[ALEXIS_DH]

this is part of an chomsky interview in 1999. way before 9/11. its his answer about the drug war and the US policy on that.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19990312.htm

he says very interesting things, that are almost a profetical glance into the future (present) of GWB policies.


QUESTION: And the drug war...?

CHOMSKY: Controlling the population in the United States is a big problem. In fact, it's the biggest problem: How do you control your own population? Well, one way to control them is by having a foreign enemy. So, if the Russians are coming, then people are scared, and they are obedient. For about ten or 15 years now it's been pretty obvious the Russians aren't coming. You can no longer play that game. So, new enemies have to be concocted: international terrorists, Hispanic narcotraffickers, Islamic fundamentalists, and so on -- whoever you want. None of these are credible threats. Let's take Islamic fundamentalism. The United States has nothing against Islamic fundamentalism per se -- after all, one of the leading U.S. allies is Saudi Arabia, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist state in the world. We're not worried about them. Furthermore, the United States has nothing against fundamentalism. In fact, religious fundamentalism is probably more extreme in the United States than in Iran, so it can't be fundamentalism that's the problem. It can't be Islam that's the problem -- Saudi Arabia's just fine. So was Indonesia, the largest (mostly) Islamic state, as long as the corrupt and murderous dictatorship was maintaining control. The real problem is independent nationalism. Sometimes it takes the form of Islamic fundamentalism. Sometimes it takes the form of the Catholic Church, as in the 1980s when the United States was at war with the Catholic Church in Central America. Who were they killing? There's a picture of Archbishop Romero over there. He wasn't an Islamic fundamentalist. He was a "voice for the voiceless" -- so you kill him. The Jesuits who were killed in El Salvador were dissidents who were the voice of the poor, so you kill them. In fact, a good part of the Central American war was a war against the Catholic Church which dared to adopt a "preferential option for the poor."
.....
In the United States for the past 25 years, maybe two-thirds of the population has seen their incomes stagnate or decline even though they work much harder. Many more hours of work -- more than any other industrialized society -- for stagnating or declining incomes. It's hard to get people to accept that, but one way is to keep them frightened, and crime and drugs do that. So, it's not that the drug war is a failure; in fact, it's a great success. It has nothing to do with the availability of drugs, but that's not what it's for. It's serving other purposes, and serving them pretty well....



who is the common enemy now i wonder???

 

[Toshi]

chomsky writes some interesting things. i have to digest this for awhile, but the part about south america especially seems to make sense.

 

[MikeD]

Chomsky is always interesting and thought-provoking, but never entirely convincing.

His theories generally (and this statement in particular) always seem to assume some sort of top-down agenda or control. However, in a society like ours, where administrations and agendas come and go, you just don't have this kind of masterminding or continuity of action. While it may be true that the 'war on drugs' serves the sort of function that Chomsky suggests, this is just one facet of it, and frankly more of an after-effect or overall effect of a host of individual-level actions.

The sinister smoking man in a room, controlling the war on drugs and steering Changleen's flights into CIA bunkers whilst launching cruise missiles at the Pentagon, just doesn't exist. It is, however, astounding that so many individual actions can act as if there was a unified controlling mechanism and underlying agenda.

This statement should be cross-referenced with the 'culture of fear' that Michael Moore appropriated and perverted in 'Bowling for Columbine.' Pretty much saying the same thing.

MD

 

[quadricolour]

His theories generally (and this statement in particular) always seem to assume some sort of top-down agenda or control.

Conflict theory.

 

[Changleen]

The sinister smoking man in a room, controlling the war on drugs and steering Changleen's flights into CIA bunkers whilst launching cruise missiles at the Pentagon, just doesn't exist. It is, however, astounding that so many individual actions can act as if there was a unified controlling mechanism and underlying agenda.
MD

The Bilderburgers. Skull and Bones. Why are you so sure there is no 'agenda?'

Even regular business men and rich guys in most towns are members of local trade asociations, some more transparent than others. We have the Rotary Club in the UK, where leaders of the community meet - mostly business men. We also have the slightly more secretive Freemasons in the UK, although they are not so secretive to claim they do not exist. All the members are local business owners, members of town councils - all the local rich decision makers. I'm sure there is similar cr4p in the US. All essentially 'old boy' type clubs providing mutual help to each other. It's a sensible arrangement for a community really, and probably in most cases it's just passing business onto each other rather than exterior forces.
Given the existance of the types of groups at every level of society, again, why are you so sure there is no maneovolent behind the scenes agendas? I'd say it's more likely there are many. Similarly, I'm sure there are many benign agendas out there too.
The agenda(s) that currently shapes American Politics and policy is willing for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die across the globe for their own ends. Over a thousand American trops have recently died in an attempt to secure Oil supplies for America and impose the seeds of Western Capitalism on another society. Why is it so suprising that 3000 Americans have to die as well? Look what has been achieved for them. Compare it to the NeoCon agenda. Look at all the companies and interests that have benefitted.

9/11 - I spent hours and hours reading about this stuff - Official and 'conspiritory' sources. I think that given the rather extensive reading and sets of data I have read about 9/11, the videos I have seen, the various testimonies and considered it all, there are some hooping fvcking great holes in the government's explanation and version of events.
Can you stand there and say you don't have any issues with the Government version of events? If you can, you probably haven't read that much about it.
Whatever did happen on 9/11 sure is not the story told by the media. I doubt Joe Public will ever find out what happened, but it sure as fvck wasn't as what was reported to you.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

while the theory of a single guy like bush being the "guy smoking in a room" creating the waves alone is unlikely.
the fact that he IS riding those waves, no matter who created them, for his inmense favor is TRUE.

am not going to argue on chomsky theories of a highly centralized singular control mastermind. But "its supposedly" effects at a first glance exists.
I dont think his theory on the origin of this is the most likely, but i aim at his observations to draw such conclusions as being veru adjusted to reality.

and anyway, am not gonna go overboard like changleen, but the theory of a group of people driving the US, or any economic block as big as it, is not as laughable as you might think.
as far as my own first hand knowledge, ALL south america works LEGALLY like that. some place better, some places not as well, but EVERYBODY in the end, dictates policies in a very oligarchy way.

i dont see how such things could not be plausible in the US, specially given the much higher budgets and profits to be made by the lobbyst in the US, and the almost nule power of syndicates and the almost nule political involvement of most US-ers; or very weak opposition outside the democratic-republican binomy.

 

[genpowell71]

There's where the difference between south and north America begins. Because we have so many big businesses (and thats not to say that S America doesnt have big business) we can see that there are outside forces at work. I'm not a conpiracy theorist, but even my dumbarse can see that sometimes (more than not) organizations flex a bit to make something go their way.

http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous.htm

CLick on that link and see just how many politicians and military generals were and are memebers of the freemasons. It doesnrt take a genius to see that there is alot going on behind the scenes of politics. I give you an example: 11 out of 43 presidents are or were masons. If you look at the military generals, you'll see that the majority of them went on to become either their branch chief of staff or Chairman of the joint chiefs. Look futher and you'll find a number of senators and congressmen are members.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

There's where the difference between south and north America begins. Because we have so many big businesses (and thats not to say that S America doesnt have big business) we can see that there are outside forces at work. I'm not a conpiracy theorist, but even my dumbarse can see that sometimes (more than not) organizations flex a bit to make something go their way.

http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous.htm

CLick on that link and see just how many politicians and military generals were and are memebers of the freemasons. It doesnrt take a genius to see that there is alot going on behind the scenes of politics. I give you an example: 11 out of 43 presidents are or were masons. If you look at the military generals, you'll see that the majority of them went on to become either their branch chief of staff or Chairman of the joint chiefs. Look futher and you'll find a number of senators and congressmen are members.

yeah, but i think most of those cases are within the posibilty of chance.

i recognize a difference between causality and casuality here.

even though sometimes it might get hard to differenciate, because here in Peru and most SA (countries to which politics am very familiar) the jewish representation on gvmt, media is about 400fold higher than its % in society overall.

of course the chances of that being completely random is low.
but the chance of that being because some wealthy jews inmigrated a while ago and were able to keep and increase their wealth, thus funding their own political campaigns to push convenient laws, etc, etc. is a much more likely and less "conspiracy like" theory IMO.

and in the US seems to be also a much higher % in gvmt than in society. so i imagine the same reason can apply.

 

[Changleen]

and anyway, am not gonna go overboard like changleen, but the theory of a group of people driving the US, or any economic block as big as it, is not as laughable as you might think.

What I said isn't that there is one group of people driving this - what I said was that I would expect 'everyday events' are driven by a combination of different agendas, each affecting the economy and the population and each other in many complex ways. Read the post again.

 

[MikeD]

The Bilderburgers. Skull and Bones. Why are you so sure there is no 'agenda?'
...
9/11 - I spent hours and hours reading about this stuff - Official and 'conspiritory' sources. I think that given the rather extensive reading and sets of data I have read about 9/11, the videos I have seen, the various testimonies and considered it all, there are some hooping fvcking great holes in the government's explanation and version of events.
Can you stand there and say you don't have any issues with the Government version of events? If you can, you probably haven't read that much about it.
Whatever did happen on 9/11 sure is not the story told by the media. I doubt Joe Public will ever find out what happened, but it sure as fvck wasn't as what was reported to you.

Well, on one hand, you believe in "the Agenda." And on the other, you believe in various agendas. The latter are obvious, and often quite sinister; the former is a construct, formed by extapolating an overall effect from multiple individual instances.

It's perfectly comprehensible that some corporate types see value in, say, both the effects of a war and the war itself, from a financial point of view. They then use influence on legislators and the media to push their goals. It's simple politics, as old as the Greek Polis , and can be pretty serious. But it's limited in scope.

To think that there was a turnover from Carter to Regan to Bush to Clinton to Bush of a secret plan and list of objectives and methods for Chomsky's 'War on Drugs' is absurd. This kind of continuity doesn't exist in our government; hell, this lack of continuity actually puts us at a major disavantage when dealing with a single-minded, far-sighted and patient enemy like Al-Queada and its spawn. It's also absurd to think that there's a single entity, whether governmental or extra-governmental, using the presidency and various government offices as puppets and pawns without their knowledge. Influence-peddling? You bet. You know it. Long-term comprehension of an overall 'war on drugs' and its effects, conceived of and controlled towards fearmongering for profit, started in the 60s or earlier, with forecasts for the future and the resulting profits? No.

Life isn't much different than the battlefield, with hundreds and thousands of decisions made by even more people and agencies, based on often inconclusive or downright erroneous information and assumption. Things don't work as planned, plans are in constant flux, and contradictory decisions and assumptions and objectives are made even within one agency. Yet, overall and in hindsight, someone writes a history book that presents a unified vision of what, say, the Afrika Corps was doing in a given time period, as if it was all crystalline, or simplifying the contradictions and errors to demonstrate why a particular cataclysm might have happened.

You're an Internet expert on 9/11, I'll give you that. But you're NOT a trained aviation safety investigator, nor do you have any first-hand experience. So, while I will readily agree that there's some wierd stuff surrounding accounts of 9/11, I'm not going to accept that that means the government constructed multiple facsimile aircraft (some capable of firing incendiary missiles), killed and disposed of entire aircrews and passenger lists, launched cruise missiles at itself, etc., in order to launch the 'war on terror.' Again, I might buy, as at least a possibility, the CIA being behind the hijackings or whatever, but there are just too many people needing to be involved in these ridiculous Rube Goldberg plot machinations. Things need to be simple to work. Do you know how many people need to be involved in the launching of just one cruise missile? Of the construction of one plane? The government doesn't have the giant buried laboratories of conspiracy and liquidation to make this sh1t happen, and a lot of people who work in the government don't roll over when a new administration takes over.

Anyhow, I think we've covered this enough to understand our differences...

MD

 

[jmvar]

I don't understand how you guys can deny that there are certain US policies that stay in effect no matter what party is in office!!?!?!?!?!? Take a look at the two that Noam Choamsky mentioned. The Middle East and the War on Drugs.

Since it's inception, not one administration has looked at the war on drugs and said, you know what, with all the money spent on this war, we should have better results than overflowing jails filled with bottom of the rung drug dealers....

Also, not one president from either party has said, maybe if we stop funding Isreal's military, the Muslims will not see the US involvement in the Middle East as one sided...

The biggest example of how an idea/plan of action can last through several administrations is right in front of your nose everyday. Iraq. In 1998 a group of neo-conservatives told Clinton he should take Iraq..... IN 1998!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 years later, it happens. This group had the same single-minded, far-sighted and patient character with which MikeD describes Al-Quada. Some of the names in this group might look familiar....(Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz). This is proof that there is a group of individuals that have a vision for the US and the rest of the world. And that vision is the US standing on top while choking, coercing, and manipulating the rest of the world into doing what it wants:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

And this is just one group that we know about, imagine how many others are out there that we are not aware of.

 

[Skookum]

This is proof that there is a group of individuals that have a vision for the US and the rest of the world. And that vision is the US standing on top while choking, coercing, and manipulating the rest of the world into doing what it wants:

Business is good in War. As business is good in Peacetime. I'd say the individuals you talk about are always ruthless in taking advantage of whatever opportunity that presents itself. Thinking the events of 9-11 is a grand conspiracy is a total stretch. Using and manipulating the subsequent fear to advance your own agendas is a logic that is much more easy to fathom.
If you want to attack something as a conspiracy perhaps you should attack Americas focus on what we as a people consider priorities.
Like maybe look at how we as a nation watch as our policies are constantly swayed by both parties to the benefit of business and not always to the benefit of us. It's way more tangible, present, and possible to empower people for change than sit there and wonder what other grand scheme they're plotting next for us.

 

[jmvar]

Thinking the events of 9-11 is a grand conspiracy is a total stretch.

I do not belive that 9/11 was a conspiracy. I believe the US gov. had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. I do belive that there are groups of US politicians that have great influence over US policy that work behind the scenes in order to achieve a final goal of world domination.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I do belive that there are groups of US politicians that have great influence over US policy that work behind the scenes in order to achieve a final goal of world domination.

That might be the stupidest post I've ever read on this site. Not only is this an impossibility, but in whose interest would this be? If such a grand scheme were put into place, the timetable would be as such that anyone looking for power would be long dead by the time this goal was achieved (that's if it were even possible) so who would be the benefactor?
And what steps have we taken so far to even make you contrive such an erronious, illogical, mind numbingly stupid idea?

 

[Toshi]

BurlySurly, it is pretty clear that the PNAC wants to dominate the middle east, they've said as much themselves... i don't know about world domination tho, too much of the world has no strategic value

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

[jmvar]

Well Surly, I will re-phrase....Domination of those areas in which the US has interests...there are obviously areas that the US gives 2 sh!ts about like Africa.

But I make this statement by looking at history and past US intervetions that I have already posted on this forum. The US has and has had the entire continent of South America by the balls for a long time..here is a cut and paste of a post I made in another thread...do you think the US does this for fun? or do you think that the US is "defending democracy" because if so, I have a tinfoil hat they would probably fit you nicely.

 

[jmvar]

posted in this thread: http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97256&page=2&pp=15&highlight=latin+america

------------------------------------------------------------

This will be a little off topic but I think that it is worth a look in order to see what US Foriegn policy has done JUST in the Americas over the last 50 years. Here is the source: http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

The source maybe not be from the desk of the top media groups but I can assure you that all of these events are well documented and well known in Latin America.

1954
Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, elected president of Guatemala, introduces land reform and seizes some idle lands of United Fruit-- proposing to pay for them the value United Fruit claimed on its tax returns. The CIA organizes a small force to overthrow him and begins training it in Honduras. When Arbenz naively asks for U.S. military help to meet this threat, he is refused; when he buys arms from Czechoslovakia it only proves he's a Red.
Guatemala is "openly and diligently toiling to create a Communist state in Central America... only two hours' bombing time from the Panama Canal." --Life
The CIA broadcasts reports detailing the imaginary advance of the "rebel army," and provides planes to strafe the capital. The army refuses to defend Arbenz, who resigns. The U.S.'s hand-picked dictator, Carlos Castillo Armas, outlaws political parties, reduces the franchise, and establishes the death penalty for strikers, as well as undoing Arbenz's land reform. Over 100,000 citizens are killed in the next 30 years of military rule.
"This is the first instance in history where a Communist government has been replaced by a free one." --Richard Nixon
1957
Eisenhower establishes Office of Public Safety to train Latin American police forces.
! 1959
Fidel Castro takes power in Cuba. Several months earlier he had undertaken a triumphal tour through the U.S., which included a CIA briefing on the Red menace.
"Castro's continued tawdry little melodrama of invasion." --Time, of Castro's warnings of an imminent U.S. invasion
1960
Eisenhower authorizes covert actions to get rid of Castro. Among other things, the CIA tries assassinating him with exploding cigars and poisoned milkshakes. Other covert actions against Cuba include burning sugar fields, blowing up boats in Cuban harbors, and sabotaging industrial equipment.
1960
The Canal Zone becomes the focus of U.S. counterinsurgency training.
1960
A new junta in El Salvador promises free elections; Eisenhower, fearing leftist tendencies, withholds recognition. A more attractive right-wing counter-coup comes along in three months.
"Governments of the civil-military type of El Salvador are the most effective in containing communist penetration in Latin America." --John F. Kennedy, after the coup
1960
Guatemalan officers attempt to overthrow the regime of Presidente Fuentes; Eisenhower stations warships and 2000 Marines offshore while Fuentes puts down the revolt. [Another source says that the U.S. provided air support for Fuentes.]
1960s
U.S. Green Berets train Guatemalan army in counterinsurgency techniques. Guatemalan efforts against its insurgents include aerial bombing, scorched-earth assaults on towns suspected of aiding the rebels, and death squads, which killed 20,000 people between 1966 and 1976. U.S. Army Col. John Webber claims that it was at his instigation that "the technique of counter-terror had been implemented by the army."
"If it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetary in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so." --President Carlos Arana Osorio
1961
U.S. organizes force of 1400 anti-Castro Cubans, ships it to the Bahía de los Cochinos. Castro's army routs it.
1961
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected Pres. J. M. Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador, who has been too friendly with Cuba.
1962
CIA engages in campaign in Brazil to keep João Goulart from achieving control of Congress.
1963
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic.
1963
A far-right-wing coup in Guatemala, apparently U.S.-supported, forestalls elections in which "extreme leftist" Juan José Arévalo was favored to win.
"It is difficult to develop stable and democratic government [in Guatemala], because so many of the nation's Indians are illiterate and superstitious." --School textbook, 1964
1964
João Goulart of Brazil proposes agrarian reform, nationalization of oil. Ousted by U.S.-supported military coup.
! 1964
The free market in Nicaragua:
The Somoza family controls "about one-tenth of the cultivable land in Nicaragua, and just about everything else worth owning, the country's only airline, one television station, a newspaper, a cement plant, textile mill, several sugar refineries, half-a-dozen breweries and distilleries, and a Mercedes-Benz agency." --Life World Library
1965
A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this "Communist rebellion," with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
"Representative democracy cannot work in a country such as the Dominican Republic," Bosch declares later. Now why would he say that?
1966
U.S. sends arms, advisors, and Green Berets to Guatemala to implement a counterinsurgency campaign.
"To eliminate a few hundred guerrillas, the government killed perhaps 10,000 Guatemalan peasants." --State Dept. report on the program
1967
A team of Green Berets is sent to Bolivia to help find and assassinate Che Guevara.
1968
Gen. José Alberto Medrano, who is on the payroll of the CIA, organizes the ORDEN paramilitary force, considered the precursor of El Salvador's death squads.
! 1970
In this year (just as an example), U.S. investments in Latin America earn $1.3 billion; while new investments total $302 million.
1970
Salvador Allende Gossens elected in Chile. Suspends foreign loans, nationalizes foreign companies. For the phone system, pays ITT the company's minimized valuation for tax purposes. The CIA provides covert financial support for Allende's opponents, both during and after his election.
1972
U.S. stands by as military suspends an election in El Salvador in which centrist José Napoleón Duarte was favored to win. (Compare with the emphasis placed on the 1982 elections.)
1973
U.S.-supported military coup kills Allende and brings Augusto Pinochet Ugarte to power. Pinochet imprisons well over a hundred thousand Chileans (torture and rape are the usual methods of interrogation), terminates civil liberties, abolishes unions, extends the work week to 48 hours, and reverses Allende's land reforms.
1973
Military takes power in Uruguay, supported by U.S. The subsequent repression reportedly features the world's highest percentage of the population imprisoned for political reasons.
1974
Office of Public Safety is abolished when it is revealed that police are being taught torture techniques.
! 1976
Election of Jimmy Carter leads to a new emphasis on human rights in Central America. Carter cuts off aid to the Guatemalan military (or tries to; some slips through) and reduces aid to El Salvador.
! 1979
Ratification of the Panama Canal treaty which is to return the Canal to Panama by 1999.
"Once again, Uncle Sam put his tail between his legs and crept away rather than face trouble." --Ronald Reagan
1980
A right-wing junta takes over in El Salvador. U.S. begins massively supporting El Salvador, assisting the military in its fight against FMLN guerrillas. Death squads proliferate; Archbishop Romero is assassinated by right-wing terrorists; 35,000 civilians are killed in 1978-81. The rape and murder of four U.S. churchwomen results in the suspension of U.S. military aid for one month.
The U.S. demands that the junta undertake land reform. Within 3 years, however, the reform program is halted by the oligarchy.
"The Soviet Union underlies all the unrest that is going on." --Ronald Reagan
1980
U.S., seeking a stable base for its actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, tells the Honduran military to clean up its act and hold elections. The U.S. starts pouring in $100 million of aid a year and basing the contras on Honduran territory.
Death squads are also active in Honduras, and the contras tend to act as a state within a state.
1981
The CIA steps in to organize the contras in Nicaragua, who started the previous year as a group of 60 ex-National Guardsmen; by 1985 there are about 12,000 of them. 46 of the 48 top military leaders are ex-Guardsmen. The U.S. also sets up an economic embargo of Nicaragua and pressures the IMF and the World Bank to limit or halt loans to Nicaragua.
1981
Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba.
1982
A coup brings Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt to power in Guatemala, and gives the Reagan administration the opportunity to increase military aid. Ríos Montt's evangelical beliefs do not prevent him from accelerating the counterinsurgency campaign.
1983
Another coup in Guatemala replaces Ríos Montt. The new President, Oscar Mejía Víctores, was trained by the U.S. and seems to have cleared his coup beforehand with U.S. authorities.
1983
U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.
1983
Boland Amendment prohibits CIA and Defense Dept. from spending money to overthrow the government of Nicaragua-- a law the Reagan administration cheerfully violates.
1984
CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.
1984
U.S. spends $10 million to orchestrate elections in El Salvador-- something of a farce, since left-wing parties are under heavy repression, and the military has already declared that it will not answer to the elected president.
1989
U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.
1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Well Surly, I will re-phrase....Domination of those areas in which the US has interests...there are obviously areas that the US gives 2 sh!ts about like Africa.

But I make this statement by looking at history and past US intervetions that I have already posted on this forum. The US has and has had the entire continent of South America by the balls for a long time..here is a cut and paste of a post I made in another thread...do you think the US does this for fun? or do you think that the US is "defending democracy" because if so, I have a tinfoil hat they would probably fit you nicely.

So because we defend our interests in a particular area, we're trying to take over the world?
How about we defend our interests because uh.....THEYRE OUR INTERESTS! Why on earth would we worry about Burundi when they have nothing to offer?

 

[jmvar]

What is in Latin American sovergn countries that you think belongs to you? And what gives you the right to take it?

 

[BurlyShirley]

What is in Latin American sovergn countries that you think belongs to you? And what gives you the right to take it?

Niether of those questions have anything to do with your original claim that the US is secretly trying to take over the world.

But, as for your laundry list of biased facts and half truths, Latin America has been unstable, why would the US not support the side that would play to its benefit? That is the way of the world. We dont TAKE it. We pay for it.

 

[jmvar]

Those questions have everything to do with the statement that US foreign policy puts forth the image that the US can do what it wants where it wants in other sovergn countries if it feels like.......how did you put it? "Defending it's interests"....

If that does not spell world domination, I would like to see a better example.

As to my list of half truths, you ask what is wrong with the US supporting the side that would play to its benefits.....let's look at this statement and see what sides those are.

Salvador Allende was the elected President of Chile. The US did not like the fact that he nationalized the phone company and told ITT to move along....so the US installed Pinochet. Google Pinochet and see what nice things he did...the US does not support sides....the US installs them. And for some reason they always end up being murdering criminals which the US has to go back and take out later on....sounds like Iraq doesn't it?

 

[Jesus]

That might be the stupidest post I've ever read on this site. Not only is this an impossibility, but in whose interest would this be? If such a grand scheme were put into place, the timetable would be as such that anyone looking for power would be long dead by the time this goal was achieved (that's if it were even possible) so who would be the benefactor?
And what steps have we taken so far to even make you contrive such an erronious, illogical, mind numbingly stupid idea?

Sounds like he's talking about Dr. Evil doesn't it?

 

[BurlyShirley]

If that does not spell world domination, I would like to see a better example.

No American flag is flying over those countries (well maybe a little of cuba) but Yes, the US picks sides in every conflict. If the US dominated the world as you say and installs puppet governments, where was the worldwide support of all of these puppet nations when it came to the Iraq war?
Now, its true that the US has installed some leaders when a nation is in Chaos and at times had to undo something, but so what? That does not mean that Americans can just do as they please with that nation, especially after a generation and leadership change or two. You choose to see only negative aspects of US foreign policy. There is no kickback from Somalia. Kosovo doesnt really do much for us...

 

[jmvar]

Jesus, yes, Dr. Evil=Bush Cabinet...for me anyways...how's that SLX treating you?

Burly, Iraq. They didn't do it because of installed Presidents but for other political and financial reasons...the list didn't include Mexico...not sure why.

"Military forces from Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic will assist US, British and Spanish troops in their efforts to maintain law and order in Iraq."

http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/03062602.htm

you chose to see it as a glass is half full. Please explain to me how Chile was in chaos when Allende was ousted, then killed? I choose to see the negative aspects of US foreign policy because when I speak with people from Latin America, when I look at the history of the US "chosing sides" it is always a negative out come. Go to any Latin American country and ask them how they view US foreign Policy, they won't tell you how nice it was of the US to help out the Somolians......

 

[BurlyShirley]

Go to any Latin American country and ask them how they view US foreign Policy, they won't tell you how nice it was of the US to help out the Somolians......

I have spent time with members of the Chilean military for an extended period of time and got to know many of them quite well. These were educated officers who seemed to mostly agree with US foreign policy as a whole. They say that their country is deeply divided on these very issues. As in, about 50/50. Your one example, which I am not overly familiar with, even if it were exactly as you put it would still not amount to the good the US has done over the last 100 years.

...and where is Chile on your list of US Iraq supporters?

 

[genpowell71]

you chose to see it as a glass is half full. Please explain to me how Chile was in chaos when Allende was ousted, then killed? I choose to see the negative aspects of US foreign policy because when I speak with people from Latin America, when I look at the history of the US "chosing sides" it is always a negative out come. Go to any Latin American country and ask them how they view US foreign Policy, they won't tell you how nice it was of the US to help out the Somolians......

Mind if I ask you a question? Have you ever strapped on a Ruck sack, picked up a weapon and gone out to defend US foreign policy in S America? You sit back and see the negative sides of it. Why dont you ask the Panamanians how they like not being run by a Drug money launderer. Why dont you ask the Columbian military how they got the FARC onto the defensive (PSSST it was withthe help of US Special operations). Wanna know why you see the negative side of this. BECAUSE THATS ALL YOU WANT TO SEE!!!! What you have is called one mindedness. You see what you want. Try taking off the blinders and looking at other things besides what you want to see...

 

[genpowell71]

Oh, and by the way, dont think I dont know what I'm talking about because I was there for the party in december of 89...

 

[MikeD]

Thing is, Chomsky and his adherents see the FARC as the real 'will of the people' in Columbia. The current gov't is likely to be labeled an oppressive US puppet in his vein of thinking. Heck, one of his main theses in Vietnam is that the US 'invaded south vietnam' in the early 60s when we sent advisors in there, to install/maintain a US-friendly government in opposition to the 'will of the people' as represented by the viet cong.

As for Noriega, well, it is fairly disingenuous of the US to trumpet our removal of the drug peddler as 'a good thing for the people,' when it was the US who put him in power and kept him there, until he displeased us, without regard to the will or greater good of the people of Panama.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Niether of those questions have anything to do with your original claim that the US is secretly trying to take over the world.

But, as for your laundry list of biased facts and half truths, Latin America has been unstable, why would the US not support the side that would play to its benefit? That is the way of the world. We dont TAKE it. We pay for it.

well, i agree that is silly to expect the US to commit money and troops in a place for nothing more than philantropy. and i agree that WE gotta pay a price for such things.

BUT, i think there is a very unethical advantage by the US. like that of a man who gives an almost dead man a glass of water in the desert, and in exchange rips off his kidneys, liver and eyeballs.

you remember nafta?? dude, that "free trade" treaty had 640 clausules. There is no way on freaking earth that is a "free trade treaty" if it had 640 BUTs.

i think there is an over-the-limit squeeze on the situation. its not a horizontal, not even a fair vertical relationship. It is a subjugating relationship, in which nobody in SA (maybe not brazil because of it sheer size), can do anything about its own economies or its markets.

you dont get to decide your price, you have to sell at X price, else cuba-style block and sanctions, you dont get to decide where are you gonna buy, you dont get to decide if you can manufacture, because then you get tariffs, you dont decide if you get to export anything else, otherwise you get tariffs, but you cannot put tariffs on imports from the US to protect your industry, if you do, you are called anti-freedom-of-markets and get sanctions. when the US does it, as with its agriculture, its called "self-protection".

where is the free-market the US pushes so much??? if you cannot decide anything, because if you elect a president that listens to most people, the 2/3 living in true poverty (as bad as usually is in SA to do what most people say, but no matter how bad, that IS the will of people) he will get coup-ed by the US in no time.

those are the double-standards, that "its OK for ME, but NONO for YOU" is what really pissed most the world who hates the US the most.

its not the mcdonalds, or the hollywood movies, or the "freedom to buy everything marketing makes you buy" that foreign people envy, as a lot of ignorants or downright liars US-ers say.

its the double standards, the fvck-you-all-and-but-dont-even-think-to-complain-or-i-will-make-1/3-of-you-starve-to-death, what pisses that huge % of population that are the people that dont get any good thing out of the deals with US, but just pays the bill of damage.

that aint fair free-market trade. that is a international dictatorship mascared in "free trade", which is not free, and not even a trade, but a legalized steal.

i read that people think that the guerrillas in SA are not the voice of people.

As much as I hated them, FARC, shinning path and MRTA (they kidnapped my mom TWICE), i gotta accept that a big part of their partial success at some point was due to the overwelming support of people outside the middle and upper classes (that means 2/3 to 3/4 of the population, people that live on less than 2 bucks a day).

guerrillas dont last 40 years if people outside its core dont support them.
lately the situation is complicated because of the drug money, but still they have a hardcore support of a sizable % of the population as Anti-US as you could not imagine.
the ideology of the anti-US-imperialism is something i listen, hear, read everywhere in the public media.
its a very complex subject, since most of SA population feels US intervention not as "they came to free us", but as "they came with usury to take out stuff".

think about this, by SA standards, I´m a neoliberal, neocon. by US standards am quite liberal. think how far to the left most people (those 2/3 to 3/4 who are as anti-US as it gets).

and about the US taking over the world???
hahaha, it has already made it in lots of places, and not always because of its better idea, but most of the times by very unethical, anti-freedom, anti-free-markets ways.
why do you think the IMF exists??

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i´ll give you an example why MOST South-americans dislike the US so much. maybe if you put yourself in their shoes you would understand.

most SA people are poor. but true poor, not like alabama or ghetto poor.

True poor means, no car, no tv, maybe not even electricity. this 5-people-families, living on 200 bucks a month.

1st.
the gvmt had regulations for elementary services like water of electricity, to keep prices down. the food has subsidies, and kids under 7 in poor place eat for free on the gvmt, and there is free basic health and free education until doctorate levels.

2nd, the US comes to aid the poor, and promises loans and grants to people, but in exchange, markets have to be opened, tariffs eliminated, and etc.
since this is extremely beneficial to higher income south-americans (those who rule SA), SA accepts them.
a lot of this aid never goes to THE people (those 2/3) as it get stolen or corruption takes it in the way. the US-block does not care about the stealing as far as the ruling class is giving them the keys to the economy.
they will care later, when time to blame somebody will arrive.
so in a way, its like bribing the guards to come inside and steal the bank. and dont came to me with "but the US didnt know", because that "help" is always a bribe to the ruling class and not true "aid" to the people, and the "help" keeps coming, no matter how much corruption, as far as the back is being robbed. once its empty, the guards will be blamed.
but you know the truth. it was a part of the guard, but also the briber.

3rd. not more regulation, prices on water, electricity skyrocket. and they get from 9-10 dollars a month water or electricity bills, to prices according to the 1st world, since the companies are now owned the foreign capitals. now they are 40-50 bucks. imagine that on famlies living on 200 bucks a month. godammit, my phone bill is 300 bucks a month since the telephone company got privatized. only local and cel phone calls!.

4th, of course there are improvements on this. since we opened the markets, now we
can import ferraris, porsches and rolex daytonas legally. we get mcdonalds, starbucks, and a even foes dealer. of course its nice, but 90% of the population never notice the improvements, as their prices are way far of their reach. but nobody cares, as that 90% is not wealthy enough to be a target of the 1st world marketing.

5th, local businesses and manufacturing have to close, since they cant compete with foreign capitals. so lots of middle class go to lower-middle class level. they have to fire blue collar workers, more poorness now.

6th, we go from an almost sustainable economy, into a dependant economy based on extraction of primary resources, like Mining, or lumber, or fishing.
so the choice for most people is to get a job in the new industries. they are lowpaying, very dangerous jobs. plus since now local laws are decided by foreign corporations, there is little enviromental protection required, little job safety.

and this had happened the last 30-40 years. and the face of this "improvement" is the US. the US is the biggest buyer of raw materials, and the biggest seller of manufactured stuff.
guess what feelings people have for the US now???

what would you burlysurly feel if the US gets invaded by china like that??? would not at some point turn yourself into a suicide bomber or guerrilla fighter??
that is roughly a mold of what has happened everywhere the US put a finger on, SA for its markets and raw materials, the middle east for its oil, etc.

isnt that world domination???? (in the most important way, economical). because that isnt economic supremacy based on better products as the free-market decides, that is world economic domination based on retaliation, coups, bribery and military action.

 

[BurlyShirley]

isnt that world domination???? (in the most important way, economical). because that isnt economic supremacy based on better products as the free-market decides, that is world economic domination based on retaliation, coups, bribery and military action.

If you want to stretch the meaning of world domination to that point, than yes. Sure it is. But that was not the meaning of this conversation from the start. I suppose you could also say the US dominates the world culturally too. But its not the same as enslaving the worlds population to bend to our will and forcing them to worship a certain god and follow culturally relative laws. This is simply the way supply and demand works on a world scale. Since when have richer nations not utilized the labor of other nations in trade? Since when have the have-nots not wanted to be the haves? Its just like the guy in the Yugo being pissed at the guy in the H2. Is the world totally fair? No. Never has been. People are always going to be pissed at the guy with more and the guy with less is always going to work for him to some extent.
What is it that you want now? The US to INTERVENE and take care of your corrupt government? No, we would be setting up another puppet govt. right? What is exactly the remedy you seek?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

If you want to stretch the meaning of world domination to that point, than yes. Sure it is. But that was not the meaning of this conversation from the start. I suppose you could also say the US dominates the world culturally too. But its not the same as enslaving the worlds population to bend to our will and forcing them to worship a certain god and follow culturally relative laws. This is simply the way supply and demand works on a world scale. Since when have richer nations not utilized the labor of other nations in trade? Since when have the have-nots not wanted to be the haves? Its just like the guy in the Yugo being pissed at the guy in the H2. Is the world totally fair? No. Never has been. People are always going to be pissed at the guy with more and the guy with less is always going to work for him to some extent.
What is it that you want now? The US to INTERVENE and take care of your corrupt government? No, we would be setting up another puppet govt. right? What is exactly the remedy you seek?

yeah, i dont say the cultural domination is the bad thing. the cultural domination of the US is a result of true "supply and demand". nobody was forcefed american pie, the terminator or rock and roll, over say charles aznavour and india´s movies.
people consume the US stuff it because they like them better. no deal about it with me.

and i agree, poor countries have nothing but their labor to trade for.
BUT in the moment external agents to free markets decisions come to play, in this labor for anything trade, like the agricultural protection of the US, or the unilateral tariffs, or military intervention, or US-sponsored terrorism (because that is what coups are), then that labor trade is unfair and unethical.

you cannot tell me it isnt, when there are so many atrocities against the free trade, and market decision.
i would not a problem with the US foreign policy if it was like that.

and saying its all because its the guy with the yugo pissed at the h2 its a half truth, because I am pissed off at the subjugative relationship of the US with the world, even though i get all the benefits from this globalized relationship, and virtually no downfalls, yet I´m still pissed off. so those who are in the yugo are even more pissed off than me.

i dont think things are supposed to be for free, i agree on profits and market decision stuff. BUT one thing is a fair profit, and another is usury.

what is a fair profit?? imo, and in US definition, that is a price fixed by the supply and demand of the free market.

BUT THERE IS NO FREE MARKET, once you take out the f16s, and the coups, and the tariffs, and unilateral intervension, or embargos and stuff, you see?

plus to add insult to the injury, you see dubya on worldwide tv, saying that unilateralism by the US will continue, and not only economical, but it will be get more militar now. wtf??

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

what would be the remedy i see instead of the US intervention and puppet gvmt??
i dont know, i cannot speak on every South-american.

For me, globalization is the best thing since sliced bread. i can be here on broadband posting on ridemonkey, i can get m&m´s on the supermarket, and i get a bike fork from italy, and i can go to school and vacation wherever i want and buy on amazon.com.
unlike a cuban or iranian for example.
Yet, i would be an atrocious azzhole if I say, this is the best to all of us, because it isnt.

what would be the perfect solution?? US intervention under fair profits. like alright, i got help, and ill pay it accordingly. Not paying a glass of water with my kidneys.

without the US??? hmm, things would eventually evolve anyway without foreign intervention.

which way would be the most cost effective for countries???? lately i´ve been thinking that probably in a lot of cases self-destruction or self-healing would in the long run end up being better for some countries.

like with iraq, what was better?
the tens of thousands of deaths so far PLUS a puppet gvmt that will sell a lot of their freedom, or Saddam and a couple hundred deaths a month, that in the life left of saddam in power could be less than those dead so far??? both cases are gruesome, but better is also another word for the least bad.

the problem is that in most cases the US deals knowingly with corrupt political sectors only concerned about their particula inmediate benefit.

i mean, if i have to have my arm amputated, let it be so, instead of some doctor coming to save it, for tomorrow charging me my left kidney and right cornea.

 

[jmvar]

genpowell, burly,

Alexis has summed it up very well, don't throw names around like me being "oneminded" when all you are looking at is a handfull of events where the US trained and funded military groups in Colombia. You were there for one "party" as you put it. How about the last 50-75 years where the US has done what they wanted in Latin America?

You have to look at the military, political and economical behaviour of the US in not only Latin America, but the entire world. The "it is ok for us to 'leverage' markets, but NNNNOOOOOOO not you" hipocracy that has the crickets chirping when the US calls for allies.

I find it hilarious that I am the one being pointed out as the closed minded person here. Burly thinks that the poor bastard in Equador who cleans toilets for a living is pissed that American Joe gets to drive an H2......NNNNNOOOOOOO he is pissed that the US levarages and gets the IMF to convince Equador to privatize water, now he has to pay for something that before was free to him even though he can't feed his family as it is.

It is obvious that you guys don't know what your country is doing outside the United States and what the concequences of these actions are for Latin Americans and the rest of the world.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

oh, btw am all for privatization, and open trade, and neoliberalism as long as they follow the same rules as in the US. in which monopolies and oligopolies are illegal, and as far as the field is leveled, and in which competence reduces prices and improved the service.

and I can assure you all that i hate commies more than any of you.

I am against the inequality in the so called "free trade" stuff, with privatizations imposed in SA, in which they sell a public non-profit monopoly into a private monopoly for the 1st world.
you see the US gvmt opens other markets for its pit-bulls corporations to loot doing what is illegal in the US, like monopolic management, or dumping, and the like.

if we could compete in a fair ground like, cheap labor in exchange of goods, at a
supply-demand law dude, i´m all for it!. that is what made china the miracle it is (its size helped china leverage fairly by sheer amounts, rather than military intervention).

 

[BurlyShirley]

genpowell, burly,

Alexis has summed it up very well, don't throw names around like me being "oneminded"

Please woman,
Your arguments were apples and orangutans. What you said is still so off base I could vomit all over your family.

 

[Changleen]

Well, on one hand, you believe in "the Agenda." And on the other, you believe in various agendas. The latter are obvious, and often quite sinister; the former is a construct, formed by extapolating an overall effect from multiple individual instances.

I believe in multiple agendas, some more powerful and some less powerful. Anyway...

It's perfectly comprehensible that some corporate types see value in, say, both the effects of a war and the war itself, from a financial point of view. They then use influence on legislators and the media to push their goals. It's simple politics, as old as the Greek Polis , and can be pretty serious. But it's limited in scope.

No - that's where you're wrong. They are the reason the world goes round. They are why we need government. People's individual agendas outlive govenments, legislation, and in some cases, countries. Groups of likeminded people don't just give up their ideals when a new government gets in.

To think that there was a turnover from Carter to Regan to Bush to Clinton to Bush of a secret plan and list of objectives and methods for Chomsky's 'War on Drugs' is absurd. This kind of continuity doesn't exist in our government; hell, this lack of continuity actually puts us at a major disavantage when dealing with a single-minded, far-sighted and patient enemy like Al-Queada and its spawn.

Groan - It doesn't need to. Organisations still have agenda for which they will apply pressure on the policy makers of the hour. If we were talking about 'Mothers against Drugs' for example, they will always apply pressure to the incumbent government to create harsher drug legislation whenever there is any type of review of bills or laws concerning it. It works the same for everyone. There is no wipping of the slate each time a new government is elected. It's just a new set of opportunities for the agendas to influence.

It's also absurd to think that there's a single entity, whether governmental or extra-governmental, using the presidency and various government offices as puppets and pawns without their knowledge. Influence-peddling? You bet. You know it. Long-term comprehension of an overall 'war on drugs' and its effects, conceived of and controlled towards fearmongering for profit, started in the 60s or earlier, with forecasts for the future and the resulting profits? No.

No, there are many entities. Some more 'problematic' or 'evil' than others. Long Term Comprehension of the war on drugs? OF COURSE!!! And as or what we were discusiing initially - PNAC! These guys have been around for ages. What are you talking about?

You're an Internet expert on 9/11, I'll give you that. But you're NOT a trained aviation safety investigator,

Actually, I'm a Materials Engineer and part of my degree was taught by a Aviation Crash Investigator...But anyway..

nor do you have any first-hand experience. So, while I will readily agree that there's some wierd stuff surrounding accounts of 9/11,

Frankly that's all I'm asking. You are willing to admit it's a bit murky. It's THE definining event of the beginning of this century. Why are you ready to brush it off so easily? Shouldn't the Government be doing EVERYTHING it can to sort it out and get to the bottom of it? More was spent on Clintos Cigar incident than the 9/11 investigation. It was a farce.

I'm not going to accept that that means the government constructed multiple facsimile aircraft (some capable of firing incendiary missiles),

I agree that the evidence for that particular theory is a little pathetic

killed and disposed of entire aircrews and passenger lists, launched cruise missiles at itself, etc., in order to launch the 'war on terror.'

But you are willing to accept that Iraq was sensible?

Again, I might buy, as at least a possibility, the CIA being behind the hijackings or whatever,

Again - If you accept this, Isn't that enough to make you question the Government's involvement?

but there are just too many people needing to be involved in these ridiculous Rube Goldberg plot machinations. Things need to be simple to work.

Like the Invasion of Iraq? Or the Olympic games?

Do you know how many people need to be involved in the launching of just one cruise missile? Of the construction of one plane? The government doesn't have the giant buried laboratories of conspiracy and liquidation to make this sh1t happen, and a lot of people who work in the government don't roll over when a new administration takes over.

So, The Government has never pulled off any covert research, never built any planes in secret before? Riiighhhttt...

 

[MikeD]

I bel....

I don't have the html patience you do to do all that individual quoting.

I think we're in agreement, actually, on a lot of things. I think that the War on Drugs is fostered by Americans at the individual level. There's this current in American culture that basically thinks that legality=government and societal approval of a given action (drug use, abortion, gay marriage, whatever), instead of it being a simple allowance of individual choice. This, combined with a certain amount of media response to sensationalism in order to create business (viewership), pretty much leads to Americans forcing politicians to continue the rather fruitless war on drugs instead of a more sensible alternative, because Americans have a cultural tendency towards prohibition and control, and don't ever want to 'governmentally endorse' drug abuse by legalizing them. If it's legal, my kid might actually try it, we tend to think, rightly or wrongly.

However, this means that there's NOT a cabal of people or single person plotting fear-mongering through the media, consciously trying to scare people for control! There's fear in the media...it's obvious...and it's there because people basically want it, or at least will watch it, and provide a market in which people in the media make money. It's NOT a 'smoking man' masterminding a plot to distract the American people...it's the American people demanding, through the Nielsen ratings and the like, a certain content in the media! Then, thusly educated, we elect our politicians, who enforce our cultural tendencies and amplify them as they pitch themselves for office. The overall 'fear factor' does indeed control and direct society, but goddamn it, it's NOT coming from some Masonic lodge! Sheesh!

And that's what I'm talking about. How can PNAC, as disgusting as some may see it, be one of these controlling factors in the long term? It's AN OPEN AGENDA. They blatantly say what they want, and it's obvious to even the most casual observer with a pulse and a modicum of literacy what the neocon crew have been up to! For someone to have foreseen the need for a 'war on drugs' to control the American people, they'd have to have foreseen the end of Communism and planted the seeds in the 50s or 60s, and followed up with it since then. Yeah, the war on drugs, and now the global war on terror, have arisen as unifying factors in American society that allow easy control. No crap! We both know it. It's just that I see it as an organic, bottom-up process that's been seized on by opportunists (realistic theory) and you see it as a giant plot (fantasy, IMHO).

Who told you I thought Iraq was sensible? I never made a statement on that either way in this thread. And if I had, you'd have known I think Iraq is a gross strategic error, and almost entirely an outrigh sham. You're adopting an automatically polarized stance to an academic discussion. Guess I'm either 'with you or against you,' eh?

I think the invasion of Iraq was a pretty simple and straightforward 'plot.' Easy to see who's behind it. If Wolfowitz is the 'smoking man,' well, I'm not impressed. The smoking man would have to make Wolfowitz his Lee Harvey Oswald. ("I'm just a patsy!")

Sure, the government does covert research all the time. Builds covert planes and weapons. It's a good thing they do, too. But it doesn't find a group of Americans willing to kill planeloads of other Americans and lace the WTC with explosives, and not one of them go to the media about it. Again, just too big and too complicated to work.

And yes, I could conceivably look at some theories in which the government, or a small group within it, masterminded 9/11. Not inclined to take it seriously, but I'd at least look at it...if it was reasonable and feasible. There's simply no reason to think that those responsible would have involved the amount of people many of these conspiracy theories would require. Gotta keep this stuff small, or it leaks all over, and isn't likely to work in the first place.

Got a job for me in Welly? I'd love to move in as your neighbor. I'll even wear a tinfoil hat. (Seriously. If I can get a job, I have enough points to emigrate, and would love to do it!)

MD

 

[Changleen]

http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/stream/work/workandlivepermanently/
Use the 'I want to' drop down on the right if the page I linked to is not you.

And yes, I could conceivably look at some theories in which the government, or a small group within it, masterminded 9/11. Not inclined to take it seriously, but I'd at least look at it...if it was reasonable and feasible. There's simply no reason to think that those responsible would have involved the amount of people many of these conspiracy theories would require. Gotta keep this stuff small, or it leaks all over, and isn't likely to work in the first place.

Basically agree, but I think our ideas of what 'small and containable' are... 1 word - 'Mossad'. Look at their agenda too.

 

[jmvar]

Please woman,
Your arguments were apples and orangutans. What you said is still so off base I could vomit all over your family.

Firstable, I am male, 2ndable, if what I posted was so off base, why has your tone changed throughout the thread. First you stand by the fact that the US has to defend its interests. Then you admit to the fact that the US has behaved in a not so democratic matter by installing savory characters in the past.

And lastly, you offer to throw up on my family.....what an internet tough guy. Way to go Burly.