Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Baxter Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 12:04 (Agree/Disagree?) As an historical aside, Mao Tse Tung had difficulty accessing domestic intelligence not exclusively because of his ego. Apparently, Mao could never get a straight answer from his lieutenants,because they were skid-soiling scared of him. As a matter of fact, Mao eventually instituted his own personal intelligence gathering service by sending his bodyguards on 'holiday' into specific areas. That was the only way he could find out what was happening in the field. He did have a personality cult, but arguably he was nowhere near as completely self-involved as Kim Jong Il. (reply to this comment)

from Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 11:09 (Agree/Disagree?) All communities, countries etc..throughout history, have to be aware and fight/protest against the powerful when they start to become a dictator/dictatorship. We know the warning signs. Because lets face it once some one or a group become powerful they will more than likely abuse it and try and retain they're power and status. And so the cycle of tyrany and revolution continues..... So we need to remain true to the basic tennents of freedom of speach, civil liberties and rights, anti racist and power to the people. The goverment is supposed to serve the people not the other way round. (reply to this comment)

from mao Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 14:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Tell me? does bush live like a king while millions starve? (reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 11:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Being as he has personal interrest in oil I can't believe he was elected and than when he was elected frauduently they're should have been an uproar, when he went to war against the UN's council he should have been impeached. The west is rich because they robbed it from the east simple as.(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 11:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll admit that his interest in oil is suspect, but that's up to the american people, there is no restriction on who can be president based on their interests. I remember that Gore conceded, not that bush was elected fraudulently. The 1991 UN resolution stated that Saddam had 10 yrs to give weapons inspectors 100% compliance, or their would be military action. The UN never reversed this decision, so technically he acted with UN authority. What have we robbed from the east? I'n not supporting Bush or the war, and their are plenty of logical arguments that can be made, but you are just talking out of your ass. (reply to this comment)

From short memory? Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 13:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you'll find that CNN and Fox both called it. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/election-fraud.htm And this is why Gore conceeded "There is little doubt key Democrats know that votes in 2004 and earlier elections were stolen. The fact that few in Congress are complaining about fraud is an indication of the totality to which both parties accept the status quo of a money based elections system. Neither party wants to further undermine public confidence in the American "democratic" process (over 80 millions eligible voters refused to vote in 2004). Instead we will likely see the quiet passing of legislation that will correct the most blatant problems. Future elections in the US will continue as an equal opportunity for both parties to maintain a national democratic charade in which money counts more than truth." http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0813-29.htm http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml Bush and Blair both went against the UN "War on Iraq offers a balanced, non-partisan examination of the current debate in Washington and beyond. In this shocking expose on the impending offensive against Iraq, activist, author, and teacher William Rivers Pitt sits down with former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter to expose the truth behind the hawkish rhetoric of the Bush administration. Ritter--ex-Marine, intelligence specialist, expert on Iraqi military strategy, and Gulf War veteran--dismantles the myths surrounding Saddam Hussein's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities while revealing the neo-conservative forces pushing the White House toward war. During the seven years the inspections took place, Ritter and other inspectors were able to confirm that Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs were effectively destroyed, counter to current White House claims. Pitt and Ritter also explain the lack of any plausible link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and highlight the absurdity of forcing democracy on a nation that has been divided for centuries. The book closes with a stark forecast for American troops if a ground war ensues and urges the White House to seek a diplomatic solution. A complete listing of contact information for U.S. senators as well as outreach and activist resources is included." http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1893956385/002-5874367-1449646?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance Is australia stealing from east timmor? http://www.etan.org/ and Israel from Pallestine "From Israeli Newspaper Haaretz: Israeli government decision aims to strip Palestinians of their properties in East Jerusalem http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/529510.html Laws bar Palestinians from living in Jerusalem if their spouses live in other parts of the occupied areas because Jerusalem is annexed and now extending absentee laws, racist laws intended to confiscate Palestinian refugee properties to East Jerusalem finishes the task. We know that Dov Weisglass stated earlier that talk of the disengagement from Gaza was intended to freeze the peace process. We now know why. Already, two thirds of the nine million Palestinians are refugees or displaced people. We also know from history what happens when people are stripped of their lands, citizenship and rights. Haaretz also reports on the racist law that Israelis can marry and bring any foreigners as spouses to live with them in Israel with one exception: If the spouse happens to be Palestinian http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/528450.html Please write your own letter to all media outlets and to all elected and unelected officials. Spread the word, educate, engage, work, divest, boycott, act; silence is complicity." http://www.mail-archive.com/vtjp@yahoogroups.com/msg00546.html You remember The british empire? The rape of India and Africa? This is a interesting easy on the American empire, to read it all go to; http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Featured/Bill081905.html "People come to believe what they need to believe when they need to believe it, we repeat. America is an empire; its people must think like imperialists. In order to fulfill their mission, the homeland citizens had to become what George Orwell called ‘hollow dummies.’ An imperial people must believe that they deserve to be the imperial power… That is, they must believe they have the right to tell other people what to do. In order to do so, they must believe what isn’t true - that their own culture, society, economy, political system… or they themselves… are superior to others. It is a vain conceit but it so bright and so big it exercises a kind of gravitational pull over the entire society. Soon, it has set in motion a whole system of shiny conceits and illusions as distant from the truth as Pluto and as bizarre as Saturn. Americans believe they can get rich by spending someone else’s money. They believe that foreign countries actually want to be invaded and taken over. They believe they can run up debt - forever…and that their debt-laden houses are as good as money in the bank. That is what makes the study of contemporary economics so entertaining. We sit at our telescopes and laugh, like an astronomer looking at a planet with two heads…or a divorce lawyer looking at photos of a rich man in flagrante delicto." http://www.americanempireproject.com/forum/toast.asp?sub=show&action=posts&fid=2&tid=719&page=3(reply to this comment)

From freedom of speach in jeopardy Thursday, October 13, 2005, 06:32 (Agree/Disagree?) “As we read the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a ‘free speech zone’. In the United States, free speech is the rule, not the exception, and citizens’ rights to express it do not depend on their doing it in a way the President finds politically amenable . . . . We ask that you make it clear that we have no interest as a government in “zoning” Constitutional freedoms, and that being politically annoying to the President of the United States is not a criminal offense. This prosecution smacks of the use of the Sedition Acts two hundred years ago to protect the President from political discomfort. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. We urge you to drop this prosecution based so clearly on the political views being expressed by the individual who is being prosecuted.” http://www.house.gov/frank/scprotester2003.html(reply to this comment)

From AndyH2 Thursday, October 13, 2005, 13:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, John Ashcroft is a Bastard (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 14:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting stuff, good reading. My point still stands that Bush was not elected fraudulently, Gore conceded and he was elected by default. I had always observed that there was tampering on both sides, which you affirmed with the article about the indifference of congress. I have never believed that there was a link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein, thats one of the most ridiculous things I've heard, (and being in the Army I hear it regularly.), but I think its a good thing that he is no longer in power, time will tell if it was worth it. In all your references you never showed that bush and blair acted against the UN, but don't bother, I'm sure it can be proven. Neither that we steal from the east. Nevertheless you certainly showed more intellect than someone who watches F911 and runs around spewing idiotic rhetoric. Thank you(reply to this comment)

From a confused person Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 23:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Please elaborate, are you saying he does?(reply to this comment)

From sassy Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 18:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm gonna have to go with No! (reply to this comment)

From inciter Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 18:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Touche!(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 18:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, But no more so than any other government figure. What are you getting at?(reply to this comment)