How many of you feel like you are highly educated on our government? Do you feel like imperialism has dominated the inner-workings of our government and it is the interest of top corporations that reign supreme over the interests of the people nowadays? What are your feelings on the Wolfowitz Doctrine? I'm sorry for all the questions but recently I have devoted time to trying to uncover the other side of our war policies and it's startled me. I feel like our nation has been misled greatly by the inentions of our government. I saw in another post that someone said only 28 civilians were killed so far this year or something like that? Fallujah was a massacre!! Soldiers were told any person walking was an enemy target, and this is from the first hand testimony of a soldier himself. Don't take this as an anti-american rant because I love our country, yet I feel there are flaws within our country, mainly foreign policies. 9/11 was a pain inflicted by our own country! If you are offended by this I'm sorry, but all the facts point to this conclusion. What are your feelings on the government, and how did you reach these feelings?

well I hope I didn't scare away any potential debaters if this is a subject over your heads, or hopefully you debaters are just gathering up your ammo by doing research which I encourage, because this is not a subject to come mis-informed on.

(posts merged)

This post has been edited by Smoogrish: Apr 13 2006, 07:14 PM

oh dont be silly, you scare no one, and dont double post, either.

i am reasonably well informed ont eh american government, although of course i'm not in direct contact with it day after day.

the interests of top businesses are a priority for most if not all governments, as potential doners/supporters with mor epower than the individual, it is by no means unique to the US

as far as misleading the people, every government gives selective information to the public during a war, its as much apart of the campaign as the fighting itself. im not saying its good, but why is everyone surprised by it? a government exists, not solely, but largely, to get itself or its party reelected, and will publish the information which best suits this purpose.

as far as 9.11 goes, i certainly share your sentiment that the western world is responsible by and large for its low popularity int he middle east and elsewher, its a clash of cultures. but surely, you must recognize that terrorism on that scale comes from within hardcore groups who are by now so anti-western that any altering of the nations' behaviour would likely make little or no difference to their ingrainded hatred... the western world may have responsibility for the broader public dislike, but for specific instances... less so.

Please now my friend, don't mis-interpret what I was implying. My statements alluding to a government cause of 9/11 was not in conjunction with the unpleasant views of Americans held by Middle Eastern countries. I meant that the government is directly responsible for the attacks. More specifically, that there were explosives in the towers that served as the more accurate reason for the towers' collapse. There is substantial evidence that indicates this. In fact, the evidence is nearly irrefutable. So tell me, with such an explosive truth revealed concerning the most malicious attack on our country, what else could the government be responsible for.


Don't confuse misleading with the government with providing false information. I would not expect the government to show images of misformed babies and slaughtered children, doing so would present a much harder task of gaining public support. Deliberately supplying information that is substantially erroneous though, is one which I would expect many to find quite detestable in their government.

This really isn't a debate topic; it needs to be narrowed down. But anyway, since you're asking for my "feelings" on these topics:

Corporate dominance: You need to elaborate what you mean by "imperialism" dominating our national government--why would our government want to conquer itself? Regarding the influence of corporations in politics-- yes, large corporations do have significant lobbying power, but this does not mean that the government disregards civil society's interests. In some circumstances, catering to the demands of corporations actually leads to long-term benefits for the nation as a whole; however, citizens might not see that benefit immediately. In determining whether or not the government should give in to the interests of large corporations, it depends on the situation, of course! Please provide a more specific example. It'll make it easier for us to comment.

Neocon Doctrine: This, I am most certainly against. The Bush Doctrine basically implies that U.S. sovereignty reigns supreme--above the sovereignty of other nations, above political norms, even above international law. There is a fatal flaw in the Bush Administration's aggressiveness. As an example, I will discuss Bush's policy on terrorism. In order to deter terrorism, the B.A. invaded Iraq in search of WMDs and is now engaging in nation-building (???). Not only did Bush do this in spite of international opposition but he also compromised the U.S. ability to combat terrorism. Indeed, combating terrorism requires global collaboration. If the U.S. is the supreme actor and decisionmaker in combating terrorism, how will we prosecute international terrorists? How will we address the root problems--illiteracy, poverty, and corruption? How will we establish the collaboration necessary in order to gather sufficient intelligence? Furthermore, look at the neocons' aggressive policy regarding WMDs. Bush labeled the "Axis of Evil;" this clearly is not proactive diplomacy. Moreover, the B.A. pushed for regime change during talks with the DPRK--clearly imposing democratic ideals at the expense of the topic at hand (nuclear nonproliferation).

Distorted information: I'm not too familiar with this. How has the Bush Administration manipulated major media corporations into concealing information? I think that the NY Times just sort of feels obligated to represent the U.S. in a positive light, for as the nation's major newspaper, America is in a way judged by what it reports.

Indeed, these are only my "feelings." I am in no way an expert on such complicated political/economic issues. Now, I shall wait for someone ultra-conservative to bash my points. :[

And haha, James:

So diplomatic! :]

i think there are plenty of issues that "reign supreme" over the needs and interests of the general population. this has been a flaw of our country for quite some time. but, i don't think corporations or capitalism being extrordinarily important is just the US's problem. the entire world depends on these things, so to say that it is the biggest problem in the US is incorrect.


to repeat what i seem to be saying constantly, i do not believe the united states has any right whatsoever to police and/or govern other countries. i think that whatever rules we force upon others in treaties/doctrines/what-the-hell-ever, should also be applied and enforced on our soil and on our population/government/armed forces. i feel that countries's governments working together is the only way things will work properly.


i won't deny that i sometimes feel we are being misinformed and mislead by the government and the media. but, i also won't deny that i sometimes wonder what would happen if every single truth was revealed and the citizens knew everything. i'm not entirely sure that things would be much better. sometimes it is necessary, as wrong as it may seem, for the population to be left in the dark. shrug. it's a subject i'm conflicted on, personally.



i am so tired of people tiptoeing around others' emotions when it comes to patriotism. i'm not patriotic. at all. i have a tendency to concentrate more on the flaws of the United States rather than the pluses because the flaws will be what brings us down. so, as an effect of that, i come off as severely anti-american. just because i want to see things fixed rather than praise the few things we have going for us (which, in some cases, have also been the cause of our biggest flaws and some of the most prominent problems with society). so, sticking in "i love our country' just so you won't be bombarded with rabid patriots, is silly to me.


in some ways, yes. the US governments actions of the past coupled with the fact that the US is the leading superpower (i believe?!) in the world, we are bound to be the target of "lesser" countries' rage. however, i have explored the theories and rumours surrounding the events of 9/11 and i don't believe that it was a huge evil plot of the government to destroy human lives. as idiotic as he may be, president bush isn't like, the antichrist. so, i can't say i disagree with such statements, but i also can't say i agree with what you are implying.


but, honestly. i've become pretty apathetic recently when it comes to politics and the government. which is sad and pathetic, i agree. but, in the all american fashion, i've decided that my life and my corner of the world is more important and that whatever problems i may have are more pressing than those of the world.

This post has been edited by nothing_plus_this: Apr 14 2006, 01:54 PM

^ Our government, although flawed, allows for far more freedom and a far more open society than a large majority of nations.


Well, the closed society in which the terrorists lived also deserves a large chunk of the blame.

Also, while I do not believe that the U.S. government should be imperialistic, the U.S. should definitely not be passive either. We need to intervene where intervention is necessary, and we need to collaborate effectively, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in order to ensure the success of that intervention.

its funny to think that all of this is coming from sillakilla ;)

********

ANYWAY

p
i was unaware of this, but i am interested. please source your information.



exactly... placing the blame for any dispute on one side of the fence is almost always inaccurate

omg. please tell me it's true.

and, yes. i know that much of the blame can also be put on the shoulders of the terrorists and their "people". i may not have worded what i was saying very well, so i'll just rephrase it.

a portion of the blame rests on the US government's shoulders.

there. i'm done now. and bored.

thye are indeed one

http://www.911busters.com/New_911_Evidence/index.html


^^^ site has some good information...


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...&q=loose+change


^^^ would suggest watching this first though, it has serious evidence against the government, as well as information that is all documented and cited. It is roughly and hour and a half but you should watch as much as you can because it is powerful.

Honestly, Respudious, I wasn't inclined to reply to this thread simply because I'm not fond of conspiracy theory, etc etc. However, "this site has some good information"?

http://www.911busters.com

Let's analyze this a little bit. Don't you feel you've overstepped the lines of credible knowledge in exchange for a little bit of selection bias? Really, '911Busters'?

And the loose change video from Google? Are you a sheep? I can't understand how this video is so quickly becoming the most cherished part of April 2006 pop culture, but it's a dying fad (much like Michael Moore's filmmaking days).



Powerfully inclined to propaganda. Look, don't get me wrong, I hate Bush probably more than you do -- I think he's a buffoon who is too damn Texan to admit foul if he makes a mistake (which is not the type of personality that should wield the highest position of power on the planet). However, don't tell people they need to come into a thead "well informed" and then cite trashy, partisan nonsense.

That won't earn you any ethos with me.

To be honest whether you agree with the name of the site or not has little to do with what information if provides. If you want to cast aside legitimate information because you don't feel like the name is serious enough thats fine, but don't act ignorant about it. It is not selection bias, it presents evidence in favor of the conspiracy theory in a respectable and convincing manner. I'm sure you are one who would deny this up and down unless I brought a U.S. document stating government involvement. Well, unfortunately I can't do this so sites like the "less-credible" 9/11 busters and others must do. There are actually more sites but I just found that one interesting at the time. I understand that this is an explosive accustation to bring forth toward our government but I would never back something such as this if I didn't feel like it was accurate.



The "Loose Change" video has nothing to do with being a sheep. First, let me know if you've watched the whole thing. Second, all sources used are documented and factual. Third, there are many things in that video that raise severe questions about the whole situation. Why are so many of the alleged "hijackers" still alive? How is it that the 3rd building that fell was the 1st building in history to have collapsed due to "extreme heating due to fire"? Just because a video is garnering much-deserved attention does not mean anyone who agrees with it is a sheep, maybe it is because it has such compelling material.




to crackedrearview-

Trying to falsify my argument by mocking it is not a successful method. You haven't even presented anything in opposition to what I've said, just succeeding in posting a few paragraphs of nothing. I am not fond of conspiracy theories either because, well frankly, they are just that - theories. Yet in the case of 9/11 there is physical evidence that contradicts government stories. Hardly any of the material I am presenting is "trashy" as you put it, or even close to nonsense. Do your research. Come back with something to support your obnoxious rants with. Don't just come in here shooting down anything offered with nothing to bring to the argument itself.

Oooh, you're really asking for it, Respudious. I'm excited.

You made this statement in your first post, and I agreed with it. You postulated that the highest ulterior motive of the United States' government is an imperialistic inclination to aiding large corporations in their fights for power, and I agreed with it. You said you don't like Bush, I wholeheartedly agree.

In fact, Respudious, I would venture to say that you and I are nearly political equivalents in that we share a good portion of the same ideals concerning American policy/politics. For that, I applauded you (and I happily read this thread). However, you ventured off into Stupidville with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. You officially lost my attention with this little nugget of wisdom:



That's so false it's almost sickening.

If you look at the statement literally, you're essentially saying that 9/11 was fabricated by our government in order to put a veil of urgency over our eyes -- you're theorizing that over 3,000 people lost their lives in a planned collapse of two of the most expensive buildings in the world while the administration sat in their offices snickering and giving each other football butt taps; I can't bring myself to logically believe this (and trust me, I've fallen victim to far dumber gullibility traps).

If you look at it figuratively, you're saying that the United States is solely responsible for the attacks through indirect actions (i.e., we're not diplomatic enough, we piss off Middle Eastern countries, we're too unilateral in practice, etc.). This, again, is only half true. While we aren't the beacons of diplomacy and we have utilized our position of power for unilateral interests on several occasions, you simply can't blame our nature for the events that happened on that ugly Tuesday morning. To the contrary, you have to look at the social contrasts.

We're a major Christian nation; the Middle East is dominated by Islam. We're industrialized and we enjoy several luxurious amenities (like the Bill of Rights, for example); almost none of the Middle East compares in that respect. We're (one of) the richest countries in the world and we pretty much turn the globe when it comes to politics (when you see that almost any important action in world politics hinges on a decision made or not made by the United States of America); these Middle Eastern countries are buried by our political mud and their voices are drowned out by ours.

These are some of the major factors that your argument would be missing if you looked at it in a figurative stance. If you looked at it the other way, I'd chuckle, e-slap you, and continue about my day.

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

Now, onto your belief that I'm just out to get you.

1) You're in the Debate forum on CreateBlog.com. Let me tell you what this means (and don't take this as patronization, but you really only have 18 posts and I don't think you understand the inner workings of this little Utopia we cling to). First, almost all of the respondents you'll encounter in this particular subforum have been pecking away little factoids of debate knowledge for a year, a year and a half, and some for more than two years now (I joined in March 2004). What this means is that we've all developed a unique approach to answering arguments, this much is true. How are our responses unified, however? They're always going to be sardonic in nature and will often portray us as overly pompous. This is not the case -- we're all very down to earth, happy people -- most of us just enjoy basking in our pedantry.

2) You're giving yourself way too much credit when you say that I'm simply here to "mock" your arguments. Slow your roll, back up two steps, read my previous point. You say that I only attack your sources and that I never offer others. How could I? It's a conspiracy theory, so, naturally, only the biased sources will be available. You tell me that you chose to cite "911Busters" of all places because it was the convenient website of the time. Wait, how'd you phrase it?



Total crock, and you know it. 911Busters and the Loose Change video (which I have seen, FYI) epitomize biased, partisan Internet trash, designed to suck in troubled teens who neglected to take a course on media trends and what they do to the human mind. I'm not saying you're a troubled teen, I'm simply showing you the nature of the sources.

Be a realist; would non-partisan publications waste their time with such nonsense? Even the most liberally inclined publications, The Washington Post or The New York Times, for instance, have yet to support this ludicrous, inane propaganda because it isn't grounded enough in fact even suitably to print in their publications. So where do you come off with the nerve to tell me that I'm too uninformed to reply with sources (key word: credible) of my own? Point the way to those sources, maestro...whip me up a Big Mac and a Coke while you're at it. I'm saving my third wish for later.

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

Look, what I'm eventually leading up to is simple. 9/11 was an awful tragedy (I lost two family members to it). We all felt the shock and awe following it. I'd love to believe that the Bush administration conspired to fabricate 9/11 or even that they willingly let it happen in order to be justified in attacking the Middle East. However, I don't want my intelligence to get fat, so I exercise it. In this case, exercising my intelligence means knowing when and where to draw the line between Debate forum-worthy and just plain stupid.

I drew that line at the gates to "911Busters.com"

If you offer a topic that follows debate protocol, I'll be sure to enter. In no way have you presented this topic in a manner that reflects an understanding of these procedures. Here's a link that you should spend some time studying.

debate protocol

What you have written is more closely aligned with an editorial. It's also a good idea to assume your readership has the fundamental capacity to engage a debate. Don't assume you're the authority on this subject because you visited a few websites. While you may be passionate about your views, don't degrade others. You may end up figuratively eating your words.

My response to your topic follows...

Your post is a call for victims to unite! Faced with the daunting task of identifying the "enemy" within our nation, it is convenitent to hide behind monolithic corporate structures, the military-industrial complex and the impenetrable ranks of the imperialist elite.

How can any citizen begin to alter the course of fate when staring at the infinate and all-knowing power of THEM? *shudders*

By embracing the capacity to vote, the citizens of this nation can not only elect officials that represent the voice of the people, they can also effect the creation of political parties and legislation that is a function of their united voice.

Your suggestion that people are being duped is repulsive. Get off you ass and do something about it. Quit bitching and sniveling. There are many accounts throughout the course of history that demonstrate the ability of the people to change policy and procedures. The creation of this nation is one such example.

Although I am a staunch Democrat, stand firmly against the war and abhor our current state of international relations, I do not feel this thread represents the foundation that is needed to heal our collective psyche, end the war or establish non-unilateral international policies.

The seed of change is nurtured through empowerment of the people. This pseudo-tabloid presentation of "facts" is not only ineffective, it encourages apathy. That is unacceptable.

CrackedRearView - Please don't start assuming the likeness between our views. Judging how I stand on politics based off our shared distaste in Bush and view on corporate influence is silly and I hope you really didn't read too much into it. We could be alike, this is possible, but regardless you shouldn't make assertions about someone you know little of.







Falsifying attacks on our country is not a new strategy employed by the United States. The sinking of USS Maine is an example of just this. If you're knowledged on the Mexican-American war, then you should know that this is another example. Yes, 3000 people mercilessly lost their lives in the planned collapse of not 3 buildings, not 2, and I'm sorry if it is so logically impossible for you to grasp, but it is really not too difficult. 9/11 gave our government leeway to do things they never would have been able to do before. We invaded Iraq for WMD, which of course were never found; the Patriot Act was implemented, which I don't see ever passing without 9/11; anytime Bush faces criticism, he is relentless in bringing up 9/11 in his addresses to the public. There are quotes, yes quotes - as in the people actually said the words, of d**k Cheney and others making statements regarding the value of controlling oil in the East. Yet, I guess quotes from government officials fall under "biased information" in your book, so maybe they shouldn't be considered.




I fail to see the importance of your breakdown of the debate forum and your friends, keep to the subject, you can PM me with any other waste.







Do you realize the repercussions of a newspaper such as the NY Times or Washington Post running a story on 9/11 fraud? Don't tell me you would really believe one would choose to run such an incriminating story with the event so fresh. The emotional backlash of readers would be felt nation wide, I don't think its a risk worth taking yet. Give it time though as this 9/11 truth movement is something that I think will gain national attention in the near future.



Above all however, you truly fail to address any of the problems in 9/11 that I asked. Cell phone calls are said to have been made by passengers on the plane. Many cell phone companies have verified it is impossible for phones to work 30,000 ft in the air. The 3rd building falls from fire, the first recording collapse due to fire in history. These are FACTS. I'm not sure where the bias comes in here. Accused hijackers have been found alive. A person who crashes a plane into a building would probably die. Steel is melted in the WTC towers, which is one reason for the building collapsing. Steel melts at a specific temperature, and it is scientifically impossible for jet fuel to reach the needed temperature to melt steel. Impossible. As in, its not my opinion that jet fuel couldn't reach these temperatures, its fact.





After each of the previous attacks falsifyed by our government, the US annexed land. A lot of the southern parts of Cali, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico were gained as a result of the Mexican-American War. Parts of Cuba were hoped to be free by the gov't after the USS Maine. As we stand now, there are still troops in Afghanistan (oh I hope you didn't forget!) as well as Iraq - which is raises questions itself about why we are still there.





Well since 911busters.com isn't worthy enough. Check out 911truth.org. "Exercise your intelligence" by doing some reading.

sorry, but as someone with a fair amount of knowledge as to the world of journalism, i have to say that you've misjudged a probable response of the newspaper consumer in the event of publishing such a story.

shock sells. people would buy the paper, no matter how upsetting they found it, if it could be backed up with solid facts from creditable sources. the fact that they havent pblished this type of story doesnt indicate a particular sensitivity for the national psyche... it indaicates that their sources would be of so little worth that a political oponent could trash them so thoroughly that they would look foolish for printing the information.

*****

oh, and your secondary source is not much better than the first... its the same conspiracy rubbish.

oh, and if you patronize justin, you'll lose the argument

= )

you've both succeeded at making me fall in love with you.


...for 10 seconds each.

because you have both made points, written sentences, that get me all excited and giddy like a retarded puppy.

and that's why i'm just gonna sit back and enjoy this thread from the lurkerlines from now on.

please continue flexing your brains. it's hot.

^ And do you have anything intelligent to contribute yourself?

In response to this thread:

(1) I realize that politicians don't always make moral decisions. Yes, I believe that the Bush Administration used the attacks immorally in order to further its neocon policies. However, accusing the Bush Administration of "falsifying attacks" is paranoid and frankly ridiculous. You're basically implying that everyone in the Bush Administration had the incentive to destroy one of the most important buildings in the world and deplete its human resources just to further a political policy? Frankly, some members of the Bush Administration were not as neoconservative as Bush, and they certainly would not have such an incentive to inflict pain upon its own citizens.

(2) The sinking of the first USS Maine before the Spanish-American War (not the Mexican-American War) has been widely debated; it is in no way fact that the US government inflicted such an attack upon itself. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the information that you claim others to be ignorant of.

(3) You say that your statements regarding 9/11 (e.g. cell phone calls, steel, etc.) are "facts." Do you have a reliable source, other than 911busters, which was created for the sole purpose of criminalizing the Bush Administration? Personally, I am not convinced.

oh, and building on the point about cell phones, while it may be true that it is impossible to mak ecalls from 30,000, i have no idea, at the time when the calls were placed, i.e. post high jacking, i believe that all the planes were flying at a lower altitude in any case. so that may or may not be relevant

I'd also like to see the sources of these statements. I have been on several planes at 30,000 feet and used a cell phone. I'm not convinced that these are accurate statements.

at this point? no. i don't. simply because i'm tired of debating the topic of 9/11 (i've been a member of quite a few political forums and have exhausted myself arguing about these topics). and because many of the points i would make myself are being made with lots more effort and thought behind them than i would bother to use. and that's why i posted what i did, instead of quoting every point i agree with or liked, i posted a little praise for everyone in stupid and immature way. because that's how i do things.

but, i did post a fairly lengthy response to the original topic of the thread. and it went pretty much unnoticed (which is fine since i half-assed it and didn't care at the moment). because crackedrearview and what'shisface decided to start another battle of the brains.

sorry to annoy, disappoint, or anger anyone by attempting to insert some off-topic commentary. i won't do it again. promise.

Actually, the Spanish-American War and Mexican-American War are 2 examples. Sorry if I caused any confusion. I did not misquote my information, I just may have poorly worded it. The Spanish-American War is one example. The Mexican-American War is another, as our government made it appear that there was an attack on Americans by Mexicans. Thus allowing us to go to war and annex many of the Southern lands we now possess.

Alright, down to business.



I was making a simple point designed to refute your idea that I'm just "out to get ya!" First of all, I have much more productive ways of spending my time. Secondly, I was saying that you and I are closely polarized politically to reassure you that 95% of the time I'm most likely in your corner! It's just on this conspiracy nonsense that I'm inclined to scoff at your gullibility; and don't kid yourself, you're completely gullible to this whole mess.



Oh, here we go. McKinley ordered the destruction of the USS Maine to propel the United States into war with Spain, yada yada and blah blah blah. Look, a murky event in 1898 (which, mind you, has been fiercely investigated and widely disputed for a hundred years to almost no avail) is hardly a good example of government corruption to feed its jingoism. That's just not a sufficient parallel. I’m sure this happens, but not on the radically large scale you portray it to be. It seems to me that you want to believe your higher-ups are sadistic war mongerers without your interests in mind, but that is, again, not the complete truth. And then you freely make the same accusations against the Bush administration (without solid, credible facts).



Yes, published on anti-Bush administration websites, and nowhere else. You admit to this, I know, but you’re back stepping and rationalizing as to why large publications don’t venture out to publish this information.



I hate to say this so bluntly, but you have no idea what you’re talking about. I have three relatives involved in the mass media (one of which is a co-chief editor at the Kansas City Star), and believe me – there is no waiting period.

Think of it as a bake sale. You’re postulating that the United States’ mass media lets these cookies bake in the oven, pulls them out, and then let’s them get cold on the cookie sheet. This is untrue. The media serves those babies hot off the aluminum, whether it burns your proverbial tongue or not.

Your analysis of the media is geared more toward pre-New Deal politics. Before FDR’s sweeping reforms, before the Progressive era, maybe your theory would hold up. The media was described as a ‘lapdog’ in those days, meaning that journalists kissed up to politicians in order to gain insider status. In those days, the media were the politicians’ best friends.

In the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, when the media (and the public, for that matter) began to become more suspicious of government actions, they were labeled ‘guard dogs’.

After the Watergate scandal hit the shelves and Woodward and Bernstein wrote their Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post article, the media’s label changed once more to its current status: a group of ‘attack dogs,’ giddy at any budding opportunity to paint the U.S. government as corrupt and incapable.

You say that this ‘9/11 truth’ theory will gain national attention, and I agree with you. They say ‘no press is bad press,’ but I believe that in this case, the ‘facts’ you so naïvely tout are going to be invalidated by the big publications (the ones that matter, I mean). The only national attention this conspiracy rubbish will gain is a quick “oh, interesting.” You’ll soon realize that, as a whole, the American public isn’t dumb enough to polarize in that belief because it is, frankly, too unsubstantiated.



The suppression of traditional rights is well grounded in our nation’s history.

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the midst of the Civil War to avoid gridlock and implemented martial law to try terrorist suspects as quickly as possible.

FDR risked destroying the credibility of the executive office with his New Deal economic policies by severely dampening the ability of behemoth corporations.

During World War II, we detained Japanese people in west coast internment camps to ease public tensions.

However, would you like to know the difference between these three examples and the “injuries” of the Patriot Act? None of them were done with the approval of the Congress. Bush’s Patriot Act was overwhelmingly supported from its inception, and has continually been renewed despite mounting criticisms against the Commander-in-Chief. The decision to invade Iraq was undeniably unanimous in the Congress, as well.

Now, realize that the Congress (even in 2001-2002) is a severely divided entity. You can’t (and won’t) convince me that the veil was pulled over the eyes of 535 very intelligent, very capable men and women (many of whom share the same anti-Bush sentiments that you and I possess). They’re intelligent enough to sense a conspiracy, and the outlandish theory you’re presenting was obviously halted by their bullshit-filters.



This is kind of a non sequitor, but the United States isn’t stupid. The idea is to stretch out the other guy’s resources as much as possible before wasting your own. Gull Island, in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska has enough crude oil beneath it to sustain the United States for well over 200 years. There is no petrol crisis. That is one government ‘conspiracy’ I would concur with.



It’s not ‘waste’. It sufficiently refuted your idea that I am “mocking” your arguments. I’m sorry your reading comprehension fuse blew out when you decided to read it.



Consider the fact that the planes weren’t 30,000 feet above the ground for the entire duration of their flights.



The fires raging in the WTC towers were upwards of 700 degrees Fahrenheit. It wasn’t the temperature, however, that caused the towers to collapse. To the contrary, the extreme force exerted by the impacts doomed the towers. This is backed by G. Charles Clifton of the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Assocation. Clifton argues that the plane that hit the North Tower almost certainly took out the core supporting structures of at least three floors, causing the floors above them to sag. As the fire weakened the supporting columns, this effect would have become more exaggerated until the floors collapsed on top of each other pancake-style.

Clifton's hypothesis also would explain why the South tower collapsed so much more quickly than did the North tower. Based on the videotape of the collision, Clifton notes that the plane that hit the South tower probably took out all of the core supports for at least 4 and probably 6 floors, as well as severely weakening the southeast corner of the building.

In both cases, Clifton argues that any resulting fire was not, in and of itself, enough to bring down the towers.



I agree with you, once again! I don’t think we should be off policing the Middle East by any means. I think the Bush administration is crooked for trying to impart western knowledge on an already tension-plagued society in the Middle East that needs to work out its own issues. We attacked Iraq, a self-sustaining country and did so with poor logic and reasoning.

However, I still don’t believe the conspiracy gobbledygook. And I’m afraid, my friend, that no amount of “911Busters” or “911Truth” or whatever other absurd website you place in front of me can change that.

Nice try, though.

Where is your evidence? It is certainly not accepted fact that the U.S. government attacked its own soldiers in order to further political policy. Therefore, your historical examples are false and serve no purpose in furthering your argument.

And I like your cookie analogy, Justin, but unfortunately, I think Bolton sort of pwns you:

But it's okay. He's clearly far more experienced in political rhetoric.