MapleBear

Seems like the only good news, the only hope, comes from outside the U.S. these days. Fear and loathing of George Bush, Inc. is driving other nations into each other's arms. As the U.S. continues its assault on democracy, other nations are picking up the torch. Of course, most of Latin America is swinging sharply towards the left, but Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is a real firebrandk. If an international poll was taken, George W. Bush would almost certainly rank as the most hated person in the world, while Chavez would likely rank as one of the most admire. Go, Chavez!

Yes, nuclear weapons can trigger earthquakes - but probably not one of this magnitude.

The CIA might have faked the tsunami! -kimmy Uh, no - the tsunami was triggered by an earthquake...a very big one.

I was thinking of 9/11, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Pearl Harbor, the Battleship Maine, etc. though the CIA obviously couldn't have been behind all of them.

I'm sure other people have discussed the possibilities, but, amazingly, I've seen no references on any online news sources or political forums. That is, no one (to my knowledge) is talking about the possiblity of terrorist attacks on U.S. troops in the regions struck by the recent devastating tsunami. To put it in perspective, let's ask why we're there. A right-winger (or a blithering idiot) would reply that we're a humanitarian nation. But George W. Bush alone puts a big damper on that argument. His initial response was eerily reminiscent of his initial response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks ("What, me worry?"). Then he did an abrupt about face and sent in the military. I agree with critics who see this as a combination public relations farce and military exercise. I just can't understand why no one is talking about the threat of terrorist attacks. Think about it: We've dispatched thousands of U.S. troops to several nations, some of which hate the U.S. and/or harbor terrorists or civil wars. On top of that, security can't be too good in third world nations ravaged by Nature. I think I read that our troops were expected to stay in some areas for six months or more. Does anyone believe we can maintain that many troops in the Indian Ocean for half a year without suffering a terrorist attack(s)? So what would be the result of such an attack? At the least, right-wingers would say, "See, irrational third worlders repay our kindness with terrorism! These people clearly aren't as good as Americans!" A really serious terrorist attack might induce George W. Dumbass to pressure a third world government, perhaps demanding that it allow U.S. special forces to track down the villains. Some governments might even invite the U.S. to take sides in their local civil wars and guerilla conflicts. It's also possible that the CIA could stage another phony terrorist attack, perhaps sinking a small ship and blaming it on Muslim terrorists. I don't think people realize how serious this situation could be.

"Hi Maple Bear missed you. Hope you had a good Christmas Break." Thanks, same to you. "It really was hard to believe that he could have been re-elected after all the things he was found to be fabricating." Yes. But the entire election system is corrupt - including the voters. I ran for state office here in Washington, and I was utterly floored at the dirty tricks I encountered - primarily at the hands of Democrats! Liberal Seattle reeks just as bad as Washington, D. C. or Houston, Texas. Sadly, I STILL don't see any real resistance forming. I just recently read a post on Democratic Underground suggesting liberals should get geared up for the elections in 2006. What about THIS YEAR??? There are ALWAYS some kind of offices up for grabs, and we need to win some local victories - city councils, school boards, etc. But no one will talk about it. And I understand John Kerry is promoting himself as the frontrunner for 2008. That little quisling ought to be handed over to the Iraqis.

I think most people would agree that George W. Bush is one incredibly lucky SOB. I still can't believe what he got away with during his first four years in the White House. I find it very, very hard to believe his luck will hold out for another four years. The man's going down. Which isn't to say right-wing religious kooks or spineless liberals will ever hold Bush accountable, but the United States in general is headed for a big fall, and Bush will at least get much of the credit.

The biggest gaffe I recall on September 11 was a certain moron who sat on his butt reading a story about a pet goat before running and hiding in Nebraska. Why did Bush hold private citizens accountable, then hold the CIA accountable when no one holds Bush and his cronies accountable? I think your essay has scored a perfect zero for political astuteness so far. Hmmmm... Guess you never heard of the embargoes against Iraq and Cuba. Yep, I guess the French are up in arms about nothing. Well, DUH... does any nation need a committee to determine its culture? The ability to threaten or bribe nations into signing agreements to not sign on the International Criminal Court? What about laws or regulations that target foreign countries, like the embargo of Cuba? Now there's an example of political and economic power! Gee, do you suppose that's why Bush thumbs his nose at the Constitution? It's fair to argue that Earth is flat and is made of silly putty. Whether people believe you is another matter. Actually, they're dead. Uh, Renaissance landscape painters?

"This seems to include whether or not one is willing to blindly support outright lies in pursuit of a president's agenda or not. It seems Powell and the CIA are not." Folks, it's time to wake up and realize, once and for all, that COLIN POWELL IS ONE OF THEM. I had that jackass pegged nearly a decade ago when he publicly supported a derelict ex-general who became superintendent of the school district I worked for - and wrecked it, just as George W. Bush is wrecking America. I agree with the posters who say Bush is simply replacing moderates with his hired guns. This is scary stuff, and things could very well come to a head. Bush has made too many enemies and done too many stupid things. He may have to start another war just to divert attention from the domestic holocaust he's unleasing on the United States. With the European Union, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and Latin America all flexing their muscles, I suspect President Dumbass may be feeling a little hot under the collar. All I can is the morons who voted for Bush - along with the liberals who STILL aren't scraping together a credible resistance - deserve whatever Bush brings down on them during his second illegal term in office.

"I do feel sorry for Pat Tillman, who gave up a lucrative carrer in the NFL to join the US military, and to fight for what he believed in. A courageous man." Why do you feel sorry for him? No one held a gun to his head. He apparently died doing what he loved - shooting guns in the mountains. Regarding the comment that Tillman wasn't stupid, I wouldn't be quick to agree. Just because he was academically gifted doesn't mean he had any common sense. Frankly, I think the guy had a few loose screws. He certainly didn't help his country by running around Afghanistan fighting for a lost cause. I'm not a fan of the war in Afghanistan, and I'm not a football fan, either, so, for me, Pat Tillman adds up to a perfect zero. To put him in perspective, John "Taliban" Walker was probably at least as courageous as Tillman, obviously believed in something or other, and survived a Made-for-TV ordeal. Though I don't understand why he would break bread with the Taliban, I have more respect for Walker than I do for the dumb jock.

"If the oil argument were true, the US should have invaded Cabinda, Gabon and Bahrein long ago." Cabinda, Gabon and Bahrain versus Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait - which group of nations produces the most oil? And how hard is it for the U.S. to push Cabinda, Gabon and Bahrain around?

Not at all. The Middle East has a far greater supply of fossils fuels, and it is not as easily controlled as Canada, which many Americans consider the 51st state. Holy cow, I suggest you go back and read my post again. I implied exactly the opposite.

Gee, do you think it might have something to do with fossil fuels??? (By the way, I neither used nor implied the word "randomly.")

The title of his thread suggests he's asking why terrorists are targeting the United States. The answer is simple: Because the United States has long targeted the countries most of these terrorists live in.

George W. Bush put that silly notion to rest. But there's nothing silly about this lawsuit. After all, many millions of Canadians would obviously support it. Hell, millions of AMERICANS would support it. It has very strong symbolic value, and it could go somewhere. It's kind of like my Jail4Bush website - of little impact as long as the media and the masses ignore it. But all it needs is a little publicity, and it could become a major headache for George Bush, Inc.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein. No, the United States would be a better example; Iraq has never been a superpower.

Wow, thanks for posting that; it's awesome!

Didn't Vermont figure in the invasion of Canada by U.S. troops during the Civil War?

Be very afraid. The corporations that run the U.S. have taken over our government, media and public school system without firing a shot. Start studying propaganda and manipulation - along with human psychology - and you'll understand the powerful forces we're up against. I believe Canada can survive as a sovereign nation - but only if its citizens wage a vigorous defense - something U.S. citizens have scarcely even attempted. It's largely a war of intellect, fought with computers and the Internet, with a healthy appreciation for logic. Be aware that corporations have recruited legions of operatives to do their dirty work, and they don't wear ID badges. They include government officials, your teachers and perhaps your neighbors. I would hope Canadians appreciate conspiracy theory more than my brainless fellow citizens here in the States do.

You asked, "Why wouldl Bush blow up the Pentagon?" That's a good question. One possibility is that the Republicans simply weren't content with the destruction of the World Trade Center; they wanted to promote the terrorist attacks as an attack on our military. Here's another theory: There's abundant evidence - virtual proof - that Bush had advance notice of the terrorist attacks. Many people believe the Republicans were even more actively involved in the attacks. But think about it: If you were a foreign terrorist planning a major attack on the U.S., would you feel comfortable openly working with Republicans? Probably not. Therefore, the Republicans likely would have worked with the terrorists through operatives. And if foreign terrorists were unknowingly being guided by Republicans, the Republicans may still be playing the same games with terrorists they're playing on the rest of us. Thus, if it remained an essentially Al Qaeda operation, then Al Qaeda would have chosen the targets. And if the Republicans want Al Qaeda to believe it (Al Qaeda) was in full control, then it should have allowed the airliners to strike most of their targets. The Republicans shot down one airliner because they wanted to protect the White House. They wanted the terrorists to think they had struck the Pentagon, but they wanted to control the damage, so they substituted a missilel for the airliner. And the World Trade Center was fair game.

Specficially, George W. Bush to support the puppet government the U.S. has installed in Iraq. Are Canadians stupid enough to bite? If not, will they be sold out by corrupt or spineless government officials? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...A0&refer=canada

George Bush, Inc. has already given Muslims every justification for attacking the United States. As for Israel vs Iraq, I wonder how prepared Iran is for an attack? I mean, they must have learned from their last experience. What secret defenses do they have? How many secret nuclear operations do they have, and how could they be destroyed without a ground invasioni - something Israel is scarcely capable of? And if the U.S. and/or Israel does attack Iraq, might that push other nations or organizations over the edge? Could Pakistani elements give nuclear weapons to terrorist groups who would be only to happy to end Israel's existence?

Hopefully, people will bury the lame argument that ongoing torture scandals merely reflect a few bad apples. Torture and war crimes (along with general corruption) have been widely documented in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. Look at the way the Bush administration even treats U.S. citizens, such as Captain James Yee and John Walker. The buck has to stop somewhere, and George W. Bush's hands are dripping blood.

The pre-emptive strike doctrine is very dangerous. Any nation that launches a pre-emptive strike had better have its facts squared away - and it should be severely punished if it invades a sovereign nation in a false alarm. The United States' invasion of Iraq was obviously not justified. (Saddam Hussein's fleet of drones weren't capable of bringing down the U.S. - even if they could cross the Atlantic - and he would have had a hard time occupying even the state of New York even if he had succeeded.) Ironically, the United States - through its pre-emptive strike doctrine, its fatal blunder in Iraq and its continuing threats and bullying - has given many nations a legitimate excuse to launch a pre-emptive strike against the United States. Thus, Bush's doctrine may one day become a synonym for "stupidity."

Whether or not Bush's team could pull off a stunt like this I don't know, but I do believe that Bush is fully capable of doing something this evil. That hasn't been proven. There's evidence to suggest that a military jet shot that airliner out of the sky. Yes, these are more than enough to condemn Bush. However, they also make it easier to believe even some of the wildest conspiracy theories. What are George Bush's limits? Because we want to learn all we can by continuing to ask questions.