US government Options

[Respudious]

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

[*CrackedRearView*]

Alright, down to business.

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.

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.

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.

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).

These are 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.