I'm not doubting that 9-11 wasn't a pre-text for invading Iraq. Terrorist fears and WMD was a pre-text for invading Iraq. Everyone knows that. But to suggest that anybody allowed those attacks to happen when they could have been prevented? To suggest that cockpit doors were purposely left unlocked for terrorists? That's what I'm taking about.GW Bush and his advisors ignored a report stating Al Queda was preparing to launch an attack on U.S. soil. That may be tRue, and, believe me, I have no love or respect for GWB or his henchmen, but there were and are hundreds of such reports, 99% of them hoaxes or diversionary tactics. If US security forces or any US agency were to investigate and prepare a defense against even half of them the government would grind to a standstill and nobody would be protected from anything. That may well have been their intention. Lois
I'm not doubting that 9-11 wasn't a pre-text for invading Iraq. Terrorist fears and WMD was a pre-text for invading Iraq. Everyone knows that. But to suggest that anybody allowed those attacks to happen when they could have been prevented? To suggest that cockpit doors were purposely left unlocked for terrorists? That's what I'm taking about.I certainly didn't imply any of these things. Citizens presented what I'm referring to. As to the cockpit doors being unlocked, know one could have prevented anything because something like it never happened before to this degree. In fact, as a kid, I loved being invited to the cockpit and feel bad that kids won't be welcome to do it anymore. My point was to say that locking the cockpit doors afterwards was all that was necessary because I don't think that the terrorists in this act had to use much intelligence to pull the plan through. I think that the security measures were already sufficient otherwise and all the hype to amp up security and go to war was unnecessary. I apologize, Vyazma, if you got the wrong impression.
You're presuming the govt. knew this but wanted to take advantage of the situation to take measures that they've wanted to do before? etc etc... Aren't there other Forums specifically designed for the hysterically paranoid?Google "project for the new american century" and click the ... Oh hell, I'll save you the trouble. Go here] and read the articles about how the people who selected GW Bush and ran the government during his administration had plans to invade Iraq while Bill Clinton was in office. I didn't click the link. But I'm sure most of it is on par with what I agree with. The only issue I have here is an acute point: The attacks of 9-11 weren't orchestrated or allowed to happen by any internal entities within the US. Were they a good excuse and most likely an excellent coincidental opportunity....yes. Yes. The notion that anyone in the US would allow those attacks to be carried out is ludicrous.
I'm not doubting that 9-11 wasn't a pre-text for invading Iraq. Terrorist fears and WMD was a pre-text for invading Iraq. Everyone knows that. But to suggest that anybody allowed those attacks to happen when they could have been prevented? To suggest that cockpit doors were purposely left unlocked for terrorists? That's what I'm taking about.I certainly didn't imply any of these things. Citizens presented what I'm referring to. As to the cockpit doors being unlocked, know one could have prevented anything because something like it never happened before to this degree. In fact, as a kid, I loved being invited to the cockpit and feel bad that kids won't be welcome to do it anymore. My point was to say that locking the cockpit doors afterwards was all that was necessary because I don't think that the terrorists in this act had to use much intelligence to pull the plan through. I think that the security measures were already sufficient otherwise and all the hype to amp up security and go to war was unnecessary. I apologize, Vyazma, if you got the wrong impression. There's no need to apologize, if there's anybody who should apologize it's me. I get spun out quickly. I mistook your comments. Your statement here even further clarifies your stance. And it makes sense to a point. And that leads to one of the main points in this discussion. The people, the economy and the government did everything and are doing everything they feel to protect against another attack. The extra security, the phone monitoring, the airport patdowns and scans..all of it. Can't you see that for what it is? Is 12 years enough time to erase the horrors of 9-11? That's the govts job. People are held accountable for security. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You have to see this. Their ultimate responsibility is to prevent another terrorist attack...that's it! They don't want to form an Orwellian Police state. "They" is us! Unfortunately, Snowden is a good example. And critics like yourself and Cloak..and many others. There is no "they"! We the people of the US are responsible for protecting ourselves. But critics like yourself are not seeing the picture. They aren't monitoring your phone to listen to you and your girlfriend. They aren't patting you down at the airport so you will miss your flight. As for going to war...I explained that in the other thread. As you can see that is up for debate as well.
There's no need to apologize, if there's anybody who should apologize it's me. I get spun out quickly. I mistook your comments. Your statement here even further clarifies your stance. And it makes sense to a point. And that leads to one of the main points in this discussion. The people, the economy and the government did everything and are doing everything they feel to protect against another attack. The extra security, the phone monitoring, the airport patdowns and scans..all of it. Can't you see that for what it is? Is 12 years enough time to erase the horrors of 9-11? That's the govts job. People are held accountable for security. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You have to see this. Their ultimate responsibility is to prevent another terrorist attack...that's it! They don't want to form an Orwellian Police state. "They" is us! Unfortunately, Snowden is a good example. And critics like yourself and Cloak..and many others. There is no "they"! We the people of the US are responsible for protecting ourselves. But critics like yourself are not seeing the picture. They aren't monitoring your phone to listen to you and your girlfriend. They aren't patting you down at the airport so you will miss your flight. As for going to war...I explained that in the other thread. As you can see that is up for debate as well.I have no idea what really happened with 9/11. Evidence seems to lend more toward it being a straightforward terrorist attack that could have been easily prevented if so many different parties didn't' screw up along the way. There are some suspicious things here and there, but if I was backed into a corner and forced to give my assessment, I would have to say that it probably wasn't an inside job. There are a lot of problems with the conspiracy version. Could they have known about it beforehand? Maybe, but there's very little concrete evidence available to draw a conclusion on. I just did a quick search online, and I found a really good 6 1/2 minute video by Chomsky that basically sums up my stance on the 9/11 event. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc Aside from all of that, when it comes to my perspective towards government, we have to start with the fact that our leaders (nearly all of them) have demonstrated, almost consistently, that they are VERY difficult to trust. This includes Obama. Please keep in mind that I used to defend Obama's actions vehemently. Some of my older comments on this forum clearly demonstrate that. Since my wife's side of the family are mostly of the tea-party conservative variety, including my mother-in-law, I had to spend ALOT of time fighting people off. But it finally got to the point where I had to take a look at the accumulation of the evidence presented by both radicals on the left and on the right to come to the conclusion that Obama is not so different from Bush. In fact, he comes across as a slicker, more polished version of Bush. It's like they took the best of Clinton and the worst of Bush, mixed it together, made him black, gave him the language of the left, and presented him to the public. I don't think that he was always this way. In fact, I believe that he really believed in the things he campaigned for. That guy is dead though. I think this supports John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton's perspective, when he coined the famous phrase: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." When people try to convince me that what the government is doing is for my best interest, I have to admit that it is EXTREMELY difficult to accept that sometimes. Sure, there are some times when they do help us, but my assessment of the situation is that it is becoming less and less the norm.
There's no need to apologize, if there's anybody who should apologize it's me. I get spun out quickly. I mistook your comments. Your statement here even further clarifies your stance. And it makes sense to a point. And that leads to one of the main points in this discussion. The people, the economy and the government did everything and are doing everything they feel to protect against another attack. The extra security, the phone monitoring, the airport patdowns and scans..all of it. Can't you see that for what it is? Is 12 years enough time to erase the horrors of 9-11? That's the govts job. People are held accountable for security. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You have to see this. Their ultimate responsibility is to prevent another terrorist attack...that's it! They don't want to form an Orwellian Police state. "They" is us! Unfortunately, Snowden is a good example. And critics like yourself and Cloak..and many others. There is no "they"! We the people of the US are responsible for protecting ourselves. But critics like yourself are not seeing the picture. They aren't monitoring your phone to listen to you and your girlfriend. They aren't patting you down at the airport so you will miss your flight. As for going to war...I explained that in the other thread. As you can see that is up for debate as well.I have no idea what really happened with 9/11. Evidence seems to lend more toward it being a straightforward terrorist attack that could have been easily prevented if so many different parties didn't' screw up along the way. There are some suspicious things here and there, but if I was backed into a corner and forced to give my assessment, I would have to say that it probably wasn't an inside job. There are a lot of problems with the conspiracy version. Could they have known about it beforehand? Maybe, but there's very little concrete evidence available to draw a conclusion on. I just did a quick search online, and I found a really good 6 1/2 minute video by Chomsky that basically sums up my stance on the 9/11 event. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc Aside from all of that, when it comes to my perspective towards government, we have to start with the fact that our leaders (nearly all of them) have demonstrated, almost consistently, that they are VERY difficult to trust. This includes Obama. Please keep in mind that I used to defend Obama's actions vehemently. Some of my older comments on this forum clearly demonstrate that. Since my wife's side of the family are mostly of the tea-party conservative variety, including my mother-in-law, I had to spend ALOT of time fighting people off. But it finally got to the point where I had to take a look at the accumulation of the evidence presented by both radicals on the left and on the right to come to the conclusion that Obama is not so different from Bush. In fact, he comes across as a slicker, more polished version of Bush. It's like they took the best of Clinton and the worst of Bush, mixed it together, made him black, gave him the language of the left, and presented him to the public. I don't think that he was always this way. In fact, I believe that he really believed in the things he campaigned for. That guy is dead though. I think this supports John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton's perspective, when he coined the famous phrase: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." When people try to convince me that what the government is doing is for my best interest, I have to admit that it is EXTREMELY difficult to accept that sometimes. Sure, there are some times when they do help us, but my assessment of the situation is that it is becoming less and less the norm. Just like Chosky, you seem to understand policits--which probably doens't account for much, except for politics. But I guess it's fun.
Just like Chosky, you seem to understand policits--which probably doens't account for much, except for politics. But I guess it's fun.Hi George, Would you please elaborate?
Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see the word "neocon" I am strongly inclined to note a similarity to the Nazis of Godwin's Law.http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm from 1997 You may find these pretty words, but, as they say, the rest is history and it's an ugly one of compounding losses and damage that will never get healed.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
"neocon" (Neoconservative) refers to real people and real ideas and real bad influences and decisions
Bush and the Neocon Termites are Destroying the US Government from Inside and Out by Rob Kall - http://www.opednews.com/Kall_bush_and_neoconTermites_are_destroy.htmHere's an interesting one that looks at the "neocon" labelOur military is now run by neocons who were formerly members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). It is no longer a fighting force designed to protect the US and friends. It is now an aggressive pre-emptive attack force, being redesigned so it is adept at implementing the urges to empire of egghead Zionist zealots. (This is no anti-semitic remark. I am Jewish. The actions of Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and other radical, extremist zionist neocons are not consistent with the politics, policies or attitudes of any of the Jews I know. Most American Jews want a safe middle east where there is peace and fairness. The violence on both sides is intolerable.)
Charles Krauthammer And The How Neocons Destroyed The GOP FEBRUARY 18, 2013 BY CHRISTOPHER MANION http://www.westernjournalism.com/charles-krauthammer-and-the-how-neocons-destroyed-the-gop/more recently
M.J. Rosenberg: The Failed Neocon Attempt to Destroy an American Anti-war Organization May 5, 2013 | by M.J. Rosenberg, Special Correspondent http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/BREAKING-VIEWS/epic-fail-the-neocon-attempt-to-destroy-an-american-antiwar-organization.htmland another blast from the past (2007)
The Neoconservative Threat to American Freedom http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/the-neoconservative-threat-to-american-freedom.html The Bush-Cheney White House, which told the American people in 2003 that the Iraqi invasion would be a three- to six-week affair, now tells us that the U.S. occupation is permanent. Forever. Attentive Americans — of which, alas, there are so few — had already concluded that the occupation was permanent. Permanence is the obvious message from the massive and fortified U.S. embassy under construction in Iraq and from the large permanent military bases that the Bush regime is building in Iraq. Bush regime propagandists have created a false analogy with "the Korean model" in their effort to sell the permanent occupation of Iraq as necessary for Iraq's security...
Cloak-I have no idea what really happened with 9/11. Evidence seems to lend more toward it being a straightforward terrorist attack that could have been easily prevented if so many different parties didn't' screw up along the way. There are some suspicious things here and there, but if I was backed into a corner and forced to give my assessment, I would have to say that it probably wasn't an inside job. There are a lot of problems with the conspiracy version. Could they have known about it beforehand? Maybe, but there's very little concrete evidence available to draw a conclusion on.And your so self-centered enough to think that it really matters whether you know what really happened or not. As if your going to hold someones feet to the fire about it. No, like others you base all of your vitriol and subjective criticism on the idea that "America is consciously driven entity that is suffering from "blowback" that She deserves. And you get to stand by idly saying "I told you so!". Even though, 1 you're just another guppy in the Ocean, and 2...like I said your just as much a part of the system as the next guy. I went through this phase of thinking. I had the vitriol too. The misguided axe to grind. The idea that I was on the outside looking in. No, I'm just another consumer like you and everyone else. I skipped the Noam Chomsky bit. I've listened to him before. I like his point of view. I don't follow video links. Why would you think I'm going to sit and watch six minutes of Chomsky or anyone else.
Aside from all of that, when it comes to my perspective towards government, we have to start with the fact that our leaders (nearly all of them) have demonstrated, almost consistently, that they are VERY difficult to trust. This includes Obama.What have they done to misplace your trust? All of the things they do have been done since the times of the Romans at least. What's new? Politics is ALWAYS Back Room deals and secrets.
I had to take a look at the accumulation of the evidence presented by both radicals on the left and on the right to come to the conclusion....Seriously re-read this statement of yours and re-analyze it. Let me be more specific...you culled together the ideas of RADICALS from the left and right and came to a conclusion? That is obvious in your expressions in this forum. Earlier you wanted to know how people can come together. You are never going to get people to come together when you get your information from the radical left or right. Getting people together is going to come from the middle. Somewhere in the middle is where most of the truth lies. Hyperbole is a word derived from geometry..it means the farthest point away from the center. Hyperbolic.(maybe you knew this.) The vast majority of people want to be contented consumers. That's all. That's in the middle. The ones on the hyperbolic points want to be the producers of what the people in the middle consume.
When people try to convince me that what the government is doing is for my best interest, I have to admit that it is EXTREMELY difficult to accept that sometimes. Sure, there are some times when they do help us, but my assessment of the situation is that it is becoming less and less the norm.And I can assure you that you are going through a charged phase in your life, in your political social/consciousness. In other threads and here I have tried to explain the reasons for this. It's your age( late 20's early 30s?) the amount of "information" you have access to, the actual changing dynamics of Real politics and economy. And this last one; the Real Politic and Economy thing; there is no sense bitching about it. It's like the tectonic plates moving under the crust of the Earth. And I know this is all metaphysical. But it's true. If you want to bring up specific current policy debates that actually may affect us that's fine too. But ranting about how you got sticker shock and buyers remorse about Obama, or how there's a big bogeyman that no one can trust. These type comments call for a metaphysical answer.
I hear you, friend, and I respect your perspective.
Anyways…I didn’t realize that six minutes was so monstrously long. I thought it was reasonable, lol. Oh well.
I hear you, friend, and I respect your perspective. Anyways....I didn't realize that six minutes was so monstrously long. I thought it was reasonable, lol. Oh well.Cool. I've probably seen it anyways. or heard it. Or heard a parallel viewpoint. Thanks for having patience with my patronizing tone. I don't think I'm better or smarter than you. It's just the way I argue. I respect your perspective too. I bet we agree on nearly everything. Like you said....I think the vast majority of us common folks agree on everything that matters. But I have a feeling that you and I probably even agree on finer points. It's that hyperbole from the outside that keeps everyone from getting along.
Thanks for having patience with my patronizing tone. I don't think I'm better or smarter than you. It's just the way I argue.For a second, I thought I had wandered into a courtroom and was being shouted at by Col. Jessep. If you don't know what I'm talking about, PLEASE click here.] ;)
Neoconservatism, IMO, is a highly misunderstood variant of conservatism. Personally, I’ll take neoconservatives over the far right-wing types who like to claim the mantle of “true conservatism” for themselves any day.
Neoconservatism, IMO, is a highly misunderstood variant of conservatism. Personally, I'll take neoconservatives over the far right-wing types who like to claim the mantle of "true conservatism" for themselves any day.I'd like to hear your further thoughts on the distinction. I think you would have some good insight into this. I hope. But start a new thread.
Meanwhile back in Russian:
Published: July 1, 2013 at 9:56 PM | UPI.com Snowden breaks silence during asylum quest to slam Obama http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/07/02/Russia-says-NSA-leaker-Snowden-withdrew-request-for-asylum/UPI-69161372739400/ MOSCOW, July 1 (UPI) -- Fugitive U.S. intelligence leak source Edward Snowden broke his silence Monday to accuse President Obama of using the "old, bad tools of political aggression." Snowden, who is holed up in Moscow while he seeks a country that will grant him political asylum, charged in a statement posted on WikiLeaks.com the leader of the world's most powerful country has been "pressuring" other countries to shun him. "On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic 'wheeling and dealing' over my case," Snowden wrote. "Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the president ordered his vice president to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions. "This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me." He went on to say while the United States has a history of being "one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum," the Obama administration "has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon." "Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person," Snowden continued. "Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum." Snowden then put himself in the category of whistle-blowers Bradley Manning and Thomas Drake. "We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless," he said, adding the Obama administration is "afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised -- and it should be."
CC, you really adore this guy huhn?
The title of this thread is rapidly changing to “Why other countries are not playing along with Snowden.”
The guy is a US citizen still…he can come home anytime he wants. Why do I get the feeling that is what’s going to happen.
The guy is a US citizen still...he can come home anytime he wants. Why do I get the feeling that is what's going to happen.Try getting from Canada to the U.S. without a valid passport.
CC, you really adore this guy huhn? The title of this thread is rapidly changing to "Why other countries are not playing along with Snowden." The guy is a US citizen still...he can come home anytime he wants. Why do I get the feeling that is what's going to happen.You are being unfair, perhaps even emotional I simply don't understand why he's become USA's enemy number one and I don't think anyone can really explain beyond: that's the way it is son.
Now the New American Century draft dodging maniacs
Founding Fathers: Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
summation WIKI (Project for the New American Century): The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. established in 1997 as a non-profit educational organization founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]That's a whole 'nother story >:(