm going to get my wife Barbara, who works at the library, to drag home a copy of Fuller's book. I've always found Fuller to be one of those rare acute minds that can see right into the core of things and explain it lucidly. Looking forward to reading it. Several times now I have gone to the PNAC web site to check on something, found similar messages, and wondered if they had pulled the site. Many people, appalled by Bush administration's foreign policy, have written articles and editorials, quoting extensively from the PNAC web site, even posting the URL (much as I have done several times here on Mudcat), saying, "If you don't believe me, read it in their own words!" Since it's an excellent source of information on the true foreign policy goals of the Bush administration, such as geopolitical control of the Middle East (as ghastly as it may seem, 9/11 provided them with a near perfect excuse, and with a lie here and a "spin" there, they managed to sell a "pre-emptive strike" on Iraq to a portion of the American public--and to Tony Blair), those who are opposed to these policies have use material found on the PNAC web site freely in an effort to tell people what's really going on, as opposed to the twaddle the Bush administration keeps feeding to a compliant news media. It would seem that to the extent that material from their own web site is being used to expose them, this would be ample reason for them to discontinue the site. But each time it went off-line, it was only gone for a day or two at most, and it came back, often with the addition of new articles and essays. I think these people are beyond embarrassment. They seem to have a sort of "In your face, Buster!" quality about them, possibly assuming that since they have their flunky in the White House, a big flag to wave, a huge military machine at their beck and call, and God on their side, nothing can possibly stop them. Self-righteous arrogance, I think, is the key to these people. Don Firth |
|
Subject: Lyr Add: BUSH-WAR BLUES (Bob Clayton) From: GUEST Date: 09 Sep 03 - 01:19 AM Bush-War Blues Me and my wife heard the president declare, "We're going to war 'cause of the weapons there!" Chorus: I got the Bush-war blues (3X) Gonna spread the news all around. Me and my wife heard the president say, "Iraqi oil means we won't have to pay." Chorus The president said the fighting was done, "There's peace on the way, and the war's been done." Chorus The president called for sacrifice, But the rich folks won't have to pay the price. Chorus Now we're fighting terrorists in Iraq, They weren't there before, but now they're back. Chorus Rumsfield, Cheney, Bush and all, Gonna lose their cushy jobs next fall. Chorus Copyright ©2003 Bob Clayton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Sep 03 - 08:34 AM "Even the President of the United States Sometimes must have To stand naked..." Bob Dylan, evidently anticipating "the Project for the Nude American Century." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 09 Sep 03 - 10:18 AM The Bush-War Blues! That's WONDERFUL. I'm going to have learn and share that one. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: TIA Date: 09 Sep 03 - 11:14 AM Here's a rather long read (but not nearly as long as the Fuller chapter) that makes the case quite convincingly that the Bush administration's "War on _____" (you fill in the blank) is probably bogus. There is a pattern of using whatever is in the news as the rationale for pre-determined actions to further the neocon agenda. Usually, those who should know say that the actions will not have the effect asserted by Bush, but his people simply denigrate the whistle blowers as unpatriotic or "biased". The article refers to this pattern as the "War on Expertise". Very interesting and scary stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Sep 03 - 05:30 PM Have been reading the Buckminster Fuller excerpt, and it is very illuminating indeed. Thanks for the link. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 09 Sep 03 - 06:50 PM I've just read the Washington Monthly article (the link in TIA's last post). Not a short article, but worth the effort: a panoramic sweep of where Bush & co are taking us, and why. After that I think I'm nearly ready for the Fuller. Nearly.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 09 Sep 03 - 08:07 PM I just finished reading the The Post-Modern President by Joshua Micah Marshall, the article TIA linked above. Marshall seems to remember events as I remember them and I think his “War on Expertise” hypothesis has a great deal of merit. The officials in the U.S. government, together with the actual but hidden powers that Fuller talks about, accept no argument that runs counter to their ideology and self-interest. They believe not only in the superiority of their power but, I think, in their imagined superiority to the rest of humanity. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: LadyJean Date: 09 Sep 03 - 09:21 PM Putting Osama bin Laden out of business doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Shame Mr. Bush can't seem to do it. That's one of several reasons why I'm working for Howard Dean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Amos Date: 09 Sep 03 - 09:44 PM It would require a clear eyed understanding of what we do not know and how we might come to know it. For example, what he is doing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 10 Sep 03 - 07:11 PM Are you in favour of the "War on Terror" then LadyJean? The article Mark has just summed up so neatly is the one I read (follow TIA's link). I'd say that it, and the Michael Meacher article (link at top of the thread) are essential reading for anyone remotely interested in where the US is headed at present (with the UK clinging to its coat tails). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 10 Sep 03 - 08:45 PM Where the US is going is down the drain, Fionn. This is Bush's Vietnam except in this case he can't pay for it. Lyndon Johnson tried to balance his "Great Society" (guns and butter) with Vietnam and, though he lost Vietnam, was able to get some important social progrmas off the ground, Medicare being one... But Bush wants *guns and tax giveaways to the rich*? Can't possibly work for the working man, ahhh, that is if you can find any whose jobs haven't been shipped overseas by Bush's buddies.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 11 Sep 03 - 02:23 AM . . . Guns and caviar. . . ? And we are expected to pick up the check. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 11 Sep 03 - 03:48 AM Two posts from above ask the following questions: GUEST 07 Sep 03 - 12:07 AM The bombs, threats, killings are real, why is the war on terror bogus? Fionn 10 Sep 03 - 07:11 PM Are you in favour of the "War on Terror" then LadyJean? The "War on Terror" has been waged since the 1970's, the only difference since 11th September 2001, is that the waging of that war has become more co-ordinated. The bombs, threats and killings are, and always have been, very real. Therefore any attempt by society thus attacked to counter such actions can hardly be described as bogus. In answer to Fionn's question, it is not a case of being in favour, or not in favour, civilisation is under attack and has been for decades. The choice and the important question regarding that state of affairs lies in what the response to that attack is. Meachers article is a piece written with the aid of 20 x 20 hindsight and is so full of holes it resembles a collander. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Sep 03 - 06:38 AM "The 'War on Terror' has been waged since the 1970's" One of the main agents promoting "terror" during or after the 70s was in fact the CIA and its agents and allies - most obviously in such places as Chile, Argentina and Nicaragua. (As well as in the course of the war in Vietnam and Cambodia). "Civilisation" is always under attack. From all sorts of directions. What is "bogus" is the claim that what is happening is a war on "terror" in general, rather than a selective attack on those identified as hostile the USA, which goes a lot wider than those who have been engaged in terrorist activities against the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:04 AM Kevin, I believe there is a word missing in your last paragraph and that it should read, "........selective attack on those identified as hostile by the USA,....." I think the list of terrorist organisations identified by the US Government is fairly comprehensive, and takes into account the security fears of other nations - the Real IRA, and ETA have never been engaged in terrorist activities against the USA. As I said in my mail, the difference September 11th 2001, made was that it united and co-ordinated anti-terrorist efforts in a manner previously not seen throughout the world (Example: recent sting operation that led to the arrest of a UK citizen trying to sell SAM's to what he fully believed to be a terrorist group - close co-operation by the police, customs and intelligence agencies from quite a number of countries, most unlikely bed-fellows were the US and Russians). Note you list examples for CIA, but not for KGB. The examples you did give were all nationally focused, not international. The first international terrorist was the man who has made a name and a fortune out of providing non-leadership for the Palestinian cause - Yasser Arafat - never actually did anything himself of course, always got others to take the risks and pay the price, while he pocketed the money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Sep 03 - 10:26 AM Teribus, I was actually wanting clarification of LadyJean's post, but I'm sure she'll appreciate you telling me what she meant. But you're wrong about that war. Pre-911, governments went out of their way not to categorise/legitimise criminal outrages as war. Can you cite any that did otherwise, thereby accepting all the implications that come with that definition? The Bush gang deserve credit for being first to spot that the war definitioin brings benefits as well as downsides - increased scope to abuse basic freedoms; to define those who are and those who are not entitled to be treated as a human beings; to pursue selfish commercial interests, etc. And if the US admin is free to decide which organisations are terrorist on the basis of which have attacked the US, is that a rational basis for the doctrine of "those who are not with us are against us" by which the US judges other nations? I wonder if you're any nearer revising your view that Iraq was the right target, given that Iraq was nowhere near presenting a threat to anyone, whereas Iran plainly is (and the US has got itself too overstretched to do a damn thing about it)? As for Meacher, my collander has 64 holes, Teribus, but if you could point to, oh, a dozen holes in his article, I would consider that a reasonable start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Sep 03 - 07:43 PM "The examples you did give were all nationally focused, not international." People organising terror in foreign countries, even on the other side of the world, and for some reason that doesn't count as "international". I don't understand that logic. Does it only apply to Americans? I wasn't the suggesting the Americans are the only onmes in the frame of course. "One of the main agents" implies as much. Quite true - the Russians went in for it as well. And other countries as well. And that is still true today. My point wasn't that the Americans are uniquely to be blamed, but that terrorism is not limited to the people identified as the enemy. State terror, and state sponsored terror, are forms of terrorism, and historically they have been far more destructive of life than other forms, even when you take September 11th 2001 into account. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 11 Sep 03 - 08:29 PM Reflections on "The War on Terrorism." It doesn't take the resources of an entire nation to plan and execute an event like the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A determined gang operating completely independently could have done it. Contrary to what's been said, a gang that wanted to carry off such an attack would not need a great deal of financial backing: enough money to pay for a few of the gang members to go to flight school to learn what they would need to know about flying an airliner (indeed, you can get flight simulator programs for your computer for anywhere from $15.00 to $60.00, and I understand that that's exactly what some of them did), and enough money for the members of the gang who were going to execute the plot to buy one-way airline tickets. Oh, yes, and drop into Home Depot and buy a handful of box-cutters. It would take considerable coordination and timing, but this wouldn't be much more complex than planning a church picnic. Actaully, train robbery back in the 1800s or the more recent Brinks armored car robbery took about the same level of planning. The 9/11 attack has never—repeat, never—been established to be an act of a foreign government: not Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia (even if most of those involved were Saudi citizens), not Syria, not Iran, and not Iraq. And, for that matter, there is no really solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved. He said he approved of it and encouraged more of the same, but his actual involvement is an assumption that everyone seems to accept without question. In short, the CIA, the FBI, and the Bush administration have made allegations about who is responsible, but have offered no substantial proof. The claim was that there were Islamic terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, so the United States attacked the nation of Afghanistan. Undoubtedly there were such camps, but when the attack began, the terrorists who may have been there scattered like city pigeons in the path of a semi truck. Afghanistan was left in rubble for the second time in two decades. Because of our failure to follow up and despite Hamid Karzai, the warlords are now running most of the country and the Taliban are coming back. Then Bush and Company attacked Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and making further allegations about Saddam's nuclear capacity and stockpile of weapons of mass destruction ready to supply future terrorist attacks, or even possibly be used in a direct attack on the United States, the United Kingdom, or Iraq's neighbors. That one, they picked out of thin air. There was no evidence whatsoever. In fact, there is an inconsistency there: if Osama bin Laden was involved, he wouldn't have gone to Saddam for help and Saddam wouldn't have helped him if he had. They hate each others' guts. And what we find ourselves involved in (foreseen by practically everybody but the Bush administration) looks a lot like Vietnam Redux. The attack on the World Trade Center was a criminal act. To go to war with the country from which the criminals come is not an appropriate response to a criminal act; if it were, we'd have gone to war with Saudi Arabia. The appropriate act would have been to work in cooperation with Interpol and the various intelligence and police agencies in other countries—not insult and alienate them instead—and track down those who were in on the plot like the criminals they are. Going to war with a country that might possibly knowingly or unknowingly harbor terrorists is like flailing about with a chain-saw when the job calls for a scalpel. The war on Afghanistan and the war on Iraq have nothing to do with terrorism. They have to do with American geopolitical domination of the Middle East and control of the Middle East's oil and natural gas resources and reserves. There have always been terrorists and, unfortunately, until humanity achieves a more enlightened state, there will always be terrorists—depending, of course, on how one wishes to apply the epithet. The United States itself has trained terrorists in its School of the Americas; only they, of course, were called "freedom fighters" or "counter-insurgents." To declare "war on terrorism" is to declare a war that will never—ever—end. I believe George Orwell said something about the advantages to a totalitarian government of being in a state of perpetual war. A state of war usually allows a government to assume powers that its citizens would find unacceptable in times of peace, such as those assumed by the Patriot Act and its attendant assault on civil liberties. And, I might add with a chilly feeling of déjà vu, it also gives certain national leaders an opportunity to posture about in uniforms they haven't earned the right to wear (if you think back, you might recall other world leaders in the century just past who were fond of strutting about in uniforms). When one considers the plans for Empire America that were in the works at least as far back as 1992, plans so eloquently outlined on the Project for the New American Century web site, and which are now in the process of unfolding, one cannot help but note that the 9/11 attacks and the thoroughly understandable and predictable response it elicited in the American people was bizarrely convenient for those who wished for an excuse to launch the actions necessary to bring the plan for Empire American to fruition. Add to this the strange lack of interest in prior reports of a possible terrorist attack on or around the date and location in question, and the strange inaction on the morning of the attacks, is it any wonder that a few people here and there might feel just a bit suspicious? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: curmudgeon Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:10 PM Well stated, Don. Surely one with your insight deserves a larger audience than is found here at Mudcat. I am surprised, however, that you have yet to be challenged after a mere half-hour. Keep a sharp eye on the right -- Tom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Sep 03 - 09:14 PM By way of a further aside, Don, another little snippet emerged in the UK today. Just before the war, Blair told the UK parliament that war was the only way to stop Iraq's WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists. It turns out that he said that despite an assessment by his own security services that war, by destabilising Iraq,would give terrorists a better chance of getting WMDs. Exactly what most of us here were saying at the time, as was everyone who had anything between their ears. (OK, OK - I know there were no WMDs anyway, but that's a detail....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 11 Sep 03 - 11:07 PM Whew, Don!!!.... Like nuthin' left to be said... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: TIA Date: 11 Sep 03 - 11:27 PM You go Don! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 03 - 12:52 AM Well turned, Don Firth!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bev and Jerry Date: 12 Sep 03 - 01:34 AM Yeah, Don. There is one small point, though. We don't think Bush and Company ever actually accused Sadaam Hussein of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks, did he? Bush merely started dozens of speeches by talking about 9/11 and then switched to talking aboout Iraq. This innuendo resulted in, by the latest polls, 69% of Americans believing that Sadaam was responsible for 9/11. This is probably more insidious than actually making the accusation. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:43 AM Right, Bev and Jerry. To be fair to Bush, I don't recall hearing him ever actually saying outright that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, but by the time he and several others, such as Rumsfeld and Powell, got through with all their spins and pirouettes during their flood of speeches and press conferences leading up to the invasion of Iraq, an overwhelming percentage of the populace believed that it was Saddam, or at the very least, bin Laden with Saddam's backing who had done it. Was it Goering who said, "If you repeat a lie often enough and brazenly enough, the people will believe it?" I guess that also works when it's a lie by implication. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 05:51 AM "And, for that matter, there is no really solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved. He said he approved of it and encouraged more of the same" Don Firth. True enough. And on that basis the finger of suspicion could just as well point to "GUEST,.gargargoyle" on the basis of a post on another thread saying of September 11th: "For some of us...the feeling was exhilaration. The festering boil on the, pro-illegal alien, free-education, free-health services, free-business loans, PC-butt, of the liberal buy-a-vote politician had FINALLY burst." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 12 Sep 03 - 06:46 AM Was it Goering who said, "If you repeat a lie often enough...? No, the quote is attributed to various evil men, Stalin among them, and, of the Nazi leaders, to Goebbels. It probably originates, though in different form, from Spinoza, usually not considered an evil man. In fact, there is evidence that this works even better with implied lies. Just by the way, luckily for us it also works with truths. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:10 AM Just by the way, luckily for us it also works with truths. That's an interesting angle on it. Bears thinking about. People often tend to give up attempting to correct lies because it seems futile, but it isn't really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: TIA Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:12 AM It was Goebels who said "Tell a Lie That is Big Enough, and Repeat it Often Enough, and the Whole World Will Believe It". It was Bush who proved him right (well, maybe not the Whole World, but Americans). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:54 AM By all means, You go Don. Don Firth - 11 Sep 03 - 08:29 PM Reflections on "The War on Terrorism." Your first paragraph: True it would not take the entire resources to plan and execute attacks, such as were mounted on 11th September 2001. If the entire resources of a nation were put to that use, the attacks would have been far more extensive, the numbers killed greater, the extent of destruction greater and the effects of the aftermath more severely felt in humane, economic and political terms. Don contends that funding required to carry out such an attack as 9/11 need not be all that great. That flies in the face of every piece of evidence so far gathered by police forces throughout Europe and in America itself, with regard to time in preparation, numbers involved and extent of training thought necessary. His appreciation of what is required might work for a Hollywood movie script, but would not hold good for what was actually done and how it was done. Your second paragraph: Very early days the current administration, in the form of Colin Powell, is on record as stating, very clearly, exactly what you have said in your opening sentence. But they did have to check that very thoroughly, even after Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, they had to check whether or not Al-Qaeda received assistance from any foreign government. Osama bin Laden's involvement beyond mere approval is proven in the debriefing tape - remember the one in which bin Laden (qualified civil engineer) expresses delight at the extent of the damage caused, his surprise that the towers actually collapsed, something he thought would not have happened. Indicates his prior knowledge of what was to happen, with what and where the aircraft were to hit those buildings. Your third paragraph: "The claim was that there were Islamic terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, so the United States attacked the nation of Afghanistan." Here you can only be referring to Bill Clinton's cruise missile strike, because subsequent to the attacks of 9/11, the US Government requested that the regime in power in Afghanistan expell Al-Qaeda and hand over its leaders to face trial in the United States of America. The Taliban refused and the US military was ordered to attack known Al-Qaeda targets and areas of operation within Afghanistan from the air. At the same time the US Government with the assistance of quite a large number of countries openly and extensively backed Northern Alliance forces already fighting the Taliban inside Afghanistan. It was those forces who overthrew the Taliban. When the attack began the effects on Al-Qaeda were; that they were denied what they regarded as a secure base for operations and training; some were killed; some were captured; stores of weapons, ammunition and explosives were destroyed. Yes, they were scattered and have become less effective because of that, and are becoming increasingly less effective because of the reaction of the international community, and measures put in place to diminish Al-Qaeda's operating capability - all of which is still on-going. Their immediate bolt hole was to the tribal areas of the North-West frontier of Pakistan. Due to political sensitivities this area used to be left very much to its own devices by the Pakistani Government - not so today. The Pakistani Army and police are more active in that region now than they have ever been, and the level of activity is growing. The Taliban are being pushed, the only place they can go is back into Afghanistan where they will have to face the emerging Afghan Army, ISAF and the US forces on the ground and in the air. Your description of conditions in Afghanistan are laughable, when put in the context that this situation is the result of actions taken by the current US administration. Afghanistan left in rubble for the second time in two decades - Afghanistan has been rubble since the Soviets occupied the country, it wasn't in much better shape even before that. Throughout its history, warlords have always run most of that country, the degree on peace dependent on how in tune the various warlords were with the ruler or central government - so nothing has changed for the last hundred or so years. Your fourth paragraph: Opening with - "Then Bush and Company attacked Iraq," No one in the current US Administration has EVER "claimed" that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks - If you chose to continue spreading this lie, all well and good, but it does not alter the fact that what you are saying is not true and will continue to be untrue no matter how many times you reiterate it, or how much those reading your posts, or listening to you, wish to believe it. Its a lie Don, be honest enough to admit it. The allegations relating to Saddams WMD, were based on the UNSCOM Status Report. That report detailed what the Iraqi's themselves said they had, but UNSCOM had not been able to trace and destroy. After 1998, there were no inspectors or monitoring facilities in Iraq it became a blind spot. Subsequent to 9/11, the situation in Iraq had to assessed and any potential threat removed. This was tried through the efforts of the United Nations, solely at the instigation of the US and UK Governments, and Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply with resolutions passed by the UNSC - HE chose not to, George W Bush and Tony Blair did not force him not to comply, it was entirely his decision. That decision was largely based on the fact that he had successfully fooled the UN for 12 years and he fully believed that he could do so again. Iraq's links to, and support for international terrorist groups (Not Al-Qaeda) operating in the middle-east is well documented. Saddam Hussein was unique in being the only head of state to applaud the attacks of 11th September 2001. On the strength of that, are you honestly trying to say that no threat existed and that no potential threat existed. If you are then I would dearly like you to prove that case beyond all possible doubt. Your fifth paragraph: Opening - "The attack on the World Trade Center was a criminal act." It most definitely was not! It was an attack on western civilisation in its entirety, not solely directed against the United States of America. It was an attack by a terrorist organisation consisting of fundamentalist Islamic extremists, who freely admitted responsibility, in the mistaken belief that western civilisation would be powerless to respond - In selecting a target in the heart of one of America's major cities, they certainly got that wrong. The United States of America did not go to war with, "the country from which the criminals" came. America did not go to war with Afghanistan. As stated above and borne out by fact, America attacked Al-Qaeda targets within Afghanistan (which she had done before) and supported one side in an on-going internal conflict - it did not do so in isolation. It only adopted that latter course of action after requests for the extradition of those responsible were categorically refused by the rulers of Afghanistan. Your proposed recommended course of action was exactly what Osama bin Laden and his organisation were banking on, it would have been totally ineffective while he sat back in Afghanistan and planned the next attack. The US response did concentrate minds around the world - The "You are either with us, or against us " statement put exactly the right focus on the matter - Ask Richard Haas, Gerry Adams and the ex-CO of the PIRA in Derry, Martin McGuinness. Your sixth paragraph: America has exercised domination of the Middle East since the collapse of Soviet Russia, so to achieve what you state is their aim required no action whatsoever. If what you say is true, why did the US not take over Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oil and gas - much cheaper alternative, much better return. But no they go for a country (Afghanistan) that does not export any of its resources and a country (Iraq) that even at the height of its production pre-1990 supplied only one-seventeenth of the worlds demands. That I find strange. Your seventh paragraph: There have always been terrorists and, unfortunately, there will always be terrorists, regardless of enlightened humanity. I would bet that the thousands of American citizens who weekly dropped money into the NORAID collection boxes thought themselves pretty enlightened human beings - September 11th 2001, showed them exactly what such contributions could achieve. An organisation has declared war on you, your country, your way of life. They are not open to discussion, not receptive to negotiation, they simply seek your destruction. Now, your government can respond in whatever way it deems fit, and call that action whatever it likes, it does not alter the fact that you are at war one iota. Your eight and concluding paragraph: In this you wave your PNAC banner, warning of the evils we can expect from Empire America. The PNAC think tank wrote its paper in 2000, according to Michael Meacher. The blueprint for global domination by the United States of America - Phooey The Pax Americana has been in existence since the end of the Second World War - and by and large the world has benefited from it. Your last sentence in this paragraph, 20 x 20 hindsight. Something akin to me giving you a sheet of paper with thousands of dots, then asking you to draw someone you don't know by joining up some of the dots on the page. I give you some information regarding the person but nothing specific. It would be reasonably impossible for you to accomplish that task. I then give you a picture of the person and the task becomes easy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 08:48 AM "every piece of evidence so far gathered by police forces throughout Europe and in America itself" Which doesn't actually seem to have amounted to an enormous amount, if successful prosecution is used as an indication that compelling evidence has been amassed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 12 Sep 03 - 09:30 AM Which doesn't actually seem to have amounted to an enormous amount, if successful prosecution is used as an indication that compelling evidence has been amassed. Go back and read again what I wrote in the context of Don Firth's first paragraph Kevin. The evidence gathered may not secure convictions, but it does fill in parts of a jig-saw that certainly refutes Don's contention. The man acquitted knew Atta for how long Kevin? How long had Atta's fellow cell members been in Germany Kevin? How were they financed and to what degree Kevin? Where did they receive their training Kevin? Germany is certainly not the cheapest country to live in for three years. Would a visa application for the US from Atta, the student, resident three years in Germany be viewed equally with an application from Atta, the student, resident in Gaza for three years? Time in planning - at least three years Living expenses for 19, possibly more. Tuition fees for those posing as students, I don't believe that university education is free for foreign students in Germany - maybe Wolfgang could enlighten us. Establishment of bona-fides for the students in order that they would be accepted. Surveillance operations at US East coast airports and onboard domestic flights once the target flights had been identified. Travel to America, plus living and enrolement fees for their flight training. All of the above costs money and requires a great deal of organisation Kevin - That is not what Don was trying to put across in his post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 02:14 PM All those things put together wouldn't actually amount to all that much, even if it all had to be paid for. The kind of money one rich individual could put up. And there are quite a few of those around. The Sunday Times has no difficulty in drawing up an annual list of 1,000 people in Britain alone with more than £35 million to their name. In terms of what it would cost to carry out a conventional war, with jet fighters and tanks and so forth, it'd be small change. One Mirage jet fighter, for example, runs to $60 million. All the costs Teribus puts in there would only come to a fraction of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Sep 03 - 02:54 PM On another thread about September 11th 2001 DougR made a post I wanted to respond to - but I felt that thread wasn't the right place to do it. So this is what I would have posted there. Doug indicates that he sees what happened in Iraq as genuinely a part of a war against the people who were responsible for September 11th, and as a way of fighting international terrorism. Maybe this might give him pause. It has now emerged - front page in most British papers - that shortly before the war the British Joint Intelligence Committee advised the British Prime Minister that in its view the war was likely to "would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists" and that the threat from Al Qaida "would be heightened by military action against Iraq." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:30 PM You're blowing smoke, Teribus. [Your comments on my post in italics, my responses to your comments in blue.] Your response to my first paragraph: You say, If the entire [emphasis mine] resources of a nation were put to that use. . . . I said nothing about the entire resources of a nation. Nor did I say that they didn't spend a lot of money on this operation or that they did not have an extensive organization. What I said was that the planning and the financial backing necessary to carry off such an attack did not require the resources of an entire nation or an organization any more extensive than the hijackers themselves. Hollywood scripts have nothing to do with it. And what "evidence so far gathered by police forces throughout Europe and in America itself" are you referring to? No solid connection to any particular nation has ever been established, only assumed or alleged. I stand by that. Second paragraph: I think Powell was right in the first place. And as far as bin Laden's delight that the towers collapsed, this does not indicate his prior knowledge of what was to happen. The towers had been attacked before, if you recall, and it's no surprise that this group of terrorists still had it on the books. It is not proof, however, that this was bin Laden's operation. If he's the megalomaniac he's made out to be, I think he would have crowed about how well his operation had worked. But he didn't. Third Paragraph: I was not even thinking of Clinton's cruise missile attack. You have an interesting dissertation on the military operations in Afghanistan, but none of it refutes anything I said. And I am aware that Afghanistan was no Eden and had been a battleground for several nations and local factions for some time, but when the US aided them in the war with the Soviet Union, it made lots of promises about helping them rebuild the country, then when the Soviets left, we dropped them like a pregnant girl friend. There was one helluva lot of resentment about that in Afghanistan and all over the Arab world. "Look how the Americans keep their promises!" Now, again we promise to rebuild Afghanistan after we went after al Quaeda, and once again we're sneaking out on the deal because we have other fish to fry in Iraq. I could give you a list as long as your arm of the promises that Bush and his administration has made to folks, both foreign and domestic, that he has never followed through on, and this is merely one on that list. Your description of conditions in Afghanistan are laughable. . . .I don't think the Afghanis find this very laughable. I don't find it laughable either. Why? Do you? Fourth paragraph: If you chose to continue spreading this lie, all well and good, but it does not alter the fact that what you are saying is not true and will continue to be untrue no matter how many times you reiterate it, or how much those reading your posts, or listening to you, wish to believe it. Its a lie Don, be honest enough to admit it. Calling me a liar doesn't make me one, no matter how much you may wish to buttress up your argument. Anybody who hasn't been living in a cave for the last couple of years can attest to the Bush administration's drumbeat of associating 9/11 with Saddam Hussein. See my post—12 Sep 03 - 04:43 AM—in response to Bev and Jerry's comment. I'm not going to re-argue the matter of Saddam's alleged nuclear capability and his stockpile of WMDs. Their existence or lack thereof and their strange failure to appear has been argued extensively in other threads, not to mention by a couple of Congressional committees who keep wanting answers and not getting them, and, of course, there are the scorch marks that appear on Tony Blair's behind administered by many of his constituents who also want answers to their questions, not just repeated assertions. And as far as my veracity is concerned, Teribus, watch your mouth. Or, in this case, your keyboard. [Back to normal fonts.] Teribus, disagreeing with someone is one thing. Calling him a liar, however, is beyond the pale. You've gone through my post paragraph by paragraph and spent a great deal of time and effort lifting selected remarks of mine out of context, analyzing what you say I have said, occasionally misquoting me by a word or two here and there, and generally misconstruing, misinterpreting, and distorting what I have written. This does not make ME the liar. I stand by everything I wrote. I could continue, refuting your line-by-line attempt to refute me (I note from your previous posts that this is your style—misinterpret, set up a straw man, then knock it down, in the meantime, trying to bury whoever you disagree with in an avalanche of essentially irrelevant information, with the hoped-for side-effect of convincing people that you're more knowledgeable than you really are). But I have a life to live, so apart from what I have written in this post so far, I'm not going to waste time continuing with this. I, for one, have a busy day ahead, which includes a letter to my Congressional Representative, and I have an e-mail to get off the to Letters to the Editor departments of a couple of newspapers (not to mention a song I'm learning). I can't waste any more time arguing with you. People can read for themselves what I posted, then read your interpretations, and decide for themselves where the veracity is to be found. You object to my frequent references to the Project for the New American Century web site. Again, I invite people to read it for themselves and decide—for themselves—the relevance of my references. I can understand your dislike of this. Indeed, that's why I thought, on a couple of occasions, that they had pulled the site, because it so blatantly reveals their intentions, which are so obviously being carried out as we sit here writing to each other. As far as the last sentence in my eighth paragraph is concerned, I am not the only one who is wondering about the strange lack of interest in early intelligence reports about a possible attack on 9/11. And why, when the airliners obviously departed from their flight plans, fighter planes were not scrambled to go and investigate as regulations demand and had been done in all such departures from flight plan—until this one. Don't you wonder about this? If not, why not? Or would you just rather not think about it from fear that it might lead you to wonder a bit also? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 12 Sep 03 - 05:38 PM Teribus, there you go again, objecting to 20/20 hindsight. I'm sure you'd prefer us to put on blindfolds when looking backwards. Anyway, try this for a dollop of 20/20 foresight, which I've just put up as a link in the 'quagmire' thread: Tony Benn, House of Commons, 1998. After clicking the clickie, follow the "audio gallery" link and select extract #2. It's only very short, but plenty of 20/20 in there. What did you make of that little point of McGrath's (which I have also posted somewhere) about Tony Blair telling parliament that war was the only way to stop Iraq's WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists, when his own intellience agencies had told him that war would increase the risk? I don't manage to read your posts in detail, Teribus, but I realise what I'm missing when my eye lights on such gems of scholarship as Germany is certainly not the cheapest country to live in.... I mean that clinches it: the combined governments of Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Saudi must have been in it up to their eyeballs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:27 PM Hey, you all gettin' poor ol' T confuzerated with them, ahhhh, facts. Now say yer sorry.... Bobert p.s. And, yeah, heck of a job, Don, Part 2! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: michaelr Date: 12 Sep 03 - 07:45 PM I posted this in the wrong thread, so here it is again: I would urge anyone who still believes that Bush & Co had nothing to do with and/or no foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks to peruse the following sites: www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/#911 www.globalresearch.ca//by-topic/sept11 The US-Pakistan-Bin Laden money connection and the unanswered questions about why there was no military response that morning are particularly troubling. We haven't been told nearly all there is to know. Cheers, Michael PS to Don: Experts are disputing that anyone with just a couple of hours on a flight simulator could have executed the maneuvers that were flown with those big airliners (270 degree turns, steep banks, etc.), and conclude that there must have been experienced military or commercial pilots at the helm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: LadyJean Date: 12 Sep 03 - 10:06 PM Osama bin Laden shouldn't be running around loose. He was behind a number of bombings before 9/11. He's a dangerous terrorist. He's also a slimeball who lives in comfort and safety, while others do his dirty work for him. But the current administration doesn't seem to know how to catch bin Laden. All they seem to know is how to drop bombs, which do more harm than good, and spend money. If "War On Terror Called Bogus" is even half true, Bush shouldn't be running around loose either. I didn't think he should be president in 1999. I'm sure of it now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Greg F. Date: 12 Sep 03 - 11:17 PM Nor should Henry Kissinger be running around loose, vide the bombing of Cambodia. Plenty of slimeballs out there who belong behind bars. Osama & Dubya are just two of 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 13 Sep 03 - 04:59 AM Regarding the blowing of smoke Don: What you stated: Then Bush and Company attacked Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks What I pointed out: No one in the current US Administration has EVER "claimed" that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks Now which of those statements is true? Bev and Jerry's post asked you: We don't think Bush and Company ever actually accused Sadaam Hussein of being responsible for the 9/11 attacks, did he? To which you responded: Right, Bev and Jerry. To be fair to Bush, I don't recall hearing him ever actually saying outright that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. That then begs the question - Why did you say so in the first place then - "Then Bush and Company attacked Iraq, claiming that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks," - should you continue to repeat than claim, you are stating something that you know, and have admitted to knowing, to be untrue. In my book that is telling a lie, it does not even fall into the realm of gross misrepresentation. On Afghanistan, during the Soviet ocupation, the US backed and aided the Mujahadeen (Sp?), one of whose groups were the Taliban, they did not solely back the Taliban. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan the previously united Mujahadeen fractured and reverted to their clan based groups, warlord fought warlord. The one group that did not fit that pattern were the Taliban, who consisted of Pashtun Afghani's and foreigners united by religious dogma. They continued to receive financial aid from sympathisers abroad, but that aid was not directed at any rebuilding programme within Afghanistan. That aid had sole purpose of establishing the Taliban as the defacto rulers of Afghanistan by force of arms. In that situation (internal conflict) who were the US Administration of the time to deal with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 13 Sep 03 - 11:41 AM Out of context and misinterpreted again, Teribus. E.g, you quote the first part of the first sentence of my paragraph to Bev and Jerry, breaking off at the comma, but you leave out the rest, which alters the meaning of the whole thing. Teribus, why don't you apply for a job as a Bush administration spin doctor? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 Sep 03 - 11:49 AM Re the "War on Expertise" .. We here in Queensland Australia had a Premier (a peanut grower) who was a classic anti-intellectual. When he accepted the Honary Doctorate from the University of Queensland, I was there. Funny how the papers called it a riot! The TV pictures that showed the crowd swarming around him on his entrance to the great hall missed one thing - the protestors had walked away from the entrance on cue from the leaders, so the only people in the crowd were police, reporters, plain clothes police, and the infamous "Special Branch" - who were only not wearing a brownshirt as part of their uniform because Joh was eventually convinced that this might be misunderstood by those who had studied history! He was eventually persuaded by public opinion to retire (we do have elections!) after much Public Fuss and the resultant Fitzgerald Enquiry. But he was in power for over a decade. He now (2 decades later) is allegedly trying to sue the Qld State Government for defamation and damages because he was shamed into selling some of his Mining shares at a loss, in light of the profits they sunsequently made... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bev and Jerry Date: 13 Sep 03 - 04:14 PM Teribus: We also object to being quoted out of context. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 13 Sep 03 - 05:19 PM Does anybody think that a country like Iraq,filled with all kinds of religious lunatics can ever become "democratic"? So are we being kidded into thinking the reason USA and UK are there is "democratisation". Surely after our experiences in Afganistan,ect we dont really believe "democracy" can be imposed on these people. Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 03 - 06:19 PM "..a country like Iraq,filled with all kinds of religious lunatics" It strikes me there seem to be an awful lot of people in other countries who could reasonably be termed "religious lunatics". Including the most powerful country on the planet, which aspires, with some degree of success, to be "democratic". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 03 - 06:44 PM And there's a quote from William Blake that's seems to me to be very relevant to all this juggling of who said and did exactly what - "A truth thats told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent". ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 13 Sep 03 - 06:49 PM Mr Mcgrath..You cant be trying to equate our tame lunatics with the wild men of Iraq.How many Catholic suicide bombers do you know? The point I was making concerned the stupidity of trying to transplant Western style "democracy" to places like Iraq. Ake.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 03 - 07:09 PM Well I rather doubt if Timothy McVeigh really thought he was going to get away with it, even though he didn't stick around to get blown up. He was a sort of delayed action suicide bomber. And Paul Hill wasn't a bomber, but after killing the abortion doctor and his body guard, he stuck around and handed himself in, and didn't appeal against the death sentence. Again, the IRA Hunger Strikers weren't suicide bombers, but there was a lot of common ground in the mindset involved. If democracy can manage to work in the USA, with all its histiorcal baggage, and in a Europe, where a generation ago fanatics were running extermination camps, there's no reason it shouldn't work in somewhere like Iraq. "Western style" - which "Western style" would that be? Texas or Sweden or France or Italy or Israel? Democracy in Iraq would surely be as different from any of these as all of these are from each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 13 Sep 03 - 07:27 PM Och I cant agree with your examples..They all had axes to grind which had nothing to do with religion,especially the IRA men I suspect you would agree that not much change in our society comes about by "democratic" means....more by use of what ever power is available.(Use of the media is becoming a very popular way of exerting a bit of pressure..Political terrorism?) Best wishes Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Sep 03 - 10:04 PM The point is that being willing to die in the course of carrying out some terrible action to further a cause you believe in is not restricted to any one type of culture or religion. It's very much part of "Western" culture, and has been for a long time. People don't need to be religious lunatics to be suicide bombers or similar (though if they did it seems clear there's no shortage of religious lunatics around in the USA - not just there, but they do seem to have greater political muscle there than anywhere else outside the Middle East, if the media are to be believed, which of course is always a very big "if"). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 14 Sep 03 - 03:17 PM I think that one of the problems with the United States government (not speaking specifically of the Bush administration, but most U.S. administrations to one degree or another since the end of World War II) trying to "democratize" or teach democracy to other countries, such as Iraq or any one else for that matter, is the U.S. government's failure to understand the true nature of democracy. Especially now, when true democracy is inimical to it's goals, both foreign and domestic. My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines democracy as 1 a : government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power if vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free electionsA more thorough and extensive understanding of democracy would involve the study of various philosophical arguments going back as far as ancient Greece, if not before, and following the arguments through various philosophers since then. But all the understanding that most people have of democracy is that "we have free elections, we vote, and then everything is supposed to come out right." But simply because we can choose our leaders and representatives (theoretically, barring hanging chads and other hanky-panky) doesn't mean our leaders and representatives are necessarily going to act in our best interests or in the best interests of the country as a whole. All too often (sometimes, it seems, always) they act for the benefit of special interests. If more Americans had a less parochial view, they would see that there are other countries who do this (act in the best interests of their citizens and their country as a whole) far better than we do. Without going into a line-by-line analysis of the dictionary definition and comparing that with what actually goes on in this country (you can do that perfectly well for yourself), let me just say that democracy does not mean "making the the world safe for American-based multi-national corporations." A government which consists of a melding of governmental power with corporate interests is not a democracy, even if it does have free elections. There is another word for that kind of government, but it's a word people don't like to hear. Before we arrogate to ourselves the incredibly smug task of teaching the rest of the world true democracy, I think we need to clean up our own house first. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 03 - 03:57 PM Don ...I read all your posts with interest, and most of the time agree with what you say. Iv thought about the definition of democracy for a long time and am coming to the conclusion that real democracy is impossible to attain. The moment people attain power,whether elected or not ,they begin to manipulate others.This seems to apply to the whole political spectrum.Socialists dont appear to be any better than Conservatives in this respect.My conclusions have led me to give up on politics and politicians alltogether. For real democracy we require a creed with no hierarchy...Very difficult to achieve...Best wishes Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: michaelr Date: 14 Sep 03 - 04:08 PM Right on, Ake... selfishness is a very deep-rooted human trait. It's for the same reason that communism will never work - people want to be better than, not equal to, their fellow man. Good ideas, incompatible with human nature. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Sep 03 - 05:00 PM I don't think most people worry much about being better than their fellow man - or better off than, which is what I think you mean, michaelr. We worry about having enough to get by for ourselves and the people dependent on us. Give me that and I'd sooner make music than try to get more. Getting more than you need is a way of insuring against getting less than you need. A real drag, even if sonetimes you feel bound to try to do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: akenaton Date: 14 Sep 03 - 05:13 PM Trying to be better off than your neighbour is surely what motivates this "Great" economic system of ours |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Sep 03 - 05:19 PM Or possibly, trying not to get pushed to the wall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 14 Sep 03 - 05:59 PM Well, heck, Don, what's wrong with our democracy, anyway? Huh? Hey, it's the best that money can buy, ain't it?... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:10 PM LadyJean, you cannot possibly know that Bin Laden lives in comfort and safetly. More probably you're pedling what you've been told and were gullible enough to believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:39 PM Pure democracy (majority rule) is not really a good idea. The Greeks figured this out. An example of this is a lynch mob. Umpteen votes for, one vote against. The only chance a democracy has of being a successful form of govenment is if it's a constitutional democracy. There has to be a limit to what the majority can do to a minority (right down to the individual), the electorate has to be kept well informed (which requires freedom of the press and a press that takes it's responsibility seriously), and the electorate itself must take it's responsibility seriously. So far, I think we're getting a grade of D minus at best. Not good. So it remains to be seen if democracy will ever be successful. It's up to us, folks. At least, so far. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Gareth Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:40 PM Hmmm ! For those of you who were able to read the Uk Sunday papers you may have noted that Micheal Meacher is now running around saying that his words were misinterpreted. Still I am confident that some "crusading journalist" will take the opportunity to advance his career condeming every one but the guilty, another step into/along the gutter. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 Sep 03 - 10:08 AM Don, I like your comments above on Democracy. But ancient Greek "Democracy" was so different from US Democracy! Most people did not have the right to vote, only the rich and powerful capitalistic landowners could vote and stand to be elected. They had to pay their own expenses, and maybe if war was declared, they could get some profit out of looting the invaded land. Whereas in US Democracy, most people don't vote, those who seem most likely to be elected are either rich and powerful, and/or have rich and powerful friends to pay their election expenses, and if war... oooh, sorry, I'll be quite now... :-) Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 03 - 11:29 AM maybe if war was declared, they could get some profit out of looting the invaded land. Go on, don't be shy! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: redhorse Date: 15 Sep 03 - 06:41 PM While Teribus maks some fair points, I can't let "It was an attack on western civilisation in its entirety, not solely directed against the United States of America." past. If 9/11 had one unambiguous aspect it was as an attack on the USA. The World Trade Centre was not the sole target, as supporters of the "attack on civilisation" position imply by neglect. Power is Political, Financial and Military. The 9/11 attacks (plural) were aimed at the White House (probably), the world Trade Centre and the Pentagon, symbols to all the world of American (not Western)power in the three areas. The target was unquestionably USA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: michaelr Date: 15 Sep 03 - 07:42 PM McGrath, point taken... but then, I don't think you and I and most of us folkies are typical. Unbridled greed seems to be the norm. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Sep 03 - 08:20 PM I think we're a lot more typical than it might seem. Except, for other people it mightn't be music, but some other kind of enjoyable activity. But while we're doing that the ones with sharp teeth and pointy elbows and an obsession for power and possessions move on in and up, and we let them. And they even take over the organisations that people like us set up to stop that happening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,Mannie Date: 16 Sep 03 - 12:26 PM There are a lot of good comments here and a lot of useful info. It will take a while to get through it all. Meanwhile, can I ask a naïve question ? I don't doubt the Iraq war was about oil and Western domination. But what the hell was that Afghanistan thing all about ? I am more and more convinced that 9-11 was allowed to happen, but why head straight for Afghanistan on that ridiculous manhunt ? Just to use and sell out arms ? To practise for Iraq ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 16 Sep 03 - 03:07 PM Mannie, it was to establish a safe and secure route for a natural gas pipeline from the oil and natural gas-rich Caspian region through Afghanistan to Dabhol, India. The pipeline was to be built by Unocal to supply a natural gas plant run by Enron in Dabhol. They had been dickering with the Taliban back in 1997, but someplace along the line, the Taliban squelched the deal. Not to be put off, when the opportunity presented itself (9/11), they got their errand-boy in the White House to go to Afghanistan, throw the Taliban out, and get the route for them. The fact that the Taliban was an oppressive regime and that there were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan didn't really bother us much until the Taliban said "no" to Unocal and Enron. They just provided convenient excuses to cover the real reasons—like much of what the Bush administration has done so far. This gives a few clues as to the real reasons for going into Afghanistan. Links to other information once you get there. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 16 Sep 03 - 03:37 PM Foolestroupe said But ancient Greek "Democracy" was so different from US Democracy!But those were the basic premises of U.S. democracy in the beginning as well. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 03 - 04:42 PM True enough perhaps - is Gertrude's Prayer by Kipling applicable here? "THAT which is marred at birth Time shall not mend, Nor water out of bitter well make clean; A11 evil thing returneth at the end, Or elseway walketh in our blood unseen. Whereby the more is sorrow in certaine— Dayspring mishandled cometh not againe..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 16 Sep 03 - 09:11 PM That's Right Mark, and don't forget Slavery.... which the Greeks had too... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 17 Sep 03 - 05:27 AM Thanks for the link Don: Bush's Homeland Security Pipeline March 29, 2002 By Harry Neville From which we get the following "But what kind of homeland security do we have when a president can create an administration populated by former employees and investors in Enron, an energy-trading company that used numerous schemes to raise the cost of energy it sells to various California utilities. Among those schemes was the act of clogging up electrical lines to create rolling blackouts for a phony energy shortage." So former Enron employees should not be allowed to find other jobs within the energy sector? Investors in Enron, who lost money when that company crashed, and who had nothing to do with the running of that company should be marked down as unsuitable and unemployable for life? The world and it's uncle, have for years realised that fuel prices in America are too low when compared to consumption, and have been for decades. Get used to it, consume it at the rate at which you are doing now and the prices are going to go through the roof. "Bush could then use this alleged shortage to justify drilling for oil in regions previously regarded as unfeasible by the U.S. Government. Among those regions is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Caspian Sea near Afghanistan." The US government declares whether or not regions outwith the US are feasible? Don't think so. The involvement of international oil companies in the countries surrounding the Caspian Sea go back to the final days of Soviet Russia. "Bush gave us additional homeland security by having Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton--an oil drilling company--meet with Enron as part of the Energy Task Force." Of course, Bush refuses to disclose what was discussed in those meetings with Enron." Is that the same Dick Cheney whose, " career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House. When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration. After he returned to his home state of Wyoming in 1977, Mr. Cheney was elected to serve as the state's sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988. During his tenure in the House, Mr. Cheney earned a reputation as a man of knowledge, character, and accessibility. Mr. Cheney also served a crucial role when America needed him most. As Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993, Mr. Cheney directed two of the largest military campaigns in recent history - Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. He was responsible for shaping the future of the U.S. military in an age of profound and rapid change as the Cold War ended. For his leadership in the Gulf War, Secretary Cheney was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush on July 3, 1991." Oh well then, that confirms it – this guy is totally unsuited to public office – hasn't got a clue – hell they could have plucked anybody off the street and found someone with ten times this guys experience and ability. Don't think so. Halliburton – oil drilling company – drilling is one tiny part of what is the largest oil service company in the world. Energy Task Force – created by Dick Cheney when? At the time of its creation were Enron in business? If they were then it would only seem logical that they would come into contact and be involved with the Energy Task Force. "Of course, Bush refuses to disclose what was discussed in those meetings with Enron. Perhaps the reason is that the proposed Afghanistan oil pipeline was the topic of discussion. After all, recently released correspondence between Ken Lay and Bush reveals that Lay, former CEO of Enron, "confirmed a meeting with Bush and Uzbekistan's ambassador to the United States." This seems odd because Uzbekistan is a key territory for development of the Afghanistan oil pipeline." I believe that discussions relating to the proposed TAP predate the current US administration and Enron by quite a few years. As does that particular projects demise, but more on that later. "What should make us all feel insecure about our newfound homeland security is that Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, bought H.C. Price Company (now called Bredero-Shaw http://www.bredero-shaw), a Texas-based oil company that supplies anticorrosion coatings for oil pipelines and is a joint partner of the Saudi Bin-Laden Group http://www.sbg.com.sa, a construction company that is owned by the Bin-Laden family and builds crude-oil pipelines." Halliburton's acquisition of Bredero-Shaw/Bredero-Price came about through the Halliburton merger/take-over with/of Dresser, one of Halliburtons main competitors as a major oil service company. It was not acquired specifically for their expertise in their particular field. It is totally logical, and reasonable business practice, that a company that coats pipelines has joint venture partnerships and frame contract agreements with companies that design and build pipelines. "Logic would indicate that the Bin-Laden Group has the heavy equipment in the region near Afghanistan that would facilitate the building of the pipeline through Afghanistan. And, Halliburton--Cheney's old oil-drilling company--can drill for the oil that is to be fed through the pipeline. Is that pipeline and a possible role in it by the Bin-Laden family the kind of security we seek?" Yes it is logical, it is equally logical that there are others who fall into this category who are better placed both geographically and logistically to support pipeline operations aimed at piping oil from Afghanistan. It is also logical that the shortest pipelines are laid to tie-in with existing infrastructure. That means the pipelines run to the north and to the west from Afghanistan – that is what is actually going to happen – the proposed TAP is not. Why is the TAP not going to go ahead? – Logic takes a hand in the reasons for this: 1. Success of the TAP relied on the gas being sold to India – India will not ever rely on energy sources routed through Pakistan, as the TAP would have to do. An alternative for India is a subsea pipeline from southern Iran, this pipeline has been under discussion since 1994, declarations of intent have been signed, by both governments – that effectively killed the proposed TAP. 2. In general the West pays more for energy, which makes them a better customer. Transport royalties for use of existing Russian pipelines were reduced which made the export of oil and gas from Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, etc, more financially attractive to the governments of those countries – that effectively killed the proposed TAP. 3. Pipeline routes – north and west, not so many problems, existing infrastructure and a ready market – South through Afghanistan and through Pakistan, politically unstable (at the time of discussion) with a government only recognised by Pakistan. The pipeline would have to run through the Hindu-Kush, very mountainous very expensive, the product then has to be transported further afield to reach it's market, which would have to be won. The bin-Laden family are implicated with the activities of their son? Or is that just a case of "collective responsibility", or "guilt by association", being totally acceptable because it happens to suit the particular conspiracy theory being built? "Next in Bush's quest for homeland security comes Unocal, an oil company that builds oil and gas pipelines. Bush recently appointed a former advisor to UNOCAL as a U.S. envoy to Afghanistan. This might not raise a few eyebrows if it weren't for the fact that UNOCAL has long sought a pipeline that would stretch from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and would tap the enormous oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea region near Afghanistan." Now why on earth would you route a pipeline from the countries bordering the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan, when there are numerous export pipeline networks already in existence, that serve better paying customers at a fraction of the cost? "UNOCAL was so motivated to get this pipeline that it met with representatives of the Taliban in Texas in 1997. I don't know about you, but that sure makes me feel secure." Does Afghanistan need pipelines? Yes of course it does, TAP was not, and never has been, the only option, and by the time the discussions referred to took place, TAP was becoming less and less likely to proceed. Unocal, by the by, does not build pipelines, it pays others to build them on their behalf. They then operate the pipelines. In the case of TAP, ownership of the sections of the pipeline running through the three countries was to be handed over to the governments of those countries after a set time limit. "So, if I were really cynical about homeland security, I'd say that the Saudi Bin-Laden Group would provide UNOCAL with the heavy equipment needed to build the Afghanistan pipeline." Possible, provided the logistics and costs were right. A Saudi pipeline construction company would certainly be more politically acceptable to the governments of at least two of those countries – in other words good business sense on the part of Unocal. They (Saudi Bin-Laden Group) would not, however, be the only contenders for this work that would satisfy such sensitivities. "I'd then take a great mental leap and say that Halliburton would do the drilling to feed the pipeline." The fields are already in existence, little or no drilling required. Would probably have got involved with reservoir technology and wellhead injection equipment to extend life of existing fields. "And I'd top off my cynicism by saying that Enron--an energy trading company--would bid up the price of the oil and natural gas to sell it at high cost to neighboring countries such as India, home of Enron's Dabhol natural gas power plant. Keep in mind that Unocal's pipelines can carry gas, and Enron badly needed the gas reserves from the Caspian Sea for a pipeline that would route natural gas to its Dabhol power plant in India. In "The Enron-Cheney-Taliban-Connection," an article that appeared on the Web site, AlterNet.org, writer Ron Callari says: "the Vice President's energy task force changed a draft energy proposal to include a provision to boost oil and natural gas production in India in February of last year." Callari says this proposal was meant to help Enron with its Dabhol power plant. The article linked to refers to an alternative proposal under consideration by the Indian Government to get gas from Qatar. That fell through, there is no mention of any negotiations between India and Iran, ongoing since 1994, with declarations of intent signed in 1998. Also take a look at the map in that link and find the shortest distance between Iran and Enron's Dabhol power plant – subsea pipeline from Bandar Abbas. "In a 1996 Telegraph article entitled "Warring nation holds key to oil riches of Central Asia," writer Christopher Lockwood says that UNOCAL had been negotiating with the Taliban for a natural gas pipeline that would stretch through Afghanistan and end in Pakistan. From there, it's only a short hop, skip and jump away to Enron's natural gas Dabhol power plant in India. What a surprise?" It would be one hell of a surprise to the electorate of India if their government went for an energy scheme that meant Pakistan had its hands very much on the supply of energy required by India. The proposal is a total anathema to the Indian government and electorate. "Of course, I like to feel secure. And, if I felt Bush were drafting energy legislation to help oil companies exploit Afghanistan, then I'd have to say he allowed 9/11 to happen. 9/11 essentially cleared the way for Halliburton, UNOCAL, Enron, and other oil and gas entities to make the Afghanistan pipeline possible. And, 9/11 enabled Bush to send U.S. troops to Afghanistan to clear away militant Taliban forces that are hostile to this pipeline project." Now discussions relating to TAP, and other pipelines in the region have been going on for at least 12 years – Bush is DRAFTING energy legislation – He's a bit bloody late in the day for that isn't he? By at least ten years - He's only been in office since 2000. The Taliban were overthrown by Northern Alliance forces, with the assistance of American air power and a few forward observers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 03 - 12:28 PM The Taliban were overthrown by Northern Alliance forces, with the assistance of American air power and a few forward observers Right, sure -- we just helped with the final push, they had it half done before we got involved --- NOT. The Northern Alliance would not have moved without US air power. Why cast it as though the role of the Bush administration was a trivial element? It was the critical, deciding element. It was predominantly air power because that was the safe way to do it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 17 Sep 03 - 12:34 PM Teribus, you sure love to go around Robin Hood's barn to miss a point. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 17 Sep 03 - 01:52 PM I case you don't have anything to do for the next few hours, Teribus, parse these:— Afghanistan. Tells a somewhat different story from what you tell. Time Magazine on Cheney. Granted, the writer obviously doesn't think much of Cheney, but the piece is loaded with facts. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 18 Sep 03 - 06:18 AM Amos, Your point is fully acknowledged, US air power was a crucial and deciding factor. My comments address the contention by some that the US invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban - they didn't, they assisted, they did not invade. The arrival of foreign troops in anything that could be called significant numbers was something that was negotiated with the Northern Alliance Command Council after the Taliban had been expelled from Kabul. If memory serves me correctly first troops to arrive at Baghram Airport were Royal Marines and there was much to-ing and fro-ing to establish what they could and couldn't do. They were restricted solely to within the airport perimeter and they were tasked with making the airport safe, prior to the arrival of Mohamed Karzai. Further negotiations led to that initial force being increased in size to make the road between the airport and Kabul safe. Don thanks for the links, The first is quite good and clearly shows that the TAP was a dead duck about two years before GWB came into office ("In 1998, after the U.S. bombed Al-Qaeda training camps in retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa, UNOCAL pulled out of the pipeline negotiations.") . The second, was purely an anti-Cheney rant which had almost as much to say about his "baton twirling" wife as it did about the man himself. The article seems to concentrate on the contract awarded to Halliburton prior to operations in Iraq earlier this year: "Halliburton's construction and engineering subsidiary has been paid nearly $1 billion through government contracts containing profit-guarantees, and various other contracts initiated since the company's former CEO arrived in the White House. Halliburton has built military bases in the former Soviet Union and Turkey, and it made $33 million building jail cells for terrorists at Camp X-Ray. (In all fairness, even these contracts don't make up for Cheney's major accomplishment as CEO, an acquisition which is expected to cost Halliburton upwards of $4 billion in asbestos liabilities.) Just before the Iraq war started, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton an "emergency" contract for oil fields reconstruction, which was awarded without the usual government bidding process because of said "emergency" (and despite the fact that the invasion wasn't on any particular timetable and the fact it had been in the works for a year and a half). The deal was authorized for up to $7 billion, but the Army didn't trash the country with sufficient enthusiasm to make the whole amount, and the actual size of the deal is now estimated at $600 million (assuming Halliburton survives the lawsuits from competitors who inexplicably feel that something fishy is going on here). A disappointment to be sure, but Cheney has at least two more years to make it up to them. And then there's always Syria... And Iran... And..." This subject has been discussed before on this forum, but taking a look at the correspondence on the subject we get the following: The correspondence centres around letters by Senators Waxman and Dingell to the US Army and to the GAO. Waxman Letter 26th March 2003 to the US Army: In which Waxman refers to the contract to extinguish oil field fires in Iraq. His concerns relate to the fact that there appears to be no set time limit; No set cost limit; That the contract is based on a cost plus basis. Specific issues raised by Waxman, related to, 1. Failure on the part of the administration to open the bids to competitive tendering; 2. The Army only went to Kellog Brown & Root; 3. Waxman wanted estimated costs and duration of this contract; 4. He also wanted details relating to contract structure; 5. Confirmation that the award of this contract was in compliance with Federal Laws and Regulations; 6. He wanted to know what safeguards were in place against contractor cost inflation; 7. He finally asked questions relating to the time lag between contract awarded and when it was announced. The US Army responded on 8th April 2003 as follows: A. To points 1 & 2 above Waxman was referred to a Frame Agreement Contract awarded to Halliburton in 1997/8. A contract won on the basis of competitive tender. The contract for work in Iraq in relation to oil field fires was awarded to KB&R as the US Army's existing Frame Agreement Contractor. Other considerations that influenced the Army's decision were, type of work likely to be involved, required security clearances; unnecessary duplication of effort; Timing. B. To point 3 above, Waxman was told that estimates were made (7 billion US$ and 2 years - Kuwait model) but there was no way of quantifying an exact scope of work. It was a contingency measure - hence cost plus basis of the contract (Costs + 2-5%), it could not be done any other way. (Note: Normal mark up would have been around the 10-15% level for oil-field construction operations - Dresser, who Halliburton took over in 1996 operated on a profit margin of 20%) C. Point 4 - answered short term contract on cost+ basis D. Point 5. - award of contract did comply with Federal Laws and Regulations (This statement was later backed up by the GAO). KB&R were existing Frame Agreement Contractors, that contract having been awarded after competitive tender procedures had been followed. (Note: Had Halliburton/KB&R not been awarded this work they could have sued the US Goverment for breach of that contract) E. Point 6 - By process of negotiated total estimated cost, agreed before work orders are issued. Actual costs justified and verified after which a profit margin of between 2 and 5 % is added. F. Contract award was 8.03.03; announcement was made 24.03.03 - Contract awarded because SH stated intention that Iraqi oil fields would be sabotaged in the event of US/UK military action. Announcement delayed until 24th for security reasons. Announcement prior to this might have triggered early destruction of the oil-fields by SH and the Ba'athist regime. Waxman and Dingell put the same points to the GAO and got the same answers (Waxman/Dingell letter 8.04.03) There was a further exchange of letters between Waxman and the US Army (Waxman letter 10.04.03). In this letter Waxman sought further clarification on points previously raised. Clarifications were addressed by the Army who provided greater detail. Further exchange of letters between Waxman and the Army (16.04.03) relating to reports in the Washington Post and in the Wall Street Journal. In response the Army referred the Senator to answers given in previous correspondence. After this exchange of letters the matter seems to have died a death. Round Robin Hood's barn once more - with all points covered, as they have been in my previous posts - not one challenged in detail, still, Don, your resorting to to the tactic where if you can't attack the arguement attack the man is plainly seen for what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:54 PM Sayingb the Northern Alliance overthrew the Taliban is a bit like saying the French Resistance overthrew the German occupation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 18 Sep 03 - 03:43 PM But Teribus, you aren't really offering any argument, you are just offering a denial and attaching fairly impressive quantities of "cut-and-paste" material that only vaguely relates. You mistake quantity for quality. That's been your style all along, and it is plainly seen for what it is. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 18 Sep 03 - 05:55 PM Well McGrath, I'm not sure just how effective the N.A. were, (and would have been on their own) especially since The US Govt was giving the Taliban heaps of money allegedly to stop Opium production... The French Resistance did insist on liberating Paris, when the Allied Commander (U.S. I believe!) wanted to bypass it, while the Germans put their plans to raze it to the ground into effect. Without them, many things would have been near impossible, including hiding/smuggling Allied agents and POWs. There was a recent good multi-part TV doco on DeGaulle, and his role in The Free French. He didn't want to deal with those who dealt with the Germans, but the US & Britian preferred to deal with them instead of him. Funny how the French loved him, and did't take so well to the US after the war when the story came out... Quote I was first made aware of this dislike when I first crossed the Channel to visit France. The year was 1953. The sentiment firmly expressed to me was 'We [the French and other continentals] dislike you British just a little less than we dislike the Americans.' And this just a few years after American armed forces had assisted in the liberation of France from the Nazis. Unquote from francis freespirit oxford, england in another list elsewhere just after Sep 11 2001 Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 03 - 06:05 PM I wasn't disregarding what the Resistance did. But basically it wasn't the military impact that was significant, it was that it made it possible for it to be a liberation rather than an occupation. And Iraq today shows how important that distinction can be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Mark Clark Date: 19 Sep 03 - 02:48 PM Just as the real world powers were on both sides of the American Revolutionionary War—see my Fuller link above—those same real world powers were on both sides of WWII. The capitalist “free world” was far more comfortable dealing with German collaborators and ex Nazi's who shared their social and economic goals, than they were dealing with people of principle who may not share the same vision. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,Mannie Date: 20 Sep 03 - 11:39 AM Thanks Don Firth for that info. I get it now ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Sep 03 - 11:06 PM Oh Mark, you mentioned THE WAR (revolutionary!) Don't Mention THE WAR!!!! Hereunder's a little article that explains the US attitude to war, and probably why Vietnam was a disaster. Makes you wonder ... What with the staedy rate of loss of US forces in IRAQ, I wonder whether the same path will unfold.... I also recently heard about a new book due to be released in Jan 2004 called "Wars of Sorrow" or similar. Compares the US with the Roman Empire. Interesting point was how things changed as the army got more political power. Things reached the point where the Roman Empire had to be kept in a constant state of external war just to keep things pacified politically at home... Things were never the same after Julius Ceaser... Now the US has a military man standing for President soon? Oh wait, there WAS Eisenhower... maybe it's already started. ~~~~~ http://afr.com/usattack/2001/09/14/FFX5ESTFJRC.html U S U N D E R A T T A C K WASHINGTON OBSERVED Blind fury that sparks bloodlust Sep 14 2001 Peter Hartcher Nine out of 10 Americans support armed retaliation against the forces that struck New York and Washington this week, even if it means getting into a war. And a quarter of this group endorses launching military strikes immediately - without waiting to find out who is actually responsible. In the absence of a known enemy, whom and where would the US attack? Should it be random, with a pin on a map directing a hail of missiles? Or should it be racially based? Surely only an infuriated minority of rednecks would propose such blind bloodlust? Not at all. Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli has an idea for dealing with the absence of a known perpetrator. He proposed yesterday that Congress authorise the President to open "general hostilities" and assault 10 terrorist organisations around the world immediately. "Given the enormity of the attack against our country, I think we're entitled to take action against each of them," he said. This is despite the lessons of history. The last time the US launched massive and hasty missile strikes against a terrorist, Osama bin Laden, in 1998, "all we managed to do was bounce some rubble around in Afghanistan and raise the level of anti-Americanism", in the words of Milt Bearden, a former CIA agent who worked in Afghanistan. The missiles apparently killed six children, but missed bin Laden, who survived to become the prime suspect in this week's atrocities. For many in the US, the fury is so deep that it is blind and irrational. For most Americans, it is beyond the reach of civilised restraint. The Gallup poll found that 66 per cent of the US public favours armed action "even if it means that innocent people are killed". For the US at war, this fury is normal. "Once wars begin, a significant element of American public opinion supports waging them at the highest possible level of intensity," writes the US scholar Walter Russell Mead in the journal The National Interest. And the key to understanding this war frenzy, he argues, is the same key to grasping other aspects of the American popular psyche, such as the national fetish for guns. And that key is Jacksonianism - the tradition named after the sixth US president. Andrew Jackson was a Scots-Irish immigrant who was orphaned on the frontier, fought in wars against American Indians and the British, and suffered as a prisoner of war - all by the age of 15. He was an intense hater, with crazy blue eyes, fearless in battle and "mad upon his enemy", said his biographer Robert Remini. He was poorly educated, but a brilliant strategist. At the Battle of New Orleans he shattered an invading British army of 5,000 men, dealing them a staggering 2,000 casualties, with the loss of only a dozen or so of his own troops. Nicknamed Old Hickory for his wiry toughness and known by the Indians as Sharp Knife for his tactics, Jackson had no control over his temper. One of his contemporaries, Thomas Jefferson, said of him: "When I was president of the Senate, he was Senator, and he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it repeatedly, and as often choke with rage... He is a dangerous man." But as the country's foremost war hero, he could not be denied the presidency. Jacksonianism is a populist folk culture that has its roots in the sense of identity among the Scots-Irish who settled much of the American West. It distrusts elites, favours rugged individualism, loves guns, loathes multilateralism and prizes courage. Ronald Reagan tapped it more successfully than any modern president. Understanding Jacksonianism is to understand the American attitude to war. According to Mead, "the first Jacksonian rule of war is that wars must be fought with all available force. The use of limited force is deeply repugnant." This school also draws sharp distinction between honourable and dishonourable enemies. In the case of dishonourable enemies, "all rules are off". This was the fate of the Japanese. Jacksonian America had no compunction about using the atomic bomb against civilians. Jackson's cultural heirs believe that the chief object of warfare was breaking an enemy's spirit. "It was not enough to defeat a tribe in battle; one had to pacify the tribe. "For this to happen, the war had to go to the enemy's home. The villages had to be burned, food supplies destroyed, civilians had to be killed. From the tiniest child to the most revered of the elderly sages, everyone in the enemy nation had to understand that further armed resistance to the will of the American people... was simply not an option." Mead argues that this strand of public opinion determines how America fights and wins wars, or, if it is denied, how it makes and breaks the presidents who defy it. Truman, Johnson and George Bush senior all defied the Jacksonian code by trying to wage limited war, and none survived the decision. The choking rage of Jacksonianism, now fully roused by a dishonourable enemy, will demand the ferocious and unrestrained prosecution of this next American war. And George W. Bush will defy it at his peril. As one of Jackson's intellectual heirs, General Curtis Le May, the man who dropped the atomic bomb, once said: "I'll tell you what war is. You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough, they stop fighting." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Teribus Date: 22 Sep 03 - 09:45 AM Don, Guest Mannie asked a question asking what the Afghanistan thing was about. The answer you provided detailed the TAP pipeline project that has been a dead duck since 1998 when Unocal pulled out. TAP will not go ahead for a whole raft of reasons and is only kept "alive" by conspiracy theorists out of convenience. What Afghanistan was about was the refusal of the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan to expell Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and hand over Al-Qaeda's leaders to face charges connected with the attacks of the 11th September 2001. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Sep 03 - 10:07 AM Just finished reading a book Air Battle Force by Dale Brown © 2003 Harper Collins which reveals the Jacksonian attitude to war, and lots of other things that shed light on some of what has been discussed in threads of this sort here. It's set a few years into the current future. Must have been written just before the hostilites started in Iraq. A bit sad though, it states (from memory) that the last casualties were half a dozen accidentally killed a few hours after "the war was over". The basic premise of the books in this series is that youc an win any war if you have overwhelming force. (The author is pushing the wagon of robot warplanes and "Tin Men" - fighters in battle armour with rail guns.) Of course, history has shown since even befoer the Roman empire - the Greeks (Alexander) and Babbylonians, etc, that while you may win wars with that philosophy, the "peace" afterward doesn't Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 03 - 01:30 PM Just because one side kills more than the other, no one actually wins a war.... War is a complete failure of folks to communictae and compromise and there can be no winners in failure.... Now the only war that can be won is one where mankind steps forward and makes an effort to change the mindset of out leaders. This can be achieved and must be achieved in this ever shrinking rock that we call earth or we will all be consumed by not making the effort. I've talked before about the creation of a Department of Peace, where large sums are spent to re-educate our own selves toward pro-human, pro-earth conflict resolution... Sure, this won't happen under the current adminstration because it is owned lock, stock and barrel by the military industrial complex, but when the pedulum swings back in the other direction, who knows? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 22 Sep 03 - 02:45 PM Teribus, conspiracy theories have nothing to do with it. UNOCAL ostensibly "withdrew" for a couple of reasons: 1. the Taliban put the kibosh on the deal; and 2. there was "strong pressure from human rights groups all over the world, and especially women's rights groups in the United States, appalled by the Taliban's policies on women. These groups threatened to organize a boycott of UNOCAL and brought bad press to the company." The project was put on hold until a more cooperative and acceptable regime could be established in Afghanistan, and is still on hold, pending the establishment of something vaguely resembling stability in Afghanistan. This is not going well (attention diverted to Iraq), and it may take awhile. Example:— Rockets Target Airport In Eastern Afghan ProvinceAnd this is only one of daily occurrences of this type going on in Afghanistan right now. This sort of thing doesn't make it in U.S. news media these days, but Afghanistan is not a happy country, despite its being "liberated" by the U.S. In the meantime, other entities, perhaps more friendly to the various belligerent factions in Afghanistan, are looking at the TAP pipeline with some interest. UNOCAL and the rest may actually lose out after all. Pakistan To Push For Tap Pipeline Even If India Stays OutBoth of the quoted items found on Afghani news service. Much of my information comes from overseas news services—rather that Fox News. You really should try to keep up on things. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,kj Date: 22 Sep 03 - 04:40 PM I heard today that the Us are going to sell of all the businesses in Iraq, right down to small shops etc, in order to "rebuild Iraq". PLEASE tell me this isn't true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 22 Sep 03 - 07:19 PM The actual story is that the puppet regime in Iraq, under the auspices of the US occupation, announced that foreign investors will be permitted to purchase up to 100% of businesses in Iraq -- excluding, (wait for it) -- oil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 03 - 07:28 PM And BTW, T-Bird, since when were the Taliban defeated? Word on the streets is that there are huge sections of Afganistan that are back under Taliban influence and that warlords, sympathetic to whoever has the most to offer them, are also flexing their muscle. So much for nation building?... If this is Bush's blueprint for nation building, Iraq oughta be real interestin'... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 22 Sep 03 - 07:45 PM Sorry -- here's a link for my previous post. Selling off Iraq For what it's worth, on another forum I belong to, several people feel that Bush and his cabal don't care if they win the next election, because they've all made a fortune off Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 03 - 08:17 PM Yup, GUEST, pdc, they sure have. And note how nicely they have also redistributed so much income to the folks who were influential in their theft of democracy... The man is reduced to just going out a lieing thru his teeth on a daily basis. Listen to what he says and compare it to his actions... What a crock... But he probably won't be defeated?... Why... Because the American people have been so dumbed down that they don't have a clue about anything. In no time in the US's history have the people known so little about issues or the government... The Washington Post reported that 2 out of every 3 Americans csannopt name one Democratic Presidental hopeful... Wonder how that number satcks up against the number of folks who can name a race car driver?!?!?!?.... So who's left to vote Bush out? Not many, that's who... But, hey, you see Stroker Johnson win the UPS/Home Dpot/Wachovia/Goodyear/Lockheed Martin/Haliburton 500 yesterday on Fox? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 22 Sep 03 - 08:20 PM Bobert, don't underestimate the electorate -- those who can't name a single Dem candidate are probably non-voters anyway. And - finally - those who do vote are finally becoming roused, and so they should, because some ugly truths are finally coming to light. P.S. Betcha buck that before the end of the year, Cheney resigns from the ticket "for health reasons." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Don Firth Date: 22 Sep 03 - 08:38 PM ". . . Bush and his cabal don't care if they win the next election, because they've all made a fortune off Iraq." Well, I dunno, pdc. I think that Bush and his Merry Men have a bit more in mind than merely stacking up the nickels. I just started a thread over this-a-way that suggests other motives at work. The thread may be an interesting discussion or it may turn out to be a real howling session. Time will tell. Give it a look. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 22 Sep 03 - 09:25 PM Already did, already responded, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 23 Sep 03 - 12:39 PM In his speech to the UN today, Bush called on other nations to help out in the rebuilding of Iraq. Among other irones (e.g. Iraq wouldn't need rebuilding without Bush), was "Second, Bush called for a worldwide drive to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction." Bet you anything that he would never think to include his own country, the one with the most WMDs, in that "worldwide drive." Uh-huh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 23 Sep 03 - 09:32 PM From my sanguine opinion, and taking into account past actions since the Spanish Phippins War, the biggest "Rogue State", with the most WMD of any country is... ? Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 03 - 10:40 PM And, GUEST, pdc, consider this. Bush's folks (the ones who bought his selection) are the same folks whoes daddies and grand-daddies have been bad mouthin' FDR fir programs like Social Security that they think are socialistic or communistic. Believe it or not, there is an absolute hatred by a handful of very rich and powerful people for any programs that redistribute wealth. Unfortunately the current batch of FDR hater's were all born with a sliver spoon in their big mouths but it doesn't stop thwm for throwing millions and millions of dollars to Bsuh hopin' he can bankrupt the country so the governemtn can get to the point where it just throws up its hands and says, "Sorry, folks, we ain't got no more money for no social programs" (translation: Get back in our cotton field, niggas....)... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 23 Sep 03 - 11:30 PM I know that, Bobert! I'm from Canada, and I frequently post on another forum that is full of right wing nuts, as well as a few liberals. I have a lot of fun throwing "socialist" ideas into the pot and hearing the screams from the rwn's, who think I'm trying to pick their pockets. But the funniest part is their take on Canadian same-sex marriage laws and our decriminalization of small amounts of pot. They seem to think the border is full of gays, furiously toking and blowing it at them. Hee hee! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST,pdc Date: 24 Sep 03 - 12:54 AM And on a more serious note, the CBC News reported tonight that Bush addressed the UN, telling them it is their "responsibility" to help rebuild Iraq. Then he and his entourage left, and did not listen to responses from representatives of other nations. He later reappeared for a photo-op with Kofi Annan. A thousand points of dim. What a phony hypocrite! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST Date: 24 Sep 03 - 12:57 PM Amazing the cheek of this man Bush, standing before the UN and spinning out a lot of waffle, he got the reception he deserved from the delegates, almost total silence. In stark contrast Kofi Anan`s dignified speech was greeted with loud applause, the US is sinking deeper in the mire and the UN would be wise to take heed of the French and return Iraq to its people. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: GUEST Date: 24 Sep 03 - 01:00 PM Sorry the US would be wise to take heed of the French and return Iraq to its people. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War on terror called 'bogus' From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Oct 03 - 12:14 PM I find it interesting that the Guardian today lists Meacher's article with, among others, 'who shot JFK', 'crop cycles', 'alien astronauts', 'Pope thinks condoms spread AIDS' theories as conspiracy theories Wolfgang |
