World News: Sep 6, 2011

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Re: Sara Palin is part of...

A trailer park is not squalor? You silly kraught! I like to see your
bank statement!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

My Proposed 9-11 Research Project

My Proposed 9-11 Research Project
Gary North
Sept. 2, 2011

On August 30, I posted an article, "World Trade Center Building 7 and Conspiracy Theories." http://www.garynorth.com/public/8431.cfm

As a trained historian, I am interested in lots of major events in history that served as national or worldwide turning points. I ask the following questions:

1. What happened?

2. How do we know what happened?

3. What led up to the event?

4. How did the government report the event?

5. How did it subsequently explain the event?

6. How did the major media handle the government's explanation?

7. Who has benefited from the event?

8. Who has benefited from the official government explanation?

9. What are the alternative explanations?

10. Who would benefit if any of them became widely accepted?

These are all legitimate questions. The toughest one to answer is #1. You might not think that this is the case, but it is.

Let's consider the collapse of the North tower, the second to collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoAa_B2kRuo&feature=player_embedded

The narrator does not notice the steel pillar. The person who edited the video added a call-out to show us what the narrator missed. The narrator was watching the falling building. He did not notice the pillar and its strange disappearance.

The pillar seems to disintegrate into dust. In any case, it does not topple. It falls straight down.

Into what?

There are extended debates over what happened to the non-New York City planes. Where is the wreckage?

Here is the problem: there is no agreement about what happened. Where there is evidence of unexplainable events, the information does not get out. Only because of video sites has this ignored information reached a small segment of the population.

AN OUTLINE OF A 9-11 PROJECT

If a rich person or organization gave me a large amount of money to investigate 9-11, what would I do with it?

First, I would hire a lawyer to see what control the donor would have over the results. If I trusted him, I would advise him to set up the funding from a trust on the Isle of Man. That is because I would assume that the results would be damaging to the U.S. government and representatives of the government on 9-11.

Second, I would hire two or three programmers skilled at creating interactive Wikipedia-type sites. These sites would be the central resources of the project.

The most important resource for comprehending 9-11 (or any other complex historical event) is the division of labor. Wikis are the chief tools of this process. Wikipedia has taught us this.

I would begin with two sites: (1) a timeline site; (2) an engineering site. I would ask for submissions on two topics: (1) when did each part of the sequence take place? (2) What could not have taken place according to physics?

I would not ask how 9-11 was organized or why. I would ask only when events happened, where they happened, and what could not possibly have happened.

Why create these two sites? To shut down rabbit trails.

If you do not know the sequence of events, you cannot explain them accurately. Second, if you know what is impossible, you limit the number of false explanations. False explanations are rabbit trails leading away from the truth.

The timeline site would have subsites: each of the four flights. But these would feed into a single vertical timeline (Eastern Daylight Time). Click any entry on a timeline -- horizontal line with an ID box -- and it takes you to an entry on a separate Wiki.

It would be a long and growing timeline. I might need more Wiki site programmers.

I would have these sites hosted in Switzerland or another neutral country that would resist interference from the U.S. government. I would have lots of backup hosts. I would have the programmers write manuals on how to create a secondary site.

Third, I would hire at least two historians noted for their expertise in historical sequencing. I would have them create videos and manuals four researchers on how to evaluate evidence regarding time. This is not an easy process. It involves the sifting of evidence. Not everything in life is time-stamped. Not everything that is time-stamped was time-stamped accurately, especially if a government agency had first dibs on the evidence. (The words "birth certificate" come to mind.)

I would then hire them to moderate the timeline site.

I would tell them to begin here

Fourth, I would hire eight experts: two jet fuel chemists, two experts on the physics of skyscrapers, two experts on flying commercial jetliners, and two experts on plane crash sites. Their initial job would be to produce manuals and videos on conducting such research.

I would hire them moderate the "what could not have happened" site.

Fifth, I would hire an expert in website marketing and email list development. I would provide a list-rental budget. His job would be to get the word out to as many interested researchers as possible. The goal is to get people volunteering.

I would start with ongoing groups of the relatives of those who died in the crashes and the towers. They want to get to the bottom of this. They have an incentive to volunteer time.

Sixth, I would hire an expert in DimDim, the software that allows large group meetings on the Internet. I would do my best to host meetings, as well as get the other experts involved in discussion forums.

CONCLUSION

Until we know what happened and in what sequence, we should not expect to discover the truth about who did it, why they did it, and why the United States government has actively suppressed certain lines of inquiry.

Therefore, I would adopt this rule: no theories on what motivated the participants. Offering theories of why events happened should be attempted only by researchers after they know what happened and when.

In the old list -- what, where, when, who, and why -- I would rule out "why."

I would also rule out any consideration of the statistical results of Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project's report on 9-11. Some things are just too far out, epistemologically speaking, even though they are measurable and refuse to go away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itQMALL__bE&feature=player_embedded

http://www.garynorth.com/public/8442.cfm

Re: Ethical Oil

On September 5, 2010, a column by Ezra Levant contained false
statements about George Soros and his conduct as a young teenager in
Nazi-occupied Hungary. ...
The management of Sun Media wishes to state that there is no basis
for the statements in the column and they should not have been made.
Sun Media, this newspaper and Ezra Levant retract the statements
made in the column and unreservedly apologize to Mr. Soros for the
distress and harm this column may have caused to him.

On Sep 5, 8:52 am, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the term Ethical Oil comes from a book by Ezra Levant.
> He has an hour long show each afternoon on the Sun News Network.
> his sense of humour and sharp whit. Makes it worth PVRing.
>
> Remember that when watching this interview with the young guy behind this
> "protest"
>
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/oil/pipeline-protests/11410...
>
> The message is simple. You can pay for your oil from dictatorships that
> support terrorist groups. And are devastating their environment.
> OR. you can get your oil from a reliable neighbour that is a liberal
> democracy.
> I should think it was a no brainer, but then just look at who were are
> talking about Air head "Celebs".
>
> The increasing anti-Semiteism on the left is very worrying to me.
>
> Bearhttp://thenaturalmember.blogspot.com/
>
> On 4 September 2011 14:57, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ** **
>
> > [image: Americans 4 OPEC] <http://ethicaloil.org/>****
>
> > * This photo is a satire****
>
> > For more than 40 years, we Americans have powered our businesses, fueled
> > our cars, and made our lives more comfortable with the help of OPEC oil.**
> > **
>
> > We think that special relationship is worth protecting.****
>
> > That's why we've started a new group to do just that: Americans4OPEC.
> > Currently, the Obama Administration is on the verge of approving a pipeline
> > that could deliver nearly a million barrels of Canada's "oil sands" oil to
> > American markets every single day, reducing US dependence on our OPEC
> > friends. Every barrel of oil we buy from Canada undermines our support for
> > our traditional OPEC allies by displacing OPEC imports. We appreciate, and
> > are grateful for the fact that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Venezuela and
> > the United Arab Emirates have kept America supplied with oil, reasonably
> > consistently, for decades. We have come to depend on our OPEC friends and
> > they have come to depend on us. The pipeline from Canada will even displace
> > new sources of OPEC oil, like Venezuela's heavy crude. That's no way to
> > treat a friend.****
>
> > Americans4OPEC was founded to let our political leaders know that we
> > cherish that special relationship.****
>
> > Unfortunately, bullying by the Canadian prime minister and the Canadian oil
> > industry, and this bizarre "ethical oil" argument that seems to imply Canada
> > is a more tolerant, open, and ethical country than our traditional allies in
> > OPEC regimes, have succeeded in getting the pipeline through several stages
> > of the U.S. government's approval process. We have to stop Keystone XL
> > before it's too late. That's why Americans4OPEC is speaking out for
> > America's best interests — telling President Obama that we don't want
> > Canada's oil. And with our partners in OPEC ready, willing and able to sell
> > us all the oil we want, we don't need the Keystone XL pipeline, either. We
> > don't need new sources of oil as long as we can continue being supplied by
> > existing sources. Join us, Americans4OPEC*, in standing up against Canada's
> > oil and standing up for our valuable, longtime OPEC allies.****
>
> > * Americans4OPEC is not a real organization, but a satire created by
> > EthicalOil.org <http://ethicaloil.org/> to highlight the choice Americans
> > now have: A choice between several more decades of dependency on OPEC's
> > conflict oil or a future built on reliable, secure, and peaceful ethical oil
> > from neighboring Canada.****
>
> > ****
> > Americans4OPEC: Blame Canada!****
>
> > September 1st, 2011 | By: Alykhan****
>
> > 1 4ShareThis5Email0****
>
> > ****
>
> > Earlier today, I snapped a few photos of Americans4OPEC, which today joined
> > the anti-Keystone XL protests outside the White House. Here's one of the
> > photos and the group's press statement. You can visit their website at
> > Americans4OPEC.com <http://americans4opec.com/>****
>
> > <http://www.ethicaloil.org/media/2011/09/IMG_1118-protest.jpg>****
>
> > Americans4OPEC statement, which is available on their website:****
>
> > "For more than 40 years, we Americans have powered our businesses, fueled
> > our cars, and made our lives more comfortable with the help of OPEC oil.**
> > **
>
> > We think that special relationship is worth protecting.****
>
> > That's why we've started a new group to do just that: Americans4OPEC.
> > Currently, the Obama Administration is on the verge of approving a pipeline
> > that could deliver nearly a million barrels of Canada's "oil sands" oil to
> > American markets every single day, reducing US dependence on our OPEC
> > friends. Every barrel of oil we buy from Canada undermines our support for
> > our traditional OPEC allies by displacing OPEC imports. We appreciate, and
> > are grateful for the fact that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Venezuela and
> > the United Arab Emirates have kept America supplied with oil, reasonably
> > consistently, for decades. We have come to depend on our OPEC friends and
> > they have come to depend on us. The pipeline from Canada will even displace
> > new sources of OPEC oil, like Venezuela's heavy crude. That's no way to
> > treat a friend.****
>
> > Americans4OPEC was founded to let our political leaders know that we
> > cherish that special relationship.****
>
> > Unfortunately, bullying by the Canadian prime minister and the Canadian oil
> > industry, and this bizarre "ethical oil" argument that seems to imply Canada
> > is a more tolerant, open, and ethical country than our traditional allies in
> > OPEC regimes, have succeeded in getting the pipeline through several stages
> > of the U.S. government's approval process. We have to stop Keystone XL
> > before it's too late. That's why Americans4OPEC is speaking out for
> > America's best interests — telling President Obama that we don't want
> > Canada's oil. And with our partners in OPEC ready, willing and able to sell
> > us all the oil we want, we don't need the Keystone XL pipeline, either. We
> > don't need new sources of oil as long as we can continue being supplied by
> > existing sources. Join us, Americans4OPEC*, in standing up against Canada's
> > oil and standing up for our valuable, longtime OPEC allies.****
>
> > * Americans4OPEC is not a real organization, but a satire created by
> > EthicalOil.org <http://ethicaloil.org/> to highlight the choice Americans
> > now have: A choice between several more decades of dependency on OPEC's
> > conflict oil or a future built on reliable, secure, and peaceful ethical oil
> > from neighboring Canada."****
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
> IMG_1118-protest-300x225.jpg
> 36KViewDownload
>
> americans4opec.jpg
> 346KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Sara Palin is part of...

when fighting rich Aryans...
---
retreat back into your 3rd world squalor and be grateful you're still
alive

On Sep 5, 3:10 pm, Stephen Stink <not4ud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A Permanent Political Ass!
> Yep, when fighting rich Aryans...it's an ass struggle! Don'tcha just
> love binky?
> Wheeeee!!!!!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Fwd:

you're either an American or something else

On Sep 6, 12:48 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------
>
> Obama tells Students: "It's true I'm not American"... " I come from KENYA" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zsQ-v7kD5Q&feature=share>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd:

---------

Obama tells Students: "It's true I'm not American"... " I come from KENYA" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zsQ-v7kD5Q&feature=share>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Why Do Republicans Want to Raise Taxes?

"... a cut in the rate of any tax -- payroll, income, sales, excise, property, or otherwise -- is always a good thing for liberty and limited government. It may be a bad thing for government revenue, but why should a fiscally conservative, limited-government, budget-cutting Republican have a problem with that?"

Why Do Republicans Want to Raise Taxes?
by Laurence M. Vance, September 6, 2011

True or false: Barack Obama wants to raise taxes and Republicans in Congress want to cut them. The surprising answer is, False. Although it can usually be said that the president never met a tax hike or spending increase he didn't like, such is not the case right now.

One does not have to be a fan of Obama or his motives to recognize a good deal for the American people and applaud him for proposing it. It seems that the president wants to extend the payroll-tax cut that is set to expire at the end of this year.

It hasn't even been a year since Republicans fought for, and obtained, an extension of the Bush tax cuts for two years. Yet now they are opposing the proposed extension of the payroll-tax cut that was part of the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts.

There are two types of payroll taxes: Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes.

Social Security taxes were instituted in 1937 as part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The original rate was 2 percent. Then, as now, half the tax is paid by the employer and half the tax is paid by the employee. By 1960, the rate had tripled. Since 1990, it has been 12.4 percent. Social Security taxes were originally levied only on the first $3,000 of yearly income. That threshold is now up to $106,800. That means that the maximum amount one could conceivably pay in Social Security taxes for one year is $6,621.60, with one's employer paying the same amount.

Payroll-tax deductions for Medicare were instituted in 1966. The original rate was .7 percent, again, divided between employer and employee. Since 1986, the rate has been 2.9 percent. After 1993, the taxable threshold was eliminated. Thus, unlike Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes are levied on every dollar of earnings.

The Bush tax-cut extension that was enacted last year included a reduction in the employee's share of Social Security tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. The employer's share remains the same. A cut in the Medicare tax rate was not included.

A reduction in the Social Security tax rate greatly benefits those who need it most the poor and middle class. But unlike a refundable tax credit, the extra 2 percent of their income that Americans are now allowed to keep in their pocket and out of the hands of the government is not a subsidy or income transfer payment it is their money.

In one of his recent weekend radio addresses, Obama proposed extending the temporary payroll-tax cut: "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend."

Yet Republicans in Congress generally oppose extending the cut in Social Security taxes.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said that "all tax relief is not created equal." He maintains that Cantor believes "there are better ways to grow the economy and create jobs than temporary payroll-tax relief." House budget guru Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) termed the tax-cut extension "sugar-high economics." The office of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (the committee that writes the tax laws), David Camp (R-Mich.), who is also a member of the new congressional "supercommittee," issued a statement saying that tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will increase the deficit.

Over in the Senate, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) objected as well: "We don't need short-term gestures. We need long-term fundamental changes in our tax structure and our regulatory structure that people who create jobs can rely on."

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) also opposes extending the temporary payroll-tax cut. Candidate Mitt Romney said that he "would prefer to see the payroll-tax cut on the employer side."

Why do Republicans want to raise taxes?

Can it be that their reputation as tax cutters is not so deserved? The only Republican in Congress that I am aware of who has called for the complete elimination of the income tax and not replacing it with anything is Ron Paul. And the same goes for the Republican presidential candidates. After all, it was under Republican idol Ronald Reagan that Social Security tax rates increased from 10.16 to 12.12 percent and Medicare tax rates increased from 2.1 to 2.9 percent.

For Republicans to claim that the payroll tax cut extension should be rejected because it is shortsighted or will increase the deficit is ludicrous, considering that only last year they fought for an equally shortsighted and deficit-increasing measure -- the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

But letting the Social Security tax-rate cut expire is not the only way that Republicans are willing to effectively raise taxes. Out of one side of their mouths they are saying that they will not vote to raise taxes, but out of the other side they are talking about closing tax loopholes, ending tax shelters, and reforming tax deductions and credits. Those measures raise taxes as surely as a rate increase, but they allow the Republicans to pose as being for tax and budget cuts.

Regardless of the president's ulterior motives, his other horrible policies, his plans to increase income taxes on the "rich," his nanny-state philosophy of government, his poor understanding of economics, and his belief in the redistribution of wealth, a cut in the rate of any tax -- payroll, income, sales, excise, property, or otherwise -- is always a good thing for liberty and limited government. It may be a bad thing for government revenue, but why should a fiscally conservative, limited-government, budget-cutting Republican have a problem with that?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1109e.asp

Re: The lie that began the endless war on Iraq

Just in case you haven't seen it, I post it for the hundreth time....
please read the summaries at the end of each section.
They say your letter is a crock.

Senate intelligence report on Iraq...full and un-abridged version.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

On Sep 6, 8:13 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just in case you might not have seen it, I post it once again:
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just off the top of my head, here's a couple:
>
> >http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-urani...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:55 PM, plainolamerican <
> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> .....Just revisionist historians with agenda
> >> ----
> >> no, just historical facts
>
> >>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
>
> >> the US interventionist policy is a complete failure and gets American
> >> soldiers needlessly killed
>
> >> U.S. imperialism in the Middle East has always been primarily
> >> responsible for upholding backward, dictatorial regimes that, without
> >> its help, would have been overthrown long ago. Middle East specialist
> >> Dilip Hiro spelled it out: "It is much simpler to manipulate a few
> >> ruling families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil
> >> prices remain low) than a wide variety of personalities and policies
> >> bound to be thrown up by a democratic system." But such brutality
> >> always provokes a reaction--as the new Intifada shows. "If history is
> >> any guide," writes Michael Hudson, "hegemony by the United States or
> >> any other party in the Middle East tends to produce resistance." That
> >> resistance is back--not just in the Intifada in Palestine, but in the
> >> large sympathy demonstrations throughout the region.
> >> U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil
> >> By Paul D'Amato
> >> 1991
>
> >> On Sep 5, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > The problem is with Paul's theory, is that there is no lie......Just
> >> > revisionist historians with agenda, (*e.g*.: "Isolationism") like
> >> Paul.
>
> >> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:03 AM, plainolamerican
> >> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> > > the lies that keep the US military in the middle east never end
>
> >> > > we know who is telling the lies and who they represent
>
> >> > > some don't forget
>
> >> > > On Sep 4, 7:26 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >> > > > The lie that began the endless war on IraqSeptember 4, 2011
> >> byJeffrey
> >> > > Tucker
> >> > > > Wikileaks confirms everything.
> >> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKEnwhcScg&feature=player_embedded
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
> Iraq_WMD_Declassified[1].pdf
> 176KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The lie that began the endless war on Iraq

And that yellow cake was there BEFORE any hostilities with either
Bush. It was accounted for to the gram. Gee if they had this just why
were they buying from Nigeria??

And your second "proof" predates BOTH Bush wars.

Neither counts as to "Proof" for anything leading or cited as reasons
for Bush jr. to attack.....

On Sep 6, 8:10 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just off the top of my head, here's a couple:
>
> http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-urani...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:55 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > .....Just revisionist historians with agenda
> > ----
> > no, just historical facts
>
> >http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
>
> > the US interventionist policy is a complete failure and gets American
> > soldiers needlessly killed
>
> > U.S. imperialism in the Middle East has always been primarily
> > responsible for upholding backward, dictatorial regimes that, without
> > its help, would have been overthrown long ago. Middle East specialist
> > Dilip Hiro spelled it out: "It is much simpler to manipulate a few
> > ruling families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil
> > prices remain low) than a wide variety of personalities and policies
> > bound to be thrown up by a democratic system." But such brutality
> > always provokes a reaction--as the new Intifada shows. "If history is
> > any guide," writes Michael Hudson, "hegemony by the United States or
> > any other party in the Middle East tends to produce resistance." That
> > resistance is back--not just in the Intifada in Palestine, but in the
> > large sympathy demonstrations throughout the region.
> > U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil
> > By Paul D'Amato
> > 1991
>
> > On Sep 5, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The problem is with Paul's theory, is that there is no lie......Just
> > > revisionist historians with agenda, (*e.g*.: "Isolationism") like Paul.
>
> > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:03 AM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > the lies that keep the US military in the middle east never end
>
> > > > we know who is telling the lies and who they represent
>
> > > > some don't forget
>
> > > > On Sep 4, 7:26 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > The lie that began the endless war on IraqSeptember 4, 2011 byJeffrey
> > > > Tucker
> > > > > Wikileaks confirms everything.
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKEnwhcScg&feature=player_embedded
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
> Iraq_WMD_Declassified[1].pdf
> 176KViewDownload
>
> FunAndGamesInHalabjaIraq....NoThreatsHere.....jpg
> 164KViewDownload
>
> halabja1.jpg
> 44KViewDownload
>
> halabja2_.gif
> 95KViewDownload
>
> SaddamChemicalAttackOn.Halabja.jpg
> 306KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

JP Fwd: نہایت احسان کرنے والا / نعت رسول مقبول

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Imran Junani <imranjunani9@hotmail.com>
Date: 2011/9/6
Subject: نہایت احسان کرنے والا / نعت رسول مقبول
To: Imran GMail <imranjunani@gmail.com>

نعت رسول مقبول

حضورِ اقدس، شافعِ محشر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

چہرۀ انور چاند سے بڑھ کر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

دندان مبارک موتی موتی، سرمگیں آنکھیں روشن روشن

قاسمِ حکمت لسانِ اطہر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

آسِ غریباں، صبحِ یتامیٰ، مثلِ شجرِ سایہ دار

محسن اعظم، ساقئ کوثر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

عالی نسب، مخبرِ صادق، پدرِ فاطمہ، ابوالقاسم

محبوبِ الٰہی، داعئ اکبر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

دریاۓ سخاوت، بحرِ حکمت، قطرہ قطرہ گوہر گوہر

روشن روشن قلبِ معطر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

آقا میرے کملی والے تشنہ لبی دامن سے بجھا دیں

پاس ہوں آپ سے دور میں رہ کر صلَّی اللهُ علیھِ وسَلَّم

{عمران جونانی}
--

Subscribe your email id to get

Informative Valuable Mails on Daily Basis

by Sending blank emial

subjected "Subscribe Me" To imranjunani@gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Re: 10 years, two wars, over a million dead....

10 years, two wars, over a million dead....
---
and the US interventionist policy is still a complete failure and
still getting our soldiers killed.

When will this insanity stop?

Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its
ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to
reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to
accomplish these objectives. Compared with other U.S. conservatives,
neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere
less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of
minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the
welfare state. According to Norman Podhoretz,
" "the neo-conservatives dissociated themselves from the wholesale
opposition to the welfare state which had marked American conservatism
since the days of the New Deal" and . . . while neoconservatives
supported "setting certain limits" to the welfare state, those limits
did not involve "issues of principle, such as the legitimate size and
role of the central government in the American constitutional order"
but were to be "determined by practical considerations."[61] "

Aggressive support for democracies and nation building is additionally
justified by a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the
extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism.
Neoconservatives, along with many other political theorists[citation
needed], have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to
instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of
government. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of
economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in
authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently,
neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the
world where it currently does not prevail, notably the Arab nations of
the Middle East, communist China and North Korea, and Iran.

In July 2008 Joe Klein wrote in TIME magazine that today's
neoconservatives are more interested in confronting enemies than in
cultivating friends. He questioned the sincerity of neoconservative
interest in exporting democracy and freedom, saying, "Neoconservatism
in foreign policy is best described as unilateral bellicosity cloaked
in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy."[62]

In February 2009 Andrew Sullivan wrote he no longer took
neoconservatism seriously because its basic tenet was defense of
Israel:[63]

The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism,
in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements
in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country
who disagrees with the Israeli right. That's the conclusion I've been
forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt
exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been
slowly forced into... But America is not Israel. And once that
distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.

Neoconservatives respond to charges of merely rationalizing support
for Israel by noting that their "position on the Middle East conflict
was exactly congruous with the neoconservative position on conflicts
everywhere else in the world, including places where neither Jews nor
Israeli interests could be found.

On Sep 3, 9:33 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and the US is still reeling from 9/11.
>
> Neither of the governments of the two countries the US has attacked
> has been proven to support the 9/11 attackers.
>
> The countries whose banks and militaries did send training and the
> money to AQ and others still remain untouched and actually guarded.
>
> The poppy fields that are the one consistent source of finance for
> terrorist organisations remain untouched and protected by US executive
> mandate.
>
> The attacks have succeeded ............ the US is broke.... it is the
> Soviet years in Afghanistan in reverse with the US wall falling this
> time. GET A CLUE !!!!!!!!
>
> When will the US learn to think beyond the length of its ever
> shortening penis?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

JP Quran and Hadith

--

Best regards,

Imran Ilyas
Dubai
Cell: 00971509483403

Re: Grand Old Peaceniks

great response!

we're on the same page

I don't have a problem with zionists either ... as long as their
belief in jewish myths doesn't effect US ME policy.

On Sep 6, 8:43 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey PlainOl'!
>
> As we have discussed previously, I have no problem with Zionism. None,
> nada. If Jews (or anyone for that matter) want to go prop up in the
> desert, more power to them.
>
> My concerns are similar to yours however. I want the allegiance question
> resolved with anyone who chooses to "Zionate". We cannot have politicians
> (or anyone for that matter) put the welfare of Israel ahead of this
> Nation's interests, and we have seen this happen before, (*See* The Senator
> From Tel Aviv, Joe Liebermann)
>
> I do believe that Israel is an ally of the United States, and should be
> treated accordingly. There is a distinction between placing Israel's
> interests ahead of our own. Just as important, it troubles me that we can
> support some of Israel's policies, when they are clearly in conflict with
> our own interests.
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:01 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > that you won't accept that the US interventionist policy is a complete
> > failure and supports israel is evidence that you just might be a
> > zionist
> > how's that working for ya?
> > ever had a zionist minister preside over a dead relative who served in
> > the middle east?
>
> > On Sep 5, 9:30 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:09 AM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > neoconservatives remain a large part of the foreign-policy
> > > > establishment that will wind up staffing any future Republican
> > > > administration
> > > > ---
> > > > Neoconservatism is better described in general as a complex
> > > > interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish
> > > > publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies
> > > > of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the
> > > > United States in the service of Israel. As such, neoconservatism
> > > > should be considered a semicovert branch of the massive and highly
> > > > effective pro-Israel lobby, which includes organizations like the
> > > > America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the most powerful
> > > > lobbying group in Washington—and the Zionist Organization of America
> > > > (ZOA). Indeed, as discussed below, prominent neoconservatives have
> > > > been associated with such overtly pro-Israel organizations as the
> > > > Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Washington
> > > > Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and ZOA.
>
> > > > On Sep 4, 6:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > Grand Old PeaceniksWill austerity turn Republicans away from war?By
> > W.
> > > > James Antle III | August 31, 2011
> > > > > Fairly or not, Mitt Romney's approach to national security during the
> > > > 2008 presidential race can be captured by a single phrase: "Double
> > > > Guantanamo." When asked about the U.S. prison camp for terror suspects,
> > the
> > > > eager-to-please former Massachusetts governor's first instinct was to
> > > > propose super-sizing it like a McDonald's value meal for hungry
> > Republican
> > > > primary voters.
> > > > > That was when Romney was trying to compete with John McCain and Rudy
> > > > Giuliani, both more natural national-security hawks than he. But even
> > as he
> > > > launched his second campaign in 2010 with the release of his bookNo
> > Apology:
> > > > The Case for American Greatness, Romney endorsed in its pages what
> > William
> > > > Kristol and Robert Kagan described in a 1996Foreign Affairsessay as
> > > > "benevolent global hegemony"the idea that if the United States is not
> > the
> > > > world's dominant military and ideological power, the void will be
> > filled by
> > > > countries advancing values that are much worse for peace and human
> > freedom.
> > > > > So it was surprising when at a June GOP candidates' debate in New
> > > > Hampshire, Romney said of the war in Afghanistan, "It's time for to us
> > bring
> > > > our troops home as soon as we possibly can." With this pale imitation
> > of
> > > > "Come home, America," Romney found himself drawn into a critique by his
> > > > former rival McCain and other hawks that the Republican Party was
> > becoming
> > > > too "isolationist."
> > > > > "There's always been an isolation strain in the Republican Party,
> > that
> > > > Pat Buchanan wing of our party," McCain lamented, irritated by
> > Republican
> > > > diffidence over Afghanistan and Libya. "But now it seems to have moved
> > more
> > > > center stage, so to speak."
> > > > > McCain's ally, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham,
> > concurred.
> > > > He worried to theHillthat it "doesn't take long before the [GOP] finds
> > a
> > > > war-weary nation and exploits it." He fretted about an alliance between
> > Ron
> > > > Paul on the "far right" and Dennis Kucinich on the "far left," though
> > he was
> > > > apparently unbothered by a left-right interventionist coalition
> > consisting
> > > > of himself, McCain, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.
> > > > > Some of this was overblown, even by McCain and Graham's
> > > > characteristically elastic definition of isolationism. TheWeekly
> > Standard's
> > > > Stephen Hayes admitted on Fox News that Romney's mild Afghanistan
> > comment
> > > > "had Republican hawks, policy analysts emailing one another, what does
> > he
> > > > mean? Is he calling for immediate withdrawal?" But Hayes reassured
> > viewers
> > > > at home, "I talked to people who are familiar with his thinking. And
> > they
> > > > said no, look, he misspoke. That's not what he intended to say."
> > > > > TheWashington Post's Jennifer Rubin, quick to spy "unseriousness" in
> > the
> > > > form of incipient dovishness upon the part of Republican aspirantslike
> > such
> > > > notorious McGovernites as Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbourabsolved
> > Romney of
> > > > any foreign-policy heterodoxy. While Rubin was initially concerned that
> > "the
> > > > entire GOP field was now hopping on the isolationist bandwagon in some
> > odd
> > > > attempt to scrounge votes from the Ron Paul contingent," Romney and Tim
> > > > Pawlenty ultimately passed her "strong foreign policy" test. (As later
> > did
> > > > Michele Bachmann, who "firmly planted herself at the grown-ups' table"
> > by
> > > > telling theWeekly Standardwe must "stay the course" in Afghanistan.)
> > > > > Pawlenty had taken to lecturing the rest of the Republican field
> > about
> > > > their disturbing "move more towards isolationism," as he toldPolitico.
> > > > Meanwhile, Romney foreign-policy adviser Mitchell Reiss was quick to
> > tell
> > > > Rubin that Romney felt the United States was "under-investing" in
> > national
> > > > defense.
> > > > > It is nevertheless significant that Romney, his finger ever in search
> > of
> > > > the primary voter's pulse, has had to defend himself against the charge
> > of
> > > > isolationism. Much of his double-Gitmo chest-beating last time around
> > was
> > > > overcompensating for the perception that he wasn't as gung-ho as the
> > other
> > > > candidates for George W. Bush's foreign policy. At the time,
> > conservative
> > > > journalist David Freddoso pointed out that Romney "is unique among the
> > > > serious Republican presidential contenders because he has never said he
> > > > would do [the Iraq War] all over again, and they all have."
> > > > > In one debate, Romney twice refused to answer when asked if the Iraq
> > > > invasion was a mistake. He called the question "an unreasonable
> > > > hypothetical," a "non-sequitur," and even a "null set," as if it simply
> > did
> > > > not compute. At another debate he drew McCain's harsh rebuke for saying
> > the
> > > > surge was "apparently" working. "Governor, the surge is working,"
> > McCain
> > > > snarled. When Romney protested that was what he had just said, McCain
> > shot
> > > > back, "Not apparently. It's working."
> > > > > In theNew Republic, Eli Lake has reported that Romney's
> > foreign-policy
> > > > advisers are divided. Lake described Reisswho ironically was the man
> > > > dispatched to convince Jennifer Rubin of Romney's hawkishnessas a surge
> > > > skeptic, while Dan Senor, a former spokesman for the Coalition
> > Provisional
> > > > Authority in Iraq who later sent a distress signal to Republican hawks
> > about
> > > > the dovishness of senate candidate Rand Paul, was pro-surge. Reiss and
> > Senor
> > > > still advise Romney today and are similarly at odds over Afghanistan.
> > > > > Yet Reiss's doubts about Hamid Karzai's Afghan government are a far
> > cry
> > > > from mythical isolationism, or even real-world non-interventionism.
> > Other
> > > > than Ron Paul and fellow libertarian Gary Johnson, Jon Huntsman is the
> > only
> > > > Republican presidential candidate who has come close to calling for a
> > > > fundamental reevaluation of American foreign policy. But as Lake notes,
> > "the
> > > > penny-pinching mood among Republicans" has made GOP leaders "less
> > inclined
> > > > to sound the kinds of grandiose and expensive notes about foreign
> > policy
> > > > that were considered par for the course in 2008."
> > > > > Nowhere was that clearer than in this summer's debt-ceiling battle.
> > In
> > > > their eagerness to identify spending reductions that would offset an
> > > > increase in the federal debt limit, congressional Republican leaders
> > were
> > > > willing to put the Pentagon on the chopping block. House Budget
> > Committee
> > > > Chairman Paul Ryan had long been a skeptic of trimming the defense
> > budget,
> > > > preferring to reinvest any savings from eliminating waste or from
> > > > procurement reform in other military expenditures. But Ryan included
> > former
> > > > Defense Secretary Robert Gates's requested defense cuts in the official
> > > > Republican budget for fiscal 2012, reinvesting some of the savings and
> > > > applying the rest to deficit reduction.
> > > > > The eventual debt ceiling compromisewhich passed the House with more
> > > > Republican than Democratic votescaps security spending at $684 billion,
> > > > about $4.5 billion below the
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The lie that began the endless war on Iraq

yellowcake was a Feith/Ledeen lie that cost Powell a great career and
possibly the presidency

and mustard gas is hardly considered a chemical weapon these days

back to the point:
the US interventionist policy is a complete failure and a waste of US
tax dollars and soldiers lives

so, we disagree ... Have A Great Day!

On Sep 6, 9:10 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just off the top of my head, here's a couple:
>
> http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-urani...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:55 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > .....Just revisionist historians with agenda
> > ----
> > no, just historical facts
>
> >http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
>
> > the US interventionist policy is a complete failure and gets American
> > soldiers needlessly killed
>
> > U.S. imperialism in the Middle East has always been primarily
> > responsible for upholding backward, dictatorial regimes that, without
> > its help, would have been overthrown long ago. Middle East specialist
> > Dilip Hiro spelled it out: "It is much simpler to manipulate a few
> > ruling families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil
> > prices remain low) than a wide variety of personalities and policies
> > bound to be thrown up by a democratic system." But such brutality
> > always provokes a reaction--as the new Intifada shows. "If history is
> > any guide," writes Michael Hudson, "hegemony by the United States or
> > any other party in the Middle East tends to produce resistance." That
> > resistance is back--not just in the Intifada in Palestine, but in the
> > large sympathy demonstrations throughout the region.
> > U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil
> > By Paul D'Amato
> > 1991
>
> > On Sep 5, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The problem is with Paul's theory, is that there is no lie......Just
> > > revisionist historians with agenda, (*e.g*.: "Isolationism") like Paul.
>
> > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:03 AM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > the lies that keep the US military in the middle east never end
>
> > > > we know who is telling the lies and who they represent
>
> > > > some don't forget
>
> > > > On Sep 4, 7:26 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > The lie that began the endless war on IraqSeptember 4, 2011 byJeffrey
> > > > Tucker
> > > > > Wikileaks confirms everything.
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKEnwhcScg&feature=player_embedded
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
> Iraq_WMD_Declassified[1].pdf
> 176KViewDownload
>
> FunAndGamesInHalabjaIraq....NoThreatsHere.....jpg
> 164KViewDownload
>
> halabja1.jpg
> 44KViewDownload
>
> halabja2_.gif
> 95KViewDownload
>
> SaddamChemicalAttackOn.Halabja.jpg
> 306KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

MUSLIM ASSLIFTERS fouling the air at the end of Ramadan using OUR national monuments, stadiums, and other public arenas

barenakedislam | September 5, 2011 at 9:38 PM | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-zee

Why do muslims have to pray for our deaths in public places? Don't they have enough of their own Goddamn mosques in this country? You can blame the Muslim in the White House for this middle finger to all non-muslims. Here are just a few examples of this horror: US CAPITOL BUILDING, WASHINGTON DC ILLINOIS [...]

Perry Used To Be a Democrat

Perry Used To Be a Democrat
Posted on September 6, 2011 by LHR Jr.

HuffPo on the RP campaign's new 60-second attack ad, which is to be run extensively in IA and NH, and on the web.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUHlIPJTMIg&feature=player_embedded #!

New Ice Cream Flavor!

cid:3A3B9F93C44647EE886F4BC6900B0451@mckeown

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor:

"Barocky Road"

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate,

And surrounded by nuts and flakes.

The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient.

The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.

The cost is $82.84 per scoop...

.so out of a hundred dollar bill you are at least promised some CHANGE..!

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone,

But after you pay for it,

The ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you at no charge.

You are left with an empty wallet,

Holding an empty cone with no hope of getting any ice cream.

Are you stimulated?

Brand New Obama 2012 Bumper Sticker

Scotty Starnes | September 6, 2011 at 8:38 AM | Tags: 2012, bumper sticker, President Obama | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5N8

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

Bachmann on Dictators and Socialized Medicine

Bachmann on Dictators and Socialized Medicine
Posted by Laurence Vance on September 6, 2011 07:19 AM

Michele Bachmann, when recently speaking in South Carolina about the requirement in Obama's health care bill that mandates Americans purchase health insurance, said that the federal government "will become a dictator over our lives." Is that so? But what about the federal government mandating that you cannot buy, sell, possess, and smoke marijuanaa plant? I guess the federal government is not a dictator over our lives when it tells us what we can and can't buy, sell, possess, and smoke? Bachmann, like all the major Republican Party presidential candidates (except Ron Paul), believes in selective liberty; that is, the government, including a government controlled by Republicans, should select certain liberties that Americans are allowed to have.

When Bachmann comes out for full legalization of drugs and raw milk then I will cut her some slack. But she will then still be a horrible warmonger, and still unworthy of support.

She also said this about the same subject: "This is the foundation for socialized medicine." No, Michele, the foundation for socialized medicine is Medicare, which Republicans have supported for years, expanded under George Bush, and currently want to save.

9/11 Blowback

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor
9/11 Blowback
By H.D.S. GREENWAY
Published: September 1, 2011

Historians will label the events of that September morning 10 years ago as the most destructive act of terrorism ever committed up to that time. But I suspect they will also judge America's last decade as one of history's worst overreactions.

Of course overreaction is what terrorists hope to provoke. If judged by that standard, 9/11 was also one of history's most successful terrorist acts, dragging the United States into two as yet unresolved wars, draining the treasury of $1 trillion and climbing, as well as damaging America's power and prestige. These wars have empowered our enemies and hurt our friendships, and have almost certainly generated more terrorists than they have killed.

Like other victims of terrorism, the United States believed that somehow the answer could be found in brute force. But ideas seldom yield to force, and militant Islam is an idea. The result has been the militarization of U.S. foreign policy.

The brief war to topple the Taliban and rid Afghanistan of Osama bin Laden was admirably executed, using air power, Northern Alliance allies, and a few C.I.A. agents on horseback to achieve a specific goal. The failure to nab Bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, to let them escape from Tora Bora where they were cornered, was a spectacular failure.

Our 10-year occupation, and our off-and-on-again attempts at nation building, have been a disaster. At first Afghanistan was starved for resources, taking a back seat to the ill-planned, and ill-advised attack on Iraq. When, at last, Afghanistan became a priority, the moment for success had already passed.

Today the Afghan war has morphed into a war against the Pashtuns perhaps the most war-like people on earth, whom two great empires before us, the Russian and the British, failed to subdue. One could not possibly find a worse place to fight, or a less likely people on whom to impose our will. The Pashtun tribes have risen to the call of Jihad for centuries, and their prowess at battling foreigners is unmatched.

Despite a heavy propaganda campaign to suggest otherwise, the subjugation of the Taliban has been a failure. Counterinsurgency protecting the people and winning their support never really got off the ground. Our strategy seems to be that if we can only kill enough Pashtuns somehow they will agree to surrender.

It is true that the Pashtun tribes and clans have traditionally been willing to switch allegiances when the incentives were sufficiently attractive, so the idea of winning over some groups who are now fighting against us was not totally out of the question.

But so far it has simply not worked, and General David Petraeus fell into the trap into which so many generals before him have fallen: He believed that what he learned in one war, the Iraq war, could be replicated in the next: Afghanistan.

Our British allies made the same mistake, believing that what had succeeded in bringing peace to Northern Ireland could apply to Afghanistan.

As for Iraq, if ever there was an intellectuals' war, it was Iraq. Neoconservative theorists, who knew nothing about Iraq , believed that the transformational power of democracy could change the Middle East make Arabs more like Americans.

But what happened was that Iraq became more like the Middle East, and, although violence has slowed, it has by no means been brought to any semblance of normalcy. None of the underlying questions, the balance of power between Sunnis and Shiites, what should be the relations of Kurdistan to the rest of the country, have been settled.

In the meantime, the Iraq war has greatly empowered Iran, and the reaction of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in backing Syria's Bashir al-Assad at Iran's bidding speaks for itself.

The Bush-Cheney years saw a remarkable abrogation of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, and the descent into torture showed how easily fear can bring even a modern democracy over to the dark side.

Although Al Qaeda was remarkably successful at linking together so many of the Muslim world's pockets of grievances, mastering the techniques of the Internet, the fact of the matter is that most Muslims would rather not live under the extreme Wahhabism that Al Qaeda preachs. Bin Laden's ideas about his faith were to Islam what Pol Pot's were to socialism.

But the sad and counterproductive rise of anti-Muslim attitudes in both Europe and the United States since 9/11 testify that Bin Laden was not entirely unsuccessful in driving a wedge between the Islamic world and the West.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on September 2, 2011, in The International Herald Tribune with the headline: 9/11 Blowback.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/opinion/02iht-edgreenway02.html?_r=1

Re: The lie that began the endless war on Iraq

Just in case you might not have seen it, I post it once again:

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

Just off the top of my head, here's a couple:

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-uranium-cameco?_s=PM:US

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

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 11:55 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

.....Just revisionist historians with agenda

----
no, just historical facts

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

the US interventionist policy is a complete failure and gets American
soldiers needlessly killed

U.S. imperialism in the Middle East has always been primarily
responsible for upholding backward, dictatorial regimes that, without
its help, would have been overthrown long ago. Middle East specialist
Dilip Hiro spelled it out: "It is much simpler to manipulate a few
ruling families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil
prices remain low) than a wide variety of personalities and policies
bound to be thrown up by a democratic system." But such brutality
always provokes a reaction--as the new Intifada shows. "If history is
any guide," writes Michael Hudson, "hegemony by the United States or
any other party in the Middle East tends to produce resistance." That
resistance is back--not just in the Intifada in Palestine, but in the
large sympathy demonstrations throughout the region.
U.S. Intervention in the Middle East: Blood for Oil
By Paul D'Amato
1991

On Sep 5, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem is with Paul's theory, is that there is no lie......Just
> revisionist historians with agenda, (*e.g*.: "Isolationism") like Paul.
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:03 AM, plainolamerican

> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the lies that keep the US military in the middle east never end
>
> > we know who is telling the lies and who they represent
>
> > some don't forget
>
> > On Sep 4, 7:26 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > The lie that began the endless war on IraqSeptember 4, 2011 byJeffrey
> > Tucker
> > > Wikileaks confirms everything.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKEnwhcScg&feature=player_embedded
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/

> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.