Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

Bush's big-stick folly

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
dragon wench
Posts: 19609
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
Contact:

Bush's big-stick folly

Post by dragon wench »

Thought I would share this.....


Bush's big-stick folly



By PAUL KNOX: from Canada's National Paper, The Globe and Mail


The roots of George W. Bush's first-strike folly go back a century, to another Republican who had a talent for marrying foreign policy and water-cooler wisdom. Theodore Roosevelt led his country to world-power status, first as a cavalry commander and then as its 26th president. It was he who advised the United States to speak softly in global councils, and carry a big stick.

Seeking to end the influence of Europe in Latin America, Roosevelt claimed for the United States the right to regulate the Western Hemisphere unilaterally. It was to assume the duty of maintaining order throughout the Americas, and intervene in the affairs of Latin American states to ensure they stayed in line. In return, Washington expected the rest of the world to butt out.

Roosevelt's dictates vastly expanded the Monroe Doctrine, set out by an earlier president in 1823. These principles, together with the Cold War doctrine of containment, eventually led the United States down a sinister path. Its occupations and proxy administrations of Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic lasted for years. Later, combining the Monroe Doctrine with the Cold War principle of containment, it condoned and, in some cases, helped engineer the overthrow of elected governments. It trained armies that not only put down insurrections but brutally suppressed popular movements.

One way to read the National Security Strategy that Mr. Bush unveiled last week is as a Monroe Doctrine for the entire planet. It proposes explicitly to maintain overwhelming military supremacy around the globe. It asserts the right to intervene wherever it declares that a threat of terrorism or mass destruction exists.

But the Bush document is much more than a justification of pre-emptive action. It is an evangelical tract, a manifesto for the implementation of the American way on a global scale. It contains strong overtones of the French mission civilisatrice, according to which superior civilizations had a duty to spread the lessons of success around the globe.

There is, Mr. Bush says, "a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise." He declares that "economic freedom is the only source of national wealth." He vows to use "this moment of opportunity . . . to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade to every corner of the world."

Many Americans in many countries work sincerely to make such things come true. But they are not the only ones who do so, and U.S.-style democracy is not the only kind worthy of support. Moreover, the history of the last century suggests that the United States cannot always be counted on to act for the common global good.

Powerful as they are, U.S. presidents operate under domestic political constraints. For every Woodrow Wilson preaching self-interested internationalism, there's a Jesse Helms obstructing the United Nations. For every Franklin Roosevelt smoothing the waters with a Good Neighbour policy, there's an Oliver North working to subvert the democratic process.

The mantra of "economic freedom" is similarly unconvincing. First of all, certain restrictions on free enterprise are demonstrably compatible with economic growth, and sustainable over decades when sanctioned by voters in free elections. Second, in U.S. practice, "free trade" means trade on U.S. terms. It means forcing its way into markets for services, cultural products and government procurement. It means protectionism for domestic U.S. industries with political clout.

Finally, U.S. support for democracy all too often translates as support for favourable outcomes rather than free choice itself. Just this year, for example, the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia threatened a cutoff of aid -- not because of weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or the overthrow of democracy, but because voters in a functioning democracy looked like they might choose the wrong guy. (He leads a union of growers of coca plants; the envoy all but accused him of being in league with drug traffickers.) The Bush administration didn't much care for the German people's democratic verdict this week, either, and has plunged Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder into the diplomatic deep freeze.

Whatever the morality of the Monroe Doctrine, there was logic to its pretensions. By the early 20th century, only the U.S. was able to project without difficulty the military force required to dominate the Americas. Difficult as it might be for Latin Americans to admit, there was a cultural logic to U.S. overlordship, too. The New World republics shared an anti-colonial history, as well as one of brutal treatment of native Americans and African slaves. Christianity was dominant throughout the hemisphere. The prosperous U.S. economy was increasingly capable of supplanting Europe as a market for Latin American commodities.

The Bush manifesto rests on spongier foundations. It pays only lip service to the complexity -- and fragility -- of the world economy. One of its goals is to wire a world of six billion in order to detect and destroy a few thousand. Another is to create the impression of force so varied and overwhelming as to deter the most determined megalomaniac. As much as dominance, the operating principle is global micromanagement.

Yet micromanaging Osama bin Laden has hardly been easy, and there is stiff resistance both at home and abroad to even one first-strike foray -- pre-emptive action against Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Who can be certain that the Bush doctrine will prove as enduring as the ills it purports to address?
Spoiler
testingtest12
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Spoiler
testingtest12
.......All those moments ... will be lost ... in time ... like tears in rain.
User avatar
Chanak
Posts: 4677
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Pandemonium
Contact:

Post by Chanak »

Yep, I edited my original post. ;) I'll stick to William Shatner and Punk bands. :D
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Cheers DW, very interesting.

I have noticed a few of these Canadian reports pop up and it is good to hear a differing perspective than the Bush led media from the US and UK.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
dragon wench
Posts: 19609
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
Contact:

Post by dragon wench »

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Cheers DW, very interesting.

I have noticed a few of these Canadian reports pop up and it is good to hear a differing perspective than the Bush led media from the US and UK.


:)

Canada's PM has taken a very different approach to the whole situation....one more in step with the European governments..... I think this might be part of the reason that the Canadian media gives the perspective it does. Indeed, while there are some exceptions, these views generally echo the sentiments of the country as a whole....
Spoiler
testingtest12
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Spoiler
testingtest12
.......All those moments ... will be lost ... in time ... like tears in rain.
User avatar
Gruntboy
Posts: 4574
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: London, UK.
Contact:

Post by Gruntboy »

I can't understand the contradictions.

Nobody in the UK seems to want this war - the people (those ignorami of "public opinion"), parliament, press, whoever - yet Tony Blair supports Bush and we have "Bush led media from the US and UK" and there is "stiff resistance both at home and abroad".

People need to make up their minds. They cannot decry a policy whilst claiming those wh shore it up, don't?

The real politiking here is from those who revel in poking the US in the eye. Why oppose Bush? Because there is an opportunity to do so, in their interest. I call that taking advantage of a horrific crime.

When they come for you, will anyone raise their voice?
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his pants for his friends."

Enchantress is my Goddess.

Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]
User avatar
RandomThug
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Nowheresville
Contact:

Post by RandomThug »

Media

When they read an article Pro Bush, Pro War, Pro US tactics they cry out "Its propanda, its just the media spin.."

But when the complete oppisite, see often "As worse", is proposed (Something that co-aligns slightly with thier own perspectives) they read it as if it was truth.

It's media. Its spin. He claims that we haven't been known to have the best interest for the world....
Moreover, the history of the last century suggests that the United States cannot always be counted on to act for the common global good.


Now in the last century I believe it has been shown we have had a little to do with making the world a better place... I mean do I need to comment, list the facts there? I mean who gets off saying that our new president who may or may not be the best (who happens to have been thrown HORRIBLY into a situation no chancelor of canada has ever had to face) may be making a few mistakes, and then turn that into the last century we have been misguided in our ways...

I am not saying the writer is 100% right or wrong, my personal opinion of Bush is changing every day.

But the fact of the matter is they cant take an article like that and say it holds ground when they turn thier heads 180 when they see a PRO article.

That article was slightly interesting if not annoying for its innacuracy. I do take with great disgust the ease it takes for other countries to point fingers, it isn't easy being in our shoes. It isn't easy having the rest of the WHOLE WORLD staring and watching and waiting.

America does its damned best, and while others may or may not like our decisions... (both in and out of the US because I definitly dont agree with a good bunch of whats going on too) have to understand that it's never going to be simple or easy.

Whoever is on top, will be a horrible target for disdain.

If it wasn't Iraq it would be our efforts in south america, if it wasn't that it would be our economy, if it wasn;t that it would be the moral ethics of our pres, if it wasn't that it would be the level of crime in the US, if it wasn....

I cant say stop looking for our flaws, finding them is what makes us stronger. Im just saying stop, relax... and relize that yes the Media is a whore and no matter where or what it is for or against, hold it with a grain of salt.


As they say "Its not in the papers, its on the walls".

THUG
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Having two opinions to work from is surely not such a bad thing, so one person has a derisory word to say is, is that so destructive? As far as I am concerned it merely gives the reader a different perspective to form their opinions from.

It is the problem behind any monopoly, once there is no other contributing factor then the company/goverment in question can basically make anything up and the people have nothing else to base their opinions on (apart from personal moral worth, which is dubious at best with some folk) to conflict with what is rammed down their throats.

I have said I respected Bush for his activities and I still do, I also respect Blair for actually showing some spine, what I don't get is why there can't be a dividing line where the populous have a right to chose, the people of the UK say they don't want a war on Iraq so why is it that we are still mobilising, the people who put Blair in government are being ignored, is that democracy? <edit> I can't categorise this as fact, the last I heard it was suggested that the UK population didn't want to, however I have checked a few news sources and they are mostly divided over the issue.

Grunt, what was the last piece of writing or news broadcast you read that said it as it is and wasn't spin, pro this one or pro that one, merely the facts as they stood.

Two words about everything I read, be it that article or any other pro/against arguement and those are snake oil.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
RandomThug
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Nowheresville
Contact:

Post by RandomThug »

Main

I find opposing points of view very interesting, its just when they come off to be insulting my own views without credible proof. For instance in the last couple month's I have gone from a Crazy scare the crap outa the foreigner pro american war crazy kid to a wary "why is bush doing this" American. I am still Pro the current situatiuon, but I am more questionable as well.

The monopoloys who are on top have the benifit of making/changing rules but unlike the smaller companies (countries) they have to deal with the entire world thier hands touch. Which makes everything more complicated and intricit.

I also responded mostly because I have come across many forums from many of different posts that work two ways. A post with a PRO American statement,article, cover story etc. is viewed 90% BS and everyone makes a simular comment about the validity and horrific crime of Propaganda in the US.

But when someone posts a viewpoint Anti america the common sense is to believe it, to take it at full value and accept it.

Snake Oil.
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
User avatar
Gruntboy
Posts: 4574
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: London, UK.
Contact:

Post by Gruntboy »

Sleep, I don't remember reading an arcticle or watching the news for a long time where the "news" was presented - just the facts (not taking one side or another). Its all opinion and it all stinks.

I can make my own mind up - I just need the facts. I don't need some columnist to tell me what to think - one way or another!
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his pants for his friends."

Enchantress is my Goddess.

Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Re: Main
Originally posted by RandomThug
I find opposing points of view very interesting, its just when they come off to be insulting my own views without credible proof. For instance in the last couple month's I have gone from a Crazy scare the crap outa the foreigner pro american war crazy kid to a wary "why is bush doing this" American. I am still Pro the current situatiuon, but I am more questionable as well.
You reacted much the same as everyone else, I recall the media, my friends and GB all came around from an "Al Queda must die" ideal to "Why must Al Queda die" ideal, it is only natural, at first there is the shock, then mourning, some chose mourning in different fashions. Then there was retribution, then there were the question about why the retribution happened. I personally see no problem from my standpoint with the way things went down post 9/11, but then I was not one of the people directly affected by 9/11 or an innocent Afghan getting massacred. I will put it this way, a fairly cold and harsh way, a lot worse things could have happened, a great deal worse for every person on the planet.
The monopoloys who are on top have the benifit of making/changing rules but unlike the smaller companies (countries) they have to deal with the entire world thier hands touch. Which makes everything more complicated and intricit.
They also have to set an example, something monopolies don't do particularly well if Microsoft are anything to go by ;)
I also responded mostly because I have come across many forums from many of different posts that work two ways. A post with a PRO American statement,article, cover story etc. is viewed 90% BS and everyone makes a simular comment about the validity and horrific crime of Propaganda in the US.
Well I hear BS from both sides, the main thing I am getting at the moment from the press is everyone is kind of grinding the whole thing out in bureuacracy, which is the worst thing to happen in my opinion.
But when someone posts a viewpoint Anti america the common sense is to believe it, to take it at full value and accept it.


Do you mean common sense or common approach, common sense would be to keep neutrality, not a very easy suggestion when it's peoples lives on the line. Hell at this point it's the world on the line, with Saddam getting plutonium etc :-/

On a completely unrelated note, I actually saw Boondock Saints the other night, a very cool film, with an intruiging performance from Billy Connely :D
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Sleep, I don't remember reading an arcticle or watching the news for a long time where the "news" was presented - just the facts (not taking one side or another). Its all opinion and it all stinks.
My point exactly, the facts of both sides are clouded by other motivations, it is up to individuals to make those choices. I wonder however if some people aren't fit for those choices?
I can make my own mind up - I just need the facts. I don't need some columnist to tell me what to think - one way or another!


I wonder sometimes what the point of newspapers are, they seem to be 80% opinion and 20% fact and most of that fact can be found from Dilbert. I actually had this conversation a few months back with my dad, we basically agreed that with everything in a paper you get opinions about everything for no real reason.

Apparently the best paper to read is the Sun because you know it's all crap and at least one can appreciate it for the BS it is - Well that is my dads opinion anyway :)
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
Gruntboy
Posts: 4574
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: London, UK.
Contact:

Post by Gruntboy »

And you can grap a quick look at the norks on page 3. :D

Agreed.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his pants for his friends."

Enchantress is my Goddess.

Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by Gruntboy
And you can grap a quick look at the norks on page 3. :D


Well he didn't exactly put it like that... :D
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
Weasel
Posts: 10202
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Gamebanshee Asylum
Contact:

Post by Weasel »

Originally posted by Gruntboy


The real politiking here is from those who revel in poking the US in the eye. Why oppose Bush? Because there is an opportunity to do so, in their interest. I call that taking advantage of a horrific crime.


As with the German election...something I believe the German people have the right to do.....but remember there will be a cost for every action.



"Not on my watch - no German involvement in a war with Iraq, whatever the UN may say."
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
User avatar
RandomThug
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Nowheresville
Contact:

Post by RandomThug »

Tired

common approach... my bad hehe...


Definitly a great Movie eh? Thier in the process of filming a sequel which intrigues and scares me.

Everyone else looking onto this thread, go see the movie.

Thug
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
User avatar
Chanak
Posts: 4677
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Pandemonium
Contact:

Post by Chanak »

What I originally posted (but then deleted, as I wasn't in the mood to let it stay up) was a lengthy critiscism of the spin doctors and their perpetuation of the propaganda of whatever agenda they adhere to. It is found in every political camp. What strikes me as quite insiduous is the presentation of these spins as "news" - in particular, Paul Knox's article that DW presented above is a spin on his particular political views, and has little to do with a honest study of history. :rolleyes:

I did supply two links in the post I deleted that led people to copies of both the Monroe Doctrine, and Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, just as a means of countering some of Mr. Knox's more obnoxious spinning. I really don't feel like launching a lengthy foray into the world of the Western Hemisphere as it was in 1823 and 1904, so I won't bother picking apart his rhetoric here. It's all a matter of the public record, however, so Sleepy, Grunt, and Thug: you could find info on these things if you so desire. Use Google to look up "Monroe Doctrine," which ought to get you started. :) Why, even a casual persual of the Monroe Doctrine, and Roosevelt's Corollary in particular, will give you enough basic knowledge to see through some of Mr. Knox's more obvious spins. Once you read Roosevelt's Corollary, you walk away knowing that he fervently wished for an organization like the United Nations to exist, except in his day and age, that wasn't possible.

I despise politics with all of my heart. Moreover, I avoid the spin doctors like the Bubonic Plague. They'll poison you if allow enough of their propaganda to seep in. I prefer the library, encyclopedias, and the internet as my research sources. I like to look at the facts and form my own opinion, free of the "experts." :D ;)
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
User avatar
Gruntboy
Posts: 4574
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: London, UK.
Contact:

Post by Gruntboy »

Ah, a man after my own heart.

Yeah, its pretty easy to twist history to your advantage. People will see what they want to believe - its no reason for us to follow the slavishly.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his pants for his friends."

Enchantress is my Goddess.

Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]
User avatar
Chanak
Posts: 4677
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Pandemonium
Contact:

Post by Chanak »

Wading through the news can be tough, that's for sure.

It's human nature to go with the knee-jerk reaction. It's easier to believe what someone tells you than it is to find out for yourself. The resources are there - most just never pay attention to them. It's usually not that hard to tell when someone is trying to pull a spin on you. *yuck* I don't like spins.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
User avatar
AntiChrist
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 1:38 pm
Location: The semicircle of hell
Contact:

Post by AntiChrist »

Anatomy of Your Enemy by Anti-Flag

10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated.
We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.

First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.

Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heatless murderers who enjoy killing!

Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them
with all disseminated information.

Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party’s information.
Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.

Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.

CHORUS: THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.

Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.

Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.

Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god’s will" or "god bless our nation."

Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.

Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public’s fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.

CHORUS (repeat); We are not countries. We are not nations. We are not religions.
We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition. We are not killers.
We will NOT be tools.

I'm not a f***er
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your world
I am not a fighter
I'm in UNITYYY!!!


I love this song. You guys should take a look at Anti-Flag's music. Although I've only scanned it so far, I'd say to also check out http://www.refuseandresist.org/altindex.html they have a very nice site which also provides a lot of links to back things up. Or that's what I've seen so far. I'm about to go read some more off of it and see.

PS I edited the one curse word here just so you know. I didn't wanna take it out, it's part of the song, so I just edited it.
I need a sig.
User avatar
BaronTx
Posts: 267
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2002 10:56 am
Location: The Lone Star State
Contact:

Post by BaronTx »

This song obviously alludes to Bush and The United States of America.
If I may, let me give a rebuttal numbered 1 -10 respectively

1. Did the US create the state of affairs that has existed between America and Iraq since 1991? Is Iraq giving refuge (and possibly aid) to Al Qaeda members?

2. When you oppose another country it is fairly safe to say that race, language, dietary habits and fashion will be something you won't have in common. But in this case the soldiers haven't been viewed as mudering uncaring people. They have done what they have been told to do, by a man who shows no hesitation of killing his own people.

3. Propaganda - every nation on this planet uses it and always will. It is the nature of government. Even a one world government will use it (with no checks and balances in effect).

4. I don't think that applies here in the US. The networks run the entire gamut, from liberal to conservative.

5. The videos from the burning Kuwaiti oil fields and the villages of northern Iraq speak for themselves

6. Tom Daschle - but this is a subject that could take several pages of debate

7. Religious Symbols haven't entered into the equation from the American stance. Nationalism/freedom we are guilty as charged. Most countries that are attacked exhibit an upsurge in nationalism. All countries have flags. It helps define who they are as a group. And most are proudly flown at all kinds of gatherings in most any nation.

8. The deity here is the same for all of the principle antagonists. God, Allah, Jaweh. It is the same entity admitted to by all 3 holy books.

9. This isn't propaganda. It's real people who have real families. People who always go out to suffer and die. Men and women who, for the most part, believe in what they are doing regardless of race creed or culture. Citizens of every nation heed the call of their country

10. The events of 9-11 created an atmosphere of fear and instability. We don't offer the ruling leadership as the only solution. We have an elected president and Congress. The way our constitution was written, it is almost impossible for America to become a unilaterlist government. We don't have a single ruling party and never will. The unknown fear is wondering what Al Qaeda may do next. Especially considering their statements that 9-11 was only the beginning

I dont mean to insult anyone with my rebuttal. I guess I just wanted to state my point of view
Post Reply