There has been a lot of debate about the causes of terrorism. There have been threads here talking about it. Is the US merely a victim of jelousy, a target for the have-nots to blame? Do we have any responsibility for the hatred aimed at American policy and Americans or is this unwarranted and coming out of left field? Are you of the opinion that we, as a nation, should examine our priorities and change course, or are you happy with the status quo? The following interview addresses those concerns and our ultimate loss of freedom. Take a look and really think about it. I believe we live in a world of cause and effect. What do you think?

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/33/features-cooper.php

Nobody deserves to be terrorized for any reason, but it happens. I can't say I always agree with the US military's descision to step into every situation that we do, but the US overall sticks up for people who are often out numbered or dont have the ability to defend themselves. Lots of countries will just stand neutral with the ,"if it dosnt directly effect us then lets just sit tight." philosophy. Its important for good people with military capability to stick up for the good people who do not have military capability. If you turn your back on evil, it will spread like a cancer and eventually the cancer will grow and destroy all that is good. So its in everybody's best interest, who are peacefull and good, to be there for the other good people who are being threatened by selfish violent groups or nations that are only out to gain by taking advantage of others. Im proud to live in a country that sticks up for justice to the best of our ability. The USA is not perfect but this country does a lot to help others in need, more so than any country I know of.
Im proud to be an American.

Garbru

Do you feel that using American tax dollars and military might to further the agenda of, say, Unocal, furthers the agenda of human rights and the betterment of the defenseless? Is the corporate agenda the same as your own wish to help those under oppression?

>Is the corporate agenda the same as your own
>wish to help those under oppression?

Well I cant speak for all of corporate America, but if your legally doing buisness in the USA, like it or not, you have to pay taxes, and a portion of those tax dollars are going toward US military. So weather or not corprate America wants to, they are going to contribute toward our military actions. Thats basically it, corporations in the US can contribute(pay taxes,vote, etc) or leave. If they try to stay and not contribute their will be penalties.

Garbru

I'm not asking what taxes they (corporations) pay. Do you think their agenda is your agenda? Do you know what their agenda is? Do you think their agenda has anything, at all, to do with YOUR freedom? Might it be possible that they don't just contribute to the military and government, like you and I, but that they control it, for their own benefit and no one elses? Americans are always ready to defend the underdog and the oppressed, AS DEFINED BY THE CORPORATE OWNED MEDIA. A good example is the fight against Hitler. Why if we are so concerned about human rights, do we not go to war with China? Or North Korea or any number of brutal, totalitarian dictatorships? Why are we so chummy with China? Could cheap labor and the interests of corporations have anything to do with it?
What about Pol Pot, the butcher of Cambodia? Those people relly needed help against that monster but, alas, he was our ally. I guess doing the right thing didn't matter for them. What I'm saying is, I doubt that what matters to you, matters to the military/industrial/corporate complex. Did you read what Gore Vidal had to say? Do you think he raised any valid points?


>Well I cant speak for all of corporate America, but if your
>legally doing buisness in the USA, like it or not, you have
>to pay taxes, and a portion of those tax dollars are going
>toward US military. So weather or not corprate America
>wants to, they are going to contribute toward our military
>actions.

The military does not make the decisions on where and where not to "step in". Your elected leaders make those decisions.

As for terrorists, the reality is that terrorists (leadership) are no different than any other criminals. They do what they do for power and money, and they manipulate people to accomplish their goals.

>The military does not make the decisions on where and where
>not to "step in". Your elected leaders make those decisions.
>
That is true. But basically "the leaders" work together with military advisors and military inteligence to decide what is best. Pretty much the "Leaders" are a part of the military.

Garbru

Sorry, but you are completely off-base.

I don't think so. If anything the politicians can't rest until they find some way to suck the military into their schemes. I think the politicians would stop at nothing to create a need for military action to get their own ends.

Dishonest, conniving, lying manipulators. No wonder Colin Powell is disgusted with them all.

Al, my answer was for #8

Don't ya think that the military industrial complex also wants in on the action? I'm not talking about soldiers, here. I'm talking the Pentagon, DoD, defense contractors, etc. There's a lot of money to be made in the war biz, no?


>I don't think so. If anything the politicians can't rest
>until they find some way to suck the military into their
>schemes. I think the politicians would stop at nothing to
>create a need for military action to get their own ends.
>
>Dishonest, conniving, lying manipulators. No wonder Colin
>Powell is disgusted with them all.
>
>Al, my answer was for #8

A lot more to be made in the peace biz...

"The military industrial complex". Now where have I heard that before? Oh Yeah....from every communistic sputtering yoyo from Hanoi Jane to Gore Vidal.....To quote another great American, "Why can't we all just get along"?

Not to forget President Dwight D Eisenhower who in 1961 was concerned enough to say:-

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

I haden't gotten to your reply on that one, so I was redundant in naming that same famous communist. Thank you for the quote.

Yeah, and that pinko-commie, Dwight Eisenhower. I think he coined the phrase.



>"The military industrial complex". Now where have I heard
>that before? Oh Yeah....from every communistic sputtering
>yoyo from Hanoi Jane to Gore Vidal.....To quote another
>great American, "Why can't we all just get along"?

>As for terrorists, the reality is that terrorists
>(leadership) are no different than any other criminals. They
>do what they do for power and money, and they manipulate
>people to accomplish their goals.

So what's the difference between a terrorist and a politician?

Not much, Brett. The only key difference is that terrorists target and kill civilians as a matter of policy.

Hello there, Al. I knew I'd see you here. I agree that the military doesn't make those calls. Politicians do, and who pulls their strings?

Voters. It's a Republic, remember?

And you don't believe that politicians manipulate voters?

Insert text here

And, not to mention the stranglehold that the Democrats and Republicans have on access to the ballot box and media. Ask Pat Buchanan.

>Nobody deserves to be terrorized for any reason, but it
>happens. I can't say I always agree with the US military's
>descision to step into every situation that we do, but the
>US overall sticks up for people who are often out numbered
>or dont have the ability to defend themselves. Lots of
>countries will just stand neutral with the ,"if it dosnt
>directly effect us then lets just sit tight." philosophy.

Total and utter BS! How do you equate the propsed attack on Iraq (against the wishes of the international community) as "sticking up for the good guy"? If such noble intentions were indeed the motivation behind US military involvement, why is the US not taking action to liberate, for example, Tibet? Why do you think that the US is proposing action against Iraq and not Saudi Arabia (the latter being a far more extremist regime and home to the Wahabbi sect which gave rise to OBL)? Why not Syria? Libya? Iran? All of which are harsh and oppressive regimes which have little fondness for the West.

The US vehemently condemned the Israeli destruction of an Iraqi nuclear power plant (which was believed to be part of an arms programme) and yet is now itself proposing far more severe action against Iraq (in the absence of any tangible evidence to suggest that Iraq poses any type of threat to the US). Why do you think this is?

Quite simply, US relations with Saudi are ever worsening and the US needs (for very ovious reasons) a friendly ally in the oil-rich Middle East. Toppling Hussein (who the US (erroneously) assumed would attract little in the way of international sympathy) and replacing him with a government which was friendly towards the US would have been a means of achieving this.

Furthermore, for political reasons, the Bush Administration will invariably feel that there is still a need to be seen to take further action as a result of the events of 11 September - especially as the "war" against Afghanistan proved to be a complete and utter failure in terms of either bringing to justice those responsible for the atrocity or making the US a safer place and Hussein, whilst by no means a good target for reprisals, is about the best candidate out there.

You are extremely naive if you believe that military action (by *any* individual nation) is generally ever anything other than either an act of self-preservation or attempt to achieve economic gain.

I'm not in any way condemning the US for either the action which it has taken in the past or for the action it proposes to take in the future - but to try to attach some form of magnanimous nobility to such actions is clearly foolish in the extreme.

And yet Americans seem quite susceptible to a sort of jingoistic "enemy-of-the-month club" coming out of Washington.

Quite.

"Quite simply, US relations with Saudi are ever worsening and the US needs (for very ovious reasons) a friendly ally in the oil-rich Middle East."

What a coincidence, who would credit it, just when Saudi oil is possibly not as secure as it once was, we are talking about invading Iraq, which just happens to have about 10% of the earth's oil reserves. Pure coincidence, no doubt.

>"Quite simply, US relations with Saudi are ever worsening
>and the US needs (for very ovious reasons) a friendly ally
>in the oil-rich Middle East."
>
>What a coincidence, who would credit it, just when Saudi oil
>is possibly not as secure as it once was, we are talking
>about invading Iraq, which just happens to have about 10% of
>the earth's oil reserves. Pure coincidence, no doubt.

No doubt, indeed.

I'm sure that the US administration has not considered the possibilty that ever worsening relations with the Islamic nations might result in another 1973-style OPEC (whose members happen to be responsible for ~40% of global oil production and hold ~60% of global oil reserves) embargo and that, therefore, this can in no way be a motivating factor in the proposed action againt Iraq. Nor is it relevant that the US's dependence on imported oil has increased by ~20% over the last 20 years, that imports now account for ~50% of US consumption and that ~50% of those imports are obtained from OPEC members.

Let's not forget that the US is simply sticking up "for the good people who do not have military capability" against those nasty "nations that are only out to gain by taking advantage of others" (quotes courtesy of Garbru). Doesn't it make your cockles warm!

Brett, I thank you for putting my mind at ease. Another coincidence of course was that invading Afghanistan gave an opportunity for a pipeline to be laid from the Caspian Sea, where possibly the world's largest oil reserves are located. Wouldn't it be another huge coincidence if Iran is suddenly declared to be worthy of invasion. That of course would have absolutely nothing to do with running a second pipeline through Iran, rather than around. I believe I read recently that the Israelis fortuitously discovered a large amount of missiles on an Iranian ship. How pleased they must be that they have an ally in the US who will protect their interest.

"Another coincidence of course was that invading Afghanistan gave an opportunity for a pipeline to be laid from the Caspian Sea"

I came late to this party, it sure has veered off a publisher's hyped piece to sell a Gore Vidal book. First, it is time to get out an atlas, Afghanistan is Southeast of the Caspian Sea, there is no conceivable way a pipeline would ever go through there from the Caspian region. You should get together with Hal9000 to get your story straight, which pipeline are we there to build, after first conquering the natives? You remember Hal9000, he is the one who quoted Hermann Goering; a good rule of thumb in life is to be on the opposite side of anything that anyone who quotes Hermann Goering is on.
It would be nice to see BIG OIL as the cause of every problem in the world, but it isn't quite that way on the ground, you can't reduce things to that level. We are just picking up the pieces of "The Great Game" played so well in the last century by the colonialists of the world.

I see you are from Scotland, maybe you should look north, we may be coming for the North Sea next. BP and Staatoil would much rather pay lower American taxes than British or Norwegian tax.

Pointless making any reply. Why don't you just go away and do some reading, then you will be in a postion to know what you are talking about. To start you could try http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

Read this as well:

Washington's covert war in Macedonia purports to consolidate America's sphere of influence in southeastern Europe. At stake is the strategic Bulgaria-Macedonia-Albania transport, communications and oil pipeline "corridor" which links the Black Sea to the Adriatic coast. Macedonia stands at the strategic crossroads of the oil pipeline corridor. Michel Chossudovsky explains:

http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc594.html

And you have a problem with this? The smartest move the US could make is to insure a stable source of foreign crude oil. If we do not, in about five years we will be paying about $5 a gallon for gasoline at the pump, and our economy will collapse. It's about time some of you got your heads out of your ass.

Shelly

>And you have a problem with this?

Do I have a problem with the US attacking another nation in order to secure a stable source of oil whilst at the same time backing away from the terms of the Kyoto Treaty? Unsurprisingly yes; as do the majority of the rest of the world which is precisely why the US is finding that its proposed action against Iraq is almost totally without support in the international community.

>It's about time some of you got your heads out of your ass.

Whilst yours head remains firmly fixed in exactly that position?

Yes Shelly, but the US is attempting to secure a stable source of oil with other countries besides Saudi Arabia in which thousands upon thousands of human beings--men, woman and children--die as a result. Of course the US callously refers to those deaths as collateral damage.

Additionally, the wars and military intervention on behalf of the US in other countries designed to ensure that stable oil supply are making some people (US weapons manufacturers and people who invest in them like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld) very wealthy.

Consider situations like the US support of state sanctioned terrorism on behalf of the Russians in Chechnya.

Or financing and equipping the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and its National Liberation Army (NLA) proxy to wage the terrorist assaults in Macedonia for control of the area.

Or waging war against Afghanistan to secure oil transport routes at the expense of a its displaced and war ravaged people, not to mention a few wedding parties, Lol.

Or in the US government seeking Congressional approval for $98 million to provide equipment and training for a new Colombian Army brigade to guard the oil duct which links the oil field near the border with Venezuela to a port on Colombia's Caribbean coast.

Utopian ideals tend to ignore the real world and while our hands are not clean, no ones hands are.

If you remember to scale everything as a foodchain it is easy to understand. Rich are always envied and hated, as the famous or talented often are.

Since everyone cannot be pleased lets spend our attention on how to persuade the world that screwing with us means death on a scale unimaginable.
Once we start playing "Cowboy and Muslims" they'll get the picture real quick.

When you can't negotiate, eliminate (basic creedo of HRT commanders). Extremism in the defense of our liberty is a virtue!

Under Construction

I'd vote for him......

The following has apparently been attributed to State Representative
Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should have run for President

"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots,
keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of
debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren,
hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense
guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other
liberal, bed wetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are
confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No
Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any
other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them,
but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is
based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you!
You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion,etc.,
but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a
screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool
manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans
are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in
need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after
generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the
creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be
nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in
public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If
you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if
the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you
rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be
surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where
you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of
leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk
their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate
oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to
fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world
and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little
tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to
have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you
to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training
laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means
that you have the right to PURSUE happiness -- which by the way, is a lot
easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created
by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights,"

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing
tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it is about time common
sense is allowed to flourish - call it the age of reason revisited.

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill!

I tried to think and nothing happened

You would be voting fo an urban legend.

Mitchell Kaye, a Georgia state representative from Marietta, is not the originator of the piece. The famed "Bill of No Rights" was written in 1993 by Lewis Napper, a self-described amateur philosopher and from Mississippi who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in 2000 as a Libertarian.

Kaye's name likely became associated with it through the innocent act of finding the article in his inbox and liking it enough to forward to friends. People tend to leave official-looking signatures intact when they forward e-mail, and his name's remaining with the piece beyond the initial round of forwardings could easily have created the impression that he was the article's creator.

Kaye is quick to give credit where credit is due, and his office routinely informs those who ask about the "Bill of No Rights" of its true authorship.

On 19 July 2000, advice columnist Ann Landers published a truncated version of the piece, attributing it to Kaye. (Left out were the points about free health care and sending troops to fight in foreign wars.) She praised his "tough 'do-it-yourself' position" and declared the language he used to convey his message "delicious."

The "Bill" resonates with folks because it addresses a number of issues that have often led many of us to shake our heads in disbelief. This Bill of Rights parody strikes straight at the heart of the sense of entitlement so often displayed by those who feel the world owes them a living.

Shelly

"Since everyone cannot be pleased lets spend our attention on how to persuade the world that screwing with us means death on a scale unimaginable."

The US is already doing that and has been since the end of WW2. The US no longer needs to demonstrate its military might to the world. You're one of those unfortunate puppets that hasn't a clue about actual US motives of military engagement after WW2.

The current US interest is in an Imperialist expansion to control other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Macedonia and Chechnya, to monopolizing oil reserves, natural resources and transport routes. It has nothing to do with defending ourslelves against a threat.

The corporate-media-government-complex has absorbed your mind and now you work for them. You are the least of the free, imprisoned by the belief in war and government propaganda. God help you and those like you.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials, quoted by David McGowan, Derailing Democracy (Common Courage Press, 2000), p.59

"It's not whether you win or lose, but whether or not you drag the other guy down with you."

Do you realize the absolute lunacy of a comment like this? It's a clear demonstration of someone hell-bent on sadistic, suicidal destruction-- someone who considers the annihilation of all even more important than the infliction of violence itself.

HAL,

Come over to SE Asia and show me how demining Cambodia is about Oil.

Or explain to me how Somalia was about Oil.

By the way, don't bother with the BS that has been floated by conspiracy nuts. It doesn't hold water and I will be happy to point out why. You better have your ducks lined up, 'cause I'll be happy to shoot them down.

SE Asia like central America is an anomaly with respect to US military intervention on behalf of the US expansion for Oil.. The 50's and 60's military involvement in those areas was based on a perceived threat of communist expansion as a result of the post WW2 re-orgainizatoin and reallignment for power during the cold war. An understandable but paranoid move and planned in advance to gain geopolitical control for military supremecy.

You being a believer in war and the "War is Peace" mindset of course felt those encounters justified and still do. That kind of thinking will eventually die out and atrophy as the development of the human species advances. Sorry Al, you're on you way to being a dinosaur.

Hal9000, Maybe not. Our problem is we try to sugar coat everything to make it NICE. How about we just go out and plow the mothers into the sand and then pave it over and put up parking meters.

Well shucks Dude...haven't you heard, that's exactly what NATO, the G8 countries, the IMF and WTO are doing!

You forgot Africa...Europe...

More than half the world is "anomolies"?

HAL,

Really, you think the human race is going to change its emotional and instinctive responses in a few short years after thousands of years of survival reinforcement? Especially since those survival instincts still work?

Take a trip up to the Northwest border of Thailand and tell me that again.

By the way, demining in Cambodia is current. Somalia was 11 years ago. Try again.

For Freespirit: The conspiracy bit was in reference to the claim that US involvement in Somalia was about oil. It wasn't.

>You forgot Africa...

"U.S. policy toward Mobutu was rationalized on the grounds of fighting "communism" and Soviet influence in Africa, but the U.S. was clearly more concerned with securing its own interests in the region than helping foster a stable, secure, and peaceful future for the people of Central Africa. Lying at the center of the continent, Zaire could provide the U.S. with access to important resources, transportation routes, and political favors. Over the years, U.S. rhetoric changed slightly, placing greater emphasis on democratic reform of the regime and increased attention to human rights, but in reality policy continued to focus on promoting narrowly defined U.S. economic and strategic interests." -- from a World Policy

"...Angola, which has seen an estimated 500,000 people killed since 1989 and an estimated 3 million refugees. It is also being torn apart due to resources such as diamonds and offshore oil, with various factions fighting for these prizes, supported by multinational corporations and other governments..."
http://globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/DRC.asp

"The United States military has been covertly involved in the wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a US parliamentary subcommittee has been told. Intelligence specialist Wayne Madsen, appearing before the US House subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, also said American companies, including one linked to former President George Bush Snr, the father of the current US President, are stoking the Congo conflict for monetary gains." -- John Kakande, US Army Operated Secretly in Congo, allAfrica.com, June 17, 2001

There's more, I just pointed out a few.

<...Europe...

Nothing left to conquer except Yugoslavia...it was the last hold out...that's been done.

>HAL,
>
>Really, you think the human race is going to change its
>emotional and instinctive responses in a few short years
>after thousands of years of survival reinforcement?
>Especially since those survival instincts still work?

Man was born Millions of years ago and he was no more a scourge than hawks or lions or squids. He lived at peace with the world for Millions of years. Man's so-called innate nature to dominate didn't emerge until the birth of agricultual societies--about the last 10-12 thousand years--which was intensified by the industrial revolution.

I suggest you read Guns, Germs and Steel. I also suggest you do a little research into the actual living conditions of early peoples instead of fantasies. Agriculture may have given mankind more time to dominate, it didn't start the urge (read a bit about the Sioux).

As for Africa, you accidently put your finger on the key. Oil for Africa is offshore. There is no need to get involved on the continent for oil.

Nigeria has large oil reserves and is a member of OPEC. The importance of Somalia to the West is that it guards entrance to the Red Sea and Suez Canal for our tankers. For the same reason we have a strategic interest in The Yemen on the opposite bank.

Lol! Better break out your map and find Nigeria

http://globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Nigeria.asp

http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/report/

What, exactly, is the BS floated by conspiracy nuts?

Would you find returning to Jeffersonian ideals and the Constitution utopian?

The difference is America goes into countries such as S. Korea, S. VietNam....etc only when those countries ask for help. We defeat our enemies but we do not take the land.

Remember if you have forgotten History. Without the U.S.A. the world would speak German and Japanese. We at one point had 16 million men under arms. We could have appeased Hitler and just protected ourselves. One thing though. We should have let Germany keep France.

Nah, we should have just taken their wine and leveled the place

Seems to me that we've overthrown a few legitimately elected governments, without any request from the locals. Why do you think we did this and for whoes benefit?

Back up your points with facts, not conjecture. What legitimately elected governments have we overthrown?

Are you kidding! Pinochet's Chili, the Shaw's Iran, Afghanistan in the 80's, the Kosovo Liberation Army against the Serbs, the Ollie North's Contras, Cocaine, and CiA Covert Operations, East Timor in Indonesia and list goes on...

Legitimately elected governments. Lol!!! Bush and Kennedy..need one say more.

Hmmmm. Interesting. I'm surprised you could type this diatribe, since, as usual, you have both hands in our pockets. OB

do you mean that Bush is not a legitimate president?

Hal9000, I hear they're gonna activate Ollie again......He's doing some desert training right now.......Casca's in charge of the training, Al is DI...........

Meanwhile a whole two busloads of wimps are practicing their limp hand wringing, begging Congress not to let them actually ...DO... anything....

Mind pointing out which of the governments that you claim we overthrew was legitimately elected?

That's the rub, isn't it?

>the Shaw's Iran

Which Shaw? George Bernard?

I had a bowl of Pinochet Chili once......

http://www.lakota.clara.net/myths/usdstab.html

Define the term, "legitimatly elected". Is that when all the Uncles, cousins, and other inlaws plus sheriff (who is also a first cousin)decide their older brother should be in charge? Let's vote for Geraldo, he has the best grass in town.....(Geraldo who?)

">Define the term, "legitimatly elected".

Dude:

You know what the words mean. I can only assume that this is a rhetorical question. In 1973, there was a bloody coup against the democratically elected government in Chili, the CIA helped Pinochet over throw that government. Thousands were tortured and murdered.

Or there's the Indonesian invasion of East Timor (a freely elected governemt) in December 1975 in which then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave a green light to that left perhaps 200,000 dead. Two newly declassified documents from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, released to the National Security Archive, shed light on the Ford administration’s relationship with President Suharto of Indonesia during 1975. (BTW, Suharto is the guy who directy responsible for the massacre with the help of the US) Of special importance is the record of Ford’s and Kissinger’s meeting with Suharto in early December 1975.

Google has 393,000 hits on Pinochet and 792,000 on East Timor. Really Dude, you need to do a little more reading on your own instead of listening to likes of Dan Rather. You have ascess to the internet. What's your excuse.

Just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it fact or accurate.

Hal, lighten up, everyone's baiting you, me too. There's enough partial truth tidbits being tossed around and you kinda walked into it.

No one can ever really win this kind of discussion here 'cause the target keeps getting moved as soon as anyone gets within two clicks.

The level of my responses are intended to be a good natured dig at your spelling of "Chile" and it's not the least bit important at all how you spell it, it's okey.....

Gore Vidal saying it's so does not make it so. He's a fruit cake as far as I am concerned. I hope he stays in Italy.

Bill K.

Why do you think he's a fruitcake? Is it his defending of the Bill of Rights? Now that's downright strange, huh? Or is it because he's written too openly about sex? Naughty! Or becuse he thinks the mainsteam media are a bunch of liars? Heavens, no! Please, fill me in.

Let's really stir this pot.
It's all Bill Clinton's Fault , helped by a woman named Hillary.

81 Newbee

Dya'spose Monica might have helped a little?.....There's nuthin' like taking the edge offin'a tense situation....