NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I think it’s the military. Our military enforces the policies of the neo-cons and keeps the people, on an individual and societal level, from asserting their basic rights.

EDIT: The topic is which is a bigger threat out of these two, not what you believe to be the biggest threat to America, period.

Karl Rove and the PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org/)

Karl Rove and the PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org/)
They control the military, no?

Canada, we can hold all the natural resources hostage, thus reducing America to nothing more than an empty shell....an empty egg shell!!!

But really, seeing as Islamic Terrorists are such a small part of the world population, I doubt in all honesty there is much to fear from them. A person has a greater chance of drowning in their own bathtub than to be killed by a terrorist (of any kind, Islamic or not).

They control the military, no?
Basically. But it's not the military itself that's a threat.

Canada, we can hold all the natural resources hostage, thus reducing America to nothing more than an empty shell....an empty egg shell!!!

But really, seeing as Islamic Terrorists are such a small part of the world population, I doubt in all honesty there is much to fear from them. A person has a greater chance of drowning in their own bathtub than to be killed by a terrorist (of any kind, Islamic or not).

bath tubs are dangerous, when i took my yearly bath i was pulled under by the inder current. then i had to reach down and pull the plug, goo thing i found the plug okay

Neither is totally earth-destroyingly bad, but strictly speaking, the military kills more Americans in training accidents, friendly fire and so on than Terrorists do.

But that aside, from a theoretical point of view, the militarism in American society does indeed threaten the values the US is supposed to be all about. And since the military is a symbol of that militarism (and a supporter), it is a bigger threat.

Neither is totally earth-destroyingly bad, but strictly speaking, the military kills more Americans in training accidents, friendly fire and so on than Terrorists do.
.



Got any numbers on that?

or is that just an Assumption?

Got any numbers on that?

or is that just an Assumption?
Right now, it is an assumption. But how many Americans got killed by Islamist Terrorists?
About 3000 in 9/11, about 2000 in Iraq, 80 or so in Lebanon back in the days?

Stretch that out over so many years, and it is at least plausible that that many die in training accidents, other military-related accidents and friendly fire.

Right now, it is an assumption. But how many Americans got killed by Islamist Terrorists?
About 3000 in 9/11, about 2000 in Iraq, 80 or so in Lebanon back in the days?

Stretch that out over so many years, and it is at least plausible that that many die in training accidents, other military-related accidents and friendly fire.



Over the course of a year, there is possilby 100 american deaths spread over the services in training accidents. I can't remember where I read that figure, it was in the Army Times of my AKO account somewhere.


And are you counting all military training accidents? or just post 9/11. Because the latter would be the only fair way to compare the two.


But if you want to know what really kills soldiers more than anything else including combat. Car Accidents in their Private Cars.

And are you counting all military training accidents? or just post 9/11. Because the latter would be the only fair way to compare the two.
I don't think so.
If you really wanted to put a record up "Military vs Islamist Terrorism", you'd at least have to start from the proper formation of Islamist Terrorist Organisations and that, depending on your definition, could be as early as the Muslim Brotherhood, or even earlier.

But if you want to know what really kills soldiers more than anything else including combat. Car Accidents in their Private Cars.
Exactically.

Fass is the biggest threat to America.

Strictly speakng, the US millitary can not be used to enforce the law within the borders of the US. If you want to look up some info, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Enjoy,

Um

I don't think so.
If you really wanted to put a record up "Military vs Islamist Terrorism", you'd at least have to start from the proper formation of Islamist Terrorist Organisations and that, depending on your definition, could be as early as the Muslim Brotherhood, or even earlier.


And then you could go back to the combat deaths from the Muslim rebels in the Phillipines in the Phillipine Insurrection of the early 1900's

Strictly speakng, the US millitary can not be used to enforce the law within the borders of the US.
But the National Guard can?

Anyways, the worry is that the military influences the government and media, moreso than that it actively takes over the place.

And then you could go back to the combat deaths from the Muslim rebels in the Phillipines in the Phillipine Insurrection of the early 1900's
But were they "terrorists"?

it's not a matter of threat. the government HAS been overthrown by 'peaceful' usurpation. but it is by economic interests pretending to have a so called conservative religeous affiliation, not military action.

the american military is still under the fairly tight reign of the civilian government. it's just that the government itself is no long answering to anything other then unbridled greed.

=^^=
.../\...

But were they "terrorists"?


You see, now we're playing with definitions. They were insurgents though.

And Really, i'm not sure since neither of us have solid statistics on whether or not we should even be discussing this in depth.


So my final stance on this, is that I'm not sure.

But the National Guard can?

Anyways, the worry is that the military influences the government and media, moreso than that it actively takes over the place.

Not really. The military isn't the threat, the threat is the wackos in office controlling them. I doubt the military would obey an order to 'put down' those who disagree with the current Adminstration, I think if it came down to obeying the president or killing everyone who disagreed, I don't know if the military would obey. I really don't know what would be worse though, the Army Guard rebelling to disobeying an order or the army carrying out there orders, either way will result in civil war

it's not a matter of threat. the government HAS been overthrown by 'peaceful' usurpation. but it is by economic interests pretending to have a so called conservative religeous affiliation, not military action.
Exactly

the american military is still under the fairly tight reign of the civilian government. it's just that the government itself is no long answering to anything other then unbridled greed.

=^^=
.../\...

The current government is a menace, and as a result everything they control is menacing.

Fass is the biggest threat to America.
I only wish. :p

Right now, it is an assumption. But how many Americans got killed by Islamist Terrorists?
About 3000 in 9/11, about 2000 in Iraq, 80 or so in Lebanon back in the days?

Stretch that out over so many years, and it is at least plausible that that many die in training accidents, other military-related accidents and friendly fire.You'd be surprised at how many people got killed or injured while mishandling vending machines back when my dad was still in the Army...

I only wish. :p
We can keep on hoping:D

But were they "terrorists"?

Are the ones fighting the US in Iraq "terrorists"?

Since Bush isnt on there, ill vote the Military.

Are the ones fighting the US in Iraq "terrorists"?
My definition in this specifically is this:

People who blow up Soldiers with IEDs and so on? Not terrorists.

Sunni and Shi'ite Militias like Al Sadr's? Not terrorists.

Kids and Fathers who get out their AKs and defend their houses and families when the US Troops move in to detain, interrogate or just clean the whole city out (alá Faludja)? Not terrorists.

Al Zarqawi and company who blow up civilians in order to create chaos? Terrorists.

So some of them are, but my suspicion is that the US Military has little idea about where Zarqawi and AQ might be, so really they're not fighting them.

My definition in this specifically is this:

People who blow up Soldiers with IEDs and so on? Not terrorists.

Sunni and Shi'ite Militias like Al Sadr's? Not terrorists.

Kids and Fathers who get out their AKs and defend their houses and families when the US Troops move in to detain, interrogate or just clean the whole city out (alá Faludja)? Not terrorists.

Al Zarqawi and company who blow up civilians in order to create chaos? Terrorists.

So some of them are, but my suspicion is that the US Military has little idea about where Zarqawi and AQ might be, so really they're not fighting them.

On this question, then, we agree. I was just wondering because of your earlier comment that "Islamist terrorists" had killed 2,000 US soldiers in Iraq.

On this question, then, we agree. I was just wondering because of your earlier comment that "Islamist terrorists" had killed 2,000 US soldiers in Iraq.
I was being a little generous perhaps. ;)

And are you counting all military training accidents? or just post 9/11. Because the latter would be the only fair way to compare the two.

people tied to al-q didn't blow up a van bomb in the wtc in the early 90s then?

The biggest threat to the US is voters that vote on totally emotional issues. In the last election Bush won on the issue of Gay Marriage. Now tell me, has that issue been a big deal in your life since?

I would like to know the thoughts of that 20% that voted for Bush and are now against him in the polls. Why did they vote that way when Bush and his policies certainly haven't changed?

Aristotle said that humans are emotional animals. I guess that's why governments come and go.

Personally, I think it’s the military. Our military enforces the policies of the neo-cons and keeps the people, on an individual and societal level, from asserting their basic rights.

EDIT: The topic is which is a bigger threat out of these two, not what you believe to be the biggest threat to America, period.
Your eyes just have to be brown! :rolleyes:

Personally, I think it’s the military. Our military enforces the policies of the neo-cons and keeps the people, on an individual and societal level, from asserting their basic rights.

EDIT: The topic is which is a bigger threat out of these two, not what you believe to be the biggest threat to America, period.
I don't think the military itself is a threat to America, but I think the people directing the military at this time are a bigger threat to American security than all the terrorists in the world combined.

But the National Guard can?

I'm staying out of this discussion, but I will point out that the NG is not part of the U.S Military. They are paid by their individual state's treasuries and under the jurisdiction of the state. As for why NG units from every state were deployed to service in Iraq, I have no earthly idea. Sending them to New Orleans after Katrina made more sense. They were created for state-side defence/relief, not international warfare!

The top leaders in the military may become power hungry, and want to "attack" their own nation.

But our men and women in uniform would never carry out such orders. They'd rise up in favor of the people. Our service men and women have more honor and courage than those up top, and they have a heart o' gold. I'd like to see Rummy try and topple this nation. It'd never work.

No, our military poses no threat.

Personally, I think it’s the military. Our military enforces the policies of the neo-cons and keeps the people, on an individual and societal level, from asserting their basic rights.

EDIT: The topic is which is a bigger threat out of these two, not what you believe to be the biggest threat to America, period.
WTF? How does the military keep people from asserting their basic rights? I don't recall anyone ordering martial law. I haven't seen armed soldiers standing at checkpoints and searching people's cars.

As long as US soldiery retains it's oath to the constitution (rather than the government), and means it, I do not believe the Military is a threat to the US.

The Military-Industrial Complex, well, that's a different question.

Personally, I think it’s the military. Our military enforces the policies of the neo-cons and keeps the people, on an individual and societal level, from asserting their basic rights.
Indeed. It's the military and their braindead right-wing leaders which is a *much* bigger threat than any terrorists! The "terrorist threat" is mostly made up anyway just so they can get away with taking away people's rights.

I'm staying out of this discussion, but I will point out that the NG is not part of the U.S Military. They are paid by their individual state's treasuries and under the jurisdiction of the state. As for why NG units from every state were deployed to service in Iraq, I have no earthly idea. Sending them to New Orleans after Katrina made more sense. They were created for state-side defence/relief, not international warfare!
Wrong on all counts. Tsk!

Indeed. It's the military and their braindead right-wing leaders which is a *much* bigger threat than any terrorists! The "terrorist threat" is mostly made up anyway just so they can get away with taking away people's rights.
Sad, sad little person.

You've gotta be kidding. We Americans have always been a fightin' people, that's why we have so much territory out west, but our military has a fine tradition of remaining quite loyal to their states and country. Even the civil war came down to home state loyalty.

Strictly speakng, the US millitary can not be used to enforce the law within the borders of the US. If you want to look up some info, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act


Indeed, and, strictly speaking, the NSA is not allowed to place wire-taps on American citizens without a warrant. We all know how well that's worked.

We have nothing to fear except fear itself.

Of course, our society is pregnant with fear. Marketing uses it all the time. Afraid of being fat? Buy our diet video/pill/product. Afraid of criminals? This burglar alarm will keep the kiddies safe. Afraid of not being cool? Maybe ugly? How about a disease? Afraid of bird flu? I don't know why you would be, it's not particularly lethal or prevalent... but hey its on the news a lot, and that means you should be shaking in your fucking boots! How about ADHD? If your kid is having trouble concentrating on school, you should be concerned that he's probably diseased. Get him a brain scan and some methamphetamines! Maybe not even the brain scan! Just dose him up to be sure. How about cancer? You know smoking causes cancer, be afraid of smokers. Car pollution, industrial pollution, sunlight, water, all kinds of food, computers and everything you do causes cancer. JUST BE AFRAID ALWAYS! Afraid of terrorists? You have a greater chance of dying to your own poor driving skills, but hey vote for me! Invade a country or two, we'll protect you from ter'rists! But you should always be afraid... just to make sure! To make sure you're an easily manipulated dumbass! Afraid of foreigners? Build the wall! Patrol the border! Them illegals is coming to take your job and your wimmin! How about God, afraid of him? Take 2 Christianity pills and call me in the morning. We may have to advance to Judaism, Islam or perhaps Scientology if your case worsens. Remember, cleanliness is next to Godliness, and Godliness is next to God-Fearing... so buy your anti-bacterial soap today, 2 for 1!

/rant.

Indeed, and, strictly speaking, the NSA is not allowed to place wire-taps on American citizens without a warrant. We all know how well that's worked.

also, only congress gets to declare war.

hooray for magical pieces of paper that our wise and benevolent rulers have no choice but to obey!

I'm staying out of this discussion, but I will point out that the NG is not part of the U.S Military. They are paid by their individual state's treasuries and under the jurisdiction of the state. As for why NG units from every state were deployed to service in Iraq, I have no earthly idea. Sending them to New Orleans after Katrina made more sense. They were created for state-side defence/relief, not international warfare!


And goes to show how little you know about the NG.


I'M IN THE FRICKIN NG, we're all components of one army. Active Duty, Reserve and NG. We got to the same Basic and AIT, we receive the same training, we are just part timers who also do disaster relieft. We're funded by the state yes, but we can be activated for what they call Title 10 Orders and placed in Federal Service(which i am on right now).

The National Guard is a strategic reserve, and if you read your history you'll find out the National Guard was deployed for WWI and WWII. and the German Infantry actually Feared the 28th Infantry Division "Keystones" from the Pennsylvannia National Guard.

The top leaders in the military may become power hungry, and want to "attack" their own nation.

But our men and women in uniform would never carry out such orders. They'd rise up in favor of the people. Our service men and women have more honor and courage than those up top, and they have a heart o' gold. I'd like to see Rummy try and topple this nation. It'd never work.

No, our military poses no threat.

actual attacks would only need to be done in the case of unrest opposing the coup. and you can bet your ass that large segments of the military would gladly follow orders to 'restore order' and 'protect the peace'.

but it doesn't matter, since there was no unrest and the coup has already been successful and essentially bloodless.

Personally, I think it’s the military. Our military enforces the policies of the neo-cons and keeps the people, on an individual and societal level, from asserting their basic rights.

EDIT: The topic is which is a bigger threat out of these two, not what you believe to be the biggest threat to America, period.

*gasp* No way. You think it's the military. I could not possible have guess if I'd gotten ten guesses. I suspect that America will survive both threats, but one of them will be responsible for more civilian American deaths. Guess which one.

Personally, I think it’s the military. Our military enforces the policies of the neo-cons and keeps the people, on an individual and societal level, from asserting their basic rights.
And are you offering any proof of this? no...
Honestly, I don't see military bashing people down because they said Bush is an idiot. How are they preventing us from asserting our rights?
Beacuse people can't protest at A FREAKING FUNERAL!?!? I think that is the most unpatriotic thing you can do is protest a DEAD SOLDIER!!! Talk about disrespect. People how do that are trash. If you want to protest the war, protest to people who can change something about it. Not the little peons that are only allowed to take orders. (BTW I love the those little peons...:fluffle: )
I would like to see some proof on the military thing.

Neither is totally earth-destroyingly bad, but strictly speaking, the military kills more Americans in training accidents, friendly fire and so on than Terrorists do.

But that aside, from a theoretical point of view, the militarism in American society does indeed threaten the values the US is supposed to be all about. And since the military is a symbol of that militarism (and a supporter), it is a bigger threat.
By your definition than we Americans our selves would be the biggest threat of all. We have killed more people just out on the road then the number of soldiers killed in training accidents.
Americans are our biggest threat in general. We are the ones that take each other's rights away more than any one else on htis planet. We murder each other, steal from each other...the list goes on.

Karl Rove and the PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org/)
Cute, it's the Elders of Zion conspiracy theory, with different principles.

Cute, it's the Elders of Zion conspiracy theory, with different principles.
Too bad I'm not making that shit up, I'm just adding two and two together to make four, unless it makes five in your world.

Too bad I'm not making that shit up, I'm just adding two and two together to make four, unless it makes five in your world.
I am not the conspiracy theorist. *

*Though I am a Haliburton bot, sent to discredit people who tell the truth about the Skull and Bones and The Bohemian Grove. ;)

I am not the conspiracy theorist. *

*Though I am a Haliburton bot, sent to discredit people who tell the truth about the Skull and Bones and The Bohemian Grove. ;)
Ah, alright :D though I don't know how the fact Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dan Quayle and more being both members of the PNAC and high profile members of the Bush Administration (Bush I in Quayle's case) make it a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you can help me out here?

I am not the conspiracy theorist. *

*Though I am a Haliburton bot, sent to discredit people who tell the truth about the Skull and Bones and The Bohemian Grove. ;)

Erm, so what is so conspiracy-theory about the PNAC that means you feel compelled to hee-haw over it?

Do you think the PNAC doesn't exist?

Do you think the members in it have nothing in common and that they don't believe in pushing their stated, clear agenda?

Do you think none of it's members have any power to pursue that agenda?

Erm, so what is so conspiracy-theory about the PNAC that means you feel compelled to hee-haw over it?

Do you think the PNAC doesn't exist?

Do you think the members in it have nothing in common and that they don't believe in pushing their stated, clear agenda?

Do you think none of it's members have any power to pursue that agenda?
Easy, 2+2=5!

Erm, so what is so conspiracy-theory about the PNAC that means you feel compelled to hee-haw over it?

Do you think the PNAC doesn't exist?

Do you think the members in it have nothing in common and that they don't believe in pushing their stated, clear agenda?

Do you think none of it's members have any power to pursue that agenda?
It's recycled material:

The secret meeting on Jekyll Island in Georgia at which the Federal Reserve was conceived; the birth of a banking cartel to protect its members from competition; the strategy of how to convince Congress and the public that this cartel was an agency of the United States government.--...were seven men who represented an estimated one-forth of the total wealth of the entire world.

1. Nelson W. Aldrich, Republican "whip" in the Senate, Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, business associate of J.P. Morgan, father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.;

2. Abraham Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury;

3. Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, the most powerful of the banks at that time,representing William Rockefeller and the international investment banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Company;

4. Henry P. Davison, senior partner of the J.P Morgan Company;

5. Charles D. Norton, president of J.P. Morgan's First National Bank ofNew York;

6. Benjamin Strong, head of J.P. Morgan's Bankers Trust Company;and

7. Paul M. Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company, a representative of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England and France, and brother to Max Warburg who was head of the Warburg banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands.

In 1913, the same year that the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Currency and Banking, under the chairmanship of Arsene Pujo of Louisiana, completed its investigation into the concentration of financial power in the United States. Pujo was considered to be a spokesman for the oil interests, part of the very group under investigation, and did everything possible to sabotage the hearings. In spite of his efforts, however, the final report of the committee at large was devastating. It stated:

Your committee is satisfied from the proofs submitted, even in the absence of data from the banks, that there is an established and well defined identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance...which has resulted in great and rapidly growing concentration of the control of money and credit in the hands of these few men...

When we consider, also, in this connection that into these reservoirs of money and credit there flow a large part of the reserves of the banks of the country, that they are also the agents and correspondents of the out-of-town banks in the loaning of their surplus funds in the only public money market of the country, and that a small group of men and their partners and associates have now further strengthened their hold upon the resources of these institutions by acquiring large stock holdings therein, by representation on their boards and through valuable patronage, we begin to realize something of the extent to which this practical and effective domination and control over our greatest financial, railroad and industrial corporations has developed, largely within the past five years, and that it is fraught with peril to the welfare of the country.

The purpose of this meeting on Jekyll Island was...to come to an agreement on the structure and operation of a banking cartel. The goal of the cartel, as is true with all of them, was to maximize profits by minimizing competition between members, to make it difficult for new competitors to enter the field, and to utilize the police power of government to enforce the cartel agreement.

In more specific terms, the purpose and, indeed, the actual outcome of this meeting was to create the blueprint for the Federal Reserve System.[...]
*dun dun dun*

This is often tied into either the Bushes or Kennedys depending upon which branch you want to follow. You can tie in Soro's as co-founder of the Carlyle group, and through his companies Micheal Moore and NOW, and Ted Turner.

As you can clearly see, The HaliburtonCarylePNAC crowd is Ninety years too late, the bankers already run everything. Other conspiracy theories are just a smoke screen.

(Yeah... that's the ticket.)

Easy, 2+2=5!
Yes, there is always a conspiracy. Just add everything together and you get extra! :)

As you can clearly see, The HaliburtonCarylePNAC crowd is Ninety years too late, the bankers already run everything. Other conspiracy theories are just a smoke screen.

(Yeah... that's the ticket.)
You're obviously underestimating the power of the Bush family and all their friends, who are themselves part of the "bankers," if you actually believe that stuff.

the military is a tool, not the danger

some people are stupid.

You're obviously underestimating the power of the Bush family and all their friends, who are themselves part of the "bankers," if you actually believe that stuff.
You are overlooking the power of the Skull and Bones society, the modern head of the Vishnu-esque banking puppet masters!

The family names on the Skull and Bones roster roll off the tongue like an elite party list -- Lord, Whitney, Taft, Jay, Bundy, Harriman, Weyerhaeuser, Pinchot, Rockefeller, Goodyear, Sloane, Stimson, Phelps, Perkins, Pillsbury, Kellogg, Vanderbilt, Bush, Lovett and so on.

And John Kerry.

(While I enjoy reading a good conspiracy theory, it seems that there is always a group of powerfull men, homogenous social/ethnic group, aliens, or government agency making a conspiracy theory.)

You are overlooking the power of the Skull and Bones society, the modern head of the Vishnu-esque banking puppet masters!
No I'm not. If you knew more about the Bush family, you'd know that the Skull and Bones society was kept intact and propelled in power and secrecy by Prescott S. Bush, W.'s grandfather, (who also remained invested in companies that supported the Nazis during WWII, thus illustrating that money > ethics and morals to the Bush family.) The Bush connection to the Skull and Bones society goes as far back as the Skull and Bones society itself.

No I'm not. If you knew more about the Bush family, you'd know that the Skull and Bones society was kept intact and propelled in power and secrecy by Prescott S. Bush, W.'s grandfather, (who also remained invested in companies that supported the Nazis during WWII, thus illustrating that money > ethics and morals to the Bush family.) The Bush connection to the Skull and Bones society goes as far back as the Skull and Bones society itself.
Lets, see...

By assuming Bush dominance, you are undestimating the penetration of the society in major leadership positions in both parties. Partisianship is exactly what the society wants, it is only in a charged political environment that they can build massive underground gulags, to throw dissenters in. The largest of which is underneath Denver International Airport.

Promotion of a state of fear is nessicary to the advancement of thier plans, so the Society inventend Osama Bin Laden, armed Kim Jong Ill with nuclear weapons, and manufactured the threat of Bird Flu.

The press is directly manipulated by honorary society members , Ted Turner, and Rupert Murdoch. Wheras direct knolledge of the society is disiminated through Carlyle member Soro's NOW, and Micheal Moore, the theory being that the best way to hide the existance of the organization is in plain site.

The Invasion of Iraq was only to give a dejour change of ownership to the supplies of oil, and add another area of distraction and Sadam Hussian and his sons are now living quietly in Libya. 911, Madrid, and the London bombings where perpetrated by agents of the organization in order to keep the poplace in fear.

If you want I can tie massive theory back to the Knights Templar, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, and/or The Elders of Zion. I have read a number of variations of it. ;)

Its not the military because the military is composed of its soldiers and leaders. These soldiers and leaders are so steeped in patriotism born of the concept of rugged individualism and a fanatical allegience to the American way of life that there's no way, were the administration to decide to launch a coup, that they could get the average Joe Soldier or his commanders to order them to attack Americans in mass. Even if some would do it you'd have a massive mutiny from people who control a hell of a lot of hardware and soldiers.

Lets, see...
<snip>
:rolleyes: please provide links before spewing crap out all over the place.

the military is a tool, not the danger

some people are stupid.

including, apparently, all those usually-deified founding fathers who were not big on the whole large standing army idea, due to the inherent dangers to liberty posed by such organizations and militarism that fuels them.

Do you think the members in it have nothing in common and that they don't believe in pushing their stated, clear agenda?

Do you think none of it's members have any power to pursue that agenda?

sure, but the fact that some people met in a room somewhere to discuss things they'd like to accomplish, and then began implementing those things they publically stated they'd like to do once they got into power, and then you pointed this out, is reason enough to dismiss it as the paranoid conspiracy theory it obviously is.

:rolleyes: please provide links before spewing crap out all over the place.
When has a large conspiracy therory been anything but crap? :rolleyes:

Partisianship is exactly what the society wants,
http://www.pushhamburger.com/america's_future.htm
it is only in a charged political environment that they can build massive underground gulags, to throw dissenters in. The largest of which is underneath Denver International Airport.
>US Gulags- http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/010306gulagsforamericans.htm
>Denver-
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/nwodnver.html

Promotion of a state of fear is nessicary to the advancement of thier plans,
>Fear for mind controlr-
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/endless_fake_terror_alerts.html
so the Society inventend Osama Bin Laden,
>OBL actor-
http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm
armed Kim Jong Ill with nuclear weapons,
-http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1839.cfm
and manufactured the threat of Bird Flu.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/241005fluscam.htm

The press is directly manipulated by honorary society members , Ted Turner, and Rupert Murdoch.
>Global Conspiracy Theory
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar46.htm
>Murdoch Ties
http://www.infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/in_your_face.htm
>Turner Ties
http://www.bible-prophecy.com/nwo.htm
Wheras direct knolledge of the society is disiminated through Carlyle member Soro's
>Soros and Carlyle
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carlyle_Group
NOW, (- $2,000,000 in donations and counting. )
and
Micheal Moore, (- Via Westinghouse, which he owns a controling share of.= )
the theory being that the best way to hide the existance of the organization is in plain site.

The Invasion of Iraq was only to give a dejour change of ownership to the supplies of oil, and add another area of distraction and Sadam Hussian and his sons are now living quietly in Libya.
> - Saddam Free:
http://www.secretgovernment.org/index.php
> - Sons alive:
http://www.thenausea.com/elements%5Cusa%5Ciraq%202003%5CSaddam%20sons%20freedom%20files%5CShattering%20the%20Uday%20and%20Qus ay%20Myth.htm
911, (There are tons of websites on this)
Madrid,
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/MadMadrid.htm
and the London
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/011105london_bomber.htm
bombings where perpetrated by agents of the organization in order to keep the populace in fear.

Needed to tie together:
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/

*headdesk*
For everybody who says our military, let's take it away and see how you like it! :headbang:
Islamic Terrorists, no doubt.

The PNAC is not a conspiracy because they are right up front about what they want to do. Its published on their website and all you have to do is go there and read it. Its a plan for military domination of the globe plain and simple and they don't hide it or their members. Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, et. al. are all right up front with it.

The PNAC is not a conspiracy because they are right up front about what they want to do. Its published on their website and all you have to do is go there and read it. Its a plan for military domination of the globe plain and simple and they don't hide it or their members. Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, et. al. are all right up front with it.
The group certianly exists (just like the Skull and Bones and Freemasons), and is a major player in the Bush administration. Though a large number of attributed ties and actions are just like the Jekyll Island group are exaggerated. :D

The group certianly exists (just like the Skull and Bones and Freemasons), and is a major player in the Bush administration. Though a large number of attributed ties and actions are just like the Jekyll Island group are exaggerated. :D
Yes, they do exist and they're right here. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)

It's all right there including their membership: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

If you scroll down you'll see who's in it...

Yes, they do exist and they're right here. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)

It's all right there including their membership: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

If you scroll down you'll see who's in it...
I told him earlier, and he still ignored it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10556852&postcount=51

Your eyes just have to be brown! :rolleyes:
I do, so? Is this some sort of joke, because I don’t get it.

Its not the military because the military is composed of its soldiers and leaders. These soldiers and leaders are so steeped in patriotism born of the concept of rugged individualism and a fanatical allegience to the American way of life that there's no way, were the administration to decide to launch a coup, that they could get the average Joe Soldier or his commanders to order them to attack Americans in mass. Even if some would do it you'd have a massive mutiny from people who control a hell of a lot of hardware and soldiers.
Man, where have you been, its already happened.

Man, where have you been, its already happened.
Only if you're a conspiracy loon. Our president is routinely bashed in the press, at protests that follow him wherever he goes, his deal with the UAE just went bye-bye, how has teh admin taken over? Looks to me like they're lame ducks...

Only if you're a conspiracy loon. Our president is routinely bashed in the press, at protests that follow him wherever he goes, his deal with the UAE just went bye-bye, how has teh admin taken over? Looks to me like they're lame ducks...
Thankfully, it's not working out the way they would have liked it to.

Thankfully, it's not working out the way they would have liked it to.
Yes, thankfully. The point is there was no conspiracy. They were right up front about what they wanted to do. They wanted to use military force if necessary to "democratize" the Middle East and they came right out and said it and Congress approved it and the people, at first, supported it. Now that it turns out that they were wrong about what they thought they could achieve the public and the Congress are turning their backs on the admin. No conspiracy, just stupidity on the part of the admin and the people who voted for them and supported them, namely the "red states."

Yes, thankfully. The point is there was no conspiracy. They were right up front about what they wanted to do. They wanted to use military force if necessary to "democratize" the Middle East and they came right out and said it and Congress approved it and the people, at first, supported it. Now that it turns out that they were wrong about what they thought they could achieve the public and the Congress are turning their backs on the admin. No conspiracy, just stupidity on the part of the admin and the people who voted for them and supported them, namely the "red states."
Not stupidity on the part of the administration. Foolish naivity, there's a difference. The PNAC was formed in 1996, I believe, and it's obvious they wanted to change the US foreign policy, it's obvious Bush isn't really president, this administration was planned. They were up front about "democratzing," yet that doesn't explain them profiting through Carlyle, Haliburton etc...

Not stupidity on the part of the administration. Foolish naivity, there's a difference. The PNAC was formed in 1996, I believe, and it's obvious they wanted to change the US foreign policy, it's obvious Bush isn't really president, this administration was planned. They were up front about "democratzing," yet that doesn't explain them profiting through Carlyle, Haliburton etc...
True about the profitering thing, but that's not really a conspiracy. Much of what these companies have done, especially haliburton, cannot be done by other companies. No company in the world other than Haliburton can go to a 40 billion barrel oil field that is failing due to overpulling and neglect, for example, and rehabilitate it. No comapny has both the upstream and downstream resources to rehabilitate an oil delivery system that pumps multiple millions of barrels a day also. Other companies may be able to do it, but not without significantly upgrading their own resources first. Haliburton's ready right now. I'm not saying there's a probelm with the bidding on Iraq war contracts or katrina rehab projects, but even were it open for bidding haliburton would've won most of those contracts anyways just because they have the existing scope and resources to do things like that on the spot. You're right about naivite, but there's was so bad I think its synonimous with stupid.

Personally, I think it’s the military. Our military enforces the policies of the neo-cons and keeps the people, on an individual and societal level, from asserting their basic rights.

EDIT: The topic is which is a bigger threat out of these two, not what you believe to be the biggest threat to America, period.

So when was the last time the military stopped you from doing something?

I see that the conspiracy theorists are out in force today.

As a soldier, this thread is about as insulting as it can get. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are not mindless robots, or barely contained killing machines. We are men and women who decided to serve our country. We are all sworn to defend the constitution and the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Everyone who is command of troops feels the burden of that responsibility. I have lead troops into battle, so I know what I’m talking about here. No one who takes that responsibility lightly will ever have the respect of his men, or their trust.

A lot of people here need to remove themselves from their self-imposed isolation from the real world and come up with some original thoughts of their own.

Where is the Poll:

"Both are equally threatening"?

I see that the conspiracy theorists are out in force today.

As a soldier, this thread is about as insulting as it can get. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are not mindless robots, or barely contained killing machines. We are men and women who decided to serve our country. We are all sworn to defend the constitution and the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Everyone who is command of troops feels the burden of that responsibility. I have lead troops into battle, so I know what I’m talking about here. No one who takes that responsibility lightly will ever have the respect of his men, or their trust.

A lot of people here need to remove themselves from their self-imposed isolation from the real world and come up with some original thoughts of their own.That's exactly what I was talking about here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10557426&postcount=61

I see that the conspiracy theorists are out in force today.

As a soldier, this thread is about as insulting as it can get. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are not mindless robots, or barely contained killing machines. We are men and women who decided to serve our country. We are all sworn to defend the constitution and the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Everyone who is command of troops feels the burden of that responsibility. I have lead troops into battle, so I know what I’m talking about here. No one who takes that responsibility lightly will ever have the respect of his men, or their trust.

A lot of people here need to remove themselves from their self-imposed isolation from the real world and come up with some original thoughts of their own.
Save your fingers. Those who post this sort of drivel are compelled by their handlers to dance like puppets to the tune of their ideological brainwashing.

As a soldier, this thread is about as insulting as it can get.
You wanna bet on that?

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are not mindless robots, or barely contained killing machines. We are men and women who decided to serve our country. We are all sworn to defend the constitution and the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
It is a pretty mindless thing to basically sign your rights away in order to serve an abstract entity. If you wanted to serve and protect your friends and family, you would have joined the police. At least there you wouldn't be sent half way around the world to die for people you never even heard of.

Everyone who is command of troops feels the burden of that responsibility. I have lead troops into battle, so I know what I’m talking about here. No one who takes that responsibility lightly will ever have the respect of his men, or their trust.
That's sorta beside the point.

A lot of people here need to remove themselves from their self-imposed isolation from the real world and come up with some original thoughts of their own.
Okay...so tell me:
How does Islamist Terrorism threaten the people of the United States?

How does militarism and mindless acceptance of the orders from above threaten the United States?

And which is more likely to cause the second - a powerful military and unquestioning support for it, or a minority of pissed off people thousands of kilometres away?

Save your fingers. Those who post this sort of drivel are compelled by their handlers to dance like puppets to the tune of their ideological brainwashing.
You're a bit cranky today, aren't ya?

Okay...so tell me:
How does Islamist Terrorism threaten the people of the United States?
Ummm.....

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0209/22f1f7267aed119437b8.jpeg

And then you could go back to the combat deaths from the Muslim rebels in the Phillipines in the Phillipine Insurrection of the early 1900's
Actually, Muslim extremists have hated us since we were founded, see the Berber fight for Tripoli that took place under Thomas Jefferson's administration.

Save your fingers. Those who post this sort of drivel are compelled by their handlers to dance like puppets to the tune of their ideological brainwashing.

I should realize this by now, but I still have the glimmer of hope that some of them may still have the capacity for independant thought.

Ummm.....
:rolleyes:

I think it is already established that the US Military has killed more Americans than that in training accidents, other accidents, friendly fire and arguably failures in leadership leading to various unwinnable battles or increased casualties.

Again - how can Islamist Terrorism destroy America?

Ummm.....

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0209/22f1f7267aed119437b8.jpeg


That is what Islamic psychoes can do to us, people.

You wanna bet on that?


It is a pretty mindless thing to basically sign your rights away in order to serve an abstract entity. If you wanted to serve and protect your friends and family, you would have joined the police. At least there you wouldn't be sent half way around the world to die for people you never even heard of.


That's sorta beside the point.


Okay...so tell me:
How does Islamist Terrorism threaten the people of the United States?

How does militarism and mindless acceptance of the orders from above threaten the United States?

And which is more likely to cause the second - a powerful military and unquestioning support for it, or a minority of pissed off people thousands of kilometres away?
Every country has a military. If no orders are given to the military, then how does it stay organized?

:rolleyes:

I think it is already established that the US Military has killed more Americans than that in training accidents, other accidents, friendly fire and arguably failures in leadership leading to various unwinnable battles or increased
casualties.

Sure if you take the total number of accidents in teh US military since 1900 that's probably true, but that's not a threat to America, its a threat to people participating in the military. A risk I think they all know they assume.

Again - how can Islamist Terrorism destroy America?
That's not what you asked in the other post.

That is what Islamic psychoes can do to us, people.
And the question that picture was posted as a response to was:
How does Islamist Terrorism threaten the people of the United States?

Actually, Muslim extremists have hated us since we were founded, see the Berber fight for Tripoli that took place under Thomas Jefferson's administration.
Except that that wouldn't have anything to do with "hating you", and everything to do with gaining independence. They wouldn't even have known what the f*ck you are.

I should realize this by now, but I still have the glimmer of hope that some of them may still have the capacity for independant thought.
*holds back obligatory comment about a soldier talking about "independent thought"*

Every country has a military. If no orders are given to the military, then how does it stay organized?
Well, first, not every country does. Some very small nations don't really keep one, and many more have more of a token military that they don't intend to use.

But that's not the point. The point is that a military, no matter which kind, is a necessary evil, not something to be supported, or to be proud of. Indeed, I seem to recall that many a founding father thought the idea of a standing army was very bad, because it would take vital power away from the people.

But today, all that seems to be forgotten. Many hold the military in too high regard, "support our troops" has become an empty phrase that is used to hide all sorts of ugly facts.

I'm not saying the US Military itself is going to destroy the US. I'm saying that the mindset which has been around for some time, and which since 9/11 has reached new heights, might.

Or to quote Abe:
At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
I think that sums it up perfectly.

And the question that picture was posted as a response to was: How does Islamist Terrorism threaten the people of the United States?
Fair enough, I should have phrased that better. It is potentially possible for Islamist Terrorists to kill or hurt a tiny minority of Americans.
But that hardly makes it a threat to the US, and especially not one of the dimensions it is being marketed as.

You wanna bet on that?


It is a pretty mindless thing to basically sign your rights away in order to serve an abstract entity. If you wanted to serve and protect your friends and family, you would have joined the police. At least there you wouldn't be sent half way around the world to die for people you never even heard of.


That's sorta beside the point.


Okay...so tell me:
How does Islamist Terrorism threaten the people of the United States?

How does militarism and mindless acceptance of the orders from above threaten the United States?

And which is more likely to cause the second - a powerful military and unquestioning support for it, or a minority of pissed off people thousands of kilometres away?

Islamist terrorism is a means to an end. Islamo fascism is the real threat. Those preach appeasement are the ones who will help bring it about in the western world.

Your understanding of the command structure, and what it takes to command, seems to come from bad Hollywood movies.

A minority of people who are eager to kill those who disagree with them, coupled with people who are willing to pay any price to avoid conflict. Thats what I think is the greatest threat.

Fair enough, I should have phrased that better. It is potentially possible for Islamist Terrorists to kill or hurt a tiny minority of Americans.
But that hardly makes it a threat to the US, and especially not one of the dimensions it is being marketed as.
We're not just talking about the killing of a few people. Their are enormous economic impacts to consider as well. Not to mention socio-psychological threats. If it weren't for Al Qaeda we probably wouldn't have reelected the stupidest man to ever hold office in the US, for example. A military accident, even a really bad one, does not carry that risk unless you are talking about accidentally setting of a nuke or something...

A minority of people who are eager to kill those who disagree with them, coupled with people who are willing to pay any price to avoid conflict. Thats what I think is the greatest threat.
God, damn that's well put. ;)

Islamist terrorism is a means to an end. Islamo fascism is the real threat. Those preach appeasement are the ones who will help bring it about in the western world.
Okay, you might just have made a mistake here. You see, I have for ages been locking for someone to explain to me what the hell "Islamofascism" is. I know a bit about Islamism, and I know a lot about Fascism, but I don't see how they could be connected.
And since you used the word, I'd like you to explain to me the theoretical underpinnings that allow you to link two concepts together like this, without simply looking like you're trying to condemn by association.

Your understanding of the command structure, and what it takes to command, seems to come from bad Hollywood movies.
Third Year Business Management Student. At least in theory, I know a lot about the stuff.
And it is still beside the point how the internals work, if the overall ideology is one of "I'll give my life on command for the sake of America!"

A minority of people who are eager to kill those who disagree with them...
That's what a military is, my friend.
Minority? Check.
Eager? Well, that depends. The orders come from above, but you can't tell me that the grunts aren't at least a little eager to see action, at least the first time around. The excitement might cool down somewhat as time progresses...
Kill those who disagree with them? Well, if you consider "them" to be those making the decision to go to war in the first place, then "check".

...coupled with people who are willing to pay any price to avoid conflict. Thats what I think is the greatest threat.
Now you're interpreting things.
I'm not saying to avoid conflict. I'm saying that
a) The conflict is not nearly as big as it is portrayed to be.
b) The military is not the right organisation to deal with this problem.

Terrorism is essentially a matter of criminals committing criminal acts. Militaries deal with other states, not with criminals. That's what we have police forces, Interpol and maybe Secret Services for.

But the National Guard can?

Anyways, the worry is that the military influences the government and media, moreso than that it actively takes over the place.
The National Guard, the Bush Administration's questionable usurption of power over not withstanding, are actually state militias. They are not part of the U.S. Armed Forces. Although now I don't know what the hell is goin' on... :confused:

They've always been controlled by the state they are in but are now on lone to the fed for the war in Iraq.

We're not just talking about the killing of a few people. Their are enormous economic impacts to consider as well. Not to mention socio-psychological threats.
I buy the economic impact. But overall, I might think that if the tens of thousands of road fatalities didn't occur, that would be better for the economy as well.
Socio-psychological threats are undefined, and one could make the argument that they are simply the result of the world view that I have been arguing against, in which putting "America" before the individual (ie, doing something very un-American), and in which the military plays a major part.

If it weren't for Al Qaeda we probably wouldn't have reelected the stupidest man to ever hold office in the US, for example. A military accident, even a really bad one, does not carry that risk unless you are talking about accidentally setting of a nuke or something...
Again, Bush's reelection had more to do with the mindset than the 9/11. Unless you are arguing that Americans are all sheep who blindly follow their leader in "wartime", the option to vote him out of office was there.
But it was a lot more complex anyways.

I buy the economic impact. But overall, I might think that if the tens of thousands of road fatalities didn't occur, that would be better for the economy as well.The tens of thousands of road deaths every year do not cause the stock market to crash, businesses to fold and billions of dollars of tax moneys to be spent on rebuilding infrastructure. They do not cause foreign companies to divest assets in the US. They do not cause people to stop going out to dinner or to go shopping. 9/11 had a profound effect on the nation's economy not the least of which was the ensuing two wars we fought as a response to them.
Socio-psychological threats are undefined, and one could make the argument that they are simply the result of the world view that I have been arguing against, in which putting "America" before the individual (ie, doing something very un-American), and in which the military plays a major part.Well, I live in the US and I'm telling you that the militaristic mindset that prevailed directly after 9/11 is like nothing I had seen before in my lifetime and my lifetime stretches from about a month after the Tet Offensive thourgh present day, obviously. Could I in a word describe it? No, but it was there, it was strong and it is only now beginning to fade. It is only recently that people are again talking about hwo we need to mend fences with our European friends and it is only now that people here are talking about American and western values again rather than, "let's kick the teeth out of anyone who wants to fuck with us." To be sure, there are many that still feel that way, but I think we are finally starting to settle down a little and become more pragmatic again. That event divided the nation like it has not been divided since the Civil War. The turnout numbers in the last election are a testement to that.


Again, Bush's reelection had more to do with the mindset than the 9/11. Unless you are arguing that Americans are all sheep who blindly follow their leader in "wartime", the option to vote him out of office was there.
But it was a lot more complex anyways.
And the mindset was directly related to 9/11. It may have existed before, but it was that attack that made it a dominant mentality in the American psyche. As I just said, I think it is fading now, I hope.

-snip-
In other words, both Islamist Terrorism and the US Military are accessories to that which really threatens the US.

In other words, both Islamist Terrorism and the US Military are accessories to that which really threatens the US.
No, Islamic extremisim and stupidity are what threaten the US. The military just does what its told. It did not create the mindset that followed the attacks and its response in Afghanistan was appropriate. I diagree with this war, but to blame the military for it is wrong headed. As a matter in fact, many in teh military leadership warned against it and as a result of it many high ranking military leaders broke with the Bush Admisitration and endorsed John Kerry.

Maybe we need a little defining here? When you ask me, "Is the US Military a threat to the US?" are you asking if I think the actual military would try to launch a coup and over throw the civilian governement or are you asking me if I think a militarist mindset on the part of the general population is a threat, because the answer to those I think seperate questions are no to the former and yes to the latter.

Maybe we need a little defining here?
And you don't think "the military" (by which I mean the Pentago and its media people) does all it can to strengthen militarism in the US?
I couldn't give a shit about the soldiers, nor could I give a shit about most of the generals. When I say "US Military", I generally refer to the giant industrial complex that it is, which extends far into civilian and business life through its various connections and which as its central justification for what it does occasionally claims to have something to do with the grunt on the ground who must be religiously "supported".

The National Guard, the Bush Administration's questionable usurption of power over not withstanding, are actually state militias. They are not part of the U.S. Armed Forces. Although now I don't know what the hell is goin' on... :confused:

They've always been controlled by the state they are in but are now on lone to the fed for the war in Iraq.
Not quite accurate. There has always been the option for Federal preemption of the Guard.

And you don't think "the military" (by which I mean the Pentago and its media people) does all it can to strengthen militarism in the US?

No. I don't, as a rule, buy conspiracies. They don't advertise much and when they do its all like, "be all you can be" and such or its about, "join the military and earn money for college or train in a career." It's not "America love it or leave it" stuff. The military here keep pretty quiet and pretty much do as they're told. The people who try to make people all militaristic are the right wing and religious nuts. Even the military can't stand them. A good example is the border issue. People from the far right have consistently called for the military to guard our borders to which they have responded, "No! That's not what we're for." Our military avoid taking power in situations even when its offered to them. As far as they are concerned they are here to fight wars and to prepare for them.

Not quite accurate. There has always been the option for Federal preemption of the Guard.
Fair enough, I was just pointing out that they are a state, not a federal force. Of course, judging from the "United States is a stupid name" thread many here will not be able to make the distinction.

How does Islamist Terrorism threaten the people of the United States?

How does militarism and mindless acceptance of the orders from above threaten the United States?

"The problem is civil obedience," as Howard Zinn put it a few decades ago.

Servility to a government that is atrocious and disgusting, that has killed millions of people needlessly in order to advance its interests of power and domination, is the greater problem, not the backlash it receives.

No. I don't, as a rule, buy conspiracies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54632-2002Jun14?language=printer
This is just one example of the Pentagon distorting the truth in order to make the military look better. It's dishonest, and the defence ministry working together with Hollywood is actually quite common.
Ever seen "Rules of Engagement (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/062000/0006015.html)"?

As for the connections into the business- and civilian life, that's obviously true. Close connections to large defence companies are obvious, as is the "revolving door" between government and business that is common in all US departments. And didn't the Pentagon give money to the boy scouts (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2004/n12062004_2004120609.html)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54632-2002Jun14?language=printer
This is just one example of the Pentagon distorting the truth in order to make the military look better. It's dishonest, and the defence ministry working together with Hollywood is actually quite common.
Ever seen "Rules of Engagement (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/062000/0006015.html)"?

As for the connections into the business- and civilian life, that's obviously true. Close connections to large defence companies are obvious, as is the "revolving door" between government and business that is common in all US departments. And didn't the Pentagon give money to the boy scouts (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2004/n12062004_2004120609.html)?
Oh, don't get me wrong. They lie and conceal, the feel they need to in order to win wars and to keep the public trust, but you asked if they try to manipulate the American public and make them more militaristic. Truth is, if they had it their way the press would just leave them alone all together. I don't think anything would make them happier than to have the press forget that there's a war on at all. I think here's the Pentagon's dream press conference:

"Sir, is how's the war going?

"The war? Look here! This is Chewbacca! Chewbacca is a Wookie! If Chewbacca is a Wookie, then how can Ewoks be from Endore? It doesn't make sense! Next question."

"Sir, what kind of products does Chewbacca use to keep his hair so nice and smooth?"

I think here's the Pentagon's dream press conference:

"Sir, is how's the war going?

"The war? Look here! This is Chewbacca! Chewbacca is a Wookie! If Chewbacca is a Wookie, then how can Ewoks be from Endore? It doesn't make sense! Next question."

"Sir, what kind of products does Chewbacca use to keep his hair so nice and smooth?"
lol, sort of like this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040122-5.html)?

Actually, Muslim extremists have hated us since we were founded, see the Berber fight for Tripoli that took place under Thomas Jefferson's administration.

It's not even so much that the Muslims hate "us", but the xian masses who murdered, raped and pillaged from the Crusades and even before. The "moral majority" keep saying that this country was founded as a xian society so, unfortunatly, we all wear a target whether we believe in the drivel or not.

Truth is, if they had it their way the press would just leave them alone all together.
Why then the "embedded journalists", a deliberate effort to make the journalists feel like they're a part of the team, and thus make independent reporting impossible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Sites
And if they report the wrong thing they get death threats from nutcases...but even aside from that: Did anyone actually believe him? Were any of the soldiers actually persecuted?

lol, sort of like this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040122-5.html)?
Yes! Exactly like that! :p

Yes! Exactly like that! :p
Or I just came across this one (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040129-7.html), short, sweet and to the point...sort of.

Servility to a government that is atrocious and disgusting, that has killed millions of people needlessly in order to advance its interests of power and domination, is the greater problem, not the backlash it receives.
I agree. Now, where might I find this ... "atrocious and disgusting" government?

I agree. Now, where might I find this ... "atrocious and disgusting" government?
D.C. I believe. ;)

I agree. Now, where might I find this ... "atrocious and disgusting" government?
I posted links twice, but if you must, here's (http://www.whitehouse.gov/) a direct link. :p

Yes, they do exist and they're right here. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)

It's all right there including their membership: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

If you scroll down you'll see who's in it...
They have not done any of that stuff have they?

I was responding to was:

Which is a bigger threat to the United States of America?
Karl Rove and the PNAC

Just looking at how well things are going for them, you would have to be a conspiracy nut, or just making asinine remarks for this above to be true.

Why then the "embedded journalists", a deliberate effort to make the journalists feel like they're a part of the team, and thus make independent reporting impossible?because its better for them than when they aren't embedded. They remember Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Sites
And if they report the wrong thing they get death threats from nutcases...but even aside from that: Did anyone actually believe him? Were any of the soldiers actually persecuted?
No, they weren't and I don't think they should have been if its the incident I think it is. That aside, what does that have to do with militarizing the American public? I have conceded that they lie and conceal, but you asked if I thought they tried to promote militarism in the American public. If they do then they are miserable failures at it. They have consistently missed their recruitment goals, it took the Supreme Court to force the universities to allow recruitment on campus and only if the university receives public funds, they have consistently failed to get the money they want from congress...

They have not done any of that stuff have they?


No, they tried and it looks like they're going to fail. Iraq was going to be their first shot. If it had gone like they hoped it would not have been their last. Again, its not a conspiracy. They were right up front about it.

I posted links twice, but if you must, here's (http://www.whitehouse.gov/) a direct link. :p
You never cease to be predictable. :rolleyes:

Just looking at how well things are going for them, you would have to be a conspiracy nut, or just making asinine remarks for this above to be true.
Auctung's right. They are a grave threat to the US. Not because they are a conspiracy, but because they are inept and stupid and are in control of the country.

No, they tried and it looks like they're going to fail. Iraq was going to be their first shot. If it had gone like they hoped it would not have been their last. Again, its not a conspiracy. They were right up front about it.
That is true...

I guess I'll give Achtung 45 half a Cookie then. :fluffle:

You never cease to be predictable. :rolleyes:
Sorry if I was trying to lighten up the atmosphere. I was hoping the italics and what-not would give you the hint, but I guess I was wrong. I'll never do it again.

because its better for them than when they aren't embedded. They remember Vietnam.
Vietnam was the first time there was something approaching fair journalism in a war. The fact that this reporting spawned such a powerful anti-war movement should be held in high regard, when there was really no anti-government pacifist movements beforehand.

That aside, what does that have to do with militarizing the American public? I have conceded that they lie and conceal, but you asked if I thought they tried to promote militarism in the American public.
So who does? And why? And does the Pentagon help or at least tolerate?

That is true...

I guess I'll give Achtung 45 half a Cookie then. :fluffle:
YAY!!!

Auctung's right. They are a grave threat to the US. Not because they are a conspiracy, but because they are inept and stupid and are in control of the country.
Finally someone sees the light :D

Vietnam was the first time there was something approaching fair journalism in a war. The fact that this reporting spawned such a powerful anti-war movement should be held in high regard, when there was really no anti-government pacifist movements beforehand.I agree.


So who does? And why? And does the Pentagon help or at least tolerate?
Various right wing religious nuts, militarists, etc... They fail at it, though. Actually, the people who did the best job at militarising the American public recently were Osama and his bunch. Before that it was the Japanese. WE're kinda fat and happy over here with no enemy close enough to touch us, at least we thought, so we don't wanna fight. At least we don't want to know we're fighting. I realize the government does a lot of shit in secret, but the fact that they do it in secret speaks to the level of militarism in the US public.