OK. I confess, I was asking leading questions-- the intent was to inspire thinking outside of the narrow tunnell which the media, in close collusion with the bush administration and his cronies, have been presenting us.
Allow me to detail just some of the lies which we have been told: Colin Powell went on TV and stated that a tape, made by Bin Laden, "proved" the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida-- and hence our emotions about 911. It turned out that the tape said nothing of the sort. George Bush, when talking about this "coalition" of "allies" which supported us failed to mention that a) they were only the people we threatened to cut foreign aid to, such as El Salvador (-- which, I can speak from voluminous research I did on their terrorist problems-- who only helped us because they are in the throes of a post-extremist, still pretty extreme, right-wing government, the ARENA. This goverment, rather much like columbia, is given our military aid to turn around and terrorize their own people. And in the case of Columbia it is part of our blatant war-on-some-drugs) and a few other small nations in similar positions. I concede that Saddam is a criminal, I said so in my first post. What about our own war criminal, Barry McCaffery himself, who slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqis in the last Gulf War after the peace-fire was signed? I'm well aware of the few warring tribes in Afghanistan, but their current leader is certainly democratic in intent. In Iraq, who knows?
I'm well aware of at least one of the motives for the Franco-Germanic and the Russo-Chinese opposition: oil. In fact, Russia came out publically saying "how dare the US force democratic principles on the rest of the world?!". Nobody blinked an eye. Hell, I thought that Russia was supposed to be democratic now. No, I think that their fascist undertones are curious and I intend to investigate their current political situation in more detail-- harkening back to the oddball circumstances which Putin and Bush seemed to become closely acquainted, and Putin even went on American public radio.
How do you know that Bush is making any sacrifice? The American Public has not been given any information as to his intent once Saddam falls-- except vague references to having a "free Iraq", why couldn't he just say "democracy". Personally, I think that it is possible that this is Bush's plan for economic recovery: gain leverage on Iraqi oil, which as you point out would annoy France and Germany. This fits into the public misleading category.
The Archetypal George Bush speech:
1) Publically lie
2) Patronize all people demonstrating intelligence, the "little father" approach
3) Pray to (christian) God
As to being privy to information that we are not, personally that scares me. Look at George Bush's domestic policies-- he's trying to be the next Reagan, who almost destroyed this country. Hell, I think he might even be worse than his father-- who conveniently was head of the CIA during their most infamous period.
All my original points stand. (Also, given the Office of Information Awareness, I am almost positive that these messages I have written are being archived in some government folder, to be used against me should my dissident activity present itself too publically).
K. "Master-Mind Trickster, and Mask-Addict" O
