Please don't dismiss as "paranoid" until you've read at least 2/3 through.

It seems to clear up more than a few mysteries for me. How about you?

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0.../29bookman.html

P.S. if this is "too" off-topic, moderators please delete & accept my apology.

Edit -- also, if this has been discussed before, sorry about that.

Holy shit! This all sounds very reasonable... it's more than interesting. Thanx!

That ignores the first rule of detective work: "follow the money"

On CBC (canadian broadcasting) news this morining a Canadian oil service company
was complaining that bidding for the Iraq cleanup was limited to invited
insiders.

Some contracts have already gone to a subsidiary of Haliburton (VP Dick Cheney's job
before running was CEO of Haliburton, and he was defence secretary during Gulf I. Talk about
a revolving door!)

Not necessarily paranoia.
Well, well... Richard Perle resigns.
He must have been the 'fall guy'.

Well, the article does make the case about oil as well, but it seems to take a broader picture related to power. Seems to me like power comes first with governments, money second (since this is government and not a private business thing).

Perhaps the general consensus in the USA is that the U.S. gov't doesn't do power grabs, but this time it might be different -- I think that's the point the article is trying to make.

Edit -- as a person living in the USA, I have to say this idea of the U.S. becoming a global empire & "planetary policeman" chills me to the bone. I can't even imagine how people in other countries would feel about it.

Well it's scaring and reassuring.

Scaring because it can be very dangerous for everybody (including US). In the other hand it’s reassuring to see US citizens realizing what we was seeing since GW Bush is president...

Here in Europe, we have lived this king of problem. All the countries in Europe have done this mistake at least one time. With the worst and the last one: WWII. You have helped us for that. I don’t know how to help you now, but I’m quiet sure it’s not in pushing you in the war.

I must admit also I’m very sad to see a country that I like very much go away from us.

Tell me

(Apologize for my English…)

I could be wrong, but the way to help might be to show as much resistance as possible to the idea. Instead of capitulating and acknowledging "well, the US is the superpower, so let them deal with it." Don't let us become imperialists, make your opinion known (and count as much as possible). If the US administration is disliked/hated, then for god's sake express yourself out loud and keep expressing.

I usually don't vote in presidential elections, because all the candidates seem about the same to me. Next year, I'm going in to vote against Bush. Don't care who else it is, maybe I'll vote for the anarchist party

Sorry, there's no anarchist party. (Otherwise, I would have been there yesterday )
There's quite a few parties to choose from, though. Take a look at this.
Pot party, anyone?

That's why I'm writing to you



It's exactly the solution I found. It should come from you in America. But we have a lot of work because 80% of the people in US are for the war...

When a country is involving in war, the citizens must stand by the Army and the President. During this period information is more controlled. So if he continues (and he should continue) the war until the next election...
The worst is that in making this, it will increase the feeling against USA in the world leading to terrorism leading to a new war...

This is really a big issue. People are dying (American, Iraqi). They are doing this in your name and with your money.

You should also read this threat (if you didn’t):
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/show.php/act/.../ST/f/17/t/7684

The following two links are from this thread:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysi...heck030317.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/s...,918507,00.html

I've also heard the "Project for the New American Century" mentioned on a few TV talk shows on CBC.

Paranoid? Perhaps. But the Bush administration's actions and words certainly appear to mirror the ideology expressed in the manifesto. The charter exists and the facts presented are not being disputed AFAIK. But it's probably unwise to draw too many hard conclusions.

Got a link to them from a friend of mine recently. Madmen.

And the scary thing (for me) is that some people in the USA really believe

a) if you're not with us, you're against us
B) USA = good, opponents = bad


No country is entirely good. You can correctly argue that the USA is better than a lot of others, but it doesn't have a god given right to do as it pleases. And, as has been hinted in this thread, some of the opponents of the USA are opposing America for America's own good.


No one has ever said that Sadam Hussien is good. No one has ever said that "it would be a bad thing for him to be removed from power". But the vast majority of the world didn't want it to happen at this time, in this way.


btw, I wish I could find a quote I heard this morning - reportedly (I stress, reportedly) one of the UK troops who was in a tank attacked by a US A-10 (a "friendly fire" incident) called the pilot a "Gun toting Yank out on a killing spree". I've probably misquoted, but you get the idea. The other guys in the tank share his anger - but one of them was killed.


D.

EDIT: found it...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm

Unbelievable news story, unbelievable unprofessionalism by the US A-10 pilot. Even if IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) wouldn't have worked, he should have recognized the british Scimitars, and even if he wouldn't have recognaized those (because of unprofessionalism), he should have at least recognized/see the Union Jack...

This kind of incident really makes you wonder about the so called "superior" training of US forces...

Haven't seen a word of it on US news this morning.

Does that mean we're tied with Iraqi in the number of coalition tanks destroyed?

The leading theory on the US plane bombing canadian troops in the Afghan action
is that their judgement was hampered by the government issue "stay awake" pills.
Doesn't the label say someting about heavy machinery?

I'm loosing count - but I think at one point, the UK casualty list read like this:

8 UK troops killed by flying their helicopters into each other
4 UK troops killed by US "friendly fire"
2 UK troops killed by Iraqi fighters


The first ten bodies arrived back in the UK over the weekend - none of them killed by "the enemy". I dread to think how their families feel.




"Friendly fire" is a hot topic over here - isn't there?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page....ll&siteid=50143
I noticed this when I went out to grab my lunch - it's on pages 5-6 (I think) of the print edition of the newspaper. The (left-wing) Mirror is possibly the most anti-war tabloid paper in the UK. The Independant is probably the most anti-war broadsheet. Only the (right-wing) "Sun" is pro-war.


D.

Today we have articles about the guy sacked by NBC for "telling the truth".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2906001.stm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page....ll&siteid=50143
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page....ll&siteid=50143


btw, I liked this quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/01/...ting/index.html
"On the battle field we have this phenomenon called 'fog of war," he said. "We continue to see reports from embedded reporters that have discrepancies from our headquarter's reports. What I can tell you is that right now as we speak, we are working to reconcile this."

Doesn't that sound like "you will report our version of the truth, or nothing at all"?


Cheers,
David.

Wanna read something scarry? Read this: The Hitler Project. The chapter about Yale's "Skull and Bones" is also interesting. I don't know how much of this is true. Some people are very good at mixing facts with half-truths and pure speculation while making it all sound equally believable.

<<sigh>>

The whole article is eminently believeable. The fuckwit Donald Rumsfeld is on record as having wishing to acheive an "american hegemony" for the next fifty years.

In the long term, does it really matter? I believe not.

Many nations have their moment in the sun. At the end of the 19th century, Great Britain Was even more powerful, relatively, than the USA is now; the saying "the sun never sets on the British Emprire" was the *literal* truth. In the end, however, the cost of maintainig the said empire was more trouble than it was worth.

IIRC, the GNP of China is at present already %60 of that of the USA. By 2020, it will have exceeded it with, one would have imagined, a defence budget to match. Should we be alarmed? Dunno. Not enough data.

At the moment, America is the *de facto* superpower. I'm sure Jacques Chirac would like to establish the EU as some sort of quasi-superpower, with, naturally, France in the driving seat (hence the French oh-so-moral opposition to a perceivedly unpopular war, hell, let's take our chances while we can, put one over on those English-speaking bastards, try and sideline the UK, get back to the "good old days" when France and (to a lesser extent Germany) ran Europe, let's try and gloss over who has the most financially to gain from maintaining the present Iraq regime, etc etc...). The point here is, every individual nation looks after its own self-interest, only some are better at it (or more experienced) than others. Human nature. Live with it.

OK, let's assume that America wishes to establish itself as a global policeman. Who would you prefer? Islamic fundamentalists? Communist China? (no disrespect to communism, just to the present Chinese regime). Nature abhors a vacuum, and the USA is doing no more than any ultra-powerful nation has done throughout history. A global "pax americana" would, I believe, be on the whole a benevolent empire (the present stupidity notwithstanding, which is clearly of no comfort to those who have lost loved ones). Please don't misunderstand, there is much I dislike about the USA (not merely as a European, but as a human being). The alternatives, however, are far, far worse.

Look at the long term. Where will humanity be in 50 yrs time? George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and other associated mental pygmies will be relegated to the footnote in history where they belong. I do believe (perhaps naively) that America's founding fathers were more or less on the right track, and that overall, America does still stand for decency, fairness and freedom. The fact that fewtch can (still) freely draw attention to this article, others can freely criticize it, must say something, surely???

/me waits to get pelted with rotten tomatoes.

Do I have only three options available?

I really don't think so...



It's your belief really and I respect that. It's not mine though and I have to state this as well. Decency, fairness and freedom can be found in many countries around the globe. Fewtch, you, me etc can state their mind freely in places outside US as well.

One of the things that I didn't realise before the run up to this war was how much America fears and/or hates and/or mistrusts the european union. In the UK, we largely mistrust them, but hope that it'll be run better eventually, and should be (basically) a good thing. As long as it doesn't try to have more power than the member states. Which is a real worry. Anyway - the way America sees the EU as a threat is very interesting.


I don't think one super power is a good way for the world to go. Hopefuly we'll have a balance of power. But, as said, there are much worse options than America having more power than anyone else.


On the subject of how the world's media are reporting the war, I wonder how the Arab media critique the speeches of Sadam?

He's trying to make Iraq into a kind of "Father land" for Muslims, which they should defend. But he's killed more Muslims than anyone else alive.

He's trying to convince the Shia Muslims that he's their friend - hoping they'll forget the thousands he slaughtered after the last gulf war.

There's also a move to try to protect the "holy" sites in southern Iraq - and a move on his side to get the fighting a close as possible, so that the US and UK forces can be shown to be attacking holy sites. But after the last gulf war, his regime raped and tortured it's own people in these holy sites.


Do the Arab media point out these things - or just allow Sadam to use them as a propoganda machine?



The most worrying thing about this war is that Sadam would happily sacrifice everyone in Iraq (except himself) to hang on to power. It looks like this may be his strategy - I hope it's reported as such in the Arab world. If he put civilians in as human shields, they might be hit by the Allies. But, unlike Sadam, the Allies don't want to kill any Iraqi civilians. I hope the message gets across.

Cheers,
David.

Hmmm, I wasn't really meaning to offer a choice in that sense...just pointing out that whatever you think of American global domination, things could be a sight worse if someone else was carrying the big stick.



That's exactly my point.

Here's another good link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...4.marshall.html

IMHO, now is the time to get educated on politics... it's no longer boring.