street228

Maybe, just maybe, his idea of building a REAL coalition, among the world's more powerful and reliable countries, is his idea of effectively concerting the work necessary, in bringing a peaceful resolve, to this mess bush has created within iraq. You know, a coalition, consisting of : OTHER THAN, 3rd world russia rejects, not capable of ANYTHING. Maybe, his military experience, has taught him, as it has so many of us, who have gone into the field, that there are better ways of eliminating uncertain threats, and suspicions, than displacing 25 million people, where 12 million are radically against our interference, and 90% just want us to leave their country. Maybe, just maybe, if the NEOCONS, would actually READ the john kerry plan, they would KNOW what he is proposing.......Maybe, but doubtful, I know President George W. BushÔÇÖs ignorant and insulting speech to the United Nations General Assembly September 23 made clear that the US administration has all but written off any hope of obtaining significant international support for its colonial venture in Iraq. Bush came before the body as an unrepentant war criminal, whose actions had violated the UN Charter and international law by waging a war of aggression as criminal and unprovoked as those carried out by the Hitlerite regime in Germany more than 60 years ago. Having just last week publicly acknowledged there is no evidence of a link between the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington DC, Bush began his speech to the UN by invoking the ruins of the World Trade Center as the ÔÇ£symbol of an unfinished war.ÔÇØ He likewise peddled yet again the now universally discredited pretext for the Iraq war, the claim that the Baghdad regime posed a grave and imminent threat because of its supposedly immense stockpile of ÔÇ£weapons of mass destruction.ÔÇØ This, just one week after the chief of the United NationsÔÇÖ own inspection agency, Hans Blix, compared the US and British allegations about such weapons to the hunt for witches in the Middle Ages and amid reports that the unit set up by Washington to scour the country for the alleged tons of biological and chemical weapons materials has halted all searches. Indeed, Bush himself referred to the supposedly urgent hunt for deadly weapons that were about to be handed to terrorists as a sort of archival pursuit. US personnel, he indicated, are ÔÇ£analyzing records of the old regime to reveal the full extent of its weapons programs.ÔÇØ In other words, there was not a trace to be found of the tons of nerve gas, anthrax, serin and other deadly agents alleged by Washington. Did the US presidentÔÇÖs handlers believe that the international diplomats, foreign ministers and heads of state assembled in his audience at the UN building in New York are so gullible they donÔÇÖt even read the newspapers? In reality, his speech was not written for them. Rather, his words were addressed over their heads to his political base among the extreme right-wingers and semi-fascists who dominate the Republican Party. He was promising them that there will be no turning back from global militarism and plunder. The US agenda of seizing by force the oilfields of Iraq and a strategic stranglehold over the Middle East remains in force. Far from the attempt at reconciliation that had been predicted by many media pundits, BushÔÇÖs speech was every bit as provocative and bellicose as his 2002 State of the Union address declaring that ÔÇ£you are with us or against us,ÔÇØ and his address to the UN last year when he warned the international organization that it would become ÔÇ£irrelevantÔÇØ if it failed to subordinate itself to the US war preparations against Iraq. Chaos and gangsterism Bush told the General Assembly: ÔÇ£Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those who deliberately take the lives of women and children without mercy or shame.ÔÇØ But a growing majority of world public opinion sees US militarism as the greatest force for chaos in the world and equates the Bush administrationÔÇÖs methods with out-and-out gangsterism. The US president unleashed a war that is widely acknowledged even within US establishment circles as unprovoked and unnecessary. By conservative estimates at least 10,000 Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and the number of young conscript troops who lost their lives may number tens of thousands more. To claim he acted to ÔÇ£honor the rights of manÔÇØ is obscene. Bush appeared to gloat over the recent one-sided US military victories, while implicitly warning the assembled nations of the world that any one of them could be next. ÔÇ£The former regimes of Afghanistan and Iran knew [the] alternatives and made their choices,ÔÇØ said Bush, sounding like an assassin bragging about his latest victims. ÔÇ£The Taliban was a sponsor and servant of terrorism. When confronted the regime chose defiance, and that regime is no more.ÔÇØ He improbably claimed that the US invaded Iraq to ÔÇ£defend ... the credibility of the United Nations,ÔÇØ which opposed and refused to authorize the invasion. He then proudly pointed to the presence in the assembly of Hamid Karzai, the US-installed president of Afghanistan, as representing a ÔÇ£free people who are building a decent and just society.ÔÇØ Karzai heads a bankrupt regime whose authority fails to extend beyond the outskirts of Kabul and which is widely opposed even there. Meanwhile, US forces are still fighting a bloody counterinsurgency campaign against a resurgent guerrilla movement. Bush likewise hailed the presence at the Iraqi delegationÔÇÖs table of ÔÇ£representatives of a liberated country.ÔÇØ The camera covering the speech dutifully panned the room to alight on the frog-like face of Ahmed Chalabi, the convicted bank embezzler and neoconservative ideologue who was airlifted by the US military back into Iraq after spending more than 40 years in exile. In one passage, in which he claimed that the US occupation is ÔÇ£helping to improve the daily lives of the Iraqi people,ÔÇØ Bush recited a litany of indictments against the former Baathist government: ÔÇ£The old regime built palaces while letting schools decay... The old regime starved hospitals of resources... The old regime built up armies and weapons while allowing the nationÔÇÖs infrastructure to crumble.ÔÇØ Bush could just as easily have been describing the US, where the gap between wealth and poverty has never been wider, resulting in palaces for the rich and a growing army of homeless; where schools are falling apart in districts across the country; where more than 40 million people lack any health insurance; and finally where a Pentagon budget of over half a trillion dollars to build up ÔÇ£armies and weaponsÔÇØ is starving the US infrastructure and basic social needs for funding. While Bush pointed to a handful of minor aid projects as evidence of progress in IraqÔÇöunder conditions in which masses of people have been left without jobs, safe and reliable power or water supplies or even a modicum of personal securityÔÇöhe can only cite tax cuts for the rich as his remedy for the growing social misery confronting much of the US population. A threat to the Palestinians The US president reprised one of the more improbable justifications that has been given for the war, largely after the fact: the claim that it will inaugurate a flowering of peace and democracy in the Middle East. Instead, as US officials have been forced to acknowledge, Iraq has become a magnet for people from throughout the Arab world who are determined to fight against foreign imperialist domination and US military occupation. As for Middle East peace, the US aggression in Iraq has only emboldened the Sharon regime in Israel to carry out a wave of assassinations and repression culminating in the threat to murder the elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat. Bush had no words of criticism for Israel, which has defied United Nations resolutions demanding an end to its illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for the past 36 years. Instead, he issued an ultimatum to the Palestinian people who are suffering under this occupation. ÔÇ£The advance of democratic institutions in Iraq is setting an example that others, including the Palestinian people, would be wise to follow,ÔÇØ Bush declared. Is this advice or a threat? Given that the Iraqi ÔÇ£exampleÔÇØ was created with cruise missiles, cluster bombs and massed armor, it could well be interpreted as a warning that Gaza and the West Bank will be next if the Palestinians fail to halt all resistance to Israeli occupation and select ÔÇ£leadersÔÇØ acceptable to Washington. BushÔÇÖs speech was greeted with stony silence from the majority of the UN delegates. Even UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, whose unctuous diplomacy and toothless criticisms in the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq were aimed largely at smoothing the way to a UN-sanctioned war, found himself compelled to criticize the US administration. Referring obliquely to the Bush administrationÔÇÖs national security doctrine, claiming WashingtonÔÇÖs right to wage a ÔÇ£preemptive warÔÇØ against any nation that it deems as a potential threat, Annan declared, ÔÇ£My concern is that if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification.ÔÇØ Annan went on to point out that the UN Charter allows the use of force only in direct self-defense, or with the sanction of the international body. ÔÇ£Now some say this understanding is no longer tenable since an ÔÇÿarmed attackÔÇÖ with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time,ÔÇØ he said. ÔÇ£This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.ÔÇØ It was typical of both Annan and the UN that the secretary generalÔÇÖs speech contained not a single reference to the illegal US war. His elliptical language seemed to suggest that the problem was merely a difference of opinion leading to hypothetical acts, rather than a bloody war that claimed tens of thousands of victims and has led to the subjugation of an entire nation by armed force. French President Jacques Chirac was somewhat more blunt in condemning the US war against Iraq. ÔÇ£No one can act alone in the name of all and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules,ÔÇØ he said. ÔÇ£The war, launched without the authorization of the Security Council, shook the multilateral system. The United Nations has just been through one of the most grave crises in its history.ÔÇØ Chirac has demanded that the Bush administration cede political control to the United Nations in Iraq, while setting a speedy timetable for the handing over of power to an elected Iraqi regime. The French government, speaking on behalf of much the European ruling elite, has made clear it will not play the role of financing and reinforcing an occupation that is run from the top down by US administrators serving US corporate and financial interests. The French corporate establishment is not prepared to surrender the extensive financial interests it has in the region without a fight. Bush dismissed the French demand, claiming that the transition would ÔÇ£unfold according to the needs of IraqisÔÇöneither hurried nor delayed by the voices of other parties.ÔÇØ And who shall determine the ÔÇ£needs of IraqisÔÇØ? This was spelled out the day before the speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who declared that the US would run Iraq as it sees fit ÔÇ£until such time as we allow the Iraqi people to determine how they wish to be governed.ÔÇØ Blueprint for economic plunder In the meantime, the gangster regime in Washington intends to carry out the systematic plundering of Iraqi wealth, while using military force to suppress a growing movement of national resistance. The Bush administrationÔÇÖs plans were spelled out over the weekend, when WashingtonÔÇÖs handpicked finance minister in the Iraqi Quisling regime unexpectedly unveiled a blueprint for the countryÔÇÖs economic development. This economic ÔÇ£reformÔÇØ packageÔÇömade public at the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meeting in Dubai and signed into law by WashingtonÔÇÖs proconsul in Baghdad, Paul BremerÔÇöamounts to a US plan for the wholesale privatization of the Iraqi economy. It imposes investment, trade and tax policies geared entirely to the interests of US multinationals at the expense of the Iraqi people. The precedent for this plan is the kind of disastrous economic ÔÇ£shock therapyÔÇØ introduced in the former Soviet Union more than a decade ago, leading to the plummeting of living standards for the vast majority and the creation of a wealthy criminal elite. In Iraq, however, the process is to be carried out at the point of a US gun, with the assurance that the overwhelming share of profits will be reaped by politically connected American corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel. The plan calls for the privatization of everything from electric power, to hospitals and a myriad of state-owned industries. This process would inevitably involve a form of brutal triage, in which those few industries considered profitable would be taken over by US corporations, with the rest shut down and their workers thrown onto the scrap heap. It allows for 100 percent foreign ownership in all sectors, save natural resources, and reduces trade tariffs to a minimum. Foreign companies would be guaranteed full and immediate remittance of all profits, dividends, interest and royalties. While the plan formally calls for IraqÔÇÖs vast oil reserves to remain under the control of the government, the takeover of the rest of the economy by US-based multinationals will effectively ensure control of oil as well. Washington is using its military occupation of Iraq to enforce the kind of economic and trade relations it has sought to impose on countries throughout the world by means of financial pressure. The right-wing cabal in the Bush White House is determined to conduct a social and economic experiment in Iraq to determine how far it can carry out policies of unrestricted ÔÇ£free marketÔÇØ capitalism backed by overwhelming military force. It sees in Iraq a field for unrestrained exploitation and outright looting aimed at bringing about a desperately needed rise in profits for corporate America. The speech delivered by Bush at the UN represents a warning both to the Iraqi people and working people in the US. Despite the growing resistance to the US military occupation in IraqÔÇöresulting in escalating US casualtiesÔÇöand despite the mounting opposition of AmericanÔÇönot to mention worldÔÇöpublic opinion to the dirty colonial war being fought there, the administration intends to press on. No matter how much its strategy in Iraq has been discredited, it has gone too far in this criminal enterprise to turn back now. There is no doubt that WashingtonÔÇÖs predatory economic plans for Iraq will provoke even broader and more intense resistance to the US occupation. Unlike the American people, the Bush administration is more than willing to accept the resulting increase in young American soldiers, reservists and National Guard members dying daily to secure increased profits for the administrationÔÇÖs corporate backers. Neither the United Nations nor AmericaÔÇÖs erstwhile European allies will halt this deepening catastrophe. The only force that can bring an end to the war and occupation in Iraq and the growing global threat of US militarism is the international working class mobilized independently on a socialist perspective.

See?...NO decernable distinction between presented facts, and percieved opinions, based on publicly tainted presentation of those facts. Amazing, but perfectly understandable, from those who stopped learning after leaving high school.(which is what happens to OVER 90% of americans.) And though, this is not the fault of the individual, It is the fault of EVERY individual, who does not CHOOSE to recognize, the falacies held within propaghandanized use of the facts, and how they are portrayed.."AFTER THE FACT" This is BLINDNESS, "BY CHOICE"..and such people CANNOT be reasoned with, but only confronted within their choice of discussion. This usually means: "Argument, based on false premises" Good luck, in establishing a common premise, which will be accepted; though it be 100%, objective, and correct.

quote: In case you hadn't noticed Jaguar, the report no longer exists, the CIA took it down after several people found that one peice of evidence that supports Bush (MORE OF THE SAME):More dramatic, conclusions based on misinterpretation of reality.!! The entire report can be found at the following location. And after reading through the ENTIRE thing, The only thing which supports bush doctrine, is twisted interpretation of WOULDA, COULDA, statements being presented as PROOF, there is or was an attempt to MAYBE pursue development of future WMD. counting common fertilizors as biological warfare agents. JEESH!! Better put on some of them TEXAS cowboy boots; as the BUSH SH*T, is getting deeper and deeper, as the election draws nearer!!! http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/index.html http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

quote:As conclusion, I respect anybody's opinion, but I am not obliged to loose my time by reading arguments not supported even by elementary school books If you had any concept, as to how inadequate, our educational system is, within the U.S. , you would expect such confrontational responses, which negate the ability for rational discussion. If the blatant CHANGES made, within that which is is taught, from one generation(approx 10 years) to the next, is not enough. Consider this: Out-right lies within the childrens text, has become prevelant within the whole sociological, historical and political areas, taught today. Of course, there is no way to argue, the changes are not due to surfacing of NEWLY discovered FACTS, within any specific area...but common sense is something which would dictate: Time is something which eradicates the TRUE nature of facts...and would NOT indicate more accurate definition of any given event recorded. The United States, is in dire need of common sense, and deserves(as a whole) Whatever it receives, due to its Actions or Inactions. Our country has been actively promoting and protecting the Ignorant from themselves, for quite some time. Even to the point, that those of worthless or substandard ability, are living a higher living standard, than MANY who demonstrate exceptional academic abilities. And as much as I have enjoyed reading your logically deduced, and educated responses...... I believe, you are so far over their heads, very few..truly understand your perspective, as accurate and balanced, as it very well may be.

Very good book. Do not have an opinion on moore, as I have never watched any of his movies, but I did notice the title, and thought that was where he was coming from...though I wasnt positive that was his intent.

quote:I don't think I quite agree with this. It's just not a very sane thing to contemplate. Would you let serial murders/rapists vote? What about paranoid schizophrenics, people with autism, dementia or other mental "disabilities"? What about Charles Manson? Would want him to vote? What about Hitler (if he were still alive)? Sure, all these are extremes, but when you say "Let everyone vote", I have to assume that you really mean everyone. I don't think this is practical, realistic, or even sane. Well shin, I can understand your reserve to allow someone like manson a vote, but if that one vote frightens you, maybe you feel there would be enough mansons, to actually make a radical difference..I dont. My logic has basis, though I realize you are a bit shocked, and to you it may appear as extreme. First, consider, that the united states prison system has openly admitted that approxamately 25% of those in prison, are most likely innocent. Our present judicial system ,is not the worst, that has ever been...nor, is it at its best and most fair. In fact, the swing is more dramatic toward increasingly becoming more unfair...even so, since 9/11. Now this is not surprising, as the radical reaction our present administration has taken, but albeit, in response to a very radical incident; however, this does not change reality of repocussions evolving throughout the country. Think about it, in a broader since. If the percentage be higher than admitted, or increase through compounded personification of interest. There is no reasonable way to stop a "NAZI LIKE(please dont freak out on the word nazi, and please consider the whole of the presentation)" corruption, spreading throughout the justice system if every man and woman , within the country do not have a voice. We now have a tremendous portion of our population incarcerated. More, per capita, than any other nation in the world. It is quite convienient for any political power to make people guilty of crimes, who do NOT agree with their political position. This has been one of the consequences of the drug war, already. Suppose, those 15-20% of the population who cannot vote, due to felony drug charges, for merely smoking a joint, want to make marijuana legal. They could ADD their vote, to a another percentage of the population who agree with them, but who are NOT incarcerated, or have lost their right to vote. Now, if this combined percentage of the population were to actually change the laws to legalize marijuana....then democratically, that law should be changed, and the incarcerated individuals released. The OLD whiskey prohibition cycle, if you will. Now, if you take everyone's right to vote, who commits, such a ridiculously irrelevant crime, for 50 years; the compounded effect, could actually end up eliminating a majority's ability, to stop the minority ,from passing even more compulsively cohersive laws. This in effect, creates a condition where a government, use LAW, to FORCE a majority into subjugation. As long as the Majority think manson like crimes should be incarcerated, or given death a sentence, then so be it. And If the majority decide, Killing a murderer, for trying to kill you , is manslaughter, and not self defense...so be it. But again, if the direction of the ideology change, the LAW cannot. How could it....if everyone who killed a would be murderer have no right to vote? Majority rule, within a society of true democracy, CANNOT be subjugated through unreasonable LAW, from corrupt influence within the judiciary...PERIOD! THIS is what the neocons fear the most from a TRUE democracy. This is why, ADOLF HITLER, could not be removed from an elected position. There was no protection from party control, and radical change within the judicial system. There was NO true democracy, held within the majority rule ideology within Germany's political system. The jews were systematically designated criminals, and by the time the majority realized what had happened, no one COULD do anything. The population was subjugated through the control of judicial law. Our system, has many more checks, and balances; however, radical change within the constitution, or the judiciary, can subjugate the majority...if not checked by opposing ideological groups. I hardly think, all the criminals, voting to get rid of a president(even if they were the majority of the population) is going to help their cause, unless, of course, they were all locked up for the same reason..maybe then... they shouldnt be locked up anyway. I do not claim to see ALL the veriables, but I believe the GENERAL concept should be allowed, within proper intelligent reason, and proper consideration. After all, there are people in prison in one state,And others, who are free, and doing the same thing within the neighboring state. Ideology is sure, to change, concerning various things, but to deny any to vote for their ideology,when it is presented... is a direct denial of the freedom, and the democracy we hide behind, as a nation.

First off, let me say this. I will be the first to admit, being a complete ass toward you, but NOT without justifiable reason. So I concede, we have nothing to discuss. Second : You and I can not seem to discuss issues, without childish and rediculous slamming remarks coming forth. If its good for the goose, it should be good for the gander,(IMHO) but I am aware, this idea, isnt the accepted norm around here; So(AGAIN)I concede, we have nothing to say to each other. Third: For any rational debate, to come out of anything...there must first be agreement that the statement is (in fact) a debate. There seems to be some real confusion, on your part, the difference between debate, and posted perceptions, concerning issues... and further confusion, as to properly dividing FACT from OPINION. THUS: I again concede: we have nothing to discuss. FOURTH:You think I am a radical, You are 100% correct!! I am a 45 year old man, who has worked REALLY hard, to be 100% physically, the same man I was, when I was injured in the military, and have succeeded. You know nothing of my life, and what has molded my opinions..and are not remotely interested in anyone else's opinions: thus we have nothing to discuss FIFTH: You think, I am Emotional. Again you are 100% correct, when it comes to military, war,and murder of innocent civilians. SIXTH: you think I am Insane? I have a couple of military shrinks, who would agree with you. Maybe you should slow down a little before attacking people...there are more radical and insane people in this world than I, but not many who could afford my attorney. thus: we have nothing to discuss SEVENTH: So, for the LOGICALLY deduced reason, at hand.... do your thing, and Ill do mine. But dont think for a second, I will address "YOU", HERE, again.. in regard TO any statement you make. We have gone past the point of no return here. This I promise you. thus we have nothing to discuss FINAL: THEREFORE: YOU and I cannot discuss ANY issue rationally, so you need to move on and get off my back. I intend, to direct my comments, to the reading audiance, not YOU. So do not feel obligated to say anything directly to me, it will be ignored, in regard to giving you any direct response. SERIOUSLY !!!!! THUS: YOU and I have NOTHING to DISCUSS

First off, let me say this. I will be the first to admit, being a complete ass toward you, but NOT without justifiable reason. So I concede, we have nothing to discuss. Second : You and I can not seem to discuss issues, without childish and rediculous slamming remarks coming forth. If its good for the goose, it should be good for the gander,(IMHO) but I am aware, this idea, isnt the accepted norm around here; So(AGAIN)I concede, we have nothing to say to each other. Third: For any rational debate, to come out of anything...there must first be agreement that the statement is (in fact) a debate. There seems to be some real confusion, on your part, the difference between debate, and posted perceptions, concerning issues... and further confusion, as to properly dividing FACT from OPINION. THUS: I again concede: we have nothing to discuss. FOURTH:You think I am a radical, You are 100% correct!! I am a 45 year old man, who has worked REALLY hard, to be 100% physically, the same man I was, when I was injured in the military, and have succeeded. You know nothing of my life, and what has molded my opinions..and are not remotely interested in anyone else's opinions: thus we have nothing to discuss FIFTH: You think, I am Emotional. Again you are 100% correct, when it comes to military, war,and murder of innocent civilians. SIXTH: you think I am Insane? I have a couple of military shrinks, who would agree with you. Maybe you should slow down a little before attacking people...there are more radical and insane people in this world than I, but not many who could afford my attorney. thus: we have nothing to discuss SEVENTH: So, for the LOGICALLY deduced reason, at hand.... do your thing, and Ill do mine. But dont think for a second, I will address "YOU", HERE, again.. in regard TO any statement you make. We have gone past the point of no return here. This I promise you. thus we have nothing to discuss FINAL: THEREFORE: YOU and I cannot discuss ANY issue rationally, so you need to move on and get off my back. I intend, to direct my comments, to the reading audiance, not YOU. So do not feel obligated to say anything directly to me, it will be ignored, in regard to giving you any direct response. SERIOUSLY !!!!! THUS: YOU and I have NOTHING to DISCUSS

ANYONE ELSE? have a comment, I keep hearing a buzz in the background....? aw well, probably not important anyway

I have yet to see it. Of course, I am one of those, who wait until it comes out for free, before I pay money to see a movie. has it's drawbacks, but usually, I am glad to have waited, once I see the movie....usually!! it would be amusing, if it werent so irritating. Seems some have the idea, that EVERYTHING posted here, is presented to be torn down or debated, but... simple fact is: Some people like to just present their opinions and their perspective, in relation to events.

Your saying, MORE THAN HALF the people in this country fall into your "slanderous, and offensive" catagorization..... You seriously, need to take a look at your own position, with some objectivity.

quote: I say let everyone vote ME TOO, but I also say, LET ANYONE WATCH, and or MONITOR. The more prying eyes, the better...in MY opinion.

baloogan, talk about poppycock. I can assure you, they(bush administration) have done everything but plant the stuff themselves. Those weapons simply do not, did not, and NEVER would have existed. Even BUSH admits it now, but he has done so much lying,and twisting his motive.... half this country is so confused, they dont know what to believe. the hard core "followers,can understand words like: quote: "nulkular weapons." , but have no concept, what these WMD's are suppose to be.

Our present Administratiion, has not even offered ANY counter or administration of LAW, toward the presence of alqueda, or any other threat within our own territories, yet they wish to tell the whole world: what they are to do, and what they cannot do, in relation to "implimentation of law", outside their juristiction. This whole situation, is incomprehensible, and utterly unacceptable, to MANY, within this country. Frankly, I am amazed the whole issue of violence and lack of cohesive effort to contain such, within the present TERRITORIES of the UNITED STATES, has not been presented by the Democratic Party. I feel, they are so overwhelmed with REASON, to dethrone Bush, they are avoiding undue confusion, as to the primary inadequacy of the "SHRUB" administration and it's efforts. Besides, neither party, wishes to devalue any present U.S. doctrine of influence, which remains

Jaguar, just move on...jeese. I didnt buy the plane ticket yet. If I did, you would be the first to know

9/11 three years on: 'War on terror' has not stopped terrorism Rohan Pearce & Alison Dellit The appalling end to the hostage crisis in Beslan, Russia on September 4, which left more than 300 dead, had people all over the world horrified. The killing of so many children helped neither the Chechens fighting the Russian occupation of their country, nor those of us fighting war and state-sponsored terrorism all over the world. The only people who were really aided by the slaughter were those pursuing the misnamed ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ, in particular US President George Bush. We should make no mistake: the terror inflicted by the Beslan crisis did not come from nowhere. At least 80,000 Chechens have been killed since then-President Boris Yeltsin launched a war on their country in 1994. Chechnya is occupied by 80,000 poorly paid Russian soldiers, and the fighting has been, according to Amnesty International in 2001, marked by atrocities ÔÇö torture and rape in particular. In recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has increasingly used indiscriminate aerial bombing and artillery shelling of towns and villages, escalating the death toll. But all the taking of hostages has done is to alienate working people ÔÇö maybe millions of them ÔÇö from the ChechensÔÇÖ cause. And it has played straight into the hands of those who justify their wars and terror by claiming that they are fighting terrorism. In the three years since two aeroplanes ploughed into the World Trade Center in New York, Bush's gang has finely honed the art of whipping up fear among the US population. As he heads into a tightly fought election campaign, it is certain that Bush will try to use the Russian school tragedy to convince more voters to support his endless ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ, a key part of his election strategy. Until now, he has mainly relied on reminding people of the toll of September 11 ÔÇö and painting his administration as the only thing standing between the US and the terrorist hordes at the gates. In reality, of course, the opposite is true. You cannot militarily fight terrorism. Such attacks, even on the scale of 9/11 or Beslan, are not only cheap and require only a relatively small group of people to carry out; they are born out of the anger at the blatant injustices inflicted on Third World peoples, by the US and imperialist allies. BushÔÇÖs argument that, in visiting mass horror on Iraqis and Afghans, he will actually reduce the amount of terrorism in the world is absurd. Just as Putin's argument, that a renewed effort to subdue Chechnya is needed, is. The only real way to reduce terrorism is to reduce the conditions that breed it ÔÇö the misery, poverty and military attacks inflicted on so much of the worldÔÇÖs population, overwhelmingly by imperialist countries ÔÇö or build real, people-powered, grassroots movements that provide effective avenues for mass social change. The ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ is just a campaign to further the US rulersÔÇÖ war agenda, while pretending to be protecting workers. It justifies a war against workers and the poor in the US, and abroad a war against any Third World nation that defies the US empire. The horrific attack on the World Trade Center killed around 2700 people, and shattered the lives of tens of thousands of others. But in the three years of the ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ, it has achieved nothing but more suffering. Muslims and people with an Arabic background have been viciously repressed in a state-promoted lynch-mob mentality. Illegal immigrants have been swept up and ÔÇ£disappearedÔÇØ by immigration authorities. Worst of all, Iraqis and Afghans are dying for a crime that they had nothing to do with the commission or execution of. The Council on American-Islamic Relations received 1717 reports of discrimination, harassment and violence in the six months after 9/11. A CAIR report released on September 5, 2002, ÔÇ£American Muslims: One Year After 9-11ÔÇØ, reported that while attacks had dropped sharply since then, it still logged 326 incidents ÔÇö a 30% increase over pre-9/11 levels. These attacks have not been limited to mere verbal abuse. CAIR's report noted that ÔÇ£on August 30, 2002, an anti-Muslim hate-rape took place in California, perhaps the first such attack on record in US history. An 18 year-old man raped a 15-year-old girl inside Palo Alto Longs Drugs store while making anti-Muslim comments, according to the Palo Alto Police Department.ÔÇØ In addition, ÔÇ£A dozen murders have been reported, including a handful of incidents in which the victims were simply mistaken for Muslims and Arabs because of their appearance.ÔÇØ Despite the claimed opposition of the Bush administration to the torrent of hate unleashed on the Islamic community in 9/11's aftermath, the atmosphere of hysteria was fuelled by the White House. For example, a February 27, 2002, Progressive Media Project op-ed by Riad Abdelkarim recounted how it had been ÔÇ£revealed that Attorney General John Ashcroft told syndicated columnist Cal Thomas during an interview last November that `Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.' After initially refusing to clarify or deny these comments, Ashcroft's office issued a statement confirming that our nation's top law enforcer made the remarks, but contending that they were taken out of context.ÔÇØ In a similar, albeit even blunter vein, Republican member of Congress Saxby Chambliss, a member of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, was quoted in the November 20, 2001, Valdosta Daily Times as commenting: ÔÇ£We should just turn the sheriff loose and have him arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line.ÔÇØ The racist offensive continues today. For example, Womenwallstreet.com carried a July 13 article by Annie Jacobsen recounting the ÔÇ£terrorÔÇØ suffered by her because her Northwest Airlines carried a group of 14 Middle Eastern men. A July 21 response by Salon.com's Patrick Smith summarised Jacobsen's ÔÇ£ordealÔÇØ: ÔÇ£As a matter of fact, nothing happened. Turns out the Syrians are part of a musical ensemble hired to play at a hotel. The men talk to one another. They glance around. They pee. That's it? That's it.ÔÇØ (Smith doesn't particularly parody Jacobsen's piece either. Here's a sample of her breathless prose: ÔÇ£Five minutes later, several more of the Middle Eastern men began using the forward lavatory consecutively. In the back, several of the men stood up and used the back lavatory consecutively as well.ÔÇØ) Unsurprisingly, while the US State Department has classified the burning-down of an ATM in March 2003 in Greece as terrorism in order to boost the figures they need to convince US citizens they are in danger, the murders, bombings and arson attacks suffered by the Arab American and Muslim communities in the US don't make the cut. Nor does the state-sponsored terror unleashed by the US and its client states and allies. At its heart, the ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ is moral hypocrisy: somehow the terror and violence inflicted by states, providing they have Washington's sanction, are beyond reproach. By the time of that ÔÇ£significant international terrorist incidentÔÇØ the bombing of the Greek ATM, the US-led invasion of Iraq had already killed several hundred Iraqi civilians. On March 23, the day after the ATM was destroyed, it was reported that 10 civilians had been killed after the US dropped cluster bombs on the Iraqi city of Nasiriya. Washington's illegal use of the brutal bombs in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan has been repeatedly condemned by human rights groups. According to UNICEF, between May 1, 2003, when Bush infamously declared the end of ÔÇ£major combat operationsÔÇØ in Iraq, and mid July of that year, more than 1000 Iraqi children were injured by ÔÇ£bombletsÔÇØ, the payloads of US cluster bombs, which act as anti-personnel mines if they fail to explode on impact. This is the case with some 15% of illegal and barbaric weapons according to the British-based Mine Action Group. In Afghanistan, more than 248,000 bomblets were scattered throughout the country by US bombs between October 2001 and March 2002. Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 12,400 of them would have failed to explode on impact, although no doubt they will only maim and kill terrorists and enemies of freedom. Crimes committed by bastions of ÔÇ£democracyÔÇØ don't count however. If, on the hand, the impoverished and oppressed indiscriminately lash out at their oppressors, as sometimes happens, for example, in the case of Palestinians, it is an indescribably heinous crime. Woe betide anyone who questions the role of Palestinian dispossession at the hands of the Israeli state in creating suicide bombers, or the morality of the US-subsidised, and grotesquely misnamed, Israeli ÔÇ£DefenseÔÇØ Forces' slaughter of Palestinian civilians! Of course, the atrocities of Israel and other senior US allies such as Saudi Arabia are well known and documented. Attracting less scrutiny, however, are the former Soviet republics that ÔÇ£liberatedÔÇØ Afghanistan joins in Central Asia whose appalling human rights records are overlooked by the US because of their cooperation with Washington's ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ. Countries like Uzbekistan, whose police and secret service employ methods of torture including beating, suffocation, electric shock and rape and other sexual abuse; or Turkmenistan, whose President Saparmurat Niyazov's term in office was extended indefinitely in December 1999 and who has constructed a personality cult about himself, including writing his own sequel to the Bible and the Koran. Drawing any connection between the White House's support for the repressive regimes that comprise many of its allies and Washington's imperial foreign policy and terrorism provokes outrage from commentators in the corporate media. However, the Democrat and Republican parties, both of which back the occupation of Iraq and the broader ÔÇ£war on terrorÔÇØ are free to exploit the deaths of people who suffered the blowback of US foreign policy on September 11. Such an approach has been condemned by many of those whose families have been directly affected by terrorist attack. In March, when the Bush campaign released an advertisement that featured imagery of Ground Zero in New York, Andrew Rice, whose brother was killed in the 9/11 attacks, commented: ÔÇ£To use these images of a scene of destruction and murder in a political campaign is inappropriate at best, and politicians from across the spectrum should know that there is bipartisan opposition among 9/11 families to this type of offensive exploitation.ÔÇØ Washington has used people's fear of terrorist attacks to silence critics of government policies, at the same time as pursuing policies that promote terrorism. At the August 30-September 2 Republican National Convention, talk of god, terrorism, 9/11 and the ÔÇ£liberation of IraqÔÇØ was frequent and interconnected. But outside the convention, hundreds of thousands of protesters were doing far more to end terrorism ÔÇö by demanding a better, more just world.

personally, I could give a rats ass, what you think of me and my position.

published by Informed Comment Bombings Signal Failures in War on Terror Three major bombs went off between the Nile and the Indus rivers on Thursday. Do they have anything in common, and what do they tell us about the world that Bush has made? In Baghdad, guerrillas fired Katyusha rockets into the Sheraton Hotel, frequented by foreign contractors. They don't appear to have killed anyone, but we may be assured that they succeeded in their aim of scaring at least some of the contractors away from investing in the new Iraq. In Multan, a Pakistani city in southern Punjab with a rich Shiite heritage, an unknown group attacked a gathering of radical Sunni Muslims early on Thursday with a car bomb, killing 40 and wounding dozens. The group, Millat-i Islamiyyah, had been known as the Sipah-i Sahabah or The Army of the Prophet's Companions of the Prophet. It was commemorating the death of its leader, Maulana Azam Tariq. The Army of the Prophet's Companions originated as an anti-Shiite organization in Jhang Siyal, an area of northern Punjab long dominated by wealthy Shiite landowners, often from Sufi lineages, but which Azam took over. It developed a death squad arm and assassinated Shiites. It allied with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and received training in al-Qaeda terror camps. Yet Maulana Tariq Azam, although briefly arrested, had been allowed by military dictator Pervez Musharraf to sit in the Pakistani parliament until Azam's assassination last year. The bombing in Multan almost certainly comes in revenge for the explosion at a Shiite mosque in Sialkot only a few days earlier, and signals that the long-running conflict between radical Sunni Muslim groups with al-Qaeda ties and radical Shiite groups aligned with Tehran is heating up. At the Egyptian resort town of Taba, car bombs collapsed ten floors of the Hilton Hotel, as well as hitting less upscale backpacker resorts. They killed at least 35 and wounded at least 160. (Unfortunately, the toll is likely to rise as bodies are pulled from rubble). A spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization said that the bombings were not the work of Palestinian organizations, which where committed to waging their struggle in Palestine rather than abroad. Israeli officials speculated that the attacks were the work of al-Qaeda. The organization's number two man had called recently in a videotape for those countries to be punished, that supported Israel, and Egypt has long been blamed in this regard. The bombings at Taba almost certainly came in response to Israeli military actions in Gaza, which targeted militants who had fired many rockets into Israel but killed many civilians. The UN Security Council was unanimous in condemning the indiscriminate Israeli attacks, except for the US, which vetoed a resolution supported by virtually all the other countries in the world. If we analyze these violent, destabilizing attacks, one thing becomes abundantly clear: The Bush administration is losing the war on terror. If, 3 years after September 11, Ayman al-Zawahiri can arrange for al-Qaeda to blow up yet another building, this time in Egypt, killing scores, that is a sign of failure. If an al-Qaeda-aligned group like the Army of the Prophet's Companions is permitted by the Pakistani state to gather freely in Multan, to blow up Shiite mosques, and to incur a violent Shiite counter-strike, that is a sign of failure. If radical Sunni groups, or ex-Baathists aligned with them, are able at will to fire Katyusha rockets into the Baghdad Sheraton at a time when the US has militarily occupied Iraq, that is a sign of failure. By taking his eye off the ball and failing to finish the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Bush perpetuated dangerous instability in South Asia. By giving in to the Likud Party's aggressive settlement of the West Bank and encroachment on Palestinians there, which end any chance of a Palestinian state ever being established--and by failing to pursue a just peace that would bestow security on both Israelis and Palestinians-- Bush perpetuated dangerous instability and virulent anti-Americanism in the Mideast. By creating a failed state in Iraq, and mismanaging the aftermath of the war so as to allow the rise of an audacious guerrilla war there, Bush perpetuated dangerous instability in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. All three bombings on Thursday spoke eloquently of the Bush administration's failure to create a safer world with less terrorism. The Bush administration announced a "war on terror" in fall of 2001, but it has never been clear what exactly a war on terror was. Terror is not itself a concrete enemy. It is a tactic. As horrible as the tactic of inflicting deliberate harm on noncombatants is, it has been widely used in world history in all sorts of struggles. Warring on a tactic is a meaningless phrase. The actual wars fought by the Bush administration have only been two. The first was against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, with mixed results. The Taliban regime was overthrown, but Afghanistan was not substantially rebuilt and remains unstable. The top leadership of al-Qaeda escaped capture and has continued to encourage terrorist actions. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two man in the organization, is said to have suggested the bombings in Istanbul last winter, and is probably behind Taba. The second was against the Baath regime in Iraq. It was not a purveyor of anti-American international terrorism and was so weak and ramshackle as to pose no conceivable threat to the United States. That war was won handily, but the subsequent guerrilla war and political struggle continues and appears to be growing in scope and influence. Bush opened the floodgates to terrorism in Iraq. This is a poor record for Bush to run on. Half of Afghanistan's gross national product derives from opium sales, creating the threat of major narco-terrorism. The Taliban are resurgent in some Pushtun areas of the south. The Afghan vice president was nearly assassinated earlier this week. National parliamentary elections were postponed nearly a year and only a presidential election is being held on Saturday. Usamah Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are at large, along with several other important leaders. Worse, al-Qaeda has morphed into a headless set of asymmetrical terrorist organizations, such as the Fizazi group based at al-Quds mosque in Tangiers, which hit both Casablanca and Madrid. The Bush administration thinks the problem is rogue states. But the real problem is radical terrorist groups. Bush has done all too little about the latter. Most of the al-Qaeda officials captured have been taken by the Pakistani military, so that this vital task has actually been outsourced. But where the Pakistani military wants to coddle an al-Qaeda-linked group, like the Army of the Prophet's Companions, it does, and Bush seems too weak to stop it. Bush and Cheney want now to overthrow Syria and Iran, pushing them into the sort of instability we have seen in Iraq. If you were a company that brought in terror consultants to work on this problem, and after 3 years you saw the sort of results we saw on Thursday, would you really rehire them?

you seem to have a low down SLAM for every individual who disagrees with your position. Thats ok, though. Shows your self illision of superiority is still intact.

YOU have NO "FACTS", only republican dogma and opinion, based on FALACY presented by a presidential administration which has you completely brainwashed with irrelevant pieces of misleading LIES. WASHINGTON -- Bush administration failures to shut down al-Qaida and rebuild Iraq have fueled the insurgency and made the United States more vulnerable to a nuclear attack by terrorists, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy says. In a speech prepared for delivery at George Washington University on Monday, Kennedy said that by shifting attention from Osama bin Laden to Iraq, President Bush had increased the danger of a ``nuclear 9/11.'' He said it was a good thing Bush was not in charge during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, a nuclear confrontation with Russia when Kennedy's brother was president. ``The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely,'' Kennedy said. Using imagery from the Vietnam War, he said U.S. soldiers are bogged down in a quagmire with no end in sight. Kennedy said that the administration's failure to distribute billions of dollars in reconstruction funds and create enough local Iraqi jobs may have been the biggest factors leading to the rise of the insurgency there. The Massachusetts senator has been criticizing the Bush administration in daily speeches in the Senate, serving as one of the most aggressive boosters of Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign. Bush, meanwhile, has accused Kerry of changing positions on Iraq. Kennedy's Monday speech listed 13 reasons he said Bush's policies have not made the United States safer from terrorism. He said the war in Iraq created a new breeding ground for terrorists, distracted from efforts to eliminate al-Qaida, alienated America's allies and allowed North Korea and Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

if your rebuttles were anything more than REPEATS of twisted lies, your post would be worth interaction.....as it is...MORE OF THE SAME. Garbage, pulled directly from the BUSH PIT or complete and TOTAL RUBBISH

Sorry kid, I have faithfully(and painfully)followed your post quite thoroughly, but am not that "IGNORANT AMERICAN" bush and his radical worshippers hope me to be" go ahead and try to "SPIN" I expect nothing more from the likes of you.

The Primise, is accurate. Bush is the ONLY one who has ACTED on FALSE primise, and intentionally refuses to admit his ignorance. I see what you have in common with him.

PLEASE STOP!!!! This your LAST goddamn WARNING!!!! [ 10-08-2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

I dont have to say ANYTHING.