What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 26 June 2004 - 06:09 AM
The Water Well you talk about must surely be the one the lion denied to the little animals...
Africa more important
There is so much more suffering in Africa than anywhere else in the world. America could help in many ways, and not all of them expensive, and all of them less expensive compared to what Bush spent so far invading and holding onto Iraq.
So its not about relieving the suffering. No, America Foriegn Policy is about DOMINATION. From that, all things flow....
Africa's AIDS/HIV problem has a few solutions. if those solutions are "not patentable", they are off the table. You see, the pharmaceutical industry allways and only does "medicine" with pills that can be patented, even if other solutions exist.
Those "other solutions" for health problems could be a disinfectant like HYDROGEN PEROXIDE, but since it is a basic chemical compound found in nature [in rainwater, for eg.] , it cannot be patented, and therefore the profits are much less due to open competition [and you thought this was a free market economy!!ha ha]
Another non-patentable one is an anti-biotic that has been shown to stop the HIV virus from taknig hold, and actually killing it. It was used 100 years ago, and now its in Curad bandages [a minor deviation from not using these nonm-patentables].
It is a form of silver, ionised when elctricity is trickled thru it , to form Colloidal Silver. It works for minor things like warts for sure, and some say it has helped them beat major illnesses. It kills the AIDS virus dead every time in a lab dish.
The third non-patenable cure for aids is Bio-Electric medicine. That uses electrical current too, but it is fine tuned and tricked into your blood as it passes thru the wrist. ACtually, there are many tools for this bio-electric medicine.
They are only $200 a unit, and could save 3 people every three months if they work as some say they do. They are OUTLAWED in America, even tho there is absolutely no damage possible from them...
H202 and Silver are alo harmless. They are used in really important places like Hospital Surgical rooms where it HAS to work and not be too toxic.
But there is great resistance to even studying these things as cheap help for AIDS in Africa.
That fits with the great resistance to even letting Africa have generic drugs from the pharmacy.
The connection could be that Africans will die off, and then it wil be easy to dominate, exploit, etc.
There is certainly no compassion for Africa under AFP [Am Foriegn Policy]. They do send some aid money, but to actually get in there and drill water wells is not done, but it could be. They invaded Arabian nations, I think America could force Africa to let it drill wells. But nope, all the money goes thru corrput hands and none is left for the actual drilling for clean water. Its that simple.
Posted 26 June 2004 - 07:01 AM
Maybe Michael himself is confused.:confused:
Let's see this review...
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is less an expose of George W. Bush than a dramatization of what Moore sees as a failed and dangerous presidency. The charges in the film will not come as news to those who pay attention to politics, but Moore illustrates them with dramatic images and a relentless commentary track that essentially concludes Bush is incompetent, dishonest, failing in the war on terrorism, and has bad taste in friends.
Although Moore's narration ranges from outrage to sarcasm, the most devastating passage in the film speaks for itself. That's when Bush, who was reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of Florida children, is notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, and yet lingers with the kids for almost seven minutes before finally leaving the room. His inexplicable paralysis wasn't underlined in news reports at the time, and only Moore thought to contact the teacher in that schoolroom -- who, as it turned out, had made her own video of the visit. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there is odd indeed.
Bush, here and elsewhere in the film, is characterized as a man who owes a lot to his friends, including those who helped bail him out of business ventures. Moore places particular emphasis on what he sees as a long-term friendship between the Bush family (including both presidents) and powerful Saudi Arabians. More than $1.4 billion in Saudi money has flowed into the coffers of Bush family enterprises, he says, and after 9/11 the White House helped expedite flights out of the country carrying, among others, members of the bin Laden family (which disowns its most famous member).
Posted 26 June 2004 - 12:17 PM
Washington will not only keep its 130,000 troops in Iraq; it will also control the country's oil revenues. American efforts to control the show behind a UN "As it has become clear that US interests and democracy in Iraq are basically incompatible, the United States has, unsurprisingly and as many predicted, chosen to preserve the supremacy of its own interests and its control of Iraqi affairs at the expense of a genuine transfer of power and the establishment of a political system in which Iraqis are able to choose their political system and control their destiny and resources," Rabbani
"Iraqis will continue to view their country as occupied as long as foreign forces are stationed on their soil," said Rabbani. "limited sovereignty" coupled with Iraqi "partial control" over its military forces
Posted 26 June 2004 - 02:32 PM
Good point, Woj. Now though--and rather predictably--the European lion will lend a hand in the hunt.
Of course, now all the little animals in the participant countries will probably be fair game...
U.S., EU Offer Strong NATO Aid for Iraq
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
NEWMARKET-ON-FERGUS, Ireland - The United States and the European Union (news - web sites) offered strong support for Iraq (news - web sites)'s urgent request for NATO (news - web sites) military help Saturday. "NATO has the capability and I believe the responsibility to help the Iraqi people defeat the terrorist threat that's facing their country," President Bush (news - web sites) said.
"I think the bitter differences of the war are over," Bush said at the close of a U.S.-European Union summit. "There is a common interest and a common goal to help the Iraqi people."
The United States and the European Union agreed in a joint statement to back Iraq's urgent request for NATO military and support the training of Iraqi security forces, and to reduce Iraq's international debt, estimated to be $120 billion.
Posted 26 June 2004 - 02:43 PM
But is disadvantage arising from this source of legitimacy. A war president must win the war, as he has promised.
Loyalty to the commander-in-chief, of support for the troops and of steadfast belief in final victory - are themselves looking increasingly uncertain. >
Woj, lately your posts are getting better and better. What a pity you don't believe in the power of the Proles to challenge the lion. Actually you believe in a "good lion" challenging the bad lion.:confused:
Anyway, the American public go, "Hail Bush!";)
Hail Bush: A new Roman empire
They came, they saw, they conquered. Now the United States dominates the world. With the rise of the New Age Roman empire, Jonathan Freedland asks how long before the fall?
The word of the hour is empire. As the United States marches to war, no other label quite seems to capture the scope of American power or the scale of its ambition. "Sole superpower" is accurate enough, but seems oddly modest. "Hyperpower" might appeal to the French; "hegemon" is favoured by academics. But empire is the big one, the gorilla of geopolitical designations - and suddenly the US is bearing its name.
Of course, enemies of the US have shaken their fist at its "imperialism" for decades: they are doing it again now, as Washington wages a global "war against terror" and braces itself for a campaign aimed at "regime change" in a foreign, sovereign state. What is more surprising, and much newer, is that the notion of a US empire has suddenly become a live debate inside the US. And not just among Europhile liberals either, but across the range - from left to right.
Today a liberal dissenter such as Gore Vidal, who called his most recent collection of essays on the US The Last Empire, finds an ally in the likes of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who earlier this year told The New York Times, "People are coming out of the closet on the word 'empire'." He argued that Americans should admit the truth and face up to their responsibilities as the undisputed masters of the world. And it wasn't any old empire he had in mind. "The fact is, no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the Roman empire."
But is the comparison apt? Are the Americans the new Romans?
The most obvious similarity is overwhelming military strength. Rome was the superpower of its day, boasting an army with the best training, biggest budgets and finest equipment the world had seen. No-one else came close. The US is just as dominant - its defence budget will soon be bigger than the military spending of the next nine countries combined, allowing it to deploy forces almost anywhere on the planet at lightning speed. Throw in its technological lead, and the US emerges as a power without rival.
There is a big difference, of course. Apart from the odd Puerto Rico or Guam, the US does not have formal colonies, the way the Romans did. There are no American consuls or viceroys directly ruling faraway lands.
But that difference between ancient Rome and modern Washington may be less significant than it looks. After all, America has done plenty of conquering and colonising. For some historians, the founding of America and its 19th-century push westward were no less an exercise in empire building than Rome's drive to take charge of the Mediterranean. While Julius Caesar took on the Gauls - bragging that he had slaughtered a million of them - American pioneers battled the Cherokee, the Iroquois and the Sioux.
"From the time the first settlers arrived in Virginia from England and started moving westward, this was an imperial nation, a conquering nation," says Paul Kennedy, author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
More to the point, the US has military bases, or base rights, in some 40 countries - giving it the same global muscle it would enjoy if it ruled those countries directly. According to Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, these US military bases are today's version of the imperial colonies of old. Washington may refer to them as "forward deployment", says Johnson, but colonies are what they are. On this definition, there is almost no place outside America's reach.
So the US may be more Roman than we realise, with garrisons in every corner of the globe. But there the similarities only begin. For the US approach to empire looks quintessentially Roman. It's as if the Romans bequeathed a blueprint for how imperial business should be done - and today's Americans follow it religiously.
Lesson one in the Roman handbook for imperial success would be a realisation that it is not enough to have great military strength: the rest of the world must know that strength - and fear it. The Romans used the propaganda technique of their time - gladiatorial games in the Colosseum - to show the world how hard they were. Today 24-hour news coverage of US military operations, including video footage of smart bombs scoring direct hits, or Hollywood shoot-'em-ups at the multiplex serve the same function. Both tell the world: this empire is too tough to beat.
The US has learned a second lesson from Rome, realising the centrality of technology. For the Romans, it was those famously straight roads, enabling the empire to move troops or supplies at awesome speeds - rates that would not be surpassed for well over a thousand years. It was a perfect example of how one imperial strength tends to feed another: an innovation in engineering, originally designed for military use, went on to boost Rome commercially.
Today those highways find their counterpart in the information superhighway: the Internet also began as a military tool, devised by the US Defence Department, and now stands at the heart of American commerce. In the process, it is making English the Latin of its day - a language spoken across the globe. The US is proving what the Romans already knew: that once an empire is a world leader in one sphere, it soon dominates in every other.
But it is not just specific tips that the US seems to have picked up from its ancient forebears. Rather, it is the fundamental approach to empire that echoes so loudly. Rome understood that, if it was to last, a world power needed to practise both hard imperialism, the business of winning wars and invading lands, and soft imperialism, the cultural and political tricks that worked not to win power but to keep it.
So Rome's greatest conquests came not at the end of a spear, but through its power to seduce conquered peoples. As Tacitus observed in Britain, the natives seemed to like togas, baths and central heating - never realising that these were the symbols of their "enslavement".
Today the US offers the people of the world a similarly coherent cultural package, a cluster of goodies that remain reassuringly uniform. It's not togas or gladiatorial games today, but Starbucks, Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Disney, all paid for in the contemporary equivalent of Roman coinage, the global hard currency of the 21st century: the dollar.
(don't forget to look at picture of Bush emperor)
Posted 26 June 2004 - 02:56 PM
When the process works, you don't even have to resort to direct force; it is possible to rule by remote control, using friendly client states. This is a favourite technique for the contemporary US - no need for colonies when you have the Shah in Iran or Pinochet in Chile to do the job for you - but the Romans got there first. They ruled by proxy whenever they could. The English know all about it.
One of the most loyal of client kings, Togidubnus, ruled in the southern England of the first century AD.
Togidubnus did not let his masters down. When Boadicea led her uprising against the Roman occupation in AD60, she made great advances in Colchester, St Albans and London - but not Sussex. Historians now think that was because Togidubnus kept the native Britons under him in line. Just as Hosni Mubarak and Pervez Musharraf have kept the lid on anti-American feeling in Egypt and Pakistan, Togidubnus did the job for Rome nearly two millennia ago.
Not that it always worked. Rebellions against the empire were a permanent fixture, with barbarians constantly pressing at the borders. Some accounts suggest that the rebels were not always fundamentally anti-Roman; they merely wanted to share in the privileges and affluence of Roman life. If that has a familiar ring, consider this: several of the enemies who rose up against Rome are thought to have been men previously nurtured by the empire to serve as pliant allies. Need one mention former US protege Saddam Hussein or one-time CIA trainee Osama bin Laden?
Rome even had its own 9/11 moment. In the 80s BC, Hellenistic king Mithridates called on his followers to kill all Roman citizens in their midst, naming a specific day for the slaughter.
They heeded the call and killed 80,000 Romans in local communities across Greece. "The Romans were incredibly shocked by this," says the ancient historian Jeremy Paterson, of Newcastle University, England. "It's a little bit like the statements in so many of the American newspapers since September 11: 'Why are we hated so much?"'
Internally, too, today's US would strike many Romans as familiar terrain. America's mythologising of its past - its casting of founding fathers Washington and Jefferson as heroic titans, its folk-tale rendering of the Boston Tea Party and the war of independence - is very Roman.
That empire, too, felt the need to create a mythic past, starred with heroes. For them it was Aeneas and the founding of Rome, but the urge was the same: to show that the great nation was no accident, but the fruit of manifest destiny.
There are some large differences between the two empires, of course - starting with self-image. Romans revelled in their status as masters of the known world, but few Americans would be as ready to brag of their own imperialism. Most would deny it. But that may come down to the US's founding myth. For America was established as a rebellion against empire, in the name of freedom and self-government. Raised to see themselves as a rebel nation and plucky underdog, they cannot quite accept their current role as master.
One last factor scares Americans from making a parallel between themselves and Rome: that empire declined and fell. The historians say this happens to all empires; they are dynamic entities that follow a common path, from beginning to middle to end.
"What America will need to consider in the next 10 or 15 years," says the Cambridge classicist Christopher Kelly, "is what is the optimum size for a non-territorial empire, how interventionist will it be outside its borders, what degree of control will it wish to exercise, how directly, how much through local elites? These were all questions which pressed upon the Roman empire."
Anti-Americans like to believe that an operation in Iraq might be proof that the US is succumbing to the temptation that ate away at Rome: overstretch. But it's just as possible that the US is merely moving into what was the second phase of Rome's imperial history, when it grew frustrated with indirect rule through allies and decided to do the job itself. Which is it?
Is the US at the end of its imperial journey, or on the brink of its most ambitious voyage? Only the historians of the future can tell us that.
Posted 26 June 2004 - 04:06 PM
"The pretender has not just seized the throne, he was acting like a king."
Nation and world pay enormous price for Bush's inadequacies
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
Earlier this month, the United States and her Western allies commemorated the 60th anniversary of the invasion of Europe -- that critical event that marked the beginning of the end for Hitler and Nazi Germany. A few days before, a national election poll was released that indicates undecided voters find George Bush a "stronger leader" than John Kerry. Apparently, those surveyed remain gloomy and less than enthusiastic about Bush's handling of the economy, yet a sizable segment of voters who haven't made up their minds about how they will cast their ballot in November think Bush trumps Kerry on strong leadership.
Strangely and to a frightening degree, Bush's fiercest defenders describe him not in the language we've come to associate with good national leadership in a democratic society but in terms reserved for those who think they rule by divine right. Columnist Charles Krauthammer thinks Bush's "astonishing performance" since 9/11 has left the world reeling and Democrats seething. The pretender has not just seized the throne, he was acting like a king.
Nay, an emperor?
The problem, of course, is that we don't anoint kings in America (in spite of what the Supreme Court did in the 2000 elections). And emperors have a rather long and untidy history of creating disasters for themselves, while bringing their nations crashing down around their ears.
Posted 26 June 2004 - 10:51 PM
I dont think Bush is the author of the al qaeda, I think Brzezinski
is more likely to be, well before Bush, in other words an Internationalist design. I dont believe the temporary leaders are the puppeteers, just the puppets. Bush looks more like a patsy than a puppet though.
At this point DonQ, the US people are to deside which puppet they want and as I said they might tend towards the devil they know because it is becoming very clowdy, too clowdy for a acter like Kerry who wants to win by Bush falling over rather than being the leader the US needs.
So doing anything to get rid of Bush is not my line. Get rid of the puppeteer who owns both boxers in the ring.
$7 an hour. How disgraceful for the mighty dollar empire. Thats far from number one. And they are below that. Who wants to own a business in an economy where people cant afford anything but the basics? And inspite of that the economy has to keep on expanding and wasting the natural resouces (anywhere on the planet) to pay the debts of the past! (the Banksters are the rulers of the Empire)
It would be sad if michael moore's creation is seen to depict the Bush family and not as a model of the Establishment. The Bushs might be rich but they are not big names, just well rewarded pupets.
It would suit Gore to bury the Bushs to bury the evidence/idicators of the Establishment behind Sept 11, and the glorious war. If Bush wins he is not guilty and no one pays and the Establishment is well clear and if Kerry wins Bush was wrong
and no one pays just the same. The next puppet shows starts.
The situation regards medicine and Africa is global. Crimes of the corporate nature against humanity are equal to all victims regardless of colour or race. African leaders like European ones in the developed world are a part of the problem. We are no more capable of addressing the problem than people living relatively primative lives. We are all on our way to Africa.
Posted 27 June 2004 - 12:32 AM
It was very sad but very beautiful farewell. Words of *Good bye *were said not only by Polish president or premier; it is not something unusual that people on the top like to be seen around moral authorities but also representatives of protestant pastor and orthodox priest churches and Jewish and Muslim Imam and high priest of Dalai Lama. His modest coffin was taken from his public apartment.
Posted 27 June 2004 - 12:40 AM
and no one pays just the same. The next puppet shows starts.>
Well, what can I say... You seem to have being observing the guy behind the curtains, and are not at all fooled by the show put up for the masses.
Neither Bush nor Kerry will take us out of the jungle, of which they are pawns.:confused:
Posted 27 June 2004 - 12:52 AM
Good note, Woj. Regrettably their names are quickly adopted by the foxes for camouflage purposes...
The Black Sheep
In a distant land many years ago there lived a black sheep.
It was executed by a firing squad.
A century later the regretful herd erected to the slain sheep an equestrian statue that looked very nice in the park.
In the years that followed, each time that a black sheep appeared it was rapidly executed so that future generations of common and ordinary sheep could practice their sculpture.
by Augusto Monterroso
Posted 27 June 2004 - 03:20 AM
"In the areas of world economy and politics, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer; the strong are getting more insolent and the poor and weak thrown onto the margin."
The imbalanced world: Viewpoint
Days ago the author took part in a seminar on International Security Environment sponsored by the Overseas Training Department of the PLA University of National Defense. The 86 senior military officers from 58 countries of the five continents, who are studying at the department, vied with each other to speak at the meeting. Their general concern over the world's security environment was very impressive.
The nerves of human society grew extremely tense upon entering the 21st century. The fact that international security became a hot topic among people at every corner of the world demonstrates an increasingly felt insecurity. The reason why this insecurity haunts people everywhere is mostly because of contradictions caused by the overall imbalance in the fields of the world's political, economic, military and social development.
In the areas of world economy and politics, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer; the strong are getting more insolent and the poor and weak thrown onto the margin. The imbalance in the development of new military reform leads to an "epochal gap" in military technology. Faced with strong nations, which have established an informationized arms system in the information age, the developing countries, equipped only with mechanized and semi-mechanized arms of the industrial era, are put in a passive position and taking beating everywhere. After the publicly recognized norms of international relations were trampled underfoot, the "jungle law" featuring the weak falling a prey to the strong ran rampant worldwide. American's "bellicose complex" gets particularly stimulated. Its Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is already talking about his plan for fighting five wars in one year. All these wars may possibly be carried out in the name of "anti-terrorism". However, after the Iraq war, the word "anti-terrorism" has changed its flavor. The world people thus suspect certain big powers of expanding their sphere of influence, controlling strategic resources and eliminating dissidents in the name of anti-terrorism.
Is America feeling that comfort being in a so-called "mono-polar period"? As a matter of fact, its strong position in the world, its loss of security feeling and damage of its moral image are also in an imbalanced state. Security is a basic need of the human society. No matter who he is and however wealthy he may be, the lack of a sense of security would without exception weaken the quality of his life. It is indeed a sorrowful thing if the United States is truly becoming "more and more scared, the more it fights against terrorism".
"Becoming more scared the more it fights terrorism" reveals a double imbalance in the world's anti-terrorism cause, that is, the imbalance in treating the fundamental and the secondary aspects and in motivation and effect. The September 11 event has been used to create lies of all descriptions, while at the same time, advertently or inadvertently, it has made people overlook the reason why terrorism has, after all, emerged in the world. Perhaps moved by this, a South Asian state leader recently pointed out: "Extremism and armed conflicts are rooted in political discrimination, infringement of rights and exploitation. Political discrimination against a destitute country or an educationally backward people will give rise to an extremely strong feeling of having nothing in one's possession and the one being discriminated will feel extremely helpless. A people who has experienced a great deal of obfuscation are apt to give rise to many illegal armed elements and resort to extreme and terrorist action". Many people realized that after several years of anti-terrorist war, the effect seems to turn to the opposite. Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden and his like have been catalyzed into a "terrorist brand" effect worldwide. The anti-terrorist war characterized by the imbalance in treating examples, doubtful moral foundation and interest relations as well as the practice of playing with "anti-terrorist" politics in the election year, have all more or less played the part of vicious catalyst.
Posted 27 June 2004 - 12:06 PM
By Tabassum Zakaria
And if the White House was not told that before the war, it was an intelligence failure
"Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
The book doesn't criticize Democrats or Republicans but wanted to tell the public that U.S. policies, not a hatred of the American way of life, were fueling anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.
"The last two administrations have consistently said that bin Laden and his ilk are out to rob our liberties and freedoms and democracy. And in fact that has nothing to do with what they're after"They are fighting us because of our policies and they are becoming stronger and more violent because our policies are so vastly unpopular in the Islamic world," .
Policies that generate such anger in the Muslim world include U.S. support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, support for , India, and China against their Muslim militants, and U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
The perceive of prewar threat from Baghdad to others.
"What I would argue from the bin Laden perspective was that it (the Iraq invasion) was a gift of unprecedented dimensions to Osama bin Laden," A failure on the part of the intelligence community if it did not go to the president and say that invading Iraq, with its holy places, would be seen as another affront to Muslim religious values.
The U.S. military long maintained a presence in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest site. ......
Posted 27 June 2004 - 12:34 PM
Watching the fall of Baghdad from a convoy of U.S. Marine armor last April 9, the capital seemed to explode with emotion. The war was over,
As U.S. occupiers hand more powers to a new Iraqi government Wednesday the mood could hardly feel more somber than that spring day when women showered invaders with flowers in Sadr City, a slum now renowned as a stronghold of insurgents.
In today's Baghdad, American troops raid houses in search of fighters who want to send them home in body bags. Residents who escaped Saddam's grip now live in fear of sudden death at the hands of a car bomber or a trigger-happy U.S. soldier.
The scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops at Abu Ghraib jail has deepened the sense of distrust and anger.
Between 9,000 and 11,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the invasion began, according to rights group Iraq Body Count. http://www.reuters.c...storyID=5522294
When they first came, many of us were so oppressed for so many years that we wanted anybody to come and save us from that dog Saddam,"
"Others said that if the Americans come they'll make the situation even worse and we would be even more oppressed," . "That's what happened."
So when you ask Donq; @What's the solution to Terrorism?@ ask Donq yourself the second question as well;
@ What is solution for war on resources?@
@What was first the hen or an egg?@
Posted 27 June 2004 - 02:29 PM
I think it's unfair to think that Fahrenheit suggests that voting for Kerry will be the solution. Actually it digs so deeply into the jungle that it proves our own point: No Lion No Problem!
"Never has a film so clearly demonstrated the class structure of US society and the fact that it is the poor who pay the price of protecting a system that gives them the very least, while the ruling elite enjoy the vast majority of the benefits for which they demand the poor sacrifice everything."
Fahrenheit 9-11 and the Burning of Bush
by Michael Rectenwald, CLG Founder and Honorary Chair
There's no question about it, Michael Moore's new film is an all-out assault on the Bush Regime--from its theft of the White House, to its utter implication and embroilment with the perpetrators of 9-11, its real loyalty to the oil-rich Saudi Royal Family, the Bush-bin Laden nexus in the Carlyle Group, and the complete falsity behind the march to War on Iraq. Most importantly, however, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 chronicles the fates of the victims to this series of atrocities: the victims of 9/11 and their families who demanded but were not (and still are not) able to get answers and thus closure to this event, the US citizens who lost rights and a say in our government, including its elections, the innocent Iraqis dying and being tortured in an unjust war and Occupation, the US soldiers dying and being lied to about the reasons, and the families who lost sons and daughters in Iraq, and without a real shred of justification.
Part Three: Fear and Trembling and the Patriot Act
In Bowling for Columbine, Moore illuminated brilliantly the culture of fear that feeds a system based on renunciation of citizenship in favor of an obeisant mass afraid of the boogey man. In Farenheit 9/11, this culture is altogether transformed and codified in the Patriot Act, which Moore shows was printed in the middle of the night, and passed the next day, before any in Congress had even read it. In the Patriot Act citizens lost rights to privacy and search and seizure protections all in the name of fear, while "Homeland Security" was hardly the object, given the poor protection of borders, such as the coast (and state) of Oregon. And the real objective of the act was not our protection in any case, but rather, leads us to part four.
Part Four: The Iraqi War and the Occupation
Needless to say, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, other than the ones we used and continue to use there. There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. These statements are now truisms. But anti-Bush and peace activists were saying this long ago, well before the 'discovery' of nothing. I said so myself, in numerous correspondences to rightwing war supporters, and in a speech at an anti-war rally, after the bombing had begun, but well before the "pundits" and other mouthpieces of falsity were convinced. But what Moore makes even more absurd is the attack on Iraq, when Saudi Arabia had much more to do with 9/11 than any other nation, and Iraq had nothing at all to do with it. Moore shows this clearly followed by some rare footage of the "shock and awe" bombing campaign, raids on innocent families, the trucks full of Iraqi casualties (women, children and civilian men) of the invasion and the Occupation, the casualties and mutilation of US troops, footage of prisoner torture and humiliation, and more.
Part Five: The Human Face of Tragedy
For this aspect of the film, I simply must point you to the theatre.
Go and see this film. Regardless of your party affiliation, or lack thereof, go see this film. Farenheit 9/11 may not be a 'documentary' in the (false) objectivist sense of journalism, a notion of objectivity utterly discounted even in science by the way. But it is a GREAT FILM. In fact, this film is undoubtedly the most important film of the year, and probably of the last 50 years. Never has a film so severely criticized a "sitting President." Never has a film so clearly demonstrated the class structure of US society and the fact that it is the poor who pay the price of protecting a system that gives them the very least, while the ruling elite enjoy the vast majority of the benefits for which they demand the poor sacrifice everything. Never has a film cut so deeply to the core of the US psyche in its contemporary moment. This is the film of the year, and the experience of a lifetime.
But do not rejoice in the exposure of corruption and domination that is represented here. Rather, with Michael Moore, stand up and fight back. The time is now, before it is too late.
Posted 27 June 2004 - 03:02 PM
Woj, the solution for war on resources is...to use less oi, not an easy task in America though.:confused: Here you must have the biggest possible vehicle to survive on American lawless roads. And a simple bicycle is out of limits to 99% Americans, unless you feel suicidal...
We are feeding the monster and then asking him to stop the war on resources. No! He's going to deliver the goods that you buy, because that's a basic law of the jungle. The lion wants your dollar! This is a hungry lion, not a particularly political one. Politics, religion, etc is part of the camouflage...
<What was first the hen or an egg? Do you thing that people shouldn-t resist the aggressors?
As Albright says when Amerian bombs killed children in Belgrade hospital; *Collateral damage*. Terrorism is collateral damage in war on resources.
Can one separates day from night? >
What I question is the methods they use. If they only knew how weak the lion really is, and that you only need the Truth...
Posted 27 June 2004 - 03:15 PM
"As you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." - George W. Bush, October 28, 2003
"Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum...We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation." - George W Bush, 2002.
"But as a result of evil, there's some amazing things that are taking place in America." - Daytona Beach, FL, January 30, 2002.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." - George W. Bush, Gridiron Club dinner, Washington, DC, March 2001
"This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world." (Source: The White House)
"I will seize the opportunity to achieve big goals, and we will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil" - Bush told Bob Woodward shortly after 9-11 for his book, 'Bush at War'
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." - Bush said in a meeting with Abbas
"I'm the commander, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation...." - November 21, 2002 From an interview conducted by Bob Woodward
"There will be no more protests if body bags return home."
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas. (Governing Magazine 7/98) - From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," - Bush joked. CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," Bush said. - Business Week, July 30, 2001
"Sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures." - Washington, D.C., - July 8, 2002.
"I was against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." - June 14, 2001, speaking to Swedish prime minister unaware a live television camera was still rolling.
"What's all this whining about the environment? They're always talking about "stop the clearcuts." I mean do the math people. If we were out of trees then we wouldn't have any clearcuts to be complaining about now would we?" The National Speculator, March 2000
"Please," Bush whimpers with a smirk and a falsetto voice, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me!," - Morbidly imitating Karla Fay Tucker's pleas for mercy with sadistic satisfaction. Of course her execution proceeded.
"Guess what's going to happen to these men?" he grinned at the camera... "They're going to be put to death." Bush beamed in happiness
"I think it's fine, as long as it's Christian prayers. Anything else is un-American." - Commenting on prayers at school football games
"The mission must be to fight and win war and therefore to prevent war from happening in the first place,''
"You ****ing son of a bitch. I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this." - said to Wall Street Journal columnist Al Hunt, 1986.
"There's Adam Clymer -- major league ******* -- from the New York Times," Bush said. "Yeah, big time," returned Cheney. - September 4, 2000, At a Labor Day event in Naperville, Ill.
"The best way to relieve families from time is to let them keep some of their own money."
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." - Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000, Slate
"I will look at each piece of legislation when it makes it to my desk,"
"I will review that when it makes it to my desk."
"We're supposed to have guns. It says so in the Bible; and the second greatest book ever written, the Texas State Constitution." Wyoming Weekly Journal, March 2000
"I do remain confident in Linda. She'll make a fine labor secretary. From what I've read in the press accounts, she's perfectly qualified." - on Linda Chavez, January 2001
"I would like to express my deep condolences for the loss of the Senate," Bush said shortly after hearing of Wellstone's death. - October 24, 2002
"...in order for people to give me sound advice, that information not oughta be public." - March 1, 2002, in reference to the U.S. General Accounting Office's lawsuit
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users