WWI & Now - a Veterans Perspective - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-11-2003, 09:26 PM   #1
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:13 AM
WWI & Now - a Veterans Perspective

Veterans Day 2003:
Honoring Real Vets; Remembering Real War

Those of us who are veterans and military family members, and I am both, have a special responsibility this Veterans Day.

We need to honor our veterans without idealizing them, because idealizing does much to erase the reality that was (and is) our story. Instead of honoring us as heroes on pedestals this Veterans Day, tell our real stories. Many of us have never craved a pedestal, and we do not want our reality to be erased in yet another stage-managed orgy of nationalism, designed to gain the acquiescence of the public to send soldiers to risk life, limb, health, and sanity on an errand of plunder disguised as self-defense.

Many people are unaware that Veterans Day was originally Armistice Day, commemorating the end of World War I. In 2003, we would do well to reflect on what exactly was ended November 11, 1918. There are lessons for us to learn from that even now. We also need to know something about what happened afterward.

Just as veterans themselves are often stripped of their human complexity—and therefore their true history—in the process of idealizing them, so is our national history frequently idealized almost to the point of being mythologized until our true history is lost. The story that World War I was undertaken for some noble purpose is just such a myth.

President Woodrow Wilson, far from being the great progressive into which official mythmaking has transformed him, was elected on a platform of unabashed white supremacy, and was an ardent public admirer of the Ku Klux Klan. Let's just put these hard things out there first, to set the stage for his decision to commit US troops to World War I.

For the first three years of the war, Wilson himself said there was no appreciable moral difference between the Allies and the Germans. He was elected for his fierce defense of the subjugation of Blacks, and also on the merit of his opposition to entering the war.

But during the conflict, the Allies borrowed heavily from US banks, purchased vast amounts of materiel from US companies on credit, and took loans with the US Treasury Department. By 1917, it became apparent to the US that the Allies could lose the war, which would cause them to default on billions of dollars of debt owed to both public and private entities in the US, which might precipitate a domestic economic collapse.

The American public was whipped up into a war fever with claims that Germany now presented an imminent threat to the security of the United States, and by 1918 Congress was stampeded into passing the Sedition Act that clamped own on the press, criminalized discouragement of the purchase of war bonds, and jailed political opponents. 116,563 Americans soldiers died so war profiteers could collect their debts.

After the war, the US financial establishment refused to cancel the debts of the devastated Allies, who in turn imposed hellish reparations payments on Germany to offset their payments. The US political establishment followed the self-serving advice of Wall Street and the corporations and plunged the world into a deep and destabilizing economic crisis, setting the stage for the rise of extreme racial nationalism in Germany. Two decades later, the world was plunged into another se of blood and fire.

Before, during, and after.

Before, there were schemes and lies. During, there was death and destruction. After, there was destabilization that led to deeper destruction. In exchange for their lives, limbs, health, and sanity, the veterans got a pedestal that erased the trenches, the lice, the mustard gas, the blood, the nightmares... all of it.

Perhaps if we quit erasing history, we can stop repeating it.
by Stan Goff
11 nov 2003
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 11-11-2003, 10:00 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Interesting that Stan Goff would take Veterans day, a day to honor the service of a many fine men and women, to express his political revisionist idea's on history. To be brief, it was not unfortunate that the USA finally got involved in World War I in 1917, but that the USA had not deployed troops to Europe prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. Doing so could have averted war in the first place or at least shortened it, there by preventing a large number of problems that followed the much longer and intense war.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-11-2003, 10:43 PM   #3
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 07:13 AM
This is one man's opinion, and yours is another. It doesn't make his wrong or your's right. It's perspective. But the one thing he does have going for him is he lived it. Now I guess the question is, who develops the more fair and unbalanced perspective. The man who lived it? Or the man who read, studied and heard the stories?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-11-2003, 10:49 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Coming out of sebatical to say....Thank you Sting! Some day...if you ever come to Boston, I would like to buy you a pint.

As to the content of this article, when I have my surgery I will print it off and use it and save myself the money I was going to spend on depends.

Another objective article!!!


Back into sebatical
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-11-2003, 11:04 PM   #5
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Why is it when someone has a view different than yours, than it's crap...or in your case there to save crap? If you are going to post then at least explain your reasoning.

I love how this country gives so much praise and honor to veterans until they have a view that differs from your own. Then they are just senial old men. I've seen quite a few post here where veterans views were given on this present war and when anyone tried to disagree there were those stating "this is a veteran, I think he would know more about war than you would". I'm not saying it was you Dread, but I'm just tired of people not wanting to use this forum as a true discussion of topics, no matter what your view.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-11-2003, 11:09 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:13 AM
My sincere apologies. I extended my support of Stings statement. I have explained myself in many many posts on this board. I am currently UNABLE to adequately express much more than that due to medical reasons. No joke. That is why I have pretty much stopped posting.

As a Veteran I think it is BULLSHIT to put out an article like this on a day when we should be remembering those who put on a uniform in service of others.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-11-2003, 11:32 PM   #7
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 07:13 AM
I'm sorry about your condition. I sincerely wish you well and pray for the best.

I give my thanks to you and all veterans on this day.

This was no attack on you personally.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-11-2003, 11:33 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:13 AM
I know that...it is all good....and believe me....I would buy you a pint too!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-11-2003, 11:38 PM   #9
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Do you like Guiness? Hey if you are ever in Dallas, just let me know, I know where you can find one of the best pints of Guiness in the states. And it's on me.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-12-2003, 12:17 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 PM
BonoVoxSupastar,

If this particular veteran of World War I thinks that the USA should not have gotten involved in World War I, why not discuss it on another day without using this holiday to honor veterans of all wars? Why not keep controversial politics out of Veterans Day? I think Veterans Day is a salute to the sacrifice and bravery of Veterans regardless of the political or moral questions raised by whatever conflict they served in.

Yes, this World War I Veteran has lived it and he deserves the respect and admiration of everyone here regardless of what his opinions are on anything. But in developing a more fair and balanced perspective on the political aspects of the speach or article, its important to remember that he is not the only one that has lived it. He is one of several million World War I Veterans, most of whom have views about the war that differ from his. In addition, much of the speech focused on mainly political aspects rather than actual service in the front lines.

An interesting topic for political debate but not really appropriate for Veterans Day in my opinion. Lets leave the politics out and simply honor our veterans.


Dreadsox,

Do they have Beamish or Murphy's on Tap in Boston?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-12-2003, 08:31 AM   #11
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 09:13 AM
If indeed this Vet is right, there is no more appropriate day than 11/11 for him to set the record, as he sees it, straight.

Cheryl
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 11-12-2003, 09:37 AM   #12
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:13 AM
"If this particular veteran of World War I thinks that the USA should not have gotten involved in World War I, why not discuss it on another day without using this holiday to honor veterans of all wars?"

I don't believe he feels that US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWI. It is more the reasons behind our involvement. And I agree with Sherry, today is the perfect day to vocalize his feelings.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 11-12-2003, 10:36 AM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:13 AM
Maybe I missed it, but where does it say that Mr. Goff is a veteran of WWI?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-12-2003, 12:19 PM   #14
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
BonoVoxSupastar,

If this particular veteran of World War I thinks that the USA should not have gotten involved in World War I, why not discuss it on another day without using this holiday to honor veterans of all wars? Why not keep controversial politics out of Veterans Day? I think Veterans Day is a salute to the sacrifice and bravery of Veterans regardless of the political or moral questions raised by whatever conflict they served in.

Yes, this World War I Veteran has lived it and he deserves the respect and admiration of everyone here regardless of what his opinions are on anything. But in developing a more fair and balanced perspective on the political aspects of the speach or article, its important to remember that he is not the only one that has lived it. He is one of several million World War I Veterans, most of whom have views about the war that differ from his. In addition, much of the speech focused on mainly political aspects rather than actual service in the front lines.

An interesting topic for political debate but not really appropriate for Veterans Day in my opinion. Lets leave the politics out and simply honor our veterans.


Dreadsox,

Do they have Beamish or Murphy's on Tap in Boston?
People mix politics with everything. I've seen politics brought up in threads here that most people didn't believe politics should be brought up. Everyone uses different platforms. Some say U2 shouldn't use music to discuss politics, to quote Adam, "I think that's Bullshit." I may not agree 100% with what this man says, but I admit I'm not that educated on the subject. But I agree 100% with his right to voice his opinion and using this day to do it. For I do agree that some pedastals need to be brought down, that doesn't mean I don't give my thanks and praise, it just means that I believe a little more reality needs to be brought into the picture.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-12-2003, 04:09 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Re: WWI & Now - a Veterans Perspective

Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
Veterans Day 2003:
Honoring Real Vets; Remembering Real War
OK...again slipping out of self imposed exile....I have been off my meds to teach today and have just started back on them so I may be coherant enough to make myself clear.

The title in and of itself makes my stomach curl. Honoring real vets? What exactly is a real Vet? How do you define a real Vet?

The author of this article DID NOT FIGHT in WWI. I have read and reread this article four times. I have researched the author enough to know who he is. I respect his military background, but I disagree with his politics.

This holiday may have at one time been a holiday that was to remember the Veterans of WWI as the Author correctly points out. That is NOT what the holiday is about any longer. It is not about putting forward, or glorifying any positions about the wonderful nature of war. In my town we place wreaths at the markers of the Veterans of not only WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, but we also remembered our Civil War and Revolutionary War Veterans as well.

So why did this person choose this day to make this particular speech? The speech is NOT so much about WWI but is a parallel to his belief that we are being sold false pretenses for the war in Iraq. It puzzles my why he does not say this at this time, possibly because his son is currently in Iraq serving in the 82nd Airborne. I have done enough reading to know that he has been outspoken enough against the Bush administration to have come up with wonderfuly unbiased article titles as this WOLVES AND SHEEP (apologies to Canis lupus) A short history of the Bush Mafia's war in Iraq By Stan Goff. Or how about this great line when referring to the American Media Supporting the Troops
by Stan Goff The US aggression against Iraq, now framed by the Ministry of Propaganda (aka CNN and the rest of the media), as the US War Against Saddam, has entered the direct overthrow-a-sovereign-government phase.
.

But I digress.....Do a basic web search on the man who does not want to be put on a pedastal for being a Veteran and see...how many of the articles begin with his veteran status, touting him and his credentials. I am sorry. The medication is starting to take a hold of me. The biggest piece of information that leads me to believe this man is a NUT job is this wonderfully written piece on 9/11. He see conspiracy EVERYWHERE. Not just WWI. My GOD.....even taking the pain killers....which right now are kicking in nicely....this stuff makes me.....laugh!!!! Again.....I do not need to buy Depends for the surgery.....LOL

[Q]Stan Goff
Former Special Forces Srgt. Stan Goff on 9/11
Thu Jul 31 15:50:05 2003
64.140.158.197

Former Special Forces Srgt. Stan Goff on september 11

I'm a retired Special Forces Master Sergeant. That doesn't cut much
for those who will only accept the opinions of former officers on
military matters, since we enlisted swine are assumed to be incapable
of grasping the nuances of doctrine.

But I wasn't just in the army, I studied and taught military science
and doctrine. I was a tactics instructor at the Jungle Operations
Training Center in Panama, and I taught Military Science at West
Point. And contrary to the popular image of what Special Forces
does, SF's mission is to teach. We offer advice and assistance to
foreign forces. That's everything from teaching marksmanship to a
private to instructing a Battalion staff on how to coordinate
effective air operations with a sister service.

Based on that experience, and operations in eight designated conflict
areas from Vietnam to Haiti, I have to say that the story we hear
on the news and read in the newspapers is simply not believable.

The most cursory glance at the verifiable facts, before, during,
and after September 11th, does not support the official line or
conform to the current actions of the United States government.

But the official line only works if they can get everyone to accept
its underlying premises. I'm not at all surprised about the Republican
and Democratic Parties repeating these premises. They are simply
two factions within a single dominant political class, and both
are financed by the same economic powerhouses. My biggest
disappointment, as someone who identifies himself with the left,
has been the tacit acceptance of those premises by others on the
left, sometimes naively, and sometimes to score some morality
points. Those premises are twofold. One, there is the premise that
what this de facto administration is doing now is a "response" to
September 11th. Two, there is the premise that this attack on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon was done by people based in
Afghanistan. In my opinion, neither of these is sound.

To put this in perspective we have to go back not to September
11th, but to last year or further.

A man of limited intelligence, George W. Bush, with nothing more
than his name and the behind-the-scenes pressure of his powerful
father-a former President, ex-director of Central Intelligence,
and an oil man-is systematically constructed as a candidate, at
tremendous cost. Across the country, subtle and not-so-subtle
mechanisms are put into place to disfranchise a significant fraction
of the Democrat's African-American voter base. This doesn't come
out until Florida becomes a battleground for Electoral College
votes, and the magnitude of the story has been suppressed by the
corporate media to this day. In a decision so lacking in legitimacy,
the Supreme Court will neither by-line the author of the decision
nor allow the decision to ever be used as a precedent, Bush v. Gore
awards the presidency of the United States to a man who loses the
popular vote in Florida and loses the national popular vote by over
600,000.

This de facto regime then organizes a very interesting cabinet.

The Vice President is an oil executive and the former Secretary of
Defense. The National Security Advisor is a director on the board
of a transnational oil corporation and a Russia scholar. The
Secretary of State is a man with no diplomatic experience whatsoever,
and the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The other
interesting appointment is Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.

Rumsfeld is the former CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. He and Cheney
were featured as speakers at the May, 2000, Russian-American Business
Leaders Forum. So the consistent currents in this cabinet are
petroleum, the former Soviet Union, and the military.

Based on the record of Daddy Bush, in all his guises, and the
general trajectory of US foreign policy as far back as the Carter
Administration, I feel I can reasonably conclude that Middle Eastern
and South Asian fossil fuels are one of their major preoccupations.

Not just because this klavern has some very direct financial
interests in fossil fuel, but because they surely know that worldwide
oil production is peaking as we speak, and will soon begin a
permanent and precipitous decline that will completely change the
character of civilization as we know it within 20 years. Even the
left seems to be in deep denial about this, but the math is available.

And, no, alternative energies and energy technologies will not save
us. All the alternatives in the world can not begin to provide more
than a tiny fraction of the energy base now provided by oil. This
makes it more than a resource, and the drive to control what's left
more than an economic competition.

I further conclude that the economic colonization of the former
Soviet Union is probably high on that agenda, and in fact has a
powerful synergy with the issue of petroleum. Russia not only holds
vast untapped resources that beckon to imperialism in crisis, it
remains a credible military and nuclear challenger in the region.

We have not one, but three members of the Bush de facto cabinet
with military credentials, which makes the cabinet look quite a
lot like a military General Staff. All this way before September
11th.

Then there's the subject of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

NATO might have expected consignment to the dustbin of the Cold
War after the Eastern Bloc shattered in 1991. Peace dividend and
all that. But it didn't.

It expanded directly into the former states of the Eastern Bloc
toward the former Soviet Union, and contributed significant forces
to the devastation of Iraq-a key country in the world oil market,
over which control translates into the ability to manipulate oil
prices.

NATO is a military formation, and the United States exerts the
controlling interest in it. It seemed like a form without a function,
but it remedied that pretty quickly.

Then when Yugoslavia refused to play ball with the International
Monetary Fund, the US and Germany began a systematic campaign of
destabilization there, even using some of the veterans of Afghanistan
in that campaign. NATO became the military arm of that agenda-the
break-up of Yugoslavia into compliant statelets, the further
containment of the former Soviet Union, and the future pipeline
easement for Caspain Sea oil to Western European markets through
Kosovo.

You see, this is important to understand, and people-even those
against the war talk-are tending to overlook the significance of
it. NATO is not a guarantor of international law, and it is not a
humanitarian organization. It is a military alliance with one very
dominant partner. And it can no longer claim to be a defensive
alliance against European socialists. It is an instrument of military
aggression.

NATO is the organization that is now going to thrust further along
the 40th parallel from the Balkans through the Southern Asian
Republics of the former Soviet Union. The US military has already
taken control of a base in Uzbekistan. No one is talking about how
what we are doing seems to be a very logical extension of a strategy
that was already in motion, and has been in motion for two decades.

Once we recognize the pattern of activity designed to simultaneously
consolidate control over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil, and
contain and colonize the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan is exactly
where they need to go to pursue that agenda.

Afghanistan borders Iran, India, and even China but, more importantly,
the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union, Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These border Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan
borders Russia.

Turkmenistan sits on the Southeastern quadrant of the Caspian Sea,
whose oil the Bush Administration dearly covets. Afghanistan is
necessary for two things: as a base of operations to begin the
process of destabilizing, breaking off, and establishing control
over the South Asian Republics, which will begin within the next
18-24 months in my opinion, and constructing a pipeline through
Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to deliver petroleum to
the Asian market.

The BBC was recently told by Niaz Naik, a Pakistani Foreign Secretary,
that senior American officials were warning them as early as mid-July
that military action for mid-October was being planned for
Afghanistan.

In 1996, the Department of Energy was issuing reports on the
desirability of a pipeline through Afghanistan, and in 1998, Unocal
testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
that this pipeline was crucial to transport Caspian Basin oil to
the Indian Ocean.

Given this evidence that a military operation to secure at least
a portion of Afghanistan has been on the table, possibly as early
as five years ago, I can't help but conclude that the actions we
are seeing put into motion now are part of a pre-September 11th
agenda. I'm absolutely sure of that, in fact. The planning alone
for operations, of this scale, that are now taking shape, would
take many months. And we are seeing them take shape in mere weeks.

It defies common sense. This administration is lying about this
whole thing being a "reaction" to September 11th. That leads me,
in short order, to be very suspicious of their yet-to-be-provided
evidence that someone in Afghanistan is responsible. It's just too
damn convenient. Which also leads me to wonder-just for the sake
of knowing-what actually did happen on September 11th, and who
actually is responsible.

The so-called evidence is a farce. The US presented Tony Blair's
puppet government with the evidence, and of the 70 so-called points
of evidence, only nine even referred to the attacks on the World
Trade Center, and those points were conjectural. This is a bullshit
story from beginning to end.

Presented with the available facts, any 16-year old with a liking
for courtroom dramas could tear this story apart like a two-dollar
shirt. But our corporate press regurgitates it uncritically. But
then, as we should know by now, their role is to legitimize.

This cartoon heavy they've turned bin Laden into makes no sense,
when you begin to appreciate the complexity and synchronicity of
the attacks. As a former military person who's been involved in
the development of countless operations orders over the years, I
can tell you that this was a very sophisticated and costly enterprise
that would have left what we call a huge "signature".

In other words, it would be very hard to effectively conceal.

So there's a real question about why there was no warning of this.

That can be a question about the efficacy of the government's
intelligence apparatus.

That can be a question about various policies in the various agencies
that had to be duped to orchestrate this action. And it can also
be a question about whether or not there was foreknowledge of the
event, and that foreknowledge is being covered up. To dismiss this
concern out of hand as the rantings of conspiracy nuts is premature.

And there is a history of this kind of thing being done by national
political bosses, including the darling of liberals, Franklin
Roosevelt. The evidence is very compelling that the Roosevelt
Administration deliberately failed to act to stop Pearl Harbor in
order to mobilize enough national anger to enter the World War II.

I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific questions
about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks.

Follow along:

Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plans, all
the while on FAA radar. The planes are all hijacked between 7:45
and 8:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time.

Who is notified?

This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the President
is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear
children read.

By around 8:15 AM, it should be very apparent that something is
terribly wrong. The President is glad-handing teachers.

By 8:45, when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World
Trade Center, Bush is settling in with children for his photo ops
at Booker Elementary. Four planes have obviously been hijacked
simultaneously, an event never before seen in history, and one has
just dived into the worlds best know twin towers, and still no one
notifies the nominal Commander in Chief.

No one has apparently scrambled any Air Force interceptors either.

At 9:03, United Flight 175 crashes into the remaining World Trade
Center building. At 9:05, Andrew Card, the Presidential Chief of
Staff whispers to George W. Bush. Bush "briefly turns somber"

according to reporters.

Does he cancel the school visit and convene an emergency meeting?

No.

He resumes listening to second graders read about a little girl's
pet fucking goat, and continues this banality even as American
Airlines Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio
and heads in the direction of Washington DC.

Has he instructed Chief of Staff Card to scramble the Air Force?

No.

An excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public
statement telling the United States what they already have figured
out; that there's been an attack by hijacked planes on the World
Trade Center.

There's a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air
Force been scrambled to defend anything yet? No.

At 9:30, when he makes his announcement, American Flight 77 is
still ten minutes from its target, the Pentagon.

The Administration will later claim they had no way of knowing that
the Pentagon might be a target, and that they thought Flight 77
was headed to the White House, but the fact is that the plane has
already flown South and past the White House no-fly zone, and is
in fact tearing through the sky at over 400 nauts.

At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 degrees over the
Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon
is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air
Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC.

Now, the real kicker. A pilot they want us to believe was trained
at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas,
conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last
7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low
and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from
the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of
this building at 460 nauts.

When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper
school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further
training on a flight simulator.

This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive
on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse
shit!

There is a story being constructed about these events. My crystal
ball is not working today, so I can't say why.

But at the least, this so-called Commander-in-Chief and his staff
that we are all supposed to follow blindly into some ill-defined
war on terrorism is criminally negligent or unspeakably stupid.

And at the worst, if more is known or was known, and there is an
effort to conceal the facts, there is a criminal conspiracy going
on.

Certainly, the Bush de facto administration was facing a confluence
of crises from which they were temporarily rescued by this event.

Whether they played a sinister role or not, there is little doubt
that they have at the very least opportunistically pounced on this
attack to overcome their lack of legitimacy, to shift the blame
for the encroaching recession from capitalism to the September 11th
terror attack, to legitimize their pre-existing foreign policy
agenda, and to establish and consolidate repressive measures
domestically and silence dissent. In many ways, September 11th
pulled the Bush cookies out of the fire.[/Q]


I promise....LOL....no more posting until I am healed....LOL But Scarletwine...you have to promise...LOL to not post this stuff!!!!
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com