Justified war?

[sSsflamesSs]

Can terrorism be classified as justified war?

(Don't just state your opinion...back it up.)

[sSsflamesSs]

I should rephrase that...

Can terrorism EVER be classified as a justified war?

[Anonymouse]

One would argue that what the U.S. does worldwide to other nations is a form of terrorism? That all depends on how you define terrorism.

In any event, read my post to that one guy here that praised the U.S. efforts in killing thousands of Iraqi civilians to "remove" Saddam.

[sSsflamesSs]

I did not create an argument here about the US or any other country. I meant terrorism in general.

The reason I posted this thread is that I came upon an old Philosophy essay of mine from last year which concerned the topic.

[Anonymouse]

Again that all depends on what you mean by 'war'?

If you are referring to the traditional conventional notions of war, then terrorism falls short.

[surferarmo]

Terrorism is definetly a legitimate reason to declare war. 9/11 and the events surrounding is what I would consider terrorism. What we need to establish here is that war is really never opposed or proposed over ideals. There is always some physical gain. From fighting the war on terrorism as I define it, one could argue that we have gained some national security. War is not good, and I am not at all pro war, but I will create a euphimism that I do stand behind and that is pro-necessary. The war that we have recently fought in Iraq I do believe was necessary. Yes Anon, Iraqi civilians did die, and that is horribly disgusting. When you and I say that though, we are discussing our stance on the war in moral terms, and morals are ideologies, and wars are not fought over ideologies. If you want to make that case though, 5000 children under the age of 5 die every month because of Sadam. Men are dragged into torture chambers, women are raped. Though that may have happened during this war, the Iraqi people are now liberated from the rule of Sadam. Even if the state chooses to reform a new dictatorship, they were free to decide that. France, Russia and China did not oppose the war for moral reasons. They opposed the war because they among all other nations are responsible for the arming of Sadam Huessein since the first Gulf War. Basically, in to the point terms, we are killing their customers, and that is not good for business.

[Anonymouse]

Terrorism is definetly a legitimate reason to declare war. 9/11 and the events surrounding is what I would consider terrorism. What we need to establish here is that war is really never opposed or proposed over ideals. There is always some physical gain. From fighting the war on terrorism as I define it, one could argue that we have gained some national security. War is not good, and I am not at all pro war, but I will create a euphimism that I do stand behind and that is pro-necessary. The war that we have recently fought in Iraq I do believe was necessary. Yes Anon, Iraqi civilians did die, and that is horribly disgusting. When you and I say that though, we are discussing our stance on the war in moral terms, and morals are ideologies, and wars are not fought over ideologies. If you want to make that case though, 5000 children under the age of 5 die every month because of Sadam. Men are dragged into torture chambers, women are raped. Though that may have happened during this war, the Iraqi people are now liberated from the rule of Sadam. Even if the state chooses to reform a new dictatorship, they were free to decide that. France, Russia and China did not oppose the war for moral reasons. They opposed the war because they among all other nations are responsible for the arming of Sadam Huessein since the first Gulf War. Basically, in to the point terms, we are killing their customers, and that is not good for business.

5000 children died in Iraq since Gulf War 1 and the UN Sanctions and American and British bombings of no fly zones destroying Iraq's sanitation, hospitals, education, and infrastructure.

Au contraire, war's are all fought over ideologies, that is precisely what it's about, the ideology of globalization or imperialism, or U.S. Pax Americana, these are all ideas and these ideas are and must be fed to the masses here in order to justify a war.

I can't think of any wars that have really been fought for physical, perhaps World War II, but even then most wars are fought over economic interests, and that was no more obvious than the war in Iraq. What was the first thing the U.S. troops secured upon entering Iraq? The burning oil fields.

You forget that Saddam was the same person installed by the U.S., back then he was still a dictator, but ahhh then he was aiding and abetting the U.S. so his crimes were justified. I am tired of these people who jump the moral bandwagon of "Saddam is evil". That is a morally unambigious and in fact ignorant stance.

Ever since World War II there has never been a declared war by Congress, as it says so in the Constitution, so what does that tell you about the balance of power here in this country now? And isn't strange that when I read the book "War on Iraq" that the people who lost family and friends in Sept 11 were the onse who didn't advocate war? The ones that had no people or friends that lost their lives, were the ones that jumped for war. Chickenhawks like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld all jumped for joy that now they can have all this immense power they wield to sent American troops from Afghanistan, or Iraq, and wherever else without the authorization or declaration of war on Congress.

Hell I can even make a good case as to prior knowledge of Sept 11. but it would take too much time to list all that information along with mysterious stock transactions. Did you know that the war plan for Iraq existed as far as as the mid 90s?

The war on Iraq saw its motives change several, from "freedom for the Iraqi people" and "democracy" and "freeing them from Saddam's tyranny" and "weapons of mass destruction". Those weapons have yet to be found. On the other side of the spectrum N. Korea openly threatens the U.S. and the U.S. does nothing about it. Then you had all these grossed out and erroneous analogies of Saddam or the likes of Hitler or Stalin. Nevermind that 1939 Germany was a world superpower and Iraq was nothing but a xxxxhole who lost 5000 children a month to UN Sanctions, American bombings, and depleted uranium.

Enforcing the democracy with the whim of a gun and bombings, isn't much of a democracy, but rather an oxymoron. Why risk American troops if they don't want a western style democracy? Hell one can even make the case that this really isn't a democracy since there was no proper election and fraud. Nevermind this was originally a Constitutional Republic, that is not the case now. And during the Depression, for the government to step in and stimulate and save the economy, that is the exact anti-thesis of capitalism.

You can't take the moral high ground and turn the world into a morally unambiguous battleground of good and evil and say "we are good" and "they are evil". It doesn't work that way. The whole world was against American involvement in Iraq. World opinion about America is bad. Yet Americans have their heads so far up their asses they can almost lick their own tongues from inside out. Too many people here rely on the soundbytes of FOX or CNN which are nothing more biased indoctrination agencies. Fox claims it is "fair and balanced"?

[surferarmo]

Au contraire, war's are all fought over ideologies, that is precisely what it's about, the ideology of globalization or imperialism, or U.S. Pax Americana, these are all ideas and these ideas are and must be fed to the masses here in order to justify a war. I can't think of any wars that have really been fought for physical, perhaps World War II, but even then most wars are fought over economic interests, and that was no more obvious than the war in Iraq. What was the first thing the U.S. troops secured upon entering Iraq? The burning oil fields.

Right here you contradict yourself anon. The oil field, and oil itself are physical gains. These physical gains do strengthen the muscle of those willing to impose imperialistic ideologies on others, but imperialsm again is about physical gain. There is not much ideology about having a fat ass pocket book at the expense of others. The motive might have been ideological, but the gain is physical.

You forget that Saddam was the same person installed by the U.S., back then he was still a dictator, but ahhh then he was aiding and abetting the U.S. so his crimes were justified. I am tired of these people who jump the moral bandwagon of "Saddam is evil". That is a morally unambigious and in fact ignorant stance.

I do know and am aware that Saddam was installed by the U.S. but I will argue that we made a mistake. The U.S. is taking a responsible course of action, and they are ridding the world of that mistake. Hopefully they dont make another one.
Saddam is evil. To say he is not is ignorant. Some countries may consider what we do evil, but anon, you are not going to be killed because you spoke against this war. If I was in Iraq and I spoke against the government I would be killed, and the same goes for anyone that lived under the rule of Saddam. You spoke of the opportunities that this country grants to people in a thread that was concerned with going back to Armenia to hopefully offset extinction. Well I love this country for that reason. This war is protecting your freedom. Obviously, you and all the hippies at my school are not dead. And I embrace your opposing view as it is a right in the consitution.

Then you had all these grossed out and erroneous analogies of Saddam or the likes of Hitler. Nevermind that 1939 Germany was a world superpower and Iraq was nothing but a xxxxhole

Before Germany became a superpower it was xxxxhole from the vindictave treaty of Versailles. The economy was horrible, and it became a superpower throught the leadership of Hitler. I argue that it would not be good idea to let Iraq become a superpower through the leadership under the rule of Saddam.

And during the Depression, for the government to step in and stimulate and save the economy, that is the exact anti-thesis of capitalism.

First of all anon; this is not the issue. I will go on this one tangent for a short bit. The government did get involved, but it was not the social programs that saved the economy. The alphabet soup organizations formed by the lame FDR only provided temporary relief. It was the increased spending in the market during the mass production as a result of WWII that saved America from the great depression. These social programs set up by FDR only hurt the American people today, as you see my beliefs in the "Right or Left" thread that I started. Lets talk about this in that forum please.


You can't take the moral high ground and turn the world into a morally unambiguous battleground of good and evil and say "we are good" and "they are evil". It doesn't work that way.

Anon, it does work that way. Are the turks who committed genocide in 1915 good people? Were they good people when they killed my great grandfather, when they killed your great grandfather, and most of our family members? Like you said, this race is going to decimate over time because of evil acts. You have called people turks in some threads and your tone had bad guy implications. It does work that way. Did you know that most countries wanted Saddam Huessein removed, but only dissagreed on the means of removal? Obivoulsy the UN sanctions and bullxxxx werent working, only killing innocent civilians.

[Anonymouse]

Au contraire, war's are all fought over ideologies, that is precisely what it's about, the ideology of globalization or imperialism, or U.S. Pax Americana, these are all ideas and these ideas are and must be fed to the masses here in order to justify a war. I can't think of any wars that have really been fought for physical, perhaps World War II, but even then most wars are fought over economic interests, and that was no more obvious than the war in Iraq. What was the first thing the U.S. troops secured upon entering Iraq? The burning oil fields.

Right here you contradict yourself anon. The oil field, and oil itself are physical gains. These physical gains do strengthen the muscle of those willing to impose imperialistic ideologies on others, but imperialsm again is about physical gain. There is not much ideology about having a fat ass pocket book at the expense of others. The motive might have been ideological, but the gain is physical.


I don't see how I contradicted myself. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Oil and other petty things, such as trade, or money, or weapons, etc, are merely the objects used to ensure the ideological gains are met ( globalization, because they serve the idea of it), where nothing but a few wield and control the power. Physical gains are only there to feed the ideological gains since mans obsession with power stems from an idea and he fights for that idea, not the other way around.

You forget that Saddam was the same person installed by the U.S., back then he was still a dictator, but ahhh then he was aiding and abetting the U.S. so his crimes were justified. I am tired of these people who jump the moral bandwagon of "Saddam is evil". That is a morally unambigious and in fact ignorant stance.

I do know and am aware that Saddam was installed by the U.S. but I will argue that we made a mistake. The U.S. is taking a responsible course of action, and they are ridding the world of that mistake. Hopefully they dont make another one.
Saddam is evil. To say he is not is ignorant. Some countries may consider what we do evil, but anon, you are not going to be killed because you spoke against this war. If I was in Iraq and I spoke against the government I would be killed, and the same goes for anyone that lived under the rule of Saddam. You spoke of the opportunities that this country grants to people in a thread that was concerned with going back to Armenia to hopefully offset extinction. Well I love this country for that reason. This war is protecting your freedom. Obviously, you and all the hippies at my school are not dead. And I embrace your opposing view as it is a right in the consitution.


HOW IS THIS WAR PROTECTING MY FREEDOM? Saddam has never threatened me, your statement is unsubstantiated and invalid. North Korea on the other hand, has made many open threats to the United States. First of all you should understand, FREEDOM is merely an idea. There is no such thing as freedom, because both in nature, and in our human made societies there exist limitations. There are limitations in nature, and in our laws that don't allow us to have "freedom" both to fly, to make things move telepathically, and to kill someone and get away with it, or committ some sort of fraud for personal gains. The same applies to EQUALITY. Nothing in nature is equal. No two minds or animals are alike. NO one thinks the same, acts the same or looks the same. There are different capacities, different characters and intellects. It is an art form to try to master and use an idea and feed it to the masses in such a way that they would be willing to fight and defend that idea ( which you previously denied that people fight for an idea )and make them adhere and believe in your cause. The American revolutionaries fought for this idea. The proleteriats in the Bolshevik revolution fought for this idea. I don't want to go on and on but you get the point.

Number 1, no one denies Saddam is evil. Saddam has killed more or less a quarter of a million people in 20 years. That's according to Red Cross, Amnesty International and UN figures. Many question the numbers, but let's say its true. Be it 100 or 100,000, it's heartbreaking and sick, we would all agree. But, do you know how many people WE slaughtered in the last 20 years? Maybe someone should come and try to depose us? How different is this country? This war was primarily a war for Israeli interests. If any politician or media mogul or anyone else dare publically speak against Israel they can kiss their careers goodbye. The amount of power the Israeli lobby and xxxs overall in America exhibit can be seen from the U.S.S. Liberty incident when Israel attacked the American ship and until this day it's been kept hush hush and no congressional investigation has ever taken place to hold Israel accountable. I bet those Afghanis really liked the way Americamade their day-glow care packets the same size shape and color as our unexploded cluster bombs 30% of which never detonate, until some poor, hungry Afghani kid walks up and grabs it thinking its food from America. How many were killed in India when the Union Carbide plant exploded due to rank negligence? How many are dying right now due to depleted uranium used in our shell casings and missiles in Iraq? How many people died during the Iran-Contra debacle? How many in Panama, Nicaragua and El Salvador because this gov't wanted to establish its own turf in the international drug cartel? Now you resort to ad homenim attacks surferboy. I honestly thought higher of you but you had to resort to the lowest common denominator. that is not very prudent. You deviate from a rational course and label me a hippie when you have no evidence that I am. Just because I disagree about war, doesn't make me a hippie. If you can't deal with that on its face value, then you are trying too hard to believe.


Then you had all these grossed out and erroneous analogies of Saddam or the likes of Hitler. Nevermind that 1939 Germany was a world superpower and Iraq was nothing but a xxxxhole

Before Germany became a superpower it was xxxxhole from the vindictave treaty of Versailles. The economy was horrible, and it became a superpower throught the leadership of Hitler. I argue that it would not be good idea to let Iraq become a superpower through the leadership under the rule of Saddam.

Germany was allowed to become a superpower. Iraq wouldn't have been allowed so because it was under UN sanctions, constant bombings by US and British forces, it had depleted uranium, bad hospotals, 5000 children dying a month, bad education, basically your analogy holds no water. I suggest you read "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" by Antony C. Sutton , you will see how Wall Street financed Hitler's regime from the start, including the Bolsheviks. People like Armand Hammer, J.P. Morgan, Adam Schiff, of Kuhn and Loeb, Rockefellar, the Warburg brothers are but a few who profited from war. War is a racket, as the old saying, goes, and as long as their is war, there is profit to be made.

And during the Depression, for the government to step in and stimulate and save the economy, that is the exact anti-thesis of capitalism.

First of all anon; this is not the issue. I will go on this one tangent for a short bit. The government did get involved, but it was not the social programs that saved the economy. The alphabet soup organizations formed by the lame FDR only provided temporary relief. It was the increased spending in the market during the mass production as a result of WWII that saved America from the great depression. These social programs set up by FDR only hurt the American people today, as you see my beliefs in the "Right or Left" thread that I started. Lets talk about this in that forum please.

Issue or not, is not the point, it is an example of government interference with the economy, which is the antithesis and a direct blow against the idea of capitalism. One would expect such a move in a socialist or communist regime, not in a self styled capitalist nation.


You can't take the moral high ground and turn the world into a morally unambiguous battleground of good and evil and say "we are good" and "they are evil". It doesn't work that way.

Anon, it does work that way. Are the turks who committed genocide in 1915 good people? Were they good people when they killed my great grandfather, when they killed your great grandfather, and most of our family members? Like you said, this race is going to decimate over time because of evil acts. You have called people turks in some threads and your tone had bad guy implications. It does work that way. Did you know that most countries wanted Saddam Huessein removed, but only dissagreed on the means of removal? Obivoulsy the UN sanctions and bullxxxx werent working, only killing innocent civilians.

I was referring to the Iraq war, and as I said it was the morally unambigious nature some of the "patriots" in this country make it seem to be that I find disturbing. Believe me, no one is justifying Turks killing Armenians, nor Saddam killing his own people, but no one rescued Armenians. America to go in Iraq with the premise of "rescuing people from Saddam" is being hypocritical, number 1 because of its actions of killing people in the past and present, and because there are other people in the world who suffer under their leaders, why doesn't the U.S. do a damn thing then? You see thats when it becomes obvious that this isn't a humane cause, but strictly a political maneuver, a neo-con construction for Israel. It's sad that innocent people have to die in the world but that's the way it is because no government comes to their rescue. The U.S. killed many civilians in this war, so it would be foolish to claim that they were there for them in the first place.

The arguments that support this war have so many holes and gaps in logic, that one cannot help but see our leaders for what they are, deceptive chickenhawks who care nothing about the lives of our soldiers, but only their political gains, and to support Israel. That's all.

[surferarmo]

The motive might have been ideological, but the gain is physical.

I don't see how I contradicted myself. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Oil and other petty things, such as trade, or money, or weapons, etc, are merely the objects used to ensure the ideological gains are met ( globalization, because they serve the idea of it), where nothing but a few wield and control the power. Physical gains are only there to feed the ideological gains since mans obsession with power stems from an idea and he fights for that idea, not the other way around.

Anon, right here we both said the same thing. Perhaps I wasnt clear, and there was miscommunication amongst the both of us. The ideology and the physical gain feed off of eachother. The physical ideology is the motive. The physical gain is the goal. What does it matter if the US dominates the global market, (not that it isnt already) and we get nothing physical that can insure physical material weatlh? My point is that, no one fights over an idea alone, the idea itself cannot be grasped; like freedom. I am aware that it is not a tangible or possible state in which anyone or thing could exist. Even without the presence of government there is no complete freedom. There is partial freedom which is defined comparitively. I also never called you a hippy. I never said 'Anon, you are a hippy.' I was referring to other people that speak against the war that have not faced punishment by the government because they may do so in this country, and I appreciate that. I expected that you would understand that. We are engaging in mature intellectual conversation here, and there is no need for name calling by any of us. Conflicting interest is the creation of new frontier yet to be discovered, and I embrace opposing views, and any other intelligent people should do the same.

Also, I never said that we, the US, are fighting to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam. (I am speaking specifically of Saddam.) I simply meant that it would be an outcome if Saddam was removed.

As far as North Korea, the situation is different. Iraq was a definet victory, and we both know that. First of all, the troops morale, and the county's needed a boost. Kind of like the battle that George Washington won against the Hessians. I forgot the name of the battle but you get the point. A victory would embody this win psychology in the minds of the people. North Korea might be next, I dont know, and neither do you. The political situation in that area is also different. They have a lot more troops, a better trained army, and they for certain have weapons of mass destruction. There are many variables in North Korea. Japan, and South Korea might be unwanting victims if we intervene. Also: whose side is China on? An invasion of North Korea could mean the commencment of WWIII. The political situation over there is very touchy and explosive...literally.

I know my history and I know that we sold Hitler his arms, and ammunition. Never the less, he was a tyrant, which you are aware of, and he escaped his xxxx hole situation. And world conquest came so close to reality.

Back to the capatilsm thing. The alphabet soup orgs. are the anti-thesis of capatilsm. My point is it did not substantially help the economy in anyway, and I dont see your point in bringing this issue up.

[surferarmo]

calling me surferboy, tho i am, really makes your 'lowest common demoninator' arguement much weaker by the way. there is much more to me than riding waves. i spoke with you a while back i think, and if i recall, you were going to surf too, or try it or you are currently surfing.

[Anonymouse]

The motive might have been ideological, but the gain is physical.

I don't see how I contradicted myself. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Oil and other petty things, such as trade, or money, or weapons, etc, are merely the objects used to ensure the ideological gains are met ( globalization, because they serve the idea of it), where nothing but a few wield and control the power. Physical gains are only there to feed the ideological gains since mans obsession with power stems from an idea and he fights for that idea, not the other way around.

Anon, right here we both said the same thing. Perhaps I wasnt clear, and there was miscommunication amongst the both of us. The ideology and the physical gain feed off of eachother. The physical ideology is the motive. The physical gain is the goal. What does it matter if the US dominates the global market, (not that it isnt already) and we get nothing physical that can insure physical material weatlh? My point is that, no one fights over an idea alone, the idea itself cannot be grasped; like freedom. I am aware that it is not a tangible or possible state in which anyone or thing could exist. Even without the presence of government there is no complete freedom. There is partial freedom which is defined comparitively. I also never called you a hippy. I never said 'Anon, you are a hippy.' I was referring to other people that speak against the war that have not faced punishment by the government because they may do so in this country, and I appreciate that. I expected that you would understand that. We are engaging in mature intellectual conversation here, and there is no need for name calling by any of us. Conflicting interest is the creation of new frontier yet to be discovered, and I embrace opposing views, and any other intelligent people should do the same.

From what you said it was clear to be that what you stated was wars are not fought over ideologies and instead physical gains, which seemed illogical. Physical gains are there to serve and reinforce every idea, not just political or economic. They reinforce and make so our own dreams and ideas about our lives and selves. They reinforce our ideas of reality haha lets hope so that this isn't a matrix. Everything goes back to the fact that it all stems from our mind. Before there was a chair, there was an idea of a chair in our minds, and from those ideas, spawn our creations, that is why those who seek American Imperialism and hegemony over the world have come up and drawn this ideology of American dominance and thus they create and forment these wars and essentially prove my point that it all stems from the idea. Even culture.

Also, I never said that we, the US, are fighting to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam. (I am speaking specifically of Saddam.) I simply meant that it would be an outcome if Saddam was removed.

You didn't mention it but you implied it which means you believe it. The only outcome if one followed the logic was the implication of Iraqi peoples' freedom from Saddams tyranny. A cause, removal of Saddam, would trigger a reaction, freedom for the Iraqis. That is what I thought you meant in essence and that is what your statements about Turks massacring Armenians or anyone else, further supported your statement.


As far as North Korea, the situation is different. Iraq was a definet victory, and we both know that. First of all, the troops morale, and the county's needed a boost. Kind of like the battle that George Washington won against the Hessians. I forgot the name of the battle but you get the point. A victory would embody this win psychology in the minds of the people. North Korea might be next, I dont know, and neither do you. The political situation in that area is also different. They have a lot more troops, a better trained army, and they for certain have weapons of mass destruction. There are many variables in North Korea. Japan, and South Korea might be unwanting victims if we intervene. Also: whose side is China on? An invasion of North Korea could mean the commencment of WWIII. The political situation over there is very touchy and explosive...literally.

This is precisely what I tried to explain but didn't dwell on that North Korea is the actual threat here, not Iraq. No evidence of WMD has yet been found. My other beef is that the motives of the war continually changed throughout the duration and now came to encompass everything they had metnioned all in one nutshell which is a good tactic. North Korea has the will, and the military capabilities to stand up against the U.S. They are well indoctrinated. And yes, it could trigger a war as China is the prime backer and China did aid the Koreans in the Korean War, most notably the battle of Chosin, where about 200,000 or so Chinese troops swarmed about 24k Marines or something like that, my memory is hazy.

I know my history and I know that we sold Hitler his arms, and ammunition. Never the less, he was a tyrant, which you are aware of, and he escaped his xxxx hole situation. And world conquest came so close to reality.

I never said you didn't know your history. You did say that since Germany was a poor nation due to the Versailles and Hitler turned Germany into a superpower and Iraq might have done that too. There are several things wrong with it. When Germany was in a xxxxty state, Hitler was not in power. Saddam is in power and Iraq was already crumbling. And as I mentioned Hitler was allowed to become powerful because a war was needed for the money masters. Hitler was financed by these bankers who most of them were xxxish. Saddam wasn't even allowed to improve his nation as I mentioned because of the bombings, sanctions, etc.

Back to the capatilsm thing. The alphabet soup orgs. are the anti-thesis of capatilsm. My point is it did not substantially help the economy in anyway, and I dont see your point in bringing this issue up.

I don't know we somewhere deviated and got to this but my point wasn't the specifics but the principle of government interference in the U.S. economy, just like they are trying to enforce democracy with a gun. My point is contradictions, which prove the invalidy of believing the things claimed.

I would have appreciated it if you had given some feedback to the questions posed in my post, because I did raise alot of questions, both moral questions about the U.S. and Israel and the motive of this war. I wonder why so many xxxs are disproportionately posted in the Bush administration?

[Anonymouse]

As far as me calling you surferboy, haha it was intentional, because yes I knew you surfed and it was just my way of getting back at you to what I thought was an ad homenim. In any event yes I do surf as well and have been for a while now. Hehehe but yea no hard feelings. :D

[surferarmo]

Anon, I will definetly give you feedback on some the the questions posed.

For now, here is feedback on the question adressed in your last post, asking why I think there are so many xxxs in Bush's Cabinet.

Check this out.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 6 — What began today as a hunt for an ancient xxxish text at secret police headquarters here wound up unearthing a trove of Iraqi intelligence documents and maps relating to Israel as well as offers of sales of uranium and other nuclear material to Iraq.

In one huge room in the flooded basement of the building, American soldiers from MET Alpha, the "mobile exploitation team" that has been searching for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq for the past three months, found maps featuring terrorist strikes against Israel dating to 1991. Another map of Israel highlighted what the Iraqis thought were the locations at which their Scud missiles had struck in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. The strikes were designated by yellow-and-red paper flowers placed atop the pinpointed Israeli neighborhoods" (NY Times).

I am just going to be blunt here. To deny the fact that xxxs are basically holding America by the balls is a very ignorant stance. Much of our policy concerning the ME is centered around Israelian interests. The clip of the article I quoted above proves just that. One might say that I have made an arguement based on racial discourse; I say that I made an arguement based on minimal observation. Look at the media. The media consists of anything on TV, Movies, News, etc... The media does contain bias. The media consists of a prominant liberal bias, with the exception of Fox with its conservative bias. Either way, there are a lot of xxxs in the media, and being in that position, one has the power to filter information to their advantage. Basically they are only showing us what interest them, which is Israel, and other xxxish affairs. From an earlier post you mentioned that if any politician spke against Israel, his/her political career would be done. It is true. Speaking against Israel is a third rail in politics that no one wants to step on. If someone did openly speak against Israel, the xxxs in the media would find every way to negatively expose the politician that did so. Politicians being in such a position must be careful and will usually make policy favoring Israel, because the people that truly care about its interest, xxxs, control the media and therefore, bring a lot of attention and support for their issues.

What do you think on this matter? If there are other questions of yours that you would like me to address please throw them in and lets discuss.

[TVAdict710]

look what u started flame, another superpost fest.

[Anonymouse]

Anon, I will definetly give you feedback on some the the questions posed.

For now, here is feedback on the question adressed in your last post, asking why I think there are so many xxxs in Bush's Cabinet.

Check this out.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 6 — What began today as a hunt for an ancient xxxish text at secret police headquarters here wound up unearthing a trove of Iraqi intelligence documents and maps relating to Israel as well as offers of sales of uranium and other nuclear material to Iraq.

In one huge room in the flooded basement of the building, American soldiers from MET Alpha, the "mobile exploitation team" that has been searching for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq for the past three months, found maps featuring terrorist strikes against Israel dating to 1991. Another map of Israel highlighted what the Iraqis thought were the locations at which their Scud missiles had struck in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. The strikes were designated by yellow-and-red paper flowers placed atop the pinpointed Israeli neighborhoods" (NY Times).

I am just going to be blunt here. To deny the fact that xxxs are basically holding America by the balls is a very ignorant stance. Much of our policy concerning the ME is centered around Israelian interests. The clip of the article I quoted above proves just that. One might say that I have made an arguement based on racial discourse; I say that I made an arguement based on minimal observation. Look at the media. The media consists of anything on TV, Movies, News, etc... The media does contain bias. The media consists of a prominant liberal bias, with the exception of Fox with its conservative bias. Either way, there are a lot of xxxs in the media, and being in that position, one has the power to filter information to their advantage. Basically they are only showing us what interest them, which is Israel, and other xxxish affairs. From an earlier post you mentioned that if any politician spke against Israel, his/her political career would be done. It is true. Speaking against Israel is a third rail in politics that no one wants to step on. If someone did openly speak against Israel, the xxxs in the media would find every way to negatively expose the politician that did so. Politicians being in such a position must be careful and will usually make policy favoring Israel, because the people that truly care about its interest, xxxs, control the media and therefore, bring a lot of attention and support for their issues.

What do you think on this matter? If there are other questions of yours that you would like me to address please throw them in and lets discuss.

That is precisely what my whole statement about this war is. This war is meant to serve the Israeli interests. You just admitted this and agreed with me on this, yet somehow earlier you sounded as if this war was for the good of the Iraqi people by getting rid of Saddam.

As I said, it's all in clear print, this war is for Israeli interests. If Israel lobbyists didn't have a stranglehold on American government and xxxs didn't manipulate the economy then we wouldn't be in there right now.

I am tired of having to go to wars for parasitic countries like Israel who only butcher Palestinians. You want to see a true war criminal? Look at Sharon. Why aren't we deposing him?

[sSsflamesSs]

look what u started flame, another superpost fest.

Please forgive me. *bites lip* :?

[surferarmo]

I said that an outcome of this war would be the liberation of the Iraqi people. It doesnt help you, me or the the country if the Iraqi people are free, and therefore it is not even a thought on congressional mind. I am quite aware that it wasnt the original purpose, nor a purpose to begin with, but it is still an outcome. It was used primarily to gather support from the soft hearted. I dont know who Sharon is unfortunetly. To be frank, I am tired of their being any war. The human condition, desiring power, will never let life be that way. I agree with you because I agree with the circumstance, so you agree with me in turn. It is true that Israelian lobbyists have taken hold of this country. There is no denying that.

Anyway, you asked how this war was protecting your freedom. Well I heard this quote once, I cant remember it word for word, nor can I remember the author, and the citation will be invalid, but I will paraphrase. They came for the communists and I did nothing, they came for the Homos and I did nothing, they came for the xxxs and I did nothing, then they came for me and there was no one left. I believe that the threat of removal of someones political rights somewhere, are a threat to everyones everywhere. North Korea might be a better situation for this arguement that I made, as they are bullying the world right now, but as we mentioned earlier, the situation is different, and can be something bigger than we or the world can bargain for.

[Anonymouse]

If you agree with me that war is a racket, then your argument here that war protects my freedom is invalid.

If you agree there is no such thing as freedom then to state that war protects my freedom is invalid.

Wars are basically created. Nothing "just happens". History is not a fortuitous concourse of events. The War on Terrorism is basically the replacement of the Cold War, to justify more defense spending, more conflicts, more American hegemony globally.

The fact that North Korea is threatening us, leads back to us to begin with. Our presence around the world doing what we want at will is what causes countries like North Korea to do what they do. They don't do it without provocation or cause. For every effect, there exists a cause. On the contrary, after every war more liberties are stripped from the citizens and the constitution is ravaged further. One example is the Homeland Defense beaurocracy, or the Patriot Bill. If you pay attention this is the worst thing if ever to harm our privacies. I don't agree that war protects me. On the contrary, war makes us susceptible to harm and adds more restrictions. North Korea, isn't really bullying the world, thats an overstatement, but they have THREATENED, the United States. In any event they are threatening the US no differently than the U.S. goes around threatening other nations at will.

I can't see how war is freedom. That's an oxymoron much like war is peace, a famous Orwellian newspeak.

But arguing all this is pointless anyway since nothing we really say has any bearing to what really goes on. I'm more aligned with those who adhere to a more conspiratorial world view on things, that things dont just happened are happen for a reason, to benefit a certain idea or cause, profit a certain few, etc. If you are an international banker creating wars is in your best interest since you profit of that.

I don't agree that Iraqi people were really liberated. Replacing one form of tyranny with another doesn't really mean liberation. Even historically, there really is no "liberation" as that implies "freedom" and since we agreed that freedom is just an idea used to rile the masses and cause revolutions and forment wars, then freedom isn't really the issue there. All it does is make the masses believe in something. In reality its replacing one order with another, for example replacing the British crown with an American one, replacing Saddam with America, replacing the Czars with the Bolsheviks. Society cannot exist without order, so there will always be subjugation to some form of government. It's either despotism or anarchy. Whether the despotism is overt or covert is another matter.

[surferarmo]

On the contrary, after every war more liberties are stripped from the citizens and the constitution is ravaged further. One example is the Homeland Defense beaurocracy, or the Patriot Bill

You might argue that this is some part of a conspiracy theory for the government to take away our rights in the name of security. This is precisely the reason for human beings forming the polity in the first place. The social contract theory states that people formed the state willingly under a "social contract." People willingly give up some of their rights to the state so that the state may provide protection, law and other such substances. Protection and national defense is the first duty of the government. And according to this, when you became a citizen of the US, you willingly gave up some of your rights so that you may be protected and have further more extensive security. I think that consipiracy theories are a way to detract people with opposing views from the issue at hand. There is a concrete side to all this, they are taking away some rights to privacy, and that is that. The question is whether or not you agree with that, and if you think it is necessary. I think it is necessary. Obvioulsy you dont. So instead of thinking Bush or anyone else has this grand scheme to take over the internet and watch what we are typing, so that we could all be tagged terrorists, look at the problem with a more practical stance.

I never said they were completely liberated from all forms of rule. If you critically observed my writing, you would have seen that I clearly stated that they were liberated from Saddam. I know this is true because he is dead, and cannot rule over them anymore, simple as that. They are not free, but they have more than they did under the rule of Saddam.

Now you tell me, because freedom doesnt exist like politicians tell us it does, what is it supposed to be called? From a comparative stance, Americans are more free, meaning, we have more choices and opportunities than most other people in most other countries. So I believe that when the Iraqi people were liberated FROM SADDAM, they are more free than they were before. Not to say they are completely free, as we are not completely free, but they are more free. [/quote]

[TVAdict710]

look what u started flame, another superpost fest.

Please forgive me. *bites lip* :?

i dont know, it's gonna be tough. these two seem pretty involved

[Anonymouse]

On the contrary, after every war more liberties are stripped from the citizens and the constitution is ravaged further. One example is the Homeland Defense beaurocracy, or the Patriot Bill

You might argue that this is some part of a conspiracy theory for the government to take away our rights in the name of security. This is precisely the reason for human beings forming the polity in the first place. The social contract theory states that people formed the state willingly under a "social contract." People willingly give up some of their rights to the state so that the state may provide protection, law and other such substances. Protection and national defense is the first duty of the government. And according to this, when you became a citizen of the US, you willingly gave up some of your rights so that you may be protected and have further more extensive security. I think that consipiracy theories are a way to detract people with opposing views from the issue at hand. There is a concrete side to all this, they are taking away some rights to privacy, and that is that. The question is whether or not you agree with that, and if you think it is necessary. I think it is necessary. Obvioulsy you dont. So instead of thinking Bush or anyone else has this grand scheme to take over the internet and watch what we are typing, so that we could all be tagged terrorists, look at the problem with a more practical stance.

This isn't about whether I agree giving up some rights or not. That is obvious to anyone who is a member of any organized government, but the amount of beaurocracy and tapping in to our private lives for needless reasons speaks volumes. Like I said, Homeland Defense and the Patriot Bill were not necessary. They simply put more restrictions and create more invasions of privacy. The Constitution is what spoke of the governments duties, everything now is against the Constitution and only necessary for an Empire, not a Republic. The only reason Patriot Bill and Homeland Defense happened is because America is targeted by terrorists. Why couldn't they secure America prior to Homeland Defense. We needed more beaurocracy for security? Couldn't we enforce the existing laws we had? Or the existing agencies for that matter?And mind you those terrorists are not without a reason since America is an empire, and in fact, created these terrorists to begin with. This proves exactly how the Hegelian Dialect works, thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. Create a problem, get a reaction, and offer a solution, the problem-reaction-solution scenario. The U.S. created the terrorists, they got the reaction from us after the terrorists attacked, and now the government offers the solutions( Patriot Bill, Homeland Security, war on terrorism ). The same with the "war on drugs". They funneled the drugs here and profited, and created a problem, then got a reaction from the masses, and now they offer a solution such "the war on drugs" which creates all new beaurocracies eating tax payers money for the "job" they are doing, unelected appointed "drug czars" ( who are these people I never vote for? ). The same with the Soviet Union, they create and fund Bolshevism, they get a reaction, and then offer a solution ( American imperialism to stop Communism, which in reality Communism was nothing but a creation of Wall Street ), create a problem like funding Hitler and the Nazis, get a reaction such as a war, and offer a solution, more American hegemony. Do you see where this is going? The puppetmasters create disorder so the people will demand 'order' and the price of that "order" always entails a handing over of control and loss of the choices, which you mentioned, on the part of the citizenry.

As far as taking on a conspiratorial world view, academia in general and our bastions of education have a way with trying to tell us that history is chaotic and nothing but a fortuitous, haphazard concourse of events. It is nothing more than a morally unambiguous conflict between good and evil and that is the way it is. To challenge that you are labeled with all sorts of epithets from conspiracy nut, to deranged and paranoid, one smear label is as good as any. Mentioning material or studying material that is not in your college or high school history book is disturbing and gives people a crack in their edifice of thought. No one wants to depart or let go of those comfortable world views they have held and been indoctrinated with since kindergarden from every orifice of communication. Such views are disturbing and unsettling to some. But no one has ever gained wisdom by studying material that only reinforced their own predetermined ideas.

The simplistic view of events which the media and our indoctrination camps seek to reinforce fail to take account of human history and the subleties of the word conspiracy. The word originates in Latin conspirare which means to act in harmony or breathe together. Secrecy is precisely the connecting tissue found through out mans past. There are secrets between individuals and groups as wel as secrets kept by both church and government. There are political secrets, and even secrets of finance and commerce, such as HOW and WHY is the Federal Reserve issuing us money when it is an uncosntitutional entity to begin with?

A conspiracy between co-workers to throw their buddy John a surprise bachelor party isn't the same as bank robbers scheming their next job. If ordinary humans are susceptible to conspiracy why not government leaders? Likewise the small merchant who is keeping his business plan a secret from his competitors is participating in a conspiracy equal to that of corporate leaders and bankers plotting to fix prices. Knpwledge is power, and power is the most valuable commodity in government. So whoever knows the secrets controls the knowledge and therefore holds the power. There are only two views of history in my opinion and you might disagree, but it is either accidential or conspiratorial. The accidental view states that history is nothing more than a series of accidents that leaders are powerless to control or prevent. The conspiratorial world view on the other hand could more accurately be described as the "cause and effect" world view. Obviously accidents occur, planes crash, cars crash, ships sink. But in history it is clear that human planning most often precipitates events. The only book I would recommend you read is by Clinton's former professor at Georgetown University. The author is Carrol Quigley and he wrote "Tragedy and Hope" and "The Anglo-American Establishment". Clinton even quoted him on his first inaugural address.

I never said they were completely liberated from all forms of rule. If you critically observed my writing, you would have seen that I clearly stated that they were liberated from Saddam. I know this is true because he is dead, and cannot rule over them anymore, simple as that. They are not free, but they have more than they did under the rule of Saddam.

Now you tell me, because freedom doesnt exist like politicians tell us it does, what is it supposed to be called? From a comparative stance, Americans are more free, meaning, we have more choices and opportunities than most other people in most other countries. So I believe that when the Iraqi people were liberated FROM SADDAM, they are more free than they were before. Not to say they are completely free, as we are not completely free, but they are more free.

More choices are exactly that, more choices. It doesn't mean freedom. There is only one definition of freedom and that is the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints or immunity from an obligation or duty and we all know that none of that is true. We both agreed to criticize Israel on Capitol Hill is political suicide. To go beyond that and make words pliable is a game in mental gymnastics which I will not participate in. Words are words because they only mean one thing, what they are erected to mean. To make one word mean another thing is pointless. That is why we have other words.

[Anonymouse]

Another thing that escaped me was the common nature all the anti terrorism bills pretty much share. None of them really define the word "terrorist". They all leave it open for interpretation for the obvious reason that they want to be able to substitute the word "terrorist" with anything or anyone according to their wont or whim.

"Terrorism" has become (borrowing from Orwell) "the essential crime that contains all others in itself". To completely get straight in your mind what they've done, substitute the word "terrorist" with "dissident" every time you read or hear it. And in trying to understand what is meant by the oft repeated statement of Dubya.

"You're either WITH us or you're AGAINST us"

imagine it to mean:

You're either WITH us OR you're a terrorist.

or as I heard it expressed regarding a country that balked at handing over citizens under indictment by a foreign nation:

"If you don't meet our demands, YOU WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ENTITY THAT SUPPORTS TERRORISM."


You can read this article, it's quite lengthy, when you have time you will see some information that might come at odds with what you might know.

http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm

[surferarmo]

That is obvious to anyone who is a member of any organized government, but the amount of beaurocracy and tapping in to our private lives for needless reasons speaks volumes. Like I said, Homeland Defense and the Patriot Bill were not necessary. We needed more beaurocracy for security? Couldn't we enforce the existing laws we had?

Yes we do need need the Homeland Security Act. Why do you think we were attacked in the first place? We didnt have the appropriate policy and implentation and enforcement in the first place. We didnt have enough legislation to monitor these activities. So more strict and approprate policy has passed. You forget that the terrorists of 9/11 had extensive communications over the internet. If someone needs to watch over my IM chat to keep 5000 people from dying, then I am down. You see our lax fat and happy routine is what gets us in these situations. Peal Harbor is a great example. I can imagine it now. Two bros just got done surfing in Hawaii. They were sitting on the beach sharing stories about the babes they just tagged while sipping on some coconut milk when BOOM. If there was some policy, and enforcement these two men might have been better prepared. I havent seen any buildings with planes flying into them since 9/11, have you?

To challenge that you are labeled with all sorts of epithets from conspiracy nut, to deranged and paranoid, one smear label is as good as any. Mentioning material or studying material that is not in your college or high school history book is disturbing and gives people a crack in their edifice of thought. No one wants to depart or let go of those comfortable world views they have held and been indoctrinated with since kindergarden from every orifice of communication. Such views are disturbing and unsettling to some. But no one has ever gained wisdom by studying material that only reinforced their own predetermined ideas.

Conspiracy theory might be true, but remember, it is theory. I am a republican, attending a liberal campus. My point is, I am always consistently, and insistently fed, shown, taught material that is outside my bubble of thinking. I am greatful for it, but at the same time it would be nice to talk with someone that agreed with me. It is part of learning. Hopefully we learned things from eachother. Intelligent discourse brings out the best from both angles. I know why you think the way you do, and hopefully you have learned why I think the way I do. But back to the arguement on conspiracy theory. Yes unsettling things are what educates us. Anything we are comfotable with, we already know. My point is in this whole arguement is that we hear things, but are they true? They might be very real to you, and false to me. There is a real issue at hand and there is more to issues than underlying theory.



A conspiracy between co-workers to throw their buddy John a surprise bachelor party isn't the same as bank robbers scheming their next job.

Every conspiracy involves this: DECOY. If I want to throw a bachelor party for my buddy, John, I have a distraction set up so he thinks nothing goes on, and he loses focus on the issue. For example: "John, I have to go to a meeting, and discuss your contributions to the company." He thinks I am attending a meeting talking about him. While he is worried about what I am going to say about him, and what is going to come out of the meeting, there is something else in store. Sometimes conspiracy theories are the decoy themselves to detract your thought from the real issue. For example: If I was running for office, I would want my opposing campaign to believe that I was part of a conspiracy theory. Instead of them working on ways to persuade voters to see their principles and political views more valid than mine, they try to make everyone think something they cant prove. Gray Davis did that this last election which is why despite his excessive funding that he only won by a five percent margin. Simon was a horrible candidate and he made notable mistakes, but the reason the margin was so close is because his opponent was trying to impose false allegations through a lot of the campaign.

More choices are exactly that, more choices.

Choices are only choices. I love this country because I have more choices than I do anywhere else. Some choices are better than others. But I have more choices, and the choice is mine to make. When I, or anyone else has choices, they have responsibility. With choices also comes opportunity, which we have in this country. If the Iraqi people have choices, they have responsibility, and they have opportunity. I would rather have more choices, and more opportunities than less. I see no reason why the Iraqi people should not be granted the chance to have a choice and make a decision.

As far as your interesting view on histroy goes...I actually believe there is no accidents. What you might call an accident, I call the unforseen. For instance; car accidents. When I stop at a red light and I am only five feet from that car in front of me, I am only five feet from a car accident. A car "accident" occurs only when those five feet between me and that car become zero feet. You see, all I had to do was step on my brakes. I think that it happens for a reason. We are always so close to accidents. Now as opposed to your view, if I did not step on the brakes soon enough, I didnt plan to hit that car. Nor did I want to. Some people still say it was an accident, I still say no it wasnt. It was an unforseen circumstance. If that car had not of been there, or maybe was 2 feet ahead there might not have been a collision. I think things happen for reasons, not because we necessarily mean for them to, but because we are presented with many different situations. And because I believe this way, I believe that everything we do is actually a reaction. I hope I didnt lose you on this one.

I will definetly read that article by monday, thanks for the suggestions. I also suggest to you "Capatalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman, and the I suggest anything by Fydor Dosotevsky.

[surferarmo]

and the loosness in the definition of terrorism is that way for a purpose. I believe the purpsose is that the definition of terrorism might change over the years. I mean, this year it is bombing a bus, next year it might be blowing up a country. Thus there needed to be room for interpretation.

[sSsflamesSs]

I thought you guys would be exhausted by now, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..

[Anonymouse]

That is obvious to anyone who is a member of any organized government, but the amount of beaurocracy and tapping in to our private lives for needless reasons speaks volumes. Like I said, Homeland Defense and the Patriot Bill were not necessary. We needed more beaurocracy for security? Couldn't we enforce the existing laws we had?

Yes we do need need the Homeland Security Act. Why do you think we were attacked in the first place? We didnt have the appropriate policy and implentation and enforcement in the first place. We didnt have enough legislation to monitor these activities. So more strict and approprate policy has passed. You forget that the terrorists of 9/11 had extensive communications over the internet. If someone needs to watch over my IM chat to keep 5000 people from dying, then I am down. You see our lax fat and happy routine is what gets us in these situations. Peal Harbor is a great example. I can imagine it now. Two bros just got done surfing in Hawaii. They were sitting on the beach sharing stories about the babes they just tagged while sipping on some coconut milk when BOOM. If there was some policy, and enforcement these two men might have been better prepared. I havent seen any buildings with planes flying into them since 9/11, have you?

You've ignored alot of the points I've raised and I'm too tired at this hour to go back over them but suffice it to say that I hadn't seen planes fly into buildings prior to it either. But maybe it was allowed to happen is what I'm saying? That is what I am arguing. Like I said about the Hegelian Dialect. Perhaps someone needed it? Perhaps that is why the intelligence agencies didn't communicate like they should have? Stock transactions indicate insiders foreknowledge. All the motives are there. How can you say that such terrorist acts occur because we sit there with our lax fat routines? That is unsubstantiated and silly for me to believe that. The reason people all over the world hate America is not because of that, and it bothers me that such Republican mentality is allowed to be spewed by FOX and other media outlets. That is not so despite what you or anyone may think. America is seen around the world as a selfish country, a bully, who intervenes and bombs people for no good reason other than protecting its international or oil interests or Israel. Mainly it is our unconditional support of Israel that made alot of the Middle East hate us. That is why the world hates America and why terrorists hate America. Like I said for every reaction there exists a cause. You overlooked an important chunk of my response.


[To challenge that you are labeled with all sorts of epithets from conspiracy nut, to deranged and paranoid, one smear label is as good as any. Mentioning material or studying material that is not in your college or high school history book is disturbing and gives people a crack in their edifice of thought. No one wants to depart or let go of those comfortable world views they have held and been indoctrinated with since kindergarden from every orifice of communication. Such views are disturbing and unsettling to some. But no one has ever gained wisdom by studying material that only reinforced their own predetermined ideas.

Conspiracy theory might be true, but remember, it is theory. I am a republican, attending a liberal campus. My point is, I am always consistently, and insistently fed, shown, taught material that is outside my bubble of thinking. I am greatful for it, but at the same time it would be nice to talk with someone that agreed with me. It is part of learning. Hopefully we learned things from eachother. Intelligent discourse brings out the best from both angles. I know why you think the way you do, and hopefully you have learned why I think the way I do. But back to the arguement on conspiracy theory. Yes unsettling things are what educates us. Anything we are comfotable with, we already know. My point is in this whole arguement is that we hear things, but are they true? They might be very real to you, and false to me. There is a real issue at hand and there is more to issues than underlying theory.

Actually I should have specified a little further. Conspiracy isn't a theory really per se, that's just the status quo labeling what the dissenters are. If it's a conspiracy its already happened or is happening and like I said there is plenty of evidence to support "revisionist" or "non-mainstream" history on things. Regular people are involved in conspiracies and so are government authorities. It is inescapable. All one must do is look. You see that's the thing. I used to think like you I thought that THIS is the way it is because FOX news or my history textbook told me that way. But there are all sorts of things that are not mentioned. I'm sure you hadn't heard of the USS Liberty incident. I don't blame you, it goes back to what I talked to, secrecy and conspiracy. Just because no one hears about the USS Liberty, some really fanatical neo-conservative pro-Israelis would have me labeled an "anti-semite" or a "conspiracy nut" for daring to bring that up. People must understand that those who question the traditional banter aren't just some pseudo intellectual morons, but rather have followed the traditional storyline in a detailed fashion and found flaws and logical errors in the way things are and that is what leads us to scrap that world view and make another more in accordance with the things that we have found. There is clear evidence of certain conspiracies that have taken place. How can you say that "it appears real to you, but false to me"? That's more like ignoring certain things because they don't fall in accordance with your way of thinking is it not? Either certain things are proven valid or invalid based on the evidence that exists for it. Mind you I go beyond mere Leftist or Rightist labels and beyond party politics. To me Reps and Dems are really not much different. The average follower might think so, like you, but in the hierarchy of things both adhere to the same things.



A conspiracy between co-workers to throw their buddy John a surprise bachelor party isn't the same as bank robbers scheming their next job.

Every conspiracy involves this: DECOY. If I want to throw a bachelor party for my buddy, John, I have a distraction set up so he thinks nothing goes on, and he loses focus on the issue. For example: "John, I have to go to a meeting, and discuss your contributions to the company." He thinks I am attending a meeting talking about him. While he is worried about what I am going to say about him, and what is going to come out of the meeting, there is something else in store. Sometimes conspiracy theories are the decoy themselves to detract your thought from the real issue. For example: If I was running for office, I would want my opposing campaign to believe that I was part of a conspiracy theory. Instead of them working on ways to persuade voters to see their principles and political views more valid than mine, they try to make everyone think something they cant prove. Gray Davis did that this last election which is why despite his excessive funding that he only won by a five percent margin. Simon was a horrible candidate and he made notable mistakes, but the reason the margin was so close is because his opponent was trying to impose false allegations through a lot of the campaign.

I see what you are trying to say, but in this case I was merely using an analogy to try to point out that conspiracies and planning occur, because conspiracy all really means is planning in secrecy. They occur between all sorts of average people and why wouldn't it occur in government? That was all I was trying to do, you didn't have to overcomplicate the issue, and that is what I pointed out the Hegelian Dialect. I admitted that there are car crashes, plane crashes, you are stating the obvious my friend. But where I disagree is that humans plan things out for many events. While planes do crash, cars crash, ships sink, etc., prices are planned to be fixed. Wars are planned. Interest rates are set. That is why government leaders and others such as the Federal Reserve board meet in closed door meetings. Why is no one allowed? That is because they plan ahead to play with the markets. You think the stock market is a gamble? Far from it. The Federal Reserve is one example where international bankers MET and conspired to enslave the United States with a central bank. They met on Jekyll Island off of Georgia in 1910 I believe. There is a book called "The Creature from Jekyll Island" which I would highly recommend. I see no reason as to why there can be no conspiracies in government and politics. To ignore that is to ignore human nature and the evidence. Perhaps you may wonder "what evidence?", and you're right, our discussion is too broad, if you want to stem it out and talk about the Federal Reserve and or the IRS and how they are illegal and unconstitutional I'd be happy too. Would you want to talk about Vietnam?

More choices are exactly that, more choices.

Choices are only choices. I love this country because I have more choices than I do anywhere else. Some choices are better than others. But I have more choices, and the choice is mine to make. When I, or anyone else has choices, they have responsibility. With choices also comes opportunity, which we have in this country. If the Iraqi people have choices, they have responsibility, and they have opportunity. I would rather have more choices, and more opportunities than less. I see no reason why the Iraqi people should not be granted the chance to have a choice and make a decision.

I see no reason why Iraqi people shouldn't have more choices, but do you really think that under a new government they will be given more choices? This was a sham war with all its motives. You are looking at this from a Republican perspective. You shouldn't. You should first clear your mind of party politics and look at it with an open view. The U.S. is ruling Iraq now and the only reasons that war was necessary was due to oil and Israel, which again involved curtailing the constitution. My whole point is that you have a very "good"conception of what the US does worldwide and its far from that. There is a reason why the U.S. is hated and they aren't jealous, they just dont want to have the U.S. meddle in their countries and bomb them if they don't allow. That's actually the problem really, the U.S. NOT ALLOWING other developing countries to have a chance. Rather, entities like the IMF or Worldbank which swarm these countries with exhorbitant interest rates from which they can never step out of and U.S. "free trade".


As far as your interesting view on histroy goes...I actually believe there is no accidents. What you might call an accident, I call the unforseen. For instance; car accidents. When I stop at a red light and I am only five feet from that car in front of me, I am only five feet from a car accident. A car "accident" occurs only when those five feet between me and that car become zero feet. You see, all I had to do was step on my brakes. I think that it happens for a reason. We are always so close to accidents. Now as opposed to your view, if I did not step on the brakes soon enough, I didnt plan to hit that car. Nor did I want to. Some people still say it was an accident, I still say no it wasnt. It was an unforseen circumstance. If that car had not of been there, or maybe was 2 feet ahead there might not have been a collision. I think things happen for reasons, not because we necessarily mean for them to, but because we are presented with many different situations. And because I believe this way, I believe that everything we do is actually a reaction. I hope I didnt lose you on this one.

I will definetly read that article by monday, thanks for the suggestions. I also suggest to you "Capatalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman, and the I suggest anything by Fydor Dosotevsky.

I refer you to go up top in my response as to what I said regarding accidents. Cars crash, planes crash, ships sink, refineries burn, but for the most part all major events are planned by humans. Humans plan out for different things. I've provided more than ample events to show how the Hegelian Dialect works and I believe that nothing just happens. Of course I've read far too much of "non mainstream history" to know what I know but even then, it takes alot to make that leap of faith. I'm looking forward to some feedback on the things mention earlier.

Cheers.

[surferarmo]

Now you raise a lot of issues. Yes I do think that the US presently has too much control dealing with the nation building process of Iraq. I know that, I just dont want to speak in your terms in a debate. But since you addressed each of my points I will do so with yours. I am not some kid who is ignorant of the world. In fact, let me rephrase that, I am very ignorant. I learn one thing, only to learn that I know nothing. In knowing that, I am less ignorant.

Conspiracy theories cross my mind all the time. I believe that Bush actually pused for this war, not only based on the lobbying power of Israeli groups, but so that he may be re-elected. Who wants to change horses in the middle of the stream? No one. Why do you think the election was so close with Gore, but he is so popular now? To change install a new commander and chief in the middle of this mess would make absolutely no sense, which is why he is popular now. I believe the democrats take this "peoples party/minority party" stance to get more votes. There are more immigrants coming here every day, they have no work and they/anyone who cant find a job either wants or needs handouts. So the democrats offer these handouts to obtain the vote. The political life is lived for two reasons: to set policy, and stay in office as long as possible to implement their policy as long as possible. I think we, as Americans, need to critically examine and question our government. Tony Blair has had four ulcers because of the pressure the parliament puts on him. George Bush has time to jog...I think thats bullxxxx. FOX is very conservative, I know that. If you think CNN, or MSNBS, or any other news station is conservative then I dont think you are watching the same news channel as I am. They have an extremely obvious liberal bias. The reason they support Bush on this, is because the xxxs in the media are getting what they want out of this war, so they give Bush good coverage to motivate him to keep pushing for their interests in the Middle East.

Non-Mainstream sources are great. What I meant was that something that is so important to you, I might not even care about, and vica-versa. I dont know about the USS Liberty, but it sounds oddly familiar. I am exposed to a lot of the corruptions of society on a theoretical level, but not on a practical physical level because I do not have a TV. I only get to read the front page of the NY times. I am trying to read more than what is assigned. I have only read one conservative book this whole year. No source has been mainstream, believe me. I dont know everything that happens in the world as a result of corruption, but I do agree that it exists.

I also agree that politicians create situations, so that they may get a reaction from the people favoring their policy. My example with the re-election of George Bush, is a good example that I have given above. I also reffer you to my voter propoganda used by the democrats. The national debt I believe was purposely incurred so that the democrats would not be able to instill their social programs as a result of the efforts of republicans to keep this a capatilist society. Do I think that is right? Not necessarily. No democrats are not that different. What I think of the two parties is this. For the most part, we want the same goals, we just have different means of achieving those goals. I want the economy to be good by means of motivation and personal endeavors, where as democrats want the same thing, through social programs. From what I just wrote, you might think I am a conspiracy nut. I think that I am critically observing the system and analyzing the action and reaction of the parties and people involved. But lets stray away from the topic of political parties for a bit. I think with an open mind, but I use examples dealing with the two parties because that is the best way I can articulate it as of now...it is 12 30. I talk like a political junkie, you talk like a philosopher.

Perhaps you may wonder "what evidence?", and you're right

I am weary about trusting any news source. Though they all have some element of truth, they all have an element of omission. Weather main stream or not, I question its credibility, and so should you.

America is one bad ass bully, I do fully admit. But you know, I dont mind so much. Our interests are being met. Many countrie have done this. A long time ago, it was Rome. Now it is America. I dont think it is right, but hey, we can. You have to realize that when every one is at the top, and they have accomplished much, they are envied. If Iraq had the power we do, they would use it. Look at North Korea, they have some power, and they are using it. I am looking at this as an American, not a Republican. I do see a very bad side to this. When a country has empiracal power, it stands alone. We pretty much stand alone right now, as you know. Rome stood alone. It was so bad ass it could stand for itself and so can we; but for how long? The oppressed will rise, and suppress us one day. I dont think that it is too far off by the way. It took Rome a long time, but they didnt have a fast world like we do now. We have techonology we never had then, so everything is moving faster, including the rise and fall of nations.

The last bit you quoted me on is just my spiel about life. To say that America is the SOLE reason for the rise of Hitler and other terrorists is wrong. There are other reasons too. It wasnt just us who made them. I dont think you should just look at the US as having bad intentions as their primary motivation. For us it is good, for Iraq it is bad. Not to say that I agree or disagree, but that is how it is. As far as our dealings with Hitler, yes we armed him. But as far as business goes, it was good. As far as Holocaust goes...Hell no...now that is wrong. In this paragraph I speak with a moral tone in my arguement, you might agree or disagree with me.

I hope I was able to address your issues.

I dont know much about Vietnam to be honest witih you. If we had a discussion on that, you would do all the talking.

Do you see anything good, or any aspect which brings hope, and prosperity to people residing in and outside of America? Or are you totally oblivious to that side and think that America is bound by selfish intentions? I would like to raise this point. Other countries dont like us because we do what is not in their favor. If we would do what was in their favor, they would love us. Are the countries that dislike America not selfish as well? or are they excluded from all responsibility because they are not as powerful as us?

[surferarmo]

I will be out of commission this weekend. Respond to my points, and have a chill weekend. Late.

[Anonymouse]

Now you raise a lot of issues. Yes I do think that the US presently has too much control dealing with the nation building process of Iraq. I know that, I just dont want to speak in your terms in a debate. But since you addressed each of my points I will do so with yours. I am not some kid who is ignorant of the world. In fact, let me rephrase that, I am very ignorant. I learn one thing, only to learn that I know nothing. In knowing that, I am less ignorant.

Conspiracy theories cross my mind all the time. I believe that Bush actually pused for this war, not only based on the lobbying power of Israeli groups, but so that he may be re-elected. Who wants to change horses in the middle of the stream? No one. Why do you think the election was so close with Gore, but he is so popular now? To change install a new commander and chief in the middle of this mess would make absolutely no sense, which is why he is popular now. I believe the democrats take this "peoples party/minority party" stance to get more votes. There are more immigrants coming here every day, they have no work and they/anyone who cant find a job either wants or needs handouts. So the democrats offer these handouts to obtain the vote. The political life is lived for two reasons: to set policy, and stay in office as long as possible to implement their policy as long as possible. I think we, as Americans, need to critically examine and question our government. Tony Blair has had four ulcers because of the pressure the parliament puts on him. George Bush has time to jog...I think thats bullxxxx. FOX is very conservative, I know that. If you think CNN, or MSNBS, or any other news station is conservative then I dont think you are watching the same news channel as I am. They have an extremely obvious liberal bias. The reason they support Bush on this, is because the xxxs in the media are getting what they want out of this war, so they give Bush good coverage to motivate him to keep pushing for their interests in the Middle East.

Couldn't agree more.

Non-Mainstream sources are great. What I meant was that something that is so important to you, I might not even care about, and vica-versa. I dont know about the USS Liberty, but it sounds oddly familiar. I am exposed to a lot of the corruptions of society on a theoretical level, but not on a practical physical level because I do not have a TV. I only get to read the front page of the NY times. I am trying to read more than what is assigned. I have only read one conservative book this whole year. No source has been mainstream, believe me. I dont know everything that happens in the world as a result of corruption, but I do agree that it exists.

I also agree that politicians create situations, so that they may get a reaction from the people favoring their policy. My example with the re-election of George Bush, is a good example that I have given above. I also reffer you to my voter propoganda used by the democrats. The national debt I believe was purposely incurred so that the democrats would not be able to instill their social programs as a result of the efforts of republicans to keep this a capatilist society. Do I think that is right? Not necessarily. No democrats are not that different. What I think of the two parties is this. For the most part, we want the same goals, we just have different means of achieving those goals. I want the economy to be good by means of motivation and personal endeavors, where as democrats want the same thing, through social programs. From what I just wrote, you might think I am a conspiracy nut. I think that I am critically observing the system and analyzing the action and reaction of the parties and people involved. But lets stray away from the topic of political parties for a bit. I think with an open mind, but I use examples dealing with the two parties because that is the best way I can articulate it as of now...it is 12 30. I talk like a political junkie, you talk like a philosopher.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in how I explained this earlier. You know it takes trial and error in my own reading to see what I failed to say in my initial posts and to think of a better way to articulate it. I am not denying nor questioning that there are people such as you, or other average people and low key politicians who truly, and whole-heartedly believe in the cause of their party. That is not the question. Those people truly give the differences between Democrat and Republican. However, what I do suggest is that there exist a group of globalist cliques that have permeated, penetrated, and swayed these parties to their own ends and hence it's a two party system where it is easiest to ensure rule by a few, those who have penetrated these parties and use it for their ends.

Perhaps you may wonder "what evidence?", and you're right

I am weary about trusting any news source. Though they all have some element of truth, they all have an element of omission. Weather main stream or not, I question its credibility, and so should you.

I question news all the time. There are no media outlets on cable that are not mainstream, so I stick to independent news sources on the internet and on print. But then people say "Oh you read it on the internet" as if trying to disqualify and discredit something simply because it was on the internet. By that logic all other information such as biology, and political or weather information should be canned because its on the internet. However, most of my knowledge and souces comes from people who have written about these events who have lived through it, based on both government papers and testimony in many of the books I've mentioned, along with ones I haven't. Some of the evidence of the "conspiracies" which I speak of are in the form of Executive orders.

Perhaps the single most damning indictment on September 11 ( remember I am arguing that Sept 11 was either an inside job, or was known and allowed to happen ) was the failure of normal U.S. military protocol to be followed as standard procedure. The testimony of victim family member Mindy Kleinberg presented on March 31, 2003 before the National 9/11 Commission is so articulate that it will likely stand as a permanent U.S. historical document in and of itself:

“Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.
These ‘protocols’ were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason -- with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.”

“Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter- jets to ‘intercept’ commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.”

“If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semi-annual exercise known as ‘Vigilant Guardian.” This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, ‘fighter jets were xxxxed, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board.’ ”

“Lucky for the terrorists that none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th. Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example: ”

“American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost -- (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).”

“Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.”

“Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.”

“Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?”

“Flight's 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the World Trade Center.”

“Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m., one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?”

“So the hijackers’ luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures. Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.”

“Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives.”


You can go directly to the website itself where I got that and read it yourself.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm

Do you now see what I tried to say with regard to the relevance of Homeland Security and the Patriot Bill? All it is, is more beaurocracy and more destruction of the choices which you initially spoke of and defended, so how can you possibly be for the above mentioned things?

While the dubyas seeming penchant for secrecy is of itself quite extraordinary, it is only a continuing pattern of procedure for on Nov 1, 2001, 7 weeks after the 9/11 attacks dubya signed Exec Order 13233. The order ends some 27 years of Congressional and judicial efforts to make Presidential papers and records available. So there you have it, unchallenged by weak congressional oversight, Bush has effectively used his executive power to deteriorate public disclosure of public presidential documents, while essentially creating new law.


America is one bad ass bully, I do fully admit. But you know, I dont mind so much. Our interests are being met. Many countrie have done this. A long time ago, it was Rome. Now it is America. I dont think it is right, but hey, we can. You have to realize that when every one is at the top, and they have accomplished much, they are envied. If Iraq had the power we do, they would use it. Look at North Korea, they have some power, and they are using it. I am looking at this as an American, not a Republican. I do see a very bad side to this. When a country has empiracal power, it stands alone. We pretty much stand alone right now, as you know. Rome stood alone. It was so bad ass it could stand for itself and so can we; but for how long? The oppressed will rise, and suppress us one day. I dont think that it is too far off by the way. It took Rome a long time, but they didnt have a fast world like we do now. We have techonology we never had then, so everything is moving faster, including the rise and fall of nations.

That's what it all goes down to. The ethics of it. Is it ethical to replace the needs of the whole with those of a few? Why couldn't we work in accord and harmony towards the better of all? Well that's where human nature seeps its face in. I don't think Iraq or anyone is so much as jealous but they want a fair chance to take hold of their countries and their destinies. Why would Iraq be jealous of the U.S.? I have a good reason for it to hate the U.S. You see it was the U.S. that caused the Gulf War I to begin with in the first place. Then the defeated Iraq was forced to accept the UN Sanctions and watch its children starve, have its country bombed in the no fly zones for years, destroy sanitation, hospitals and schools. It's children died of American bombs and depleted uranium. I think "hating America" is a light description of how some of those people feel about us. What about Palestinians? How do you think they feel about America when their children are blown off this planet with Israeli weapons which are ofcourse in reality all made and paid for by the American tax payer? What about those Afghani children with the cluster bombs and their houses blown off of earth? What about the people in Nicaragua who suffered because of this country's stake in the drug war? What about Colombia? That is my point. When you play empire, you destroy and intervene with the livelihoods of other people and nations, and the only hatred they have against us, is logically justified. So when Americans scratch their head and wonder why they hate us, you can only point to our policy and actions. Because of a few rich and wealthy powerful cabal who support Israel and corporate globalization, the image of Americans is tarnished. But on the news and by our politicians we are told they hate us because of our "freedom". They don't tell you that they bombed a whole lot of them for the interests of either Halliburton or some other global company.

The last bit you quoted me on is just my spiel about life. To say that America is the SOLE reason for the rise of Hitler and other terrorists is wrong. There are other reasons too. It wasnt just us who made them. I dont think you should just look at the US as having bad intentions as their primary motivation. For us it is good, for Iraq it is bad. Not to say that I agree or disagree, but that is how it is. As far as our dealings with Hitler, yes we armed him. But as far as business goes, it was good. As far as Holocaust goes...Hell no...now that is wrong. In this paragraph I speak with a moral tone in my arguement, you might agree or disagree with me.

I don't remember saying America made Hitler, perhaps I have a hazy memory but if I did I meant the bankers here in America, and of course the bankers in UK and Germany as well, all contributed to the rise of Hitler. In fact, as twisted as it may seem, the bankers have no allegiance really to any where, and in fact most of them were xxxish and xxxs financed Hitler. Nazism was the only way to insure the creation of Israel. There is a certain amount of evidence to show that Hitler was financed by xxxish interests. In his book, I Paid Hitler, Thyssen admitted that the Nazis themselves had been obliged to recognize the services rendered by the xxxish Simon Hirschland Bank in Essen, which had arranged Wall Street loans for Hitler through another xxxish bank in New York, Goldman Sachs & Co. For a long time no one dared lay hands on the Simon Hirschland Bank, despite pressure from the extremist element of the Nazi Party. In 1948 Bruning would write to the editors of Life forbidding them to publish an August 1937 letter he had written to Winston Churchill revealing that "from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of xxxish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany."

Do you see anything good, or any aspect which brings hope, and prosperity to people residing in and outside of America? Or are you totally oblivious to that side and think that America is bound by selfish intentions? I would like to raise this point. Other countries dont like us because we do what is not in their favor. If we would do what was in their favor, they would love us. Are the countries that dislike America not selfish as well? or are they excluded from all responsibility because they are not as powerful as us?

I refer you up top to where I described the ethics of doing what is right for the few, against that of the whole. In other words do the interests of a few outweigh the whole? I personally don't think so but the answer all depends on what one believes, such as if one believes in sacrifice over selfishness. In many ways this country parellels to that of Rome.

[surferarmo]

However, most of my knowledge and souces comes from people who have written about these events who have lived through it, based on both government papers and testimony in many of the books I've mentioned, along with ones I haven't.

In my opinion, these news sources are the most credible. How can anyone argue with one who has first hand experience? There are people who experienced disparity through this war, but some Iraqi people, are actually happy that Saddam is removed from power. I have learned this from a similar source as you mention above.

That's what it all goes down to. The ethics of it. Is it ethical to replace the needs of the whole with those of a few? Why couldn't we work in accord and harmony towards the better of all? Well that's where human nature seeps its face in.

You are arguing this from a philosphical and theoritcal perspective. Let me try to articulate in my words what you are saying here. Human organization, and actions are all a direct result from natural social interactions that exist in life. These natural interactions, master and slave, predator and prey, parent and child, are basically the sum of human nature, and you are saying that we apply this to our government. To say we are animals is an arguement that might have validity in a philosophical debate. In a political debate, to reduce our mind to human nature, or natural law, and reduce us to animal, makes every point you made invalid. If you believe that we are all bound by human nature, no matter how vast you define human nature, then you are saying organization of any kind is not possible and actually destructive, and there is nothing we can do about any disparities in this world. In a political debate that could never be used as a viable arguement. If you believe that then this whole forum is pointless, and any intellectual interaction that we engage in is pointless. That would make this whole forum useless, and any organized gathering pointless, such as the polity.

Your other points, I agree with you on.