|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Our vote counts! no really, it does...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: justinious
Read this article and I started to think. Which is a very bad thing for me to do. The article expresses concern over a terrorist attack on or before Election Day. Being a natural-born cynic, conspiracy theorist, and a wanna be pessimist I grew concerned at the US government's ability to our vote away. At the very least suspending voting rights indefinately. Hasn't the administration been preaching (how punny) 'don't give in to terrorism' and 'be vigil, but don't let our lives be put on hold'. It seems that at the first sign of "chatter" about election day violence, some officials want to give Homeland Security executive priveleges allowing them to suspend the presidential election. Sounds like the terrorists have started to win. Granted, in the case of wide-spread attacks, it can make sense. However, I am starting to fear it's the end of what little choice we have in our elected officials.
Moving to Japan seems better every day.
Oh well, back to drinking my Similac.
Posted by: laborat
Best be buying your guns now. If this election is close and is suspended for terrorist activity look for several cities to go up in flames. Don't think it can happen? Hey it already has. Several times.
Posted by: Bishop
who needs guns, when you've got axes, swords, bows... a mace to crush someone's skull, or a helmet to protect your own, we've got everything you need right here!
Posted by: SKYHN
If theres another terrorist attack equal to or greater than 9/11, the U.S. would be put under martial law and there would never be another public election again.
Posted by: Bishop
uh huh.
Posted by: taco_fox
http://www.tacofox.net/stuff/mygod.gif
paranoia~
Posted by: SKYHN
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by taco_fox
|
If only that was Jim Gaffigan, I would be ROFLMAO right now 
Posted by: marioze53
If the terrorists are smart (and they are), theyll wait till after the election. They would not want to risk having Bush elected again. If Im a terrorist, I want Kerry in office because hes not nearly as irrational or aggressive as Bush.
Posted by: Null Actor
Actually, the terrorists love Bush. He's completely ineffective, and he's stirring up such bad feelings in the middle east that terrorist recruitment is probably at an all time high.
Posted by: marioze53
Maybe so. However, terrorist groups need recruits now more than ever because Bush has captured or killed so many of their leaders. Bush will continue to pursue the terrorists via the war on terror. Its a crusade. Whereas I have heard nothing from Kerry about the war on terror. Makes me believe hes not as sure about the issue as Bush is. I wouldnt be surprised if the terrorists were like alot of Americans on this subject; anyone but Bush.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Bush will pursue anyone who doesn't agree with what the US wants. It's a crusade alright, but it's a personal crusade, one that Bush is willing to sacrifice soldiers for - and that is why I want him out of office, because he is ONLY concerned with this so-called war on terror and nothing else... don't confuse vigilance with warmongery ... Next thing you're gonna tell me is that a possible war with North Korea and/or China is related to the war on terror 
it's not like Iraq was ever a part of the war on "terror" ... the 9/11 commission made sure of that
Can you honestly tell me that we are closer to totally annihilating terrorism in the world just coz we invaded a country that was proven to have no connection with Al-Qaeda at all?
Posted by: SKYHN
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
it's not like Iraq was ever a part of the war on "terror" ... the 9/11 commission made sure of that
|
Thats the whole thing about it, they took time to find out AFTER things had been done to see if it was justified and it wasnt. All the intelligence was completely wrong and so now Dubya just says "Ooops" and does a little jig and nothing happens to him. Everyone who was directly involved with the planning and attacking of Iraq should be punished(not troops, etc). Hes just as bad as saddam was in the early 90's when he invaded Iran. It wasnt about getting WMD's it was a personal vendetta because saddam tried to kill his daddy.
Posted by: Storm_Shot
I still think its funny how we think we can have a war on an idea and/or tactic. You can't win a war on terror or the use of terror as a tactic. Anyone who thinks you can is pretty gullible. My opinion on the article? Anything that would let them delay the election could be (and would be) too easily abused. I wouldn't be surprised to see a dictatorial rule coming in the future. Hopefully I have other options (countries) I can go to, heh. That's just the paranoid/delusional talking though. /Randal: "Is it safe?"
Posted by: Bishop
Wars on ideas are the most easily won, because you can keep fighting forever whilst towing the blind.
Posted by: marioze53
What does the US want? I will not be so bold as to assume President Bushes motives. Afterall, Ive never met the guy. I refuse to believe hes the devil incarnate. More than likely, just a babling idiot. I will admit that little time or effort have been spent discussing issues effecting the home front (i.e economy, medicare, etc.). However, the economy is on the rise regardless of the fools tax cut during a war. I am more concerned about the billions of dollars promised for AIDS relief in Africa (the number 1 viral killer in the world I might add). How can we afford to pay out for all of Bushes promises? Then again, its my fault for being nieve enough to believe he could amount to anything more than just another Washington bureaucrat.
Terrorism will never be totally annihilated. Where there is anger, there is a breeding ground for it. All we can hope to do is to prevent the occurance of tragedies like 911. I will say I feel much safer knowing that Osama Bin Ladin is on the run, and being pursued (assuming hes not dead all together!). The most affective way to cripple an organization such as Alqueda is to keep striking the sheperd.
Posted by: Bishop
well the first step is to eliminate money entirely, and then eliminate useless positions of puppet power and to eventually unite the world behind one vision.
Mine.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
How can we afford to pay out for all of Bushes promises?.
|
In the first Gulf war the US made the Saudi and other countries cough up billions of dollars to pay for the war and throw in free oil.
In this the second war Bush has no need to find money,, he has the oil and seeing how he and his other henchmen/women own or have interests in oil companies that is where the money is going. It really has little to do with how many US marines and others die, just so long as he makes it profitable, to himself and the US.
By the way did any of you realise that during the Nam war when Saudi closed off the oil, the US had plans to invade Saudi Arabia. It makes you wonder what excuse in the late 1970's they would have used to justify this. But proves the need to secure oil for the US, at any cost, hence the war in Iraq with any trumped up excuse true or otherwise.
What I haven't figured out yet is why did the US invade Afganistan, unless it was to squeeze Iran?
Posted by: redwench
oh, afghanistan was so bush could get his approval rating up. it was really sucky before 9/11
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
|
oh, afghanistan was so bush could get his approval rating up. it was really sucky before 9/11
|
What was the alternative? Alqueda was infamous for housing terrorists, Osama Bin Ladin in particular. Do you mean to tell me the United States is supposed to take it on the chin? To do so would make us like the Phillipines, pulling out of Iraq after one man was taken hostage! Lets keep in mind that we are the bully on the playground. Afghanistan was meant to make that point quite clear to those that would oppose us. But I ask you, would you have it any other way? Its always been a race for control, and thus national security. The United States (and its immediate allies) are safer now than they have been in a long time.
Im not a fan of President Bush, but I dont see how you can demonize him so openly. Im more inclined to believe he is a sincere fool, nothing more or less. When it comes time to vote, I wont ponder on the evil things hes done. Rather the foolish ones.
Posted by: compukeith
I'm still waiting for the WOMD that we were promised.
Posted by: redwench
theres a difference between attacking terrorists, which we did, and then proceeding to bring down a foreign government that happens to be in power. we have our own terrorists here, i dont think we want people invading because a bunch of american wackos blew up a bomb on another continent.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Lets keep in mind that we are the bully on the playground. Afghanistan was meant to make that point quite clear to those that would oppose us. But I ask you, would you have it any other way?
|
So any nation that opposes the US its alright if the US invades it?
So why not invaade North Korea, China and a few others who oppose the US?
Or is it that they can defend themselves and have no oil to steal in the name of 'National Security'.
Sorry but your arguement stinks
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Its always been a race for control, and thus national security. The United States (and its immediate allies) are safer now than they have been in a long time.
|
You mean that now we have to have tanks and the army stationed at our UK national airports its a safer place. We are under constant threat of terrorist threat (and have been for the past 30 years, so nothing new there).
Afraid you want to get with it, the world is a very much more dangerous place DUE ENTIRELY to the invasion of Afghanistan & Iraq. If you disbelive me, ask the Spanish!
Or any other nation that has had its citizens beheaded.
Posted by: justinious
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bishop
well the first step is to eliminate money entirely, and then eliminate useless positions of puppet power and to eventually unite the world behind one vision.
Yaoi, preferably DBZ.
|
fixed
Posted by: laborat
Mario asks what is it then that Bush wants... which is a difficult question to answer but a good place to start is the "New World Order". Regardless of whether you believe them to be real or urban myth, there are in place several international powerful people who believe rightly or wrongly that the world would operate more efficiently if parochial governments were eliminated in favor of larger conglomerates like the EU or Coca-Cola or GM. It doesn't really matter if it is a corporate entity, a quasi-governmental co-op, or whatever as long as markets for goods are opened, free trade is established and all members are controlled by the Central Bank. Think of it as a sort of corporate socialism for the stock holders, and corporate peasantry for the workers. Rights would abrogate toward favoring the rich, and the powerful, and incorporations would have more power than sole owners. We would have government run schools. We would have re-conditioning institutions to fix aborrhent behavior among the citizenry. The New World Order would have us all like ants working toward the good of the hive and the Queen Ant. Politicians would enact laws that would support this view. God would support the work ethic and so would the Church who would also encourage more workers to be born to consume and support the economy.
but wait!~!!! isnt that sort of what we have now?
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by laborat
Mario asks what is it then that Bush wants... which is a difficult question to answer but a good place to start is the "New World Order".
|
As a child I remember a philosophy just like that one, now what was the name of the guy in charge.....Oh yes, Hitler.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by laborat
Regardless of whether you believe them to be real or urban myth, there are in place several international powerful people who believe rightly or wrongly that the world would operate more efficiently if parochial governments were eliminated in favor of larger conglomerates like the EU or Coca-Cola or GM. It doesn't really matter if it is a corporate entity, a quasi-governmental co-op, or whatever as long as markets for goods are opened, free trade is established and all members are controlled by the Central Bank.
|
I remember again his name was Stalin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by laborat
Think of it as a sort of corporate socialism for the stock holders, and corporate peasantry for the workers. Rights would abrogate toward favoring the rich, and the powerful, and incorporations would have more power than sole owners. We would have government run schools. We would have re-conditioning institutions to fix aborrhent behavior among the citizenry. The New World Order would have us all like ants working toward the good of the hive and the Queen Ant. Politicians would enact laws that would support this view. God would support the work ethic and so would the Church who would also encourage more workers to be born to consume and support the economy.
but wait!~!!! isnt that sort of what we have now?
|
But isn't that why the church was set up in the first place to control the populace? So whats changed, have government now taken over from the church?
Posted by: marioze53
I resent that last comment Oldcrocd. I have no doubt the church was set up with the best of intentions. How it has been abused is another matter.
One persons safety is anothers danger. National security is always a relative issue. Human beings have a nasty tendancy of assuming their own self interest is what is best for everyone else (one reason I find democracy particularly ironic). Its not a matter of whether its right or wrong for the United States to "defend" itself with preemptive strikes. The point is that no one is going to stop us as long as it remains the dominant world power it is. I dont see the UN posing a significant threat to the interests of the United States anytime soon unless a European Union is formed.
As for the war with Iraq as opposed to one with Iran or North Korea, I have no clue why we did what we did. Im just a stupid kid, plain and simple.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
mario
My apologies in upsetting your view on the church, you are fully entitled to believe what you will in any faith you like (I presume that is what you are resentful of?) But that is just my view and the way I see it.
The rest of the comments I am afraid I have to stand by as historical fact, remember one thing, I have lived through these eras of history, not just read someones version about them in a book!
Also being 3000 miles closer to the muck and bullets makes for a lasting impression, especially the dog fights in the air, bombs dropped by aircraft, V1 and V2 rockets that fell on us throughout those years. Hearing the noise of V1 or V2s, even in a film, still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up! (I lived a few miles from a wartime RAF station called Biggin Hill, so we were rather in the thick of it)
Although many many US military have been involved in various wars over the years, your recent tragedy as close as I can give to your appreciation of what the UK went through from 1939 until 1945, yes we were at war three years before the US joined in on the other tragic happening at Pearl Harbour.
For anyone to say that the US has not suffered is entirely wrong and our heartfelt sympathy will always go out to you all in such terrible circumstance. But you must realise that this sort of thing has been going on in the European theatre for many many years. It is only the European Union or probably more correctly the anticipated alliance that has held this area free from wars.
By the way have you access to the number of US persons killed in the various wars that you have been involved in since say 1900?
Posted by: marioze53
No need to apologize. Sometimes its the churches own fault for putting itself in such a position to be criticised so openly.
Granted our views are very different. You have obviously seen much more of this world than I. Youre right in that I can only read of such things whereas you may relive them. Coming from the United States also presents a rather large bias. I have lived in a country that takes war to its enemies and is rarely attacked on its own soil.
Frankly speaking, the United States has had a fairly safe century as far as tragedies and casualties are concerned (a mere quarter million in WWI?). Perhaps youre right about the EU. It may be the only way to prevent such tragedies as the World Wars from occuring. However, I am concerned that the Union may become more consistent with that of a confederate government. Where would national jurisdiction end and where would the EU's begin? Such a union could present more problems than its worth and bitter civil war could be the end result. But these are just my own musings, nothing more.
I am curious. How many US persons have been killed since 1900?
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Regarding my question of how many, thats why I was assking you, I don't know.
Your thoughts on EU are very valid, not from a wr point of view, those days have thankfully been put behind us in Europe, and we talk things out. But from your thoughts on EU is what worries the people in th UK, or a lot of them. For myself I consider it a very good thing as it will prevent money profit by the financial institutes if we have one currency, the rub of course is who governs who, and this is the throny problem that individual counrties find hard to accept with the present set up of the EU. This is considered the major stumbling block which is preventing the EU from going forward as many of the bereaucrats are UNELECTED and people do not trust that sort of thing.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
How many US persons have been killed since 1900?
|
not very many, as 99% of our fatalities have been military, since our wars have been fought abroad. large portions of europe saw losses in the millions in ww1 and 2.
Posted by: marioze53
Thats what I meant, military casualties. Youre exactly right Red. What we in the US would call a military catastrophe would be little more than a slip up elsewhere. That probably comes from both our technological superiority and delayed involvement in both World Wars. Weve had it pretty easy this past century relatively speaking as opposed to Europe, Asia or Africa.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
I've just seen a documentary program on Afghanistan where the MSF (Medicines sans Frontieres) have pulled out of providing aid due to the dangers they are encountering. Apparently the US/Co-olition forces only control/occupy 10-15% of the country, the warlords have about 60% and the Taliban the remaining 25-30% (They were supposed to have been defeated!)[according to US administration !!]
The Taliban are just as bigger threat now as they always were, kidnapping and killing westerners. So if the forces of the US/Co-olition are ineffective in stopping this what the hell are they still there for and what hope and nonsense is the talk of Al queda being on the run. The chances of catching Osama bin Laden are so remote that the troops might just as well pull out.
When you consider the bounty offered to turn OBL in and nobody has done so this should answer any questions over his likely capture.
Any action is now concentrated in Pakistan, (Somebody please tell Dubya where it is) who are strapped for cash and the bounties offered and paid are very handy. Although its not known if they are going to the country or someones persons pocket?
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by justinious
......some officials want to give Homeland Security executive priveleges allowing them to suspend the presidential election. Sounds like the terrorists have started to win.
|
Being in the US must be a frightening experience for you guys, with thoughts of this sort of action. This is exactly what happened in dictatorships around the world and history has taught us nothing. If the citizens of the US fall for this ploy, well.....not a lot of hope.
You have to consider that the current President is still in power, so to speak, until the next one is sworn in, so personally I cannot see any mileage in making yourself stay in power and suspend the elections. Unless of course you are power crazy ! OR is this a way of manipulating the votes during an election?
[Born pessimist, thats me, trust no politition]
Posted by: justinious
It may be moot now. I heard from a second-hand source that such actions would require a Constitutional Amendment, which is not an easy or quick process here. In answer to your question, I believe it's more of a vote maniuplating strategy than a power grab, but I could be wrong.
Posted by: redwench
it would require an amendment to do it legally. and we all know how much legalities stop elected/appointed governmental officials.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Oldcrocd
Being in the US must be a frightening experience for you guys, with thoughts of this sort of action. This is exactly what happened in dictatorships around the world and history has taught us nothing. If the citizens of the US fall for this ploy, well.....not a lot of hope.
You have to consider that the current President is still in power, so to speak, until the next one is sworn in, so personally I cannot see any mileage in making yourself stay in power and suspend the elections. Unless of course you are power crazy ! OR is this a way of manipulating the votes during an election?
[Born pessimist, thats me, trust no politition]
|
The very idea of them suspending the election is terrifying. But I really do believe the man who started this contraversy was sitting in his office imagining what would happen on election day if there was another devastating terrorist attack. Something worse then 9-11 lets say. Could we really expect a fair outcome. Do I want the executive to have the power to indefintely supsend elections? Ofcourse not. But shouldn't there be a plan in the unlikely event that this happens? Just as there should have been a clearer course of action in the Florida debacle. The idea of these men in particular having the power to suspend elections is scary, but what is scarier is the chaos that would ensure if this hypothetical became reality without some contigency. Imagine the legal battles and the political manuverings....the outcome of the election would be in greater doubt then 4 years ago. I will wait to see what they advance as the possible solution before concluding the end is near.
Posted by: marioze53
For some reason, this subject reminds me FDR. FDR, was elected to four terms of office because of his excellent leadership qualities. I see this whole dilema as being nothing more than an attempt by President Bush to make himself seem indespensible (like Roosevelt). He knows that the American people would unanimously apose delaying the elections, infact hes counting on it. By encouraging fear, he establishes himself as the only thing between the US and total caos. Poor political startegy, nothing more. If this were his second term of office, then I might be a bit worried.
At the same time, how on earth is a terrorist attack going to ruin the election? The potential sites are few and guarded beyond belief (ie white house, capital building, etc.). If not these, then Al Queda would have to strike half of the small towns in America to have a significant impact. Its just not plausible that a significant threat to the election exists. If anything, Al queda will continue to attack important economic sites as well as embassies and people abroad.
Posted by: marioze53
I know absolutely nothing about current Afghanistan. But I am curious though Oldcrocd, what lands do the US/coalition forces control? Alqueada and warlords may possess the majority of the country in volume. However, what about major cities? Other strategic locations? Maybe Al queda and the warlords are bickering over the desert.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
But I am curious though Oldcrocd, what lands do the US/coalition forces control? Alqueada and warlords may possess the majority of the country in volume. However, what about major cities? Other strategic locations? Maybe Al queda and the warlords are bickering over the desert.
|
Mario I'll get back to you on this one as time is pressing tonight. No it was not just desert but some major portions of Afghansitan where MSF were working and having personnel kidnapped and killed freqently. But let me get back to you as I did record the program and will rewatch and give you as much info as is available.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
I know absolutely nothing about current Afghanistan. But I am curious though Oldcrocd, what lands do the US/coalition forces control? Alqueada and warlords may possess the majority of the country in volume. However, what about major cities? Other strategic locations? Maybe Al queda and the warlords are bickering over the desert.
|
We control Kabul, that is about it. There are other bases but they are near or around Kabul. Karzai has very little power outside the capital and there doesn't seem like anyway to change that short of negotiating with the heroin dealers and warlords in the central and northern regions as well as what is left of the (which are still powerful) Taliban in the south.
Posted by: marioze53
If what you say is correct, then Im furious. From the militaries prospective, how can we leave Afghanistan for Iraq if the job isnt done? Why has this not been brought to light by the Kerry campaign? If anything, it would discredit Bushs terrorist crusade. It doesnt make sense.
Posted by: laborat
Please don't tell me you think our Foreign Policy should make sense. That's the reason they call it F-O-R-E-I-G-N. It's as unfathomable to us as well as the rest of the world.
Posted by: redwench
it probably hasnt been brought up because it makes the military look incompetent, and the military personnel and families are a major voting block for kerry. that bush never heard of the concept of finish what you start cant be a surprise, he is a politician.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
If what you say is correct, then Im furious. From the militaries prospective, how can we leave Afghanistan for Iraq if the job isnt done? Why has this not been brought to light by the Kerry campaign? If anything, it would discredit Bushs terrorist crusade. It doesnt make sense.
|
But it has been brought up, I among others in this vey forum know about the limited power we have in Afghanistan. Most of the people I talk to have atleast some knowlegde of the tenious situation there. Are you asking why the mass media isn't putting our failure there on the front page? That is a more difficult question, they do have some stories about Afghanistan. Such as the skyrocketing opium production, how Karzai has had to make deals with Warlords whose power is based on the poppie production. But it seems to me most of the these articles focus on Karzai and his inability to govern, though not all. I do remember a article in the Post a couple of years ago about how the CIA met with Taliban leaders in Karachi(Pakistan) and offered them power in Kabul's new government as long as they met some conditions. They refused one of the conditions, which was to turn one of there leaders in to the U.S.. The media doesn't start debate such as, was Afghanistan a failure, they seem to only report it if others start it, such as Kerry. By Bush's estimate it wasn't a failure, we destroyed Al Queda's operations there or most of them and we ousted the Taliban from Kabul. I agree Kerry should be more critical of the handling of both Afghanistan and Iraq. But he would have to be careful not to sound like he doesn't "Support the Troops".
Posted by: laborat
You wanna know what I think? I think that at the moment, Bush getting re-elected has taken precedence over winning ANY war we started, Afghanistan vs. Talaban or Iraq vs. Terrorists. It is an unpopular war, like Viet Nam, but war appears to be the only trump card Bush can play to have a chance for re-election. Hell, he is even trailing in Florida at this point.
One last point to the incredulous among us -- I have never seen in my lifetime such SPIN and half truths and half lies and double speak by our government as now. Anyone who thinks that the real truth will ever come out in our lifetime is missing the point. Our country's citizens don't want truth, they want results. Results that have a positive effect on our pocketbooks, our self image, and sense of security.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
I Bush gets re-elected it will prove that public relation firms, i.e. propagandists, have finally taken control of the political process completely.
Posted by: marioze53
Perhaps its just my idealist optimism that fuels my fury. Undoubtedly youre right laborat on both counts. Bush is strictly a "war president", and the American people are inspired by the economies success.
At the same time, you cannot tell me that the war in Iraq (coupled with a tax cut) was a good thing for the economy. The war in Iraq did NOT "...have a positive effect on our pocket books..." Hasnt the national debt tripled? even quadrupled? However, the war in Afghanistan is IMO justified. But, if the job in Afghanistan was not finished, why has that argument not been added to the pile of arguments amassing against the war in Iraq? Im not questioning the foreign policy here (although I do elsewhere everyday)... I want to know why it hasnt been addressed by Bushes political adversaries. Granted its difficult to do so without coming across as criticizing the troops. But theyre smart people and can work around the fine details.
PS... Why didnt we get involved in the Sudan before Iraq?
Posted by: laborat
Hmmm... answer to last question first -- Sudan doesn't have a lot of oil reserves to be exploited by US oil companies.
Yes it is true that the war in Iraq did not help the economy much. But war has in the past been beneficial in restarting a sluggish economy. Apparently, Bush's advisors forgot that the traditional
companies that receive government dollars for the war effort who then hire american workers have all moved overseas or are now controlled by other countrys. Like our auto industry, textiles and steel industry. We used to bend over backwards to save those industries from foreign takeover but now no one seems to give a damn and they are all out of our control or the money goes elsewhere.
As for why issues haven't been brought up by Bush's adversaries...in my opinion there are no adversaries in this election. The whole notion of right wing and left wing, Republican and Democrat means nothing. We have a billionaire running against a millionaire. They are both adept at keeping the status quo with their corporate buddys. Neither will ever rock the gravy train. Whoever wins will not change the way things are done. It may effect the way things are run but only in a superficial way. We got the poor, the middle class, and the rich. Money talks. Money walks.
I admire your optimism. I was an optimist once. I thought my generation could affect the establishment, create changes that would benefit citizens...there were changes...but only superficial ones to accomodate my generation...a holding pattern until our generations leaders could be corrupted by money and power just like the previous generation. It will happen to your generation too. It's called progress.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Talking of Afganistan, I have just watched a TV program that showed US Lt Colonel PAYING Afganis over $400,000 to PROTECT them during an incursion into the interior to raid a village. This is apprently the NORM in this country now that the US have control, of an area 50 miles around Kabul. Outside that US troups need the Afgani to protect them. a very interesting half an hour program. Please don't say it didn't happen it was on film and showed the Lt Colonel opening the bag of money and putting it on the table where the Afganis picked it up!
Posted by: marioze53
Havent seen you in a while oldcrocd. I still want to hear more about that documentary on Afghanistan (before the election if possible).
|
|
|
|
|
