TimeTraveler

Here is a good link, hope this helps and good luck on your project!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous_rock

P.S. and yes lucky you! I have always wanted to go to Hawaii, it would be awesome to live there.

Came across some other interesting articles:

Accusations against Cheney's alleged involvment with 9-11:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050119084227272

Accusation and lawsuit, which has been now thrown out:

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

"Stanley Hilton's $7 billion federal class action lawsuit against the Bush Administration for its complicity in the attacks has been thrown out. The suit was not dismissed because of lack of evidence, but rather because the judge reasoned that U.S. Citizens do not have the right to hold a sitting President accountable for anything, even if the charges include premeditated mass murder and premeditated acts of high treason. The ruling was based on the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity."

What is the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity." And can anyone confirm or discredit this information?

I am starting to be convinced that something deeper is going on here, and it is scaring the hell outta me.

Because, almost always, like looping two strings of logic together, solutions will likely be judged first by how morally appropriate they are, which reduces itself down to the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion.

Exactly, which is pointless because no one knows a morally right or wrong answer. All we have is our opinions.

There is a common saying that is something to the effect of "one way to stop 99.9% of all abortions is to use contraception".

Good point. So maybe it should be illegal simply for the purpose that maybe then 99% of people not wishing to have a baby will use those contraceptives, because as long as it is not illegal there is no real motivation to use contraceptives except your personal morality, which people tend to forget about at times.

Yeah, thats what I meant. Thanks for catching my mistake.

I read this on another forum and thought it was interesting:

*Haitian workers earn only 6 cents for every pair of Disney “101 Dalmatians” outfit that Disney sells for $20. Disney pays its workers in Haiti about 28 cents an hour. A woman in Salvador working in a sweatshop makes 12 cents sewing a GAP T-shirt that sells in the US for $20. (Sources: In These Times; National Labor Committee; Jobs with Justice)

 

*Almost half of all toys sold in the US are produced in China, Thailand, and other Asian countries. “China is the champ in the low wage sweepstakes. With minimum wages that hover around 80 cents a day, China is forcing a further decline in the already hideous working conditions in neighboring countries. Naturally, Western executives are flocking to China to do business.” (Bob Herbert, The New York Times)

 

*In 1995, Mattel CEO John Amerman made $7 million and held an additional $23 million in stock options - more than the combined annual salary of the 11,000 Mattel workers making Barbie dolls in China. (Eyal Press, The Nation)

 

*There are sweatshops in the US, too. One worker at a Los Angeles garment factory making clothes for Guess was paid 40 cents for his labor on a blouse that sold in a New York department store for $58. (Source: American Teacher)

 

*Myth: It’s OK to pay workers in poor countries lots less than workers are paid here because living expenses are so much less. Milk: in Haiti, 75 cents; in NY, 65 cents; eggs: in Haiti, $1.50, in NY, $1.39; cereal: in Haiti, $1.90, in NY, 1.69; gas: in Haiti, $2.20, in NY, $1.26. (Source: Newsday)

 

*In Indonesia, the minimum wage is $2.36 per day. The Suharto dictatorship admits that in Jakarta and other urban centers it takes $4 a day to meet subsistence needs. If Nike took just 1% of its annual advertising budget ($280 million), it could raise the income of all its Indonesian workers above the poverty line. (Source: Counterpunch, Global Exchange)

 

*Almost all soccer balls used in the US are imported. Major soccer ball manufacturing countries: Pakistan, China, and Indonesia. Between 1985 and 1995, the soccer ball industry greatly increased production in countries where children make leather hand-stitched balls. In countries like Pakistan, children may work 12 hour days for very little pay. (Source: International Labor Rights Fund)

 

*Nike CEO Phil Knight is the sixth richest man in the United States. He owns 100 million shares of Nike stock. His dividend income alone for the third quarter of 1996 was $80 million dollars. More than 75% of Nike's shoe production occurs in countries where it is illegal to form independent trade unions. (Source: Counterpunch, Press for Change)

 

*Throughout the world, 250 million 5 to 14 year olds are employed; one half of these work full-time. Many children work in industries where they are exposed to harmful chemicals or other dangerous conditions. In Sri Lanka, more children die from pesticide poisoning than from a combination of childhood diseases including malaria, tetanus, and whooping cough. (Source: International Labor Organization)

10 ways you can help prevent sweatshops

My opinion is there is no right answer that everyone will agree on, instead of debating it maybe we should spend more time researching solutions.

Example of a solution (not sure how realistic) - A shot that could be administered at a young age to prevent pregnancy, then when a women is ready to have a child another shot could be administered to reverse the process.

I know that is seriously over simplifying it and wishing for things that may not be possible, but I think research into ideas along these lines may be the best way to come up with a solution.

Featured article:

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=CP_2778&ps=1018

Disclaimer:

It's a touchy subject when talking about lives lost, families destroyed, and money at the same time. Please use the appropriate level of sensetivity when replying to this thread.

President Bush will propose that families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq' date=' Afghanistan and war zones of the future receive an extra $250,000 in government payments.

 

The plan, which includes retroactive payments to the spouses or surviving relatives of the more than 1,500 who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2001, will be part of the 2006 budget proposal submitted to Congress next week, the Pentagon's personnel chief said.

[/quote']

 

1500 x $250,000 = $375 million, not nearly enough in my opinion. But there is no amount that ever would be. I think we should ask the American oil companies that have profitted from these wars to match the amounts the government is paying, I do not think that would be an unfair request at all.

 

The best payment the government could give these families is the truth, imho.

Nah, Blix was wrong. You see Mr Bush could see the weapons in Iraq. He has magic powers. He's like Harry Potter, but older.

And the media is his magic wand.

It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision. But even these hard-line conservatives knew that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was likely too radical to win the support of the foreign policy establishment, their own Republican party, and the American people. In their defining document, written in September of 2000, a full year before 9-11, they acknowledged that the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one absent, in their own chilling words, 'some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.' One year later, that event would arrive."

Another thing to note is this revision of the doctrine was written in 2000, a year before 9-11. The Bush administration was seeking pre-emptive war with Iraq and 9-11 gave them that opportunity, by being able to tie them to terrorism, a tie which has been admitedly false.

I'm aware of that. It is curious that some of the most vocal professional anti Americans are themselves American, which is what provoked me to point out the decadence inherent in these pseudo intellectual progressives.

I wouldn't call them anti-americans, I would just call them anti-american-abuse-of-power. I for one would like to see the world become a better place, and don't believe bombing 'the bad guys' without cause is adhering to any form of American ideals. Plus this movie is co-produced by Sut Jhally, whom I feel is the best documentary producer of all time so I am a bit biased. (have you ever seen Advertising and the end of the world? Its great.)

The idea of global control through military force sounds a lot like world domination to me. I'm not sure if we are disagreeing here?

I'm not sure, . When I think of global domination I think of control over other countries politics, basically running the show where they disagree with the current political body. When I think of global control through military force, I think of protecting resources and interveining when conflict arises as to 'break it up'. Thats the difference from my point of view.

Interesting link to Goebebels but what is the direct relevance to this discussion?

Gah. Sorry about that, I found that link and was going to post it, then I decided it was not relevant so I erased it... I thought, but I erased the link I wanted to post, which is here, it is a three part article:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-kwiatkowski1.html

Seeing the way Blair can plant a story in the media at arms length and then massage it , the general manipulation of the media and public opinion i'm no longer shocked in the slightest. It's depressing but not news.

Well if it can ever be proven that the American public was lied to to get them to back the war under false pretenses Bush will find himself spending alot of time with Saddam.

professional Anti Americans.

Actually it was made by mostly Americans, and most of the evidence was presented by Americans.

I'm sorry but i simply don't accept Tariq Ali as a realiable source.

Nor should anyone as he was clearly stating opinions, as were most in the documentary, however I don't think that would be any reason to discredit evidence.

Yes, it is clear that some in America suffer from hubris, but no, i don't accept the insinuations that the USA is somehow implementing a master plan of world domination.

Although the term world domination was used a couple of times thats not the impression I actually got from the evidence presented, more of global control with military force. Position our military in ways throughout the world for reasons of protecting valuable resources that are of importance to America.

Taken at face value i am not in the slightest bit concerned by the so called Wolfowitz doctrine.

Really? hrrm, I find the excerpts of the document quite disgusting, and the cheney re-written version just as displeasing. You do know that the bush doctrine that is in effect in America today is a revision of both these documents together. I had not known of the wolfowitz doctrine prior to seeing this film but I will say, regardless of anything the movie said to me I do realize how sick a couple of these individuals in the Bush administration are.

Since there is alot of opinions in the movie lets actually examine just the allegations described for a minute:

Soon after September 11th, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set up a small intelligence office in the Pentagon- the Office of Special Plans... Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia office. She witnessed how the Office of Special Plans issued talking points about Iraq for senior government officials, allegedly based on intelligence."

She says...

The information in there, drawn from fact - you could find pieces of fact throughout - but framed, articulated, crafted to convince someone of... what? Well, of things that weren't true! Things that weren't true. 9/11, Al Qaeda related to Saddam Hussein, possibly some involvement there. The very things that, a year later, President Bush himself denies and feigns his surprise, 'I don't know why everybody thinks that.' Well, I worked in a place where they concentrated on preparing this storyline. And selling it to everyone they could possibly sell it to.

- Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret)

In hearing this accusation I have to do some research on who she is and what she says, I found the following:

Here in this paper she begins telling part of her story:

http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

I think the claims presented warrant an investigation.

I think us Americans, and everyone for that matter need to at least question the motives of this war with an open-mind. If a conspiracy such as being presented has any basis of truth, we need to do something about it.

I will continue to search for information.

*edit* posted wrong link, here is link to Karen Kwiatkowski's story: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_i...iatkowski1.html

Good post Demo I am glad you brought this up.

The problem here is there are some major descrepancies about what the intelligence showed, unfortanantly I believe most of it is classified so the American people may not really know what really happened. But according to Scott Ritter (Retired former U.S. weapons inspector to the U.N.) we knew with certainty that roughly 95% of the chemical and biological weapons were destroyed (iirc, in 1995). The rest were not accounted for with 100% accuracy but a site was shown to inspectors that allegedly contained adequate material to lead us to believe it was the remains of the unaccounted portion. Now in the media this is mainly a case of he say she say, but I think we are deserving of an explination that explains the descrepancies. Particullarly this part:

During the 1990s, we should recall, the first group of U.N. inspectors destroyed the bulk of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and dismantled its nuclear bomb program, but the Iraqi government failed to cooperate fully, leading to the departure of U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.....

It says the Iraqi government failed to cooperate fully, We need to know exactly in what way. We had no reason or evidence to believe that what they showed us was not the remaining unaccounted for WMD's, but they were supposed to destroy this in front of inspectors and they chose to destroy it without the inspectors, but showed us the site later. A mistake yes, a cause for war, no.

However, cooperation is questioned again later. Again according to Scott Ritter, with no reason to believe Iraq had begun re-creating it's program we sent our inspectors in to 'check up' on Iraq. He claims that the inspectors were not there to inspect for a weapons program but to instead 'spy' on the Iraqi military and it's other programs. In the process they were over-stepping their boundaries and the Iraqi government was suspecting them of spying, they began to become more resistant to the inspectors, which in turn led to the Bush administration accusing them of non cooperation.

Here is a link to an article in 1998 in which Iraq accuses Ritter of spying:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/15/iraq.ritter/

The president and his top advisors told the American people, the Congress, and the international community that the failure of Iraq to account for the destruction of the suspected weapons meant that they must have them.

I don't know what happened, only a select few actually do. I feel the American people are deserving of an explination of what happened, show us evidence that led us to believe he had them, because really nothing has been shown to the world that would produce enough evidence to justify our attacks.

It forces us to ask the question, what is this really about?

Here is a reference:

Ex-UN Weapons Inspector & Gulf War Ex-Marine Intelligence Officer Scott Ritter (Republican) assured Americans that pre-911 Iraq is no threat, that his team destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that all other potential threats were eradicated as of 1997, that his team was pulled out to allow the U.S. to begin a bombing campaign (not kicked out by Saddam), that U.S. intelligence agents used weapons inspector teams as a cover for spying and thus destroyed the inspection teams' credibility, and that both the Clinton and Bush Administrations are punishing millions of innocent families based on false perception, skewed data or worse.

 

Instead of energy disproving or examining his documented data corroborated by other weapons inspectors, he is subjected to defending himself in media against character attacks and accusations of espionage by his homeland who he has served.

 

During the Gulf War, Scott Ritter, then a junior military intelligence analyst, picked a fight with his boss. He filed one report after another challenging Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's claims about the number of destroyed Iraqi Scud missiles. We cannot confirm these kills, Ritter reported, much to Schwarzkopf's bewilderment. Despite pressure from the top, Ritter, a Marine captain from a military family, held his ground, challenging his superiors and the establishment.

 

The New York Times calls Ritter "the most famous renegade Marine officer since Oliver North"

I will try to dig up more information.

Shock' date=' horror. USA government plans ahead and develops strategy to promote own interests. Gasp, how wickedly cynical of them.

 

Yawn.[/quote']

 

You didn't mention if you seen the film or not so I am not sure exactly what message you are interpreting from this information, but the message you and I are getting seem to be very different.

 

America planning ahead to develop strategies based on it's own interests is one thing. I cannot think of a country that wouldn't do that. (Im sure there are exceptions but I cannot think of any)

 

However, intentionaly manipulation intelligence to decieve the American people into believing a plan of action and motives that are allegedly not the real motives, and the real motives come from 13 years ago when a plan to rid Iraq of Saddam's regime for purposes of global control through the use of force is a completely seperate issue.

 

If the allegations pan out to have any truth to them, which evidence has been presented but in my opinion is not enough at this point, we are talking about very criminal actions, we then began talking about real merits for impeachment, even possibly trials for war crimes. But that might be stretching things at this point.

 

Perish the thought !!

 

I ask you please to only respond if you have something to add to the discussion.

I think that is to ascribe more strategic thinking to our governments than they deserve. For instance Sudan has suffered from a terrible civil war for more than 20 years' date=' the humanitarian crisis has been horrible. But, it is only when the media started showing pictures from Darfur last year that the international 'community' suddenly leapt into action with a major aid program.

 

There are no goals or interests for western governments here, simply a case of follow the cameras which randomnly and capriously choose Darfur as their humanitarian crisis of the week.[/quote']

 

I disagree, here is why: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8737

I don't know how many of you have seen this documentary but I wanted to discuss some important questions this documentary raises.

It's called: Hijacking Catastrophe - 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire

A Media Education Foundation Presentation

Written & Directed by Jeremy Earp & Sut Jhally

Narrated by Julian Bond

http://hijackingcatastrophe.org/

Here are a couple exerpts from the film:

"The failure to find Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction has raised serious questions about the legitimacy and legality of the ongoing war in Iraq. But as both American and Iraqi casualties escalate, and as the conflict becomes more chaotic and deadly by the day, debate within the United States continues to focus narrowly on whether American intelligence agencies provided accurate enough information to justify going to war. In the process, a larger question has been all but ignored. If the war was not about weapons of mass destruction, what is it really about? Pursuing this question forces us to consider a different story. It is a story that begins as the Cold War ends: a story about a group of self-identified radical conservatives at the right-wing extreme of the Republican party; a group of intellectuals and policy makers who saw the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism not as an opportunity to scale back America's Cold War military machine, but as an opportunity to build up its size and scale - to use military force more aggressively and unilaterally; to construct a new, unchallenged, American empire."

"When George W. Bush took office in 2000 [note: should be 2001'], he brought with him some of the most conservative foreign policy voices in the Republican Party. Chief among them were Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary for Defense Paul Wolfowitz. All of whom had served together previously in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Paul Wolfowitz, in particular, had long been recognized as the intellectual force behind a radical neoconservative fringe of the Republican party. For years, Wolfowitz had been advancing the idea that the United States should reconsider its commitments to international treaties, international law, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations."

It's this kind of ideology which has grown up in the wake of the Cold War; propounded quite openly by what we are calling 'Neoconservatives' in America, that identifies the United States as a colossus athwart the world - a new Rome, beyond good and evil. We no longer need friends, we don't need international law. Like the old Roman phrase, 'It doesn't matter whether they love us or not, so long as they fear us.

The most notable statements in the draft advocated preemptive action and unilateral force. These were needed, the report explained, to "prevent the re-emergence of a new rival," and to "remain the predominant outside power in the [Persian Gulf'] region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." The 46-page classified document circulated for several weeks at senior levels in the Pentagon until controversy erupted after it was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post. The White House ordered then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to rewrite it.

"It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision. But even these hard-line conservatives knew that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was likely too radical to win the support of the foreign policy establishment, their own Republican party, and the American people. In their defining document, written in September of 2000, a full year before 9-11, they acknowledged that the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one absent, in their own chilling words, 'some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.' One year later, that event would arrive.[/b']"

"In all of its previous incarnations, and long before 9-11 and the current war on terror, the Wolfowitz Doctrine had identified regime change in Iraq as a crucial first step toward global domination by force. In a widely-circulated letter to President Bill Clinton in 1998, the members of the Project for the New American Century challenged the President to act forcefully and militarily, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Two years later, George W. Bush would hand pick many of these same neoconservatives for key foreign policy posts in the Pentagon and State Department. Once installed in government positions - as recent interviews with a number of former members of the Bush administration have revealed - the group maintained its long-standing focus on Iraq; a focus that intensified after the attacks of September 11th. "

The Wolfowitz Doctrine was a classified document, some parts of it were leaked to the Washington post and New York times... I have searched and searched and have not and most likely will not find the full document, but here are some parts from the papers written in 1992.

1) Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival' date=' either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power.

 

2) The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

 

3) Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor.

 

4) While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.

 

5) We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.

 

6) [b']In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil.

The problem for the Bush Administration is that plans that already existed for regime change in Iraq had to be justified. They couldn't just go in without public support. The public support was created by connecting Saddam Hussein to those fears of terrorism.

- Robert Jensen, Professor of Journalism, University of Texas, Austin

"Soon after September 11th, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set up a small intelligence office in the Pentagon- the Office of Special Plans - to create the rationales for the already planned attack on Iraq, to convince people that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that he was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia office. She witnessed how the Office of Special Plans issued talking points about Iraq for senior government officials, allegedly based on intelligence."

The information in there, drawn from fact - you could find pieces of fact throughout - but framed, articulated, crafted to convince someone of... what? Well, of things that weren't true! Things that weren't true. 9/11, Al Qaeda related to Saddam Hussein, possibly some involvement there. The very things that, a year later, President Bush himself denies and feigns his surprise, 'I don't know why everybody thinks that.' Well, I worked in a place where they concentrated on preparing this storyline. And selling it to everyone they could possibly sell it to.

- Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret)

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda

- George W. Bush

 

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September the 11th.

- George W. Bush

 

It wasn't the failure of intelligence, it was the manipulation of intelligence to achieve a political goal. They were disciplined, they stayed on message, they marshaled all of their forces in this relentless public relations campaign to convince the American people that there was a threat from Iraq.

- Robert Jensen, Professor of Journalism, University of Texas, Austin

 

United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Any country on the face of the earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction

- Donald Rumsfeld

 

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

- Vice President Richard Chaney

Out of the President's mouth, Vice President's mouth, the same things that were being given to us to put into our superiors, our senior civilian leadership's mouths, these things were not based on intelligence that we saw, that anyone saw. These things were based on a very selective reading of intelligence and then a creative packaging such that you could push through these two big points that the President and the Vice President and the whole neoconservative community used to justify this preemptive war on Iraq.

- Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret)

The larger picture is being driven by the fact that that we're about to hit peak oil worldwide, that there's this sort of emerging global competition between us and China, there is the ongoing economic rivalries between us and Europe. And so Southwest Asia becomes geopolitically a lynchpin.

- Stan Goff, U.S. Army, 3rd Special Forces (Ret)

 

The major reason to take Iraq was a display of imperial power; was to show both the Arab world - not just them - but to show Europe, and the Far Eastern block - China and the Koreans - who was master.

- Tariq Ali, Author, "The Clash of Fundamentalisms"

"While it may have appeared to American T.V. viewers that 'Shock and Awe' was merely a catchy media label for the U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq, its actual origins, and a whole theory of warfare, are found in a 1996 advisory report published by the National Defense University. Authored by Harlan Ullman of the National War College, it argues that the aim of modern warfare is not merely to achieve military victory but also, by means of sheer intimidation, to inflict a deep psychological injury, to scare and terrorize potential rivals into submission. It is, in effect, the practical application of the Wolfowitz Doctrine of global domination through force. Describing 'Shock and Awe' as 'massively destructive strikes directly at the public will,' Ullman writes, '... intimidation and compliance are the outputs we seek to obtain ... The intent here is to impose a regime of Shock and Awe through delivery of instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large ... through very selective, utterly brutal and ruthless, and rapid application of force to intimidate,' Ullman continues, '... The aim ... is to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary ... Without senses, the adversary becomes impotent and entirely vulnerable.'"

"To maintain the Bush Administration's war doctrine, massive increases in military spending have been required. The United States now spends more than 400 billion dollars annually on the military: seven times as much as the next biggest spender, and nearly equal to what the rest of the world spends combined. Such vast expenditures on military machinery and war, together with the largest tax cuts in history, have driven the Bush Administration's record budget deficits. They have also been responsible for deepening the national debt; which, by the end of 2004, figures to stand at over seven trillion dollars - more than five times the size of the debt of the entire third world.. Foreign countries hold the notes on about one third of this unprecedented U.S. debt."

"In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, the people of the United States came together in an unprecedented display of national unity. And the world rallied to their cause. Across the globe, people came together in a spontaneous and stunning display of unified support for the people of the United States. Yet, just two years later, in those same places and on those same streets, tens of millions of people would come together again; this time to march in outrage over the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. How the American people interpret the meaning and importance of this dramatic and sudden shift is a question that has yet to be answered."

One of the things that the exercise of power does is that it cuts both ways. So the U.S. exercises power in the world to create stability -- people who are on the receiving end of that power see themselves being oppressed. And so they resist. And as a consequence, this process of trying to pacify the world and get it to go along with what the United States wants actually creates the resistance that the U.S. is trying to quell. And so this is not the way that will actually get us forward out of the situation that we find ourselves in. It only makes things worse.

- Zia Mian, Science & Global Security, Princeton University

Spectatorship is an invitation to fear. Citizenship is how we fight the politics of fear. The politics of citizenship, the politics of engagement, taking responsibility is a much better way to deal with terrorism than hunkering down being spectators and allowing the government to rob us of our liberties, to rob us of our multiculturalism, in the name of protecting us.

- Benjamin Barber, Author, "Fear's Empire"

I recommend you see this film as there is much that cannot be layed out here, but the film asks you to consider alot of questions about the Bush administration and the motives behind whats happening.

Here is a link to some clips from the film: http://hijackingcatastrophe.org/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=7&meid=1

I'm curious as to what you think of the film or the information and accusations presented in the film.

Plus he lives in England!

If you are referring to me, I live in the U.S., born and raised. In the state directly north of you.

What atrocities?

The things that happened under Saddam don't happen anymore. It was well worth it.

Your kidding right?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

Public health experts have estimated that around 100' date='000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year.

 

The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.

 

While the major causes of death before the invasion were heart attack, stroke, and chronic illness, the risk of dying from violence after the invasion was 58 times higher than in the period before the war.[/quote']

Finish reading my post.

Oops, my bad.

it costs money.

I read some evidence in a debate not to long ago about this suggesting it actually costs less to lock someone up for life then it does to execute them. I'll see if I can find it.

I'd love that. Why do you think some bloody tyrants attract all the attention, while others can murder and torture all they want and not get noticed?

It's all about their location in the world, it's just that our government designs its plans to put all the media attention on the locations that they want to hit for the benefits of its overall goals.

I should have known that you brits who stayed in England would not be up to a good fight. If you had and balls, your ancestors would have come to America like mine did.

/sarcasm on - Yeah yeah, you brits should have seen it when we got to America, there was this great new land, unfortanantly it was full of these savages that were less than human just like the Iraqi's, so we slaughtered them, unarmed women and children even, then we gave small little areas to the survivors to live on so they were out of the way. Then we made a great country! Yay! /sarcasm off

Many of us hope for an idealistic future, one without war, one with cooperation and advancement in space of the whole world, one without hunger problems, one where everyone on the planet has the opportunity for a decent education, one where everyone has access to proper healthcare, one where nuclear weapons do not exist, ect. We are not attempting to handle situations properly to achieve these goals.

We cannot bomb the world to peace, only pieces.

Link to info on the Bush doctrine- http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

Do you normally indulge in drugs this early in the day?

Intelligent reply.

Are you familiar with the Wolfowitz doctrine? Ya know the one that was created in 1992 that layed out a plan of action you are seeing take place today? The one that depicted Iraq as being the first state needing to be eliminated in order for an American dominance over the world. The one asked for a defense budget expendature of up to 100 billion dollars, the one that was denied and shut down because it was considered radical, even by George Bush sr.? That doctrine has been revised and is very much in play today.

Are you familliar with Scott Ritter? The former U.S. chief weapons inspector to the U.N. who has said time and time again, there was never any intelligence given to the Bush adminastration that would give them any reason to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

There was no falsified intelligence, the intelligence was blatantly manipulated by the Bush administration.

Have you ever played the board game risk? The Bush administration is playing a game of risk with the whole world watching as we speak.

If you consider yourself American, You have to at least consider the possibility. I recommend you pull your head out ** **** ***, unglue your eyes from your cable T.V. and take a look at what is going on for yourself. Formulate your own opinions based on what you learn, not what you are being told on fox news.

Paul Wolfowitz deputy secretary of defense - http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html

The wolfowitz doctrine, now known as the Bush doctrine - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_doctrine

I'm all in favour of closing any threads in which certain people take the opportunity to spread bigotted, ill-founded views,

Yes, I see your point. I'm fairly new to these boards so I missed many past arguements.

One thing to note though is people are capable of changing no matter how deep their beliefs in certain things are. Its usually not until a person understands themselves before they begin to understand their beliefs.

Wow excellent links sandi, thanks. I remember reading a little about pangea in highschool, Very interesting.

Why close it? If none has anything to say just don't say anything, if someone comes along down the road and feels the need to add something it should be available to them. (unless you prefer them to start a new thread so we can debate it again from the top)