1
   

Pentagon Moving Swiftly to Become 'GloboCop'

 
 
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 09:43 am
I guess American citizens should wake up and smell the coffee. From now on, I guess we should refer to the U.S. as "THE AMERICAN EMPIRE." Because that's what the U.S. is becoming. It's time to read the histories of empires and what happens to them and why they fall.

-----BumbleBeeBoogie

Pentagon Moving Swiftly to Become 'GloboCop'
Analysis - By Jim Lobe - IPS - 6/11/03

WASHINGTON, Jun 10 (IPS) - Much like its successful military campaign in Iraq, the Pentagon is moving at seemingly breakneck speed to re-deploy U.S. forces and equipment around the world in ways that will permit Washington to play ''GloboCop'', according to a number of statements by top officials and defence planners.

While preparing sharp reductions in forces in Germany, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, military planners are talking about establishing semi-permanent or permanent bases along a giant swathe of global territory -- increasingly referred to as ''the arc of instability'' -- from the Caribbean Basin through Africa to South and Central Asiaa and across to North Korea.

The latest details, disclosed by the 'Wall Street Journal' on Tuesday, include plans to increase U.S. forces in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa across the Red Sea from Yemen, set up semi-permanent ''forward bases'' in Algeria, Morocco and possibly Tunisia, and establish smaller facilities in Senegal, Ghana and Mali that could be used to intervene in oil-rich West African countries, particularly Nigeria.

Similar bases -- or what some call ''lily pads'' -- are now being sought or expanded in northern Australia, Thailand (whose prime minister TThaksin Shinawatra has found this to figure high on the bilateral agenda in talks here this week), Singapore, the Philippines, Kenya, Georgia, Azerbaijan, throughout Central Asia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Qatar, Vietnam and Iraq.

''We are in the process of taking a fundamental look at our military posture worldwide, including in the United States,'' said Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on a recent visit to Singapore, where he met with military chiefs and defence ministers from throughout East Asia about U.S. plans there. ''We're facing a very different threat than any one we've faced historically.''

Those plans represent a major triumph for Wolfowitz, who 12 years ago argued in a controversial draft 'Defence Planning Guidance' (DPG) for realigning U.S. forces globally so as to ''retain pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our own interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations''.

The same draft, which was largely repudiated by the first Bush administration after it was leaked to the 'New York Times', also argued for ''a unilateral U.S. defence guarantee'' to Eastern Europe ''preferably in co-operation with other NATO states'', and the use of pre-emptive force against nations with weapons of mass destruction -- both of which are now codified as U.S. strategic doctrine.

The draft DPG also argued that U.S. military intervention should become a ''constant fixture'' of the new world order. It is precisely that capability towards which the Pentagon's force realignments appear to be directed.

With forward bases located all along the ''arc of instability'', Washington can pre-position equipment and at least some military personnel that would permit it to intervene with overwhelming force within hours of the outbreak of any crisis.

In that respect, U.S. global strategy would not be dissimilar to Washington's position vis-à-vis the Caribbean Basin in the early 20th century, when U.S. intervention from bases stretching from Puerto Rico to Panama became a ''constant feature'' of the region until Franklin Roosevelt initiated his Good Neighbour Policy 30 years later.

Indeed, as pointed out by Max Boot, a neo-conservative writer at the Council on Foreign Relations, Wolfowitz's 1992 draft, now mostly codified in the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the USA, is not all that different from the 1903 (Theodore) Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted Washington's ''international police power'' to intervene against ''chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilised society''.

Remarkably, the new and proposed deployments are being justified by similar rhetoric. Just substitute ''globalisation'' for ''civilisation''.

The emerging Pentagon doctrine, founded mainly on the work of retired Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, chief of the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation, and Thomas Barnett of the Naval War College, argues that the dangers against which U.S. forces must be arrayed derive precisely from countries and region that are ''disconnected'' from the prevailing trends of economic globalisation.

''Disconnectedness is one of the great danger signs around the world,'' Cebrowski told a Heritage Foundation audience last month in an update of the ''general loosening of the ties of civilised society'' formula of a century ago.

Barnett's term for areas of greatest threat is ''the Gap'', places where ''globalisation is thinning or just plain absent''. Such regions are typically ''plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and -- most important -- the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of terrorists''.

''If we map out U.S. military responses since the end of the Cold War, we find an overwhelming concentration of activity in the regions of the world that are excluded from globalisation's growing Core -- namely the Caribbean Rim, virtually all of Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and Southwest AAsia, and much of Southeast Asia,'' Barnett wrote in 'Esquire' magazine earlier this year.

The challenge in fighting terrorist networks is both to ''get them where they live'' in the arc of instability and prevent them from spreading their influence into what Barnett calls ''seam states'' located between the Gap and the Core.

Such seam states, he says, include Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. Those nations, the logic goes, should play critical roles, presumably including providing forward bases, for interventions into the Gap.

At the same time, if states ''loosen their ties'' to the global economy, ''bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky'', according to Barnett, ''so will American troops''.

On the eve of the war in Iraq, Barnett predicted that taking Baghdad would not be about settling old scores or enforcing disarmament of illegal weapons. Rather, he wrote, it ''will mark a historic tipping point -- the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalisation''.

Observers will note that Barnett's arc of instability corresponds well to regions of great oil, gas and mineral wealth, a reminder again of Wolfowitz's 1992 draft study. It asserted that the key objective of U.S. strategy should be ''to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power''.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,790 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 10:18 am
Mark
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 10:19 am
BBB, Does the name "evil empire" fit? c.i.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 10:23 am
bm
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
Oh. Now I understand where most of my hard work and income
is going. I was curious about all those taxes.

We must be running out of people to put in our jails.
Still, it's good to be King.
For each good thing there's probably a bad thing, and
for each bad thing there's probably a good thing.

We could debate it to death, ...
but it's still pretty scary when great power is wielded by just a few.
No matter how saintly and virtuous those few are.

Q: Is a system of small, distributed fiefdoms
inherently better than one massive republic?
(humane, efficient, diverse, competitive, fair)

Q: Do natural forces tend towards one or the other?

Q: Is globalization synonymous with imperialism?
Q: Is disconnection another word for autonomy?
Q: Are non-Americans eventually terrorists?
Q: Is this article in the mainstream media?
Q: Can anyone, the U.N., the EU, China or India give decent competition to the U.S.?

Checks and balances... please oh please!
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2003 09:05 pm
BBB:

This country needs a real good ass kicking! If the world was smart, they would throw, lob, and shoot everything they've got at us! It's their only chance of freedom.

The arrogance and disregard this country shows the rest of the world is proof positive that if they indeed want to survive us, they have to destroy us ... the sooner the better!

Anon
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2003 10:20 pm
Anon, You sound like henrygreen. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2003 11:41 pm
CI:

Not sure who Henry Green is ... educate me.

Anon
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 08:04 am
I -- as part of 'the rest of the world' -- am waiting for the American people to organize and throw the Bushes out of their government.

Take the FBI back and arrest those crooks. They were not elected, they will not be elected by any righteous process, but still they are overthrowing every possible government on the planet.

The rest of the world really can't do much. It's up to the Americans to educate their citizens and protest 'til the end.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 09:16 am
Anon, Henrygreen was a angry individual that wanted to see the total destruction of the US, because he considered us the evil empire. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 09:21 am
wolf wrote:
I -- as part of 'the rest of the world' -- am waiting for the American people to organize and throw the Bushes out of their government.

Take the FBI back and arrest those crooks. They were not elected, they will not be elected by any righteous process, but still they are overthrowing every possible government on the planet.

The rest of the world really can't do much. It's up to the Americans to educate their citizens and protest 'til the end.


Wolf, we'll do our best. I'm sure the comments in A2K indicate to you that not all of us are blind to what is going on.

I certainly am willing to commit to you -- and to the rest of the world -- that I will do my personal best to see that this group of miscreants is tossed out at the earliest opportunity.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 09:47 am
As I will also do my personal best to make sure they stay.
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 10:24 am
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 10:32 am
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 10:34 am
Wolf:

The country is now controlled by right wing extremists who have nothing less than the domination of the world as a goal. The article that begins this topic is proof positive that this is the intention. The American people are fat sheep, ready and willing to be shorn and slaughtered. The right wing is using the current opportunity to do that right now as we speak. They are robbing the country's wealth to secure positions of power and wealth for their tiny private club. I'm not sure the U.S. has the capability to throw them out now that they control the election process and the supreme court.

No my friend, the Americans are too apathethic and too stupid to get out of the trap. The ball is in your court! Bomb us now while you still can!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 10:36 am
CI:

Henry Green is right!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 10:43 am
Wolf:

This explains it some!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/06/11_fascism.html

Anon
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 11:15 am
Anon: I hear you full well.

It's precisely my love for America that makes me this sharp against its present rulers. Any American patriot who was led to believe that this policy has anything to do with good old values should really, really think again.

These are politics of fear, paranoïa, greed and frustration. But the worst of all: they are digging our ecological graves. George HW Bush is just too much of an oil man to recognize an apocalypse as he ignites one.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 12:42 pm
Anon
When last I looked we still had the right to vote. If enough people disagree with the present administration they will vote it out. If not______. Please keep your bombers away and have a good day.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 02:27 pm
Quote:
If my email is any indication, a goodly number of folks wonder if they're living in America in 2003 or Germany in 1933.


Yes, lots of people wonder this. Lots of people also wondered if Clinton was going to be Stalin - both are stupid.

Quote:
All this emphasis on nationalism, the militarization of society, identifying The Leader as the nation, a constant state of fear and anxiety heightened by the authorities, repressive laws that shred constitutional guarantees of due process, wars of aggression launched on weaker nations, the desire to assume global hegemony, the merging of corporate and governmental interests, vast mass-media propaganda campaigns, a populace that tends to believe the slogans and lies it's fed without asking too many questions, a timid opposition that barely contests the administration's reckless adventurism abroad and police-state policies at home, etc. etc.


This is new how? This is nothing more than simply swapping the sides. Look at the number of conflicts that Clinton took on - he toppled a few sovereign weak nations (remeber milosivic) with about the same support we have for Iraq. It wasn't heppening then, it's not now.

Quote:
The parallels are not exact, of course; America in 2003 and Germany seventy years earlier are not the same, and Bush certainly is not Adolf Hitler. But there are enough disquieting similarities in the two periods at least to see what we can learn - cautionary tales, as it were - and then figure out what to do with our knowledge.


This is a good statement. The parallels are FAR from exact. And -as he said - bush is not Hitler. But it is always good to try and learn from the past.

Quote:
The veneer of civilization is thin. We know this from our own observations, and various writers - from Shakespeare to Sinclair Lewis (It Can't Happen Here) - have shown us how easily populations can be manipulated by leaders skillfully playing on patriotic emotion or racial or nationalist feelings.


Fiction does not equal reality. Everyone repeat after me until you realise this.

Quote:
Whole peoples, like individuals, can become irrational on occasion - sometimes for a brief moment, sometimes for years, sometimes for decades. Ambition, hatred, fear can get the better of them, and gross lies told by their leaders can deceive their otherwise rational minds. It has happened, it happens, it will continue to happen.


correct

Quote:
One of the most outrageous and horrific examples of an entire country falling into national madness probably was Hitler's Germany from 1933-45. The resulting world war was disastrous, leading to more than 40,000,000 deaths.


possibly, though there are some worse people out there - just not at that scale

Quote:
Lots of stuff about how brilliant dude is and how great his book is


I can't comment, never read the book. OTOH it is generally unwise to base too much from just a few sources, let alone one. Though the guy could be dead on.

Quote:
Haffner makes occasional broad pronouncements about German character traits ("As Bismarck once remarked in a famous speech, moral courage is, in any case, a rare virtue in Germany, but it deserts a German completely the moment he puts on a uniform"), but he devotes a good deal of his attention to the question of personal responsibility. If you read ordinary history books, he says, "you get the impression that no more than a few dozen people are involved, who happen to be 'at the helm of the ship of state' and whose deeds and decisions form what is called history.


This I very much disagree with it. It smaks of racism - one of the acknowledged driving forces of WWII. I never got impression about the scope of involvement - but then maybe I am not a moron such as the author. In fact, I have always found it amazing that so many people followed. As for the courage, hatred, racsim, nationalism do not preclude courage or intelligence. The ideas are orthogonal. Many Mant germans were very courageous even though they were on the wrong side, Many americans were scared shitless even though we were on the good. That's life with many million people.


Quote:
"According to this view, the history of the present decade [the 1930s] is a kind of chess game among Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek, Roosevelt, Chamberlain, Daladier, and a number of other men whose names are on everybody's lips. We anonymous others seem at best to be the objects of history, pawns in the chess game, who may be pushed forward or left standing, sacrificed or captured, but whose lives, for what they are worth, take place in a totally different world, unrelated to what is happening on the chessboard.

"...It may seem a paradox, but it is nonetheless the simple truth, to say that on the contrary, the decisive historical events take place among us, the anonymous masses. The most powerful dictators, ministers, and generals are powerless against the simultaneous mass decisions taken individually and almost unconsciously by the population at large...Decisions that influence the course of history arise out of the individual experiences of thousands or millions of individuals."


This is both correct and wrong. Should the masses decide otherwise the leader is fucked. But should, as hitler was, the leader be absolutely gifted at pushing his populace to where he wants them then they do become pawn like in thier status. What would you say happened then? Germany just, through thier collective conscience, decided Jews needed to be extermanated? no - they were pushed. The leaders of the time bear the ultimate responsibility.

Quote:
Haffner tries to solve the riddle of the easy acceptance of fascism in Hitler's Third Reich. In March of 1933, a majority of German citizens did not vote for Hitler. "What happened to that majority? Did they die? Did they disappear from the face of the earth? Did they become Nazis at this late stage? How was it possible that there was not the slightest visible reaction from them" as Hitler, installed by the authorities as Chancellor, began slowly and then more quickly consolidating power and moving Germany from a democratic state to a totalitarian one?


Fallacy: abstaining from the vote does not mean you disagree with it. Maybe the majority agreed with him, but ultimately didn't care (as is the accepted view of that period in history).

Quote:
All along the way, Hitler would propose or actually promulgate regulations that sliced away at German citizens' freedoms - usually aimed at small, vulnerable sectors of society (labor unionists, communists, Jews, mental defectives, et al.) - and few said or did anything to indicate serious displeasure. In the early days, on those rare occasions when there was concerted negative reaction, Hitler would back off a bit. And so the Nazis grew bolder and more voracious as they continued slicing away at civil society. Many Germans (including some of Hitler's original corporate backers) were convinced Nazism would collapse as it became more and more extreme; others chose denial. It was easier to look the other way.


This is gernally refered to as "acquiescence". It could also be written as follows (and is probably about as accurate):

After each more agressive move Hitler made to secure his political agenda acceptance from the population indicated that he was on the correct track. This allowed Hitler to persue his agenda while keep[ing the populaces ideas in mind. Occasionally he stepped too far in a direction that they did not like, and as a leader following both his peoples wishes and his own, backed off.

Quote:
Haffner saw what was starting to happen, but retreated into his law studies. Even while the Brownshirts were beating and killing people in the streets, the courts with which he worked remained a solid bulwark in defense of traditional democratic principles. And then one day, the Nazis simply marched into the Berlin court buildings and took over Germany's judicial system. Haffner was shaken to the core, but continued studying for his final exams.


I doubt that the courts were the last bastions of the "good" in Germany - I find it hard to believe that an accurate portrayal is that all of germany were raving Nazis except the courts who saw the moral outrage being commited. He is trying to make himself sound better.

Quote:
Shortly thereafter, he and his fellow students were dispatched to a kind of boot camp for ideological and military training. Haffner, a Christian anti-Nazi, found himself, to his astonishment and horror, wearing jackboots, a swastika and learning how to kill.


This, is most likely, very accurate. Many people had no real choice as they were an EXTREME minority in Germany.

snipped personal thoughts as there was little wrong with them - see above comment.

Quote:
Then there was the economic factor, the terror associated with having no money with which to live. One reads Haffner's description of the hyper-inflation crisis, but it's difficult to accept or understand:


Not really sure why it is so difficult - lots of people believe this.


Quote:
snip on how bad things were


Interestingly enough (since the author has not made his original case - i'll move back to it), the republicans are trying to say everything is fine (and it is doing pretty well, just not compared to the Dot Com bubble years - the dow reached over 9000 on NON-inflated stocks for a bit there). It is the Liberal leftist using this tactic to try and sway the population into believeing that the republicans are evil and taking away thier food.

Quote:
There were other ingredients that went into the bubbling fascist vat: the humiliating terms of the Versailles Treaty that were placed on defeated Germany after World War I; the unceasing propaganda barrage in the mass media, helping citizens to agree with the government; the martial mentality that pervaded society:


This is very correct. The govt basically controlled the media and the populace was seething over a great defeat. This is actually much more similar to Muslim countries (look up Thomas Friedman's speeches). Basically a group of people led to believe that they are invincible and have a manifest destiny were shown, in the largest way possible, that they sucked. That's rough - most people would rather blame some other group than themselves (similar to why Islamic extremeist blame the west for them not being the major world powers)


Quote:
"From 1914 to 1918 a generation of German schoolboys daily experienced war as a great, thrilling, enthralling game between nations, which provided far more excitement and emotional satisfaction than anything peace could offer; and that is where [Nazism] draws its allure from: its simplicity, its appeal to the imagination, and its zest for action; but also its intolerance and its cruelty toward internal opponents...Ultimately, that is also the source of Nazism's belligerant attitude toward neighboring states. Other countries are not regarded as neighbors, but must be opponents, whether they like it or not."


I can't say for sure since I wasn't there, but I find it difficult to believe that they really had that view as towards the end of the first world war they were getting pounded pretty hard. I believe that it was portrayed as such, just not that people really took that to heart when they were getting killed.

Quote:
And then there is the inexplicable mystique that surrounds such men as Hitler, that mesmerizes and lures millions into their web:


"If my experience of Germany has taught me anything, it is this: Rathenau [who led a progressive government in 1921-22, and was then assassinated by anti-Semitic thugs] and Hitler are the two men who excited the imagination of the German masses to the utmost; the one by his ineffable culture, the other by his ineffable vileness. Both, and this is decisive, came from inaccessible regions, from sort of 'beyond.' the one from a sphere of sublime spirituality where the cultures of three millenia and two continents hold a symposium; the other from a jungle far below the depths plumbed by the basest penny dreadfuls, from an underworld where demons rise from a brewed-up stench of petty-bourgeois back rooms, doss-houses, barrack latrines, and the hangman's yard. From their respective 'beyonds,' they both drew a spellbinding power, quite irrespective of their politics."
When Hitler's in-your-face brand of "beyond" power - with its meanness and arrogance and menace, throwing opponents in jail, beating them, even killing them - met the traditional democratic culture, those on the other end often had no tools at their disposal to combat the new hardball politics:


This is the point of view from someone who had an axe to grind (namely hated hitler). Hitler gave the German people an out from thier miserable lives. Both in that it wasn't thier fault and restoring a sense of pride. That, ultimately, is what won him power.

Quote:
"It was then that the real mystery of the Hitler phenomenon began to show itself: the strange befuddlement and numbness of his opponents, who could not cope with his behavior and found themselves transfixed by the gaze of the basilisk, unable to see that it was hell personified that challenged them."


Typical crap - "everyone knows they are wrong - they just will not admit it". No, many actually agreed with those policies.

Quote:
"What saved me was...my nose. I have a fairly well developed figurative sense of smell, or to put it differently, a sense of the worth (or worthlessness!) of human, moral, political views and attitudes. Most Germans unfortunately lack this sense almost completely. The cleverest of them are capable of discussing themselves stupid with their abstractions and deductions, when just using their noses would tell them that something stinks."


I'm betting that the other side felt the same. This type of discussion is best left for talking with like minded people as you come off as a pretentious asswipe. Maybe you do have that fine sense - at least this fellow seems not to have been taken in with hitler.

Quote:
Given their built-in weakness and their willingness to swallow the most outrageous Big Lies emanating from the propaganda ministry and the media, most Germans were fruit waiting to be plucked by the Nazi harvesters.


This I tend to disagree with. Most people are willing to swallow half truths such as the ones Hitler used if it coincides with what they want. For Big lies (for our current raeders) see the Iraqi Propoganda Minister. For Hitleresque lies see Bill Clinton.


Quote:
"They still fall for anything. After all that, I do not see that one can blame the majority of Germans who, in 1933, believed that the Reichstag fire was the work of the Communists. [The Parliament burned down and a convenient Communist arsonist was fingered, which the Nazis used as the excuse to unleash police-state tactics against all opponents.] What one can blame them for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character clearly for the first time during the Nazi period, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence."
In short, what should have been a strong political and moral opposition movement to Hitlerian policies, meekly acceded to the destruction of their country's institutions of law and social harmony. The result in society was a clear leaning toward the dynamic, muscular policies advocated by the Nazis, and a seething "anger and disgust with the cowardly treachery of their own [opposition] leadership."


The two do not correlate. How does burning of the building and blaming it on the communists mean that? With no other way of knowing many probably thought it was the communists.

[snipped a lot of stuff - tired of doing this]

Quote:
So, dear reader, examine the above descriptive passages from the Germany of the 1930s, when the Nazis were assuming full power, and see what lessons can be learned for our situation today.

As I write this, Ashcroft is telling the Congress that the Patriot Act - the same act that more than 100 cities have voted not to honor because of its numerous violations of rights guaranteed by the Constitution - does not give the Bush Administration enough police power and needs to be expanded. (This at a time when American citizens have been arrested, not charged and then stashed away on military bases, cut off from judicial protections; and hundreds of foreign prisoners are being held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo in violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva conventions.)


And notice, that recently, Bush has told him to back off - that's too far. As far as I can tell this is still less restrctive than pre-nazi germany was. We are used to some pretty hefty freedoms and don't like them infringed very much. Please re-read the above passages and tell me that this is what Ascroft wants? then you, my not friend, are delusional.

Quote:
Demonstrable government falsehoods are being published by a compliant media, while that same media, owned by corporate giants, refuses to report factual information that is embarrassing to the Administration. And finally, the Pentagon is working on "contingency plans" for the next unilateral invasion of a sovereign state by the U.S. military.


point 1: no - they are not complient media. I see lots of talk about how horrid the Pres is. The media is no where near controlled by the conservatives (go look up the ration of liberals to conservatives in the media - I think you will get a little different view than what you think).

point 2: yes - the pentagon is. The pentagon has always done so since thier inception. That is what thier job is. This guy has a Ph.D - ****, we learned that in high school (1987) government class!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Pentagon Moving Swiftly to Become 'GloboCop'
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 12:16:18