Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho! Iraqi oil goes to Texaco (et al.)

As you facist defend SADDAM.. My kid tells me that too many local people are thanking him each day he is there.

iF IT WAS ALL ABOUT OIL..... WE WOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR IT!!!

You should be ashamed for letting your son risk his life in a foreign country to do nothing but further the goals of a group of insane tirants (George Bush& Co.). They didn't send him over there to make Iraqis' lives better (because their lives are obviously NOT better), they sent him over to grab a better foothold in the Middle East as part of a plan of world domination. He should be ashamed for not educating himself on the situation and then refusing to go, and you should be ashamed for supporting his actions.

oh my god..... who convinced the ignorant masses that anti empire means pro saddam???? hahahah im mean seriously ... lets say after twelve years of bombing campaigns and civilian crippling sanctions the big empire finnaly over throws your tyranical government.... you have two choices really ... you can kiss ass in hopes that they restore the water treatment & electrical facilities that they bombed out of commision, or you fight the bastards who killed your family till the very end. both are happening and everyone continues to be a victim

Concurring heartily with my comrades in the previous posts. I'd just like to ask ya one thing; you do realize that prior to the war it was "illegal" (illegal means done behind closed doors at a high price, of course) to purchase oil from Iraq, right? So, like, it's still a big deal that we can get oil from Iraq really cheaply now whereas when we were doing it illegally it was really expensive. And god knows, we must have our oil. Anytime I see one of those little men driving one of them giant SUV's i find myself jist in a tizzy 'cause I jist can't control myself, I want that little man to give me some of his lovin so bad. Just breaks this poor young pretty little southern girl's heart to see them nice big trucks drivin off.
BTW, Mr. Marine, your use of capital letters and fatherly pride in your sons war crimes certainly convinced me that you are not a poor little man with nothing to be proud of and who is hiding behind the giant icon of fascism and opression that is the Amerikan flag. So it won't matter too much to you if I set that flag on fire and smoke all the little pretenders out of their holes (did anyone else find it vaguely errotic when Bush said that?)
Wow, i really rambled.
Unite*Resist

Ok, I've been wanting to write this for a while, but I've been too busy. There are many ways US corporations could steal Iraq's oil but here's my theory. It's so easy a child could understand and yet a good portion of the US will be completely duped by it.

Step 1: Secure oil fields - This has been done, and in fact was the first objective in Iraq. All this talk about not being about oil and all the military could talk about during the first days of the war was that they has "secured the oil fields."

Step 2: Give control over "distribution of product" of the oil fields to US corporations, preferably with strong ties to the current US administration. Done: Kellogg, Brown and Root awarded the rights of "distribution of product" to all of Iraq's oil fields. They are, of course, a subsidiary of Hallibutron, the company Dick Cheney was vice-president of, and which to this day maintains a blind trust for him; hence he directly benefits from their profits.

Step 3: Award "reconstruction" contracts to US corporations, preferably with strong ties to the current US administration. Done: Bechtel, with strong tied to many in the administration has been awarded reconstruction contracts.

Step 4: Allow corporation from step 2 to sell oil, taking a sizable cut for themselves and funnel money into "reconstruction" via corporation in step 3. Make sure no one pays too close attention to how badly reconstruction goes (or how much money is actually spent on it). Make sure to declare more privatization to be the solution to any and all problems and sell off all national services and goods. Make sure the media continues to parrot the administration and not do any investigation into what is really happening.

Step 5: Begin looking for other countries with natural resources, conduct another "defensive" invasion and occupation on false pretexts... and repeat from step 1.

The charmed circle of American capitalism.

Raytheon's Tomahawk and cruise missiles destroy it. Bechtel's construction equipment rebuilds it. Stolen oil pays for it.

Kevin, the Marine, who risks his life to steal the oil, makes it possible.

Monica, who works nights at Wendy's, helps pay for it.

Richard Perle shows well-heeled clients how to get rich off it.

War is good business.

Unless you're Monica or Kevin.

Unless you live in Iraq.

This is a bit off the subject, but is there any way we can loose the hey hey ho ho chant forever? At this point it makes my ears bleed.

If we aren't paying for it then who is?

...Marine dad, that you have been brainwashed. I suppose that you also believe that there are WMD's in Iraq, or Saddam
had something to do with 9-11. The invasion of Iraq was among the most wasteful endeavors in the history of our
country. For what purpose, for what justification can you provide for any of the deaths of the hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq,
and the thousands of civilians? In the meantime, the Federal budget is a disaster, states are falling apart, the wealthy are getting
more tax breaks and American sheep are being fed maneure while they await their slaughter.

"We" ?

'We the people' are paying gasoline at the pump, for Esso/BP/Chevron/whatever to pump oil from (amon g others) irak, which they "buy" from..... the iraki people? Nah.

Whom? The answer is in the article's body. Hint: it's not an iraki company. Likewise the puppet government is not an "iraki" government any more than Karzai is an afghani representative dude or any other puppet is acting for the best interest of his people. Wake up.

Congrats to you marine dad and be proud of your boy and i thankg god and hope he returns safely
as for the rest of you ....ahem people
you guys would not know the truth if it bit your ass
i have two sets of words for you
childrens prison
childrens mass graves

you guys don't have and never will have a clue
facts mean absolutly nothing
glovers

what are you retarded? What the hell are you talking about? You might want to pull your attention from your girlfriend [whichever porn you're whacking to at the moment, not that you'd actually have a Real warm body there in your spastic hole] and consult a spellchecker. Idiot

typical off topic insulting remark
would you care to comment on a proud father or his patriotic son ?
or children locked up for having different leanings than the ruling clique
or children killed en-mass for the same above reason

or is my lack of spell checking what gets you riled

not too smart pal

black is white
day is night
talk about brainwashed
facts mean absolutly [sic.] nothing


I guess only the "brainwashed" believe that the facts might be important and indeed might be some indication of the truth. As for prisons and mass graves... even the most cursory examination of Iraqi history will show the US culpability for both atrocities. Do some reading on the cease fire and the Shiite uprising and learn why it was improtant for the US to allow Hussein to murder the Shiites and bury them in those mass graves. If the US hadn't supported Hussein with the cease fire he very likely would have been overthrown (and likely killed) in 1991.

well articulated point but i disagree that we wilfully did that
in fact i think our errors of the past make it incumbent upon us to correct them
very simply we screwed up first time around
but that still does not beg the problem that it is done now...........so should we have done what we did or should we have done nothing and the Saddam induced brutalization of Iraqi's would still be continuing ?

So not wanting to go to war in which we've killed at least 7,000 civilians means we would want to do nothing? Typical bullshit rhetoric parrotted by the administration and the media and their followers. I am a long time scholar of the history of Iraq and I have *never* advocated doing nothing. My solution would have been to end the sanctions to allow the Iraqi people to become strong enough to overthrow Hussein themselves. Our government could have easily aided them in a myriad of ways in an effort to do so. However, this was not an option for the administration because the removal of Hussein was just an excuse to sell the war. They didn't care if he was in power now any more than they cared in 1991. This is not a government that cares about human rights abuses; it's a government that is seeking profit. And no, I don't believe that "we screwed up". The same people that are in power now were in power during the first gulf war and they got exactly what they wanted. They could have supported the Shiite uprising, as was mentioned before, but they didn't want a Shiite government, so they signed the cease fire with Iraq, allowing Hussein, then free from fighting the US and UK, to crush the uprising murderig the Shiites whose bodies would soon occupy the mass graves the US now decries.

Or to look at is another way: the only reason Hussein was ever able to stay in power was because of the US. Without arms sales, including chemical and biological weapons, from the US, diplomatic support, and other economic supports Hussein could never have kept control of the country. So, there is something to be said about learning from past mistakes, but the problem is that the administration has not learned; they are playing the same game they were playing 12 years ago (and the same game that has been going on for centuries, indeed, millenia). They are looking out for their best interests which is why Bechtel and Halliburton are making a fortune off the war. And I ask everyone, is this something to be proud of? Are we proud that although we removed a dictator that we haven't established democracy, that we killed as many as 10,000 civilians, that we established a first-strike invasion and occupation foreign policy, that our government lied to gain support for the war, that the same government has been slashing veterans benefits while the war was being fought, that US corporations with close ties to the administration, and directly financially benefit them, are being rewarded with billions if not trillions of dollars? Is that really something to be proud of?

You know what they say about what pride goeth before...

Marine father and Glovers:

We didn't go to Iraq because they were brutalizing their people. The reason that was given was we had to attack them because they were behind Al Qaeda, which proved to be a lie, and because they posses WMD, all evidence so far for that has proved to be a lie, and that they had the means to deliver them, also a lie.

Countries all over the world are brutalizing their people. And that's terrible. But when it happens, that doesn't give any other country the right to go in, kill thousands of them - not even those in their military - and seize their country. The difference in Iraq was that Iraq had oil and George Bush held some sort of grudge having to do with his father.

Sanctions of the UN clearly eliminated WMD in Iraq. If it can influence Saddam to do that, it could have influenced Saddam to stop brutalizing Iraqis, or even help topple Saddam as it did Milosevic.

In attacking Iraq, George Bush disgraced his country in the eyes of the rest of the world and many at home, violated his oath of office to respect treaties, is getting many Americans killed (one every day at present), and squandered the influence America had in the world.

Trumping up some lie to justify an unprovoked attack and seizure of another country puts us down with the likes of the Nazis. Unprovoked war was the main charge against them at the end of that war. George Bush and America just did the exact same thing in Iraq.

And on the oil money going to Iraq: some of it is, but American companies are keeping 15% of sales for administrative purposes. The UN was only keeping 2% for administrative purposes. Just because Bush/Chaney and their friends aren't stealing all the money doesn't mean they aren't stealing.

To Marine Father and Glovers (though i have the feeling you are the same person)- here's an interesting thing to ponder. During World War II, Adolf Hitler invaded Russia (then part of the allied power). Russia was a communist country whose leader, Joseph Stalin, murdered and oppressed an entire country through a "reign of terror." Does that justify Adolf Hitler's invasion? Was he simply liberating an Opressed people and securing his nations security?

Let's not lose sight of what's in the original item: That Chevron/Texaco are "first at the pump" to plunder the No. 2 oil reserve of the world, thanks to the Bush/Blair decisions on behalf of their billionaire oil buddies. Maybe its website reveals what percentage it's going to get.
Alas, the cause of Bush's war WAS not the Holy Grail, but to seize Iraq's oil. Plain and simple. That's why the lies fed to trusting Americans——WMDs, democracy, Saddam=Satan, 9/11 linkage——are now being blown off by him and British prime minister Tony Blair as factors that don't matter now. There's been no WMDs, no democracy, no Saddam wipeout, and there never was any 9/11 linkage.
Only fools believe wars are fought over sacred principles and instead of what's under the soil. They want to believe Bush sent our kids to keep Saddam from attacking the United States. They do not want to believe no such threat ever existed. That our kids' blood was shed——is being shed and will continue to be shed——for what they buy at the gas station. And their rage really is at discovering Bush rushed this country into attacking and devastating a third-rate country for oil——along, of course, with testing our weaponry.
Those of us who've worked in the Middle East shouted "it's our kids' blood for ARAMCO's oil" even BEFORE the Gulf War.in 1991. ARAMCO (Arab American Company) is the humunguous cartel of Texaco-Chevron-Mobil. ARAMCO ran the Middle East for decades until Saddam came to power. When he nationalized Iraq's fields and booted the Brit/Dutch oil companies, company officials were threatened. They saw the handwriting. And when he invaded Kuwait for its oil and obviously intended to seize Saudi ARAMCO oil fields, too, they forced President Bush I to act. He sold a gullible American public that the sacred cause was helping a defenseless little country. We knew it was defending the multi-billionaires who run the oil industry and that our kids' blood was to be shed to protectt the profits of Texaco-Chevron-Mobil.
Officially, the T-C-M cartel has been called " Saudi Aramco" since 1988 when it adroitly cosmetized its image and played to Saudi pride by letting the royal government nationalize the company. A paper change only. T-C-M
just "bought" back the oil. And we can be sure the price was about what they used to pay the Saudis in royalties/taxes.
Now, the Gulf war revealed how vulnerable ARAMCO was against Saddam. Is it any wonder that war's end, Bush I urged the Shiites to rise against him? (Their vain attempt is now uncovered regularly by those mass graves.) Is it any wonder that the UN sanctions against Iraq were designed to reduce its oil output/sales to a trickle?
But when Saddam began selling that trickle to those paying in euros with their higher value than the dollar and the OPEC states began considering that shift, the T-C-M cartel bludgeoned Bush II to topple Saddam and grab Iraq's oil——and end his threat forever to Saudi oi. After all, those recent bombs in Saudi Arabia do indicate it may not be long before a generation of revolutionaries topple that oil-glutted monarchy and cut off T-C-M..
Is it any wonder, therefore, that Bush ensured T-C-M would be among the first in line to grab Iraqi oil? If the Iraqi people ever see more than a trickle of the billions about to be made off their only treasure, it will be only because the duped American public finally smartens up.
A good start might be in accepting the reality that our kids are now going to give their lives to ensure this cartel's operations into perpetuity. Another might be to impeach Bush for high crimes far worse than sexual dalliances in the Oval Office. Yet the best action would be to vote him out of office in 2004 and return Iraq's oil to its people to sell. They have the expertise and marketing knowledge borne of years of being sole owners and operators. .
Think about it next time you stop at the gas station.

Even if none of these inbreds appreciates your son's service, you can rest assured most people do. I did my time in the cold war, and I have no time, patience, or kind words for anyone who seems to think capitalism is somehow responsible for their being losers. It has it's flaws, but by God every other system tried has been far worse. So you stay strong and just remember that these guys can't hurt your son's Honor. It's beyond their reach.

baby-killer baby killer baby-killer baby-killer baby killer baby-killer baby-killer baby killer baby-killer baby-killer baby killer baby-killer baby-killer baby killer baby-killer
Fuck your fucking honor. There is no honor in MURDER you fucking half-wit. Your only supporters are the most hated people in the world, a bunch of brainwashed fascist yokels who are only being patriotic Germans I mean Americans. Get off your fucking cross. You're no hero. Baby-killer.

You can always show off your intelligence when by resorting to simple name calling. I'm glad that some of us are brave enough to serve this country, instead of bitching about it.

Oh please, do continue. Do your hairy palms a favor and just keep banging away on the keyboard. You carry on as if you had some illusion that I care what you think. I came here because a friend asked me to, because a worried father was being bashed. So fire away numbnuts, your kitten swats are refreshingly childlike. I've risked my neck enough not to be intimidated by words on a page, you did get me smiling though. You always get your panties in a knot this easy?

There is a movement to tear down the county from within ......THAT IS A GIVEN based on what is posted here. The hell with free speech........NOT WHEN YOU SUGGEST THE OVERTHROW OF THE USA. Then you,(the radical left) defend the killers of possibly a million or more people, that is sick, it's not a smart thing on your part ,because it shows clearly your real intention. The majority.... that would be me, understand what Bush said.."COUNTRIES THAT HARBOR OR PROTECT GROUPS THAT WOULD DO HARM TO THIS COUNTRY.......MAY GET THE REARS KICKED!" In these times when we KNOW FOR A FACT......That elements of such groups are in this country and in fact here in PDX, WE WILL WHEN CALLED UP ON TO DO SO. hunt them down right here! My son understands that and so do I !!!!!! It no longer is about oil........its killing those who want us dead, we will do it here if needed! IF IT IS TO BE WAR IN THE STREETS....... I CANNOT WAIT!

What does the war ON Iraq have to do with countries harboring groups that would do harm to us. That is part of the reason you have been receiving some of these responses. The Iraqi war had nothing to do with that, but Bush certainly spun it in that direction. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, harboring Al Queda cells who's intention is to plant WMD's somewhere in the US. And, for your information, not everyone on Indymedia is of exactly the same mind, so don't generalize. As a veteran, I have been more forgiving of those who were sent to Iraq. But that does not justify the war and it is definitely not a war to find pride in. If you want to be proud of your son, that's perfectly fine, and admirable. But hear this, your son and others were mere cannon fodder for Bush and cronies' long term goals of middle east domination. We have no business there. It is up to the Iraqi people to decide who they want as their leader. There are no WMD's, get over it. The WMD's are right here in the good 'ol US of A.

Not another paid up member of the Bush is Satan crowd are you? The enemy is real, the theat is real, the cost is real. Or do you think that smoking hole in New York was all made up? For someone who claims to be a vet, you exhibit little reason. The whole of the middle east is the problem, they churn out tyrants thugs and terrorists like we graduate people from college. We'll clean them all out, because the threat will just popup again. The president said in the State of the Union in 2002 that we would hunt them down and eliminate their refuges, one by one. I believed him, so there is little reason to be surprised now.

Be ashamed if you like, but scapegoating all the worlds problems on Bush is childishly stupid. Ignoring people who want us all dead is doubly stupid. Wether we continue to fight or not, they will keep coming. Telling them you didn't vote for Bush will not help you, they won't care.

It is the US who is responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqis due to the sanctions. Anyone who defends this government is defending the killers of millions of people.

Marine Dad, you have shown your lack of patriotism; willing to kill your own countrymen and rejoicing at Bush's desecration of the constitution. I have no fear of you, one day, you will remember what it means to be human. It means to want no one to have to die needlessly, like your son, or any of the other soldiers being killed right now in the middle east. I'm sure you would want your son home alive, and every day he is there the chances increase that he will be killed. And I have news for you: if the Bush administration has its way, he, and all the other soldiers are going to be there a long time. You do realize that many of the marine generals have been against this war since before it started and continue to oppose it today.

puggs, the only reason the middle east has churned out terrorists and dictators is because that's who various foreign powers, especially the United States, have supported. There would have never been a Saddam Hussein if the US hadn't supported the coup in which he seized power and subsequently supplied him with weapons for 30 years. There would have been no Taliban or Osama bin Laden or Al-Queda if the CIA hasn't thought it would be a good idea to arm and train and provoke religious fundamentalists to combat the Soviet Union. Of course, blaming Bush is ridiculous, but what is not ridiculous is blaming a fatally flawed US foreign policy, one that Bush continues to this day.

If we want to live in peace, we will not achieve it through antagonism, invasion, occupation, or murder. If we truly want to not have to worry about terrorists, killing people will not work. Terrorism is fueled by militarism, killing, and intolerance, just look at any terrorist hot spot in the world, now or historically. There are ways to prevent terrorism, but I fear we will not see any of them followed until it becomes more clear to more people that what we are doing is going to create more terrorism, not stop it.

"its killing those who want us dead"

You mean people like you who want to kill US citizens? It appears to be you that want US citizens to be killed (those who you disagree with), are you then, a terrorist? Because that's what it sounds like to me, and I'm probably not alone...

Many soldiers return from war completely disillusioned with what they did. Marine Dad, don't get too caught up in the emotion, trust me, I know from experience, the longer your son stays in the middle east, the more likely he is to come back without any resepect for the war and those that sent him. I would hate to see you destroy your relationship if you cannot then accept that this war is immoral and illegal and conducted to benefit the wealthiest americans at the expense of all of our safety, security, money, and lives.

Contrary to the steady diet of Saddam Hussein--Bogeyman being spewed by 'puggs', 'Glover', 'oldblueeyes', and 'Marine Dad' [yeah, r-i-i-ii. . ght], Hussein has had intimate connections to the USA and American intelligence dating back to the late 1950s. Indeed, Hussein's connections to the USA are much like that of another American spawn and collaborater, USAma Bin Laden, who was created by and probably continues working for the CIA to this very day. The picture below of an American flag being draped over the face of Saddam's statue is revealing, but not in the sense that Americans understand. Like USAma Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein was made in America.

Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot

By Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
From the International Desk
Published 4/10/2003 7:30 PM
 http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed."

According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.

Little attention was paid to Qasim's bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that "freaked everybody out" according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.

Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of "real power," according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was "the most dangerous spot in the world."

In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.

Darwish said that Saddam's paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.

The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.

"It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.

Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.

One former U.S. government official, who knew Saddam at the time, said that even then Saddam "was known as having no class. He was a thug -- a cutthroat."

In Cairo, Saddam was installed in an apartment in the upper class neighborhood of Dukki and spent his time playing dominos in the Indiana Café, watched over by CIA and Egyptian intelligence operatives, according to Darwish and former U.S. intelligence officials.

One former senior U.S. government official said: "In Cairo, I often went to Groppie Café at Emad Eldine Pasha Street, which was very posh, very upper class. Saddam would not have fit in there. The Indiana was your basic dive."

But during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S. intelligence officials said.

Saddam's U.S. handlers even pushed Saddam to get his Egyptian handlers to raise his monthly allowance, a gesture not appreciated by Egyptian officials since they knew of Saddam's American connection, according to Darwish. His assertion was confirmed by former U.S. diplomat in Egypt at the time.

In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this.

"We were absolutely stunned. We had guys running around asking what the hell had happened," this official said.

But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.

Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.

A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business."

A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."

British scholar Con Coughlin, author of "Saddam: King of Terror," quotes Jim Critchfield, then a senior Middle East agency official, as saying the killing of Qasim and the communists was regarded "as a great victory." A former long-time covert U.S. intelligence operative and friend of Critchfield said: "Jim was an old Middle East hand. He wasn't sorry to see the communists go at all. Hey, we were playing for keeps."

Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party.

The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group.

This former official said that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran in an attempt to produce a military stalemate. "When I signed it, I thought I was losing my mind," the former official told UPI.

A former CIA official said that Saddam had assigned a top team of three senior officers from the Estikhbarat, Iraq's military intelligence, to meet with the Americans.

According to Darwish, the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam's ferocious February 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days.

The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy.
=========================================

March 14, 2003
 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14MORR.html?th

A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making

By ROGER MORRIS

SEATTLE -- On the brink of war, both supporters and critics of United States policy on Iraq agree on the origins, at least, of the haunted relations that have brought us to this pass: America's dealings with Saddam Hussein, justifiable or not, began some two decades ago with its shadowy, expedient support of his regime in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's.

Both sides are mistaken. Washington's policy traces an even longer, more shrouded and fateful history. Forty years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi leader seen as a grave threat in 1963 was Abdel Karim Kassem, a general who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. Washington's role in the coup went unreported at the time and has been little noted since. America's anti-Kassem intrigue has been widely substantiated, however, in disclosures by the Senate Committee on Intelligence and in the work of journalists and historians like David Wise, an authority on the C.I.A.

From 1958 to 1960, despite Kassem's harsh repression, the Eisenhower administration abided him as a counter to Washington's Arab nemesis of the era, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt -- much as Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would aid Saddam Hussein in the 1980's against the common foe of Iran. By 1961, the Kassem regime had grown more assertive. Seeking new arms rivaling Israel's arsenal, threatening Western oil interests, resuming his country's old quarrel with Kuwait, talking openly of challenging the dominance of America in the Middle East -- all steps Saddam Hussein was to repeat in some form -- Kassem was regarded by Washington as a dangerous leader who must be removed.

In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies -- chiefly France and Germany -- resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s "Health Alteration Committee," as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.

Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. "Almost certainly a gain for our side," Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.

As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.

According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures.

The United States also sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the United States had backed against Kassem and then abandoned. Soon, Western corporations like Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum were doing business with Baghdad -- for American firms, their first major involvement in Iraq.

But it wasn't long before there was infighting among Iraq's new rulers. In 1968, after yet another coup, the Baathist general Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr seized control, bringing to the threshold of power his kinsman, Saddam Hussein. Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard C.I.A. officers -- including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time -- speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists.

This history is known to many in the Middle East and Europe, though few Americans are acquainted with it, much less understand it. Yet these interventions help explain why United States policy is viewed with some cynicism abroad. George W. Bush is not the first American president to seek regime change in Iraq. Mr. Bush and his advisers are following a familiar pattern.

The Kassem episode raises questions about the war at hand. In the last half century, regime change in Iraq has been accompanied by bloody reprisals. How fierce, then, may be the resistance of hundreds of officers, scientists and others identified with Saddam Hussein's long rule? Why should they believe America and its latest Iraqi clients will act more wisely, or less vengefully, now than in the past?

If a new war in Iraq seems fraught with danger and uncertainty, just wait for the peace.

Roger Morris, author of "Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician," is completing a book about United States covert policy in Central and South Asia.
===========

SEE ALSO:

Saddam Hussein--The Making of a Dictator [article + video]
 link to www.indymedia.org

Saddam Is A USA-CIA Baby ---

Everyone knows of Saddam's connections to the U.S. government and U.S. support of Saddam (and Iran) during the Iran-Iraq war. But those connections are by no means valid arguments against war. (Indeed, I think they fall well into the 'Post hoc, ergo propter hoc' argument category).

Valid arguments against war are:

* Civilian casualties (perhaps even Iraqi military casualties)
* Misleading statements on WMD
* Alterior motives for war (oil, etc)
* Isolationism
* Make love, not war (pacifism/diplomacy)
* U.S. moral relativism, contrasting Arab/Muslim/Non-democratic nations and supposed allies, such as Israel.

In my mind, that's quite enough of a reason not to wage war against Iraq. (Note: I agree only with items 1, 2 and 6. But I think the rest are all valid arguments). No need to toss red herrings about.

1) Not everyone knows the connections between Hussein and the US; there is far more to it than just the support during the Iran/Iraq war. There was the support during the coup and the support in crushing the shiite uprising in the first gulf war which are 2 other significant actions; and there are dozens more smaller ones.

2) No one is using this as an argument against war as far as I can tell, and I agree it's not a good one. As I understand it, the comments were in response to the assertion that the Middle East is just a "bad place" where lots of dictators and terrorists "happen" to come from. My post and "Saddam Is A USA-CIA Baby" were to refute this blatantly racist claim by revealing that the individuals and organizations which we are so busy attacking and criticizing are a direct result of US (and to a lesser extent other countries) foreign policy within the middle east for the past few decades.

I didn't bother to read the comments of 'Marine Dad' and his buddies, since they were just crap flooding/flaming. (In contrast to my trolls, which are generally somewhat thought out:P)

So I'll take your word for it and take back that post too:P

Those who serve and those who have served make it possible for those who have attitudes that mainstream Americans find repugnant to voice their opinions no matter how repugnant those opinions may be to others. I would suggest that those who find our military so blood thirsty do some research. Find out why our military goes to war. Find out under which political party wars are started. Yes, believe your lying eyes.

Thunderhead -

"I would suggest that those who find our military so blood thirsty do some research. Find out why our military goes to war. Find out under which political party wars are started. Yes, believe your lying eyes."

I think most people are here precisely because they did some research. They found out why our military goes to war. And they found out which political parties wars are started under.

The fact of the matter is that wars are started under every political party. You seem to believe wars are started under only one party -- or so I surmise, since you used the 'singular' form of political party. This is a prime example of why we should repeal the 12th Amendment and remove political parties from American politics entirely. (Maybe we should replace the 12th Amendment with something else...my main point is that we need to get rid of political parties).

They have no place in American politics. Politicians deal with extremely complex situations where there is no clear right and wrong answer. But humans don't like problems with no right answer, so we try to simplify them. The political parties do this constantly, with arguments formed while looking at the problem through a microscope.

Certain issues become dogma for a political party -- and all members of the party are expected to fervently believe the dogma. Politicans aren't free to make informed decisions based on the nuances of each situation. They have to square each argument with the dogma of their party.

And then most people attach themselves to a single party and always vote for that party's candidate. (Which certainly makes thing simpler for the voting public. We might as well setup auto-voting in this country, much as I autopay my telephone bill.)

The end result is this:

Extremists like myself just don't bother to vote, because they can't bring themselves to cast a vote /in favor of any candidate/. I'd guess this represents about 5% of the American public.

Hyper extremists get so frustrated with never being presented with a candidate they might be able to even /live with/ that they resort to violence.

On the left, the hyper extremists like arson. They like to burn oil companies, car dealerships, ski resorts and McDonald's.
On the right, the hyper extremists like bombs and guns. They like to blow up gay night clubs, black churches, shoot "Abortionists" and blow up Federal buildings filled with children.

I'd guess the hyper extremists represent about 0.001% of the American public.

Then there are the loyalists -- the autovoters. These people vote for the same political party in every single election. There votes are basically meaningless to politicians, because the politicians know their votes are a lock. The only thing they're worried about is upsetting the loyalist-extremists fence sitters, who are more extreme than the rest of the loyalists and might not end up staying home instead of voting.

I'd guess this group makes up about 75-80% of the American public.

So then we're left with 15-20% of the American public who cares very little about the entire affair. They've never given much thought to politics. But they're somewhat interested in what government is up to. These people are easily manipulated by campaign statements which promise them something. Jobs, welfare, lower taxes, more parks, health care -- whatever.

This group decides elections everytime. Ah, irony. Without you I'd be lost.

I hope you've all enjoyed my completely off topic post.

I enjoyed your post very much, James. I too think that political parties should be abolished, as well as private campaign finance. I apreciate the way you always lay out your arguments in reasonable, easily understandable posts. So props to you.
You know, the whole practice of political parties is somewhat communist. Most Communists (barring Mao Zadong and Josef Stalin) believe in impersonal rule (lenin, trotsky, and many other prominant communists advocated this)- impersonal rule meaning that who was "premier" or "President" didn't matter- they should just be a figurehead, so to speak, of the Party. (In theory, the party would be the party that was the figurehead for the people- that didn't always work out too well.) And now we have the same thing- it doesn't matter if it's Kerry or Dean or Clinton or Sharpton or whoever who's running- they are just the figurehead of the democratic party. It doesn't matter what they say they will do- they must stick by the Party lines. The same goes for the republicans, and yes, the Greens, as well as other third party candidates.
I mean, think about it; if Bush suddenly said he was a democrat and was chosen for the presidential nomination representing the democratic Party, Democrats would vote for him (and not just because of this rise in Nationalism, either). And if Kerry decided he was a Republican, and ran on that ticket, the Republicans would vote for him. The voters don't care what the candidate will do or what he or she believes- they just vote for the Party they have sworn alliegence to, often many years before without much thought.
And please excuse my way off topic post too.

plu*toc*ra*cy Pronunciation Key (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu*toc*ra*cies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Greek ploutokrati : ploutos, wealth; see pleu- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
pluto*crat (plt-krt) n.
pluto*cratic or pluto*crati*cal adj.
pluto*crati*cal*ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
-----------------------------------------------------------

plutocracy

\Plu*toc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? wealth + ? to be strong, to rule, fr.? strength: cf. F. plutocratie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich; also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996
-----------------------------------------------------------

plutocracy

n : a political system governed by the wealthy people
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University
-----------------------------------------------------------


Plutocracy
 http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Plutocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

There have not been many examples of a "true" plutocracy in history as such, although they typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anarchy. Plutocracy is closely related to Aristocracy  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy as a form of government, as generally wealth and nobility have been closely associated throughout history.

In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be a bit idealistic to believe that no politicians are influenced by these "contributions". The more cynical might describe these donations as "bribes", although legally they are not.

See also:

Pareto principle (on unequal distribution of wealth)
 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
corporatocracy
 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
corporate police state
 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_police_state

-----------------------------------------------------------


"Plutocracy" Defined
 http://progressiveliving.org/plutocracy_defined.htm

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Plutocracy may also have social and cultural aspects. Thus, in Democracy for the Few  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm political scientist Michael Parenti is led to comment "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy, a system of rule that is mostly by and for the rich. Most universities and colleges, publishing houses, mass circulation magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charity organizations, and hospitals are organized as corporations, ruled by boards of trustees (or directors or regents) composed overwhelmingly of affluent businesspeople. These boards exercise final judgment over all institutional matters."

The question of whether or not the United States could be said to be a plutocracy is discussed at length in Who Rules America  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm by sociologist G. William Domhoff. There Domhoff remarks: "The idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people might shape the economy and government for their own benefit goes against the American grain. Nevertheless, this book argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington. Their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments."

The argument to the effect that the US is a functional plutocracy (that is, that the wealthy exercise a preponderance of American political power) is different from, enormously better documented, and altogether more credible, than claims to the effect that there exists a small circle of conspirators bent on ruling the world, claims for which no credible evidence exists. (Domhoff explicitly disavows the existence of any such conspiracy.)

-----------------------------------------------------------

See the resource on the Bush cabinet, with links that illustrate its plutocratic nature
 http://progressiveliving.org/bush_cabinet.htm
Go to the Essay on Politics
 http://progressiveliving.org/politics_essay.htm
Go to the PL Political Field Guide
 http://progressiveliving.org/politics_frameset.htm
Return to the PL Site Map
 http://progressiveliving.org/site_map_2.htm


Some other enlightening and useful links:

Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy
 link to free.freespeech.org

The Plutocratic Presidency, 1789—2003
 link to free.freespeech.org

The Corporate Domination of American Culture and Politics
 link to free.freespeech.org

Plutocracy.Net
 http://plutocracy.net/

Lock step voting? I feel that is un patriotic to vote lock step. Vote for the person who will uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. Vote out any self-serving person regardless of party affiliation. Also our country has a large number of people who pay no income tax and who are given money back that they did not pay to the government. What sort of deal is that? It smacks of bread and circuses and will eventually cause the downfall of our country.

ok 1 at a time
typical:
good history but i don't think lifting the sanctions would have done a damm thing they are the "mob" and if you have ever dealt with it ( I have )
you would know that lifting them merely would have enriched the wrong side ..guaranteed (see Syria)

War is peace
Who's pride ???


Yanqui
We are not the same people ( nice paranoia ) my son is 4 and sleeping
And no.Hitler wanted "lebansraum(?))" he often "said " it was liberation but he considered the slavs subhuman as the jews
don't you read ??

Puggs
Right on !!

BK
Seek help..............quickly

James
How nice .........don't bother reading those you disagree with way to keep an open mind
you are a jackass plain and simple

yanqui
what you suggest and agree with is ....yes.........communisim..............only the candidates we agree with or are proper yes that works
the idea of freedom is that ............surprise rich people have rights too i personally believe that there should be no limits on anything in campaigns
free for all works
unions don't have pull ????
please

Happy Fathers Day to all !!!!
really........ to all
(we can agree to disagree)

Glovers

Dying for the Government

by Howard Zinn

Our government has declared a military victory in Iraq. As a patriot, I will not celebrate. I will mourn the dead--the American GIs, and also the Iraqi dead, of whom there have been many, many more.

I will mourn the Iraqi children, not just those who are dead, but those who have been blinded, crippled, disfigured, or traumatized. We have not been given in the American media (we would need to read the foreign press) a full picture of the human suffering caused by our bombing.

We got precise figures for the American dead, but not for the Iraqis. Recall Colin Powell after the first Gulf War, when he reported the "small" number of U.S. dead, and when asked about the Iraqi dead, replied: "That is really not a matter I am terribly interested in."

As a patriot, contemplating the dead GIs, I could comfort myself (as, understandably, their families do) with the thought: "They died for their country." But I would be lying to myself.

Those who died in this war did not die for their country. They died for their government. They died for Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. And yes, they died for the greed of the oil cartels, for the expansion of the American empire, for the political ambitions of the President. They died to cover up the theft of the nation's wealth to pay for the machines of death.

The distinction between dying for your country and dying for your government is crucial in understanding what I believe to be the definition of patriotism in a democracy. According to the Declaration of Independence--the fundamental document of democracy--governments are artificial creations, established by the people, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and charged by the people to ensure the equal right of all to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Furthermore, as the Declaration says, "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."

It is the country that is primary--the people, the ideals of the sanctity of human life and the promotion of liberty. When a government recklessly expends the lives of its young for crass motives of profit and power, always claiming that its motives are pure and moral ("Operation Just Cause" was the invasion of Panama and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in the present instance), it is violating its promise to the country. War is almost always a breaking of that promise. It does not enable the pursuit of happiness but brings despair and grief.

Mark Twain, having been called a "traitor" for criticizing the U.S. invasion of the Philippines, derided what he called "monarchical patriotism." He said: "The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: 'The King can do no wrong.' We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: 'Our country, right or wrong!' We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had--the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it, all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism."

If patriotism in the best sense (not in the monarchical sense) is loyalty to the principles of democracy, then who was the true patriot, Theodore Roosevelt, who applauded a massacre by American soldiers of 600 Filipino men, women, and children on a remote Philippine island, or Mark Twain, who denounced it?

With the war in Iraq won, shall we revel in American military power and--against the history of modern empires--insist that the American empire will be beneficent?

Our own history shows something different. It begins with what was called, in our high school history classes, "westward expansion"--a euphemism for the annihilation or expulsion of the Indian tribes inhabiting the continent, all in the name of "progress" and "civilization." It continues with the expansion of American power into the Caribbean at the turn of the century, then into the Philippines, and then repeated Marine invasions of Central America and long military occupations of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

After World War II, Henry Luce, owner of Time, Life, and Fortune, spoke of "the American Century," in which this country would organize the world "as we see fit." Indeed, the expansion of American power continued, too often supporting military dictatorships in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, because they were friendly to American corporations and the American government.

The record does not justify confidence in Bush's boast that the United States will bring democracy to Iraq. Should Americans welcome the expansion of the nation's power, with the anger this has generated among so many people in the world? Should we welcome the huge growth of the military budget at the expense of health, education, the needs of children, one fifth of whom grow up in poverty?

I suggest that a patriotic American who cares for his or her country might act on behalf of a different vision. Instead of being feared for our military prowess, we should want to be respected for our dedication to human rights.

Should we not begin to redefine patriotism? We need to expand it beyond that narrow nationalism that has caused so much death and suffering. If national boundaries should not be obstacles to trade--some call it "globalization"--should they also not be obstacles to compassion and generosity?

Should we not begin to consider all children, everywhere, as our own? In that case, war, which in our time is always an assault on children, would be unacceptable as a solution to the problems of the world. Human ingenuity would have to search for other ways.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States," is a columnist for The Progressive.

well than get rich
very simple and THAT is what makes this country great
anyone can get rich............anyone
glovers

ps 'night all

"well than [sic] get rich
very simple and THAT is what makes this country great"

--so,

do you agree that the USA is a plutocracy?

you're so pathetically deluded, I doubt you have the brain cells to comprehend--let alone answer--the question . . .

go back to bootlicking your millionaire masters, Troll (what the fuck else would you have been doing on Portland Independent Media Center, anyway?)

"well than [sic] get rich very simple and THAT is what makes this country great"

--what's *your* net worth (or annual income), 'glovers'?

First of all, i think there have been some misunderstandings on this thread- common when there are so many posts.

To not a democracy- I know what a Plutocracy is. I am a Political Science major. I was not saying that the US is a democracy. At this point, in the way that democracy is currently defined, i'm not sure i even believe in Democracy. I was simply adding my own ideas to a theoretical argument, and concuring with James' well thought out post.
To Glovers:
Yanqui
We are not the same people ( nice paranoia ) my son is 4 and sleeping
And no.Hitler wanted "lebansraum(?))" he often "said " it was liberation but he considered the slavs subhuman as the jews
don't you read ??
I realize that Germany is not a Amerika. They are located on different continents. I was merely drawing a parellell (sorry, i'm a terrible speller), using a metaphor. Just a warning to show where trusting a government blindly, making excuses for their invasions and atrocites and feverent nationalism can lead you. I do read. Quite a lot. And as I said, i am a political Science major, so i have reasons to explore political history. I am well aware that Hitler believed that the Slavs were inferior and Sub-human. I am Polish, he would have concidered me "sub-human" too (despite the fact that I look like the poster child for the aryian race). I have family in Poland, relatives who suffered terribly under Hitler's atrocities.However. George W Bush is well-known to be a fundamentalist Christian. In fundamentalist Christianity (trust me, I know on this one) people of other religions, I.E. Muslims, are concidered to be "evil-doers" who are not equal to Christians. They will go to hell, will be damned in the end times when it is the duty of every christian (according to fundamentalist ideology) to start holy wars, or Jihads, if you will. So I would imagine that in Bush's twisted little head, he conciders Muslims are some what "inferior" and "sub-servant." He also seems to have this idea that the poor all over the world is inferior- he has a blast exploiting them.
I have no idea where you got the idea that I am a communist. Maybe you weren't trying to say that- your post was a little confusing. I am not a communist. I think it is a nice ideology but is impractical. I simply believe that every candidate should have a fair chance, and when third party candidates are pushed out, or progressive ideas are stiffled by the confines of a party, it's un-democratic. Also, it is quite possible that a poor person with no connections has some really great ideas that could help this country- but they don't have the means to present them. Please, name the last president who was not rich. Maybe there was one recently that i don't know of. And i said recently. Lincoln doesn't count. By the way,John McCain is for campaign finance reform- and i'm pretty sure that he's not a Communist. As i understand it, he was imprisoned by some Communists for awhile.
I don't remember saying anything about your child, but I am glad to hear that he is doing well. 4 year old kids can be a handful- so Happy Fathers day to you, you probably deserve a break, hope you get one. :)
To all: glad to see this debate going. It helps evolution along.

Unite*Resist
P.S. Some of us don't want to get rich- we like not exploting people. Does that mean we shouldn't have a say in our own society?

humans?!? me no get. much anger. much problem. we wander space.. have no home.. you kill planet with wars and words.

help here.... how do dead help peace?..

how do oil help earth?

maybe problem is mind replaced by eyes and ears...and believe everything that is seen and said?
we watch and hope


with such simple minds and clever technology i give humans about 50/50 chance to see year 2100.

Glovers -

"How nice .........don't bother reading those you disagree with way to keep an open mind. you are a jackass plain and simple."

This is why I love this site. Whatever I post, I'm insulted. If the left agrees, the right is sure to pick up the slack. Ah, well. I suppose this means I ought not run for public office. To clear up the misconception, Glovers -- I love reading the opinions of those who disagree with me. That is, after all, why I'm here. I like to learn how people arrive at different opinions. And sometimes I'm convinced that I'm wrong. In this particular case, after a bit of skimming, I skipped past the whole section that seemed to be "straight-up asshole flame trolls," until I arrived at something that looked interesting:P (Thus losing a bit of context).

After all, time is money. And evidently -- according to your last post, anyway -- if I want to have any influence upon our government, I need to get rich.

That being said, to respond to "It's not a democracy" --

That reeks of unabated hyperbole. Because while the wealthy certainly do have a much higher individual influence upon government, the middle class is what really matters to politicians. The middle class is gullible, but not entirely stupid. Campaign advertising and astroturfing only gets you so far. Ross Perot proved that in '92.

If we were truly living under a plutocracy, do you really think the top-1% of income earners would be paying 36% of Federal income taxes?

Large corporations are able to lobby congress effectively, through campaign donations or otherwise. But so are the special interest groups.

The special interest groups have gotten many environmental protection laws passed. Gay rights groups have gotten some of their proposed changes passed, to an extent. Et cetera.

Campaign finance reform is important. But so is Free Speech. The McCain-Feingold bill (which was recently struck down in part by a Federal court) grossly trampled the Free Speech rights of individuals and corporations.

While I agree that huge donations to political parties is a problem, do we really have the right to stop Ford from producing political commercials? What if a politician were to propose a federally mandated fuel-economy increase -- to 60mpg. Ford could make the argument that such an increase would force them to raise product prices $1,500. It's a valid argument -- and useful to democracy. Consumers should hear what such a law might mean to them. (In terms of environmental impact, foreign oil reliance and cost). But under McCain-Feingold, Ford wouldn't be able to produce such a commercial 90-days before an election.

Those types of problems make such things difficult to fix.

So yes -- within our democracy, there lies a contingent of wealthy, politically active individuals and corporations with more influence than the rest of us. (Just as the town-crier with the loudest voice may have more influence than the rest). But that hardly means the wealthy rule our lives. It just means we occasionally get fucked.

And to get back to the root of this thread: Who gets the contracts is not really that important. What is important, and what I'd be interested to know, is whether the price is the market price, or some contracted rate. (And, obviously, where the money ends up). But it makes sense that a US company would be buying Iraqi oil, since we are the world's largest consumer :P

Alright, I guess I don't need to respond too much to the trolling with so many others offering their views. Maybe tomorrow after some sleep I'll weigh in again.

James, I was thinking the same thing about people responding to you. I guess you should feel good that you are offered so many opinions to contrast with your own; should lead to much enlightenment. Personally, I think you're here because there's much for you to agree with here. I'm not sure what that will mean in the long run but abolishing political parties would be fine with me, and in keeping with the some of the founding fathers desires (of course, so would a ban on corporations and on a having standing army, but I digress). Oh, and one last thing, I don't blame you for skipping the flaming/trolling, but when I read your post it did seem sort of off topic. Also, I strongly disagree with campaign finance reform being equated with free speech. Money is not speech, but, again, you will find supporters for that concept here, as well as many detractors but that seems too off topic to delve into. Oh, and although I may criticize you, it's only because you have shown that you're willing to re-evaluate your ideas, and that I respect your decision to read differing opinions to increase your understanding; now if we could only convince the rest of the country to do the same thing with civility we might actually get somewhere.

Thunderhead: "Also our country has a large number of people who pay no income tax and who are given money back that they did not pay to the government."

And a much larger amount of money goes to corporations that do the same. I don't have a problem with people being poor not having to pay taxes. Afterall, I consider a country to assess its wealth and success based on how the poorest in the nation live not on how the richest live. If we really want to do away with welfare let's start with corporate welfare that costs are country hundreds of millions of dollars a year to keep corporations alive that would fail if left to their own merits.

As for glovers, well, what is there to say to someone who believes that anyone can become rich in this country? It begs the question: then why isn't everyone rich? Maybe because only 5% of people in thic country ever rise above the social class into which they're born. But I guess poor people are just lazy, certainly a prevaling view in this country. And yet, some of the hardest working people I've ever met make an exceptionally small amount of money. Does anyone else ever wonder if this country's belief in its brand of individualism is strangling the evolution of thought (political, social, economic, spiritual, etc.) in this country?

Try out this site:

 http://rleeermey.com/

I got off the plane in SFO, ( I should have paid for a direct flight to PDX) I was 50 ft into the A/P and one of your dirty, stinking, filty, pieces of excrement reletives called me a baby killer... I SPENT 5 DAYS IN THE BRIG!!! GOD, I CAN STILL SEE THE BLOOD! His nose was wrapped around his face like a smashed fruit, ( he most likely was) he balled like the baby he was, and said he would kill me. He was given the chance before the MPS pulled me off him. My son has less patience then me! I SUGGEST WHEN HE GET'S HOME FROM IRAQ. after killing as many potential little terriost as possible so they dont get into this country as they did and kill 3000 of us, that you dont call him a baby killer either. Kids now days like my son are bigger, faster and meaner! Me, well, I'am just meaner !

Wow, Marine Dad, I would suggest you and your son get some anger managment. You could get dishonerably discharged for that sort of thing.

(that is not to excuse someone using the term "baby-killer" - that's pretty juvenile. But when you attacked that kid, didn't you just prove his point that those in the army are just a bunch of violent thugs?)

I also suggest you contact your nearest VA hospital- they could get you (and maybe your son- he is likely going to need it too) some really good counciling to help you deal with your anger and denial.

It is regretable what happened back then. I also was called the same, and was one of the few people
that were actually spat upon. The anger towards Vietnam veterans came both from the left and the right. Misguided liberals
called us baby killers, but some of my more pissed off moments were from those previous veterans who
told me that Vietnam wasn't a war and that we were a bunch of drug addicts. Yeah right, tell that to the dead in my
unit that fought in one of the bloodiest battles ever and showed as much guts as anyone in any war. That being
said, my views are a bit different from yours now that time has past. I don't see the war in Iraq or Afghanistan as improving
anything. I do not respect Bush, a person who' has flagrantly taken advantage of 9-11, has disrepected public opinion and who's military background is questionable. We are acting not much different than the fundamentalists in the middle east that
you seem to want to demonize. Don't have time right now to go on. I respect your viewpoint, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
Happy fathers' Day!

Think about how it makes you feel to have had 3,000 civilians in this country killed. Now think about how the Iraqis feel to have had 10,000 civilians killed during this war. Do you really think that they are going to be any less angry? Do you think that none of them will act on that anger? You obviously have no understanding of the history of Iraq, a largely moderate, secular state which was quite prosperous prior to the first gulf war. It seems like their was little motivation for Iraqis to become terrorists. Now, after 12 years of sanctions have killed 1.5 million civilians, mostly women and children, and an invasion that has killed 10,000 civilians so far, and an occupation that no one can see the end to, I'm willing to bet that for the first time in history we will begin seeing large numbers of Iraqi terrorists. Your son isn't preventing terrorism; he's creating it and the longer he stays the more likely he will realize that. I only hope that some day you will too.

Remember: none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi and there has been no evidence to suggest any Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Anyone that believes this needs to turn off the tv and research the matter.

So far, the US policies in the middle east have not proven to be particularly effective, and worse, fatal for citizens of this country. The US funded and supported Hussein's coup to gain power and sold him weapons for 30 years, supported his government during the Iran/Iraq war, supported his killing and repression of the Kurds, and supported his brutal repression of the Shiite Uprising. The CIA created, funded, and trained the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. They helped arm and train Al-Queda all over the world. The track record really isn't looking too good right now. If we truly want to be secure, we may have to find solutions that will actually work, not ones that continue to raise the threat against us.

"If we were truly living under a plutocracy, do you really think the top-1% of income earners would be paying 36% of Federal income taxes?"

--by acting like a wiseass pseudo-intellectual, You MISS THE POINT entirely.

How much do those top 1% of 'taxpaying' income earners TAKE HOME, EVEN AFTER TAXES?

A Plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

AND FURTHERMORE:
-------------------------------

Published on Friday, December 27, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
The Super Rich Are Out of Sight
by Michael Parenti

The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion's share of the nation's wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports. Even those who purport to study the question regularly overlook the very wealthiest among us. For instance, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, relying on the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, released a report in December 1997 showing that in the last two decades "incomes of the richest fifth increased by 30 percent or nearly $27,000 after adjusting for inflation." The average income of the top 20 percent was $117,500, or almost 13 times larger than the $9,250 average income of the poorest 20 percent.

But where are the super rich? An average of $117,500 is an upper-middle income, not at all representative of a rich cohort, let alone a super rich one. All such reports about income distribution are based on U.S. Census Bureau surveys that regularly leave Big Money out of the picture. A few phone calls to the Census Bureau in Washington D.C. revealed that for years the bureau never interviewed anyone who had an income higher than $300,000. Or if interviewed, they were never recorded as above the "reportable upper limit" of $300,000, the top figure allowed by the bureau's computer program. In 1994, the bureau lifted the upper limit to $1 million. This still excludes the very richest who own the lion's share of the wealth, the hundreds of billionaires and thousands of multimillionaires who make many times more than $1 million a year. The super rich simply have been computerized out of the picture.

When asked why this procedure was used, an official said that the Census Bureau's computers could not handle higher amounts. A most improbable excuse, since once the bureau decided to raise the upper limit from $300,000 to $1 million it did so without any difficulty, and it could do so again. Another reason the official gave was "confidentiality." Given place coordinates, someone with a very high income might be identified. Furthermore, he said, high-income respondents usually understate their investment returns by about 40 to 50 percent. Finally, the official argued that since the super rich are so few, they are not likely to show up in a national sample.

But by designating the (decapitated) top 20 percent of the entire nation as the "richest" quintile, the Census Bureau is including millions of people who make as little as $70,000. If you make over $100,000, you are in the top 4 percent. Now $100,000 is a tidy sum indeed, but it's not super rich--as in Mellon, Morgan, or Murdock. The difference between Michael Eisner, Disney CEO who pocketed $565 million in 1996, and the individuals who average $9,250 is not 13 to 1--the reported spread between highest and lowest quintiles--but over 61,000 to 1.

Speaking of CEOs, much attention has been given to the top corporate managers who rake in tens of millions of dollars annually in salaries and perks. But little is said about the tens of billions that these same corporations distribute to the top investor class each year, again that invisible fraction of 1 percent of the population. Media publicity that focuses exclusively on a handful of greedy top executives conveniently avoids any exposure of the super rich as a class. In fact, reining in the CEOs who cut into the corporate take would well serve the big shareholder's interests.

Two studies that do their best to muddy our understanding of wealth, conducted respectively by the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution and widely reported in the major media, found that individuals typically become rich not from inheritance but by maintaining their health and working hard. Most of their savings comes from their earnings and has nothing to do with inherited family wealth, the researchers would have us believe. In typical social-science fashion, they prefigured their findings by limiting the scope of their data. Both studies failed to note that achieving a high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages. Those coming from upper-strata households have a far better opportunity to maintain their health and develop their performance, attend superior schools, and achieve the advanced professional training, contacts, and influence needed to land the higher paying positions.

More importantly, both the Rand and Brookings studies fail to include the super rich, those who sit on immense and largely inherited fortunes. Instead, the investigators concentrate on upper-middle-class professionals and managers, most of whom earn in the $100,000 to $300,000 range--which indicates that the researchers have no idea how rich the very rich really are.

When pressed on this point, they explain that there is a shortage of data on the very rich. Being such a tiny percentage, "they're an extremely difficult part of the population to survey," pleads Rand economist James P. Smith, offering the same excuse given by the Census Bureau officials. That Smith finds the super rich difficult to survey should not cause us to overlook the fact that their existence refutes his findings about self-earned wealth. He seems to admit as much when he says, "This [study] shouldn't be taken as a statement that the Rockefellers didn't give to their kids and the Kennedys didn't give to their kids." (New York Times, July 7, 1995) Indeed, most of the really big money is inherited--and by a portion of the population that is so minuscule as to be judged statistically inaccessible.

The higher one goes up the income scale, the greater the rate of capital accumulation. Economist Paul Krugman notes that not only have the top 20 percent grown more affluent compared with everyone below, the top 5 percent have grown richer compared with the next 15 percent. The top one percent have become richer compared with the next 4 percent. And the top 0.25 percent have grown richer than the next 0.75 percent. That top 0.25 owns more wealth than the other 99¾ percent combined. It has been estimated that if children's play blocks represented $1000 each, over 98 percent of us would have incomes represented by piles of blocks that went not more than a few yards off the ground, while the top one percent would stack many times higher than the Eiffel Tower.

Marx's prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land--and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than the earth's population. A rising tide sinks many boats.

To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"--the upper-middle class--as the "richest" cohort in the country. But to do that, we need to look beyond the Census Bureau's cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny, stratospheric apex that owns most of the world.

Michael Parenti is a noted author and political commentator. Among his widely read books are "The Terrorism Trap," "Democracy For the Few," "History as Mystery," and "Against Empire." His most recent forthcoming book is "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome." For more information, visit his web site, www.michaelparenti.org.

"by acting like a wiseass pseudo-intellectual, You MISS THE POINT entirely."

I don't believe I have. You seem to be confusing the plutocracy with capitalism. It's easy to form your argument -- just look at all the rich people in our society. There's no way they could have gotten that money through hard work and good ideas, right?

The fact that there is an ultra-wealthy class does not mean that same class rules over the rest. All you've proven is that under capitalism, social classes exist.

To prove the United States is plutocratic, you need to show specific examples of the rich exerting undue influence over the government, above and beyond that exerted by other groups. Because money alone does not a plutocracy make. William Buffet has billions (through no inheritance, I might add), yet he suredly has no direct line to the U.S. government, no strings he can pull. He was recently arguing against Bush's proposed dividend tax cuts, as it would drop his effective tax rate from 20% to around 1-2%. He felt such a tax cut would be unfair -- and he said so at his high-profile shareholder meetings, and in editorials in major newspapers. Yet, as we all know, Bush's tax cut was pushed through. He had influence, as a respected economist and self-made billionaire, and he used it. But he didn't change the course of the country.

And what of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? You might argue that it is not applied frequently enough. But surely it has been applied. Why would our wealthy lords have allowed the splitting of AT&T, Standard Oil, the IBM anti-trust case, the Microsoft anti-trust case?

As I said, money certainly brings with it greater power -- to influence government and otherwise. But you've yet to prove anything more than that -- an influence. What specific examples can you cite? And please go beyong simple ideological differences. Yes, Bush has certainly given the rich a large tax cut, weakened environmental protections regulations. But his predecessor often strengthened them and raised the top-level tax rates in this country. To prove the plutocracy you need to show a historical trend. Such changes do not often happen overnight.

Calling the United States a plutocracy trivializes the real plutocracies throughout history -- rife with abusive tax rates, slave labor, etc.

We can definitely agree to an extent about inheritances. We should tax large estates at very high levels, to prevent such families as the Onassis'. (And our very own Walton's).

screw you ..........

Marine Dad-
Glad to see you're showing your true colours now, and have abandoned the pretense of a reasonable argument. It's really sad how with every post you add, you're just proving our own point. You have ceased to be productive in this argument; perhaps a nerve has been touched? sometimes, when one who has been living under an illusion hears the truth, it can be painful. God speed. I really hope you get some therapy to deal with your intolerance, denial, and especially your anger. I know it has helped many veteran friends of mine, especially those who fought in the Vietnam war. Please do it for the sake of your son; when he gets back and has his own issues to work out (and he will.. anyone who has fought in a war has them, including John McCain, Colin Powell, and many others) it would help him immensely if he could learn from your example.

My son will not have issues........ He has told me in great detail of what he has had to do to survive. The only issue he has is where he was born. This city,(meaning you who post here) and the mayor of this city has not in anyway supported him or the president or the men and women who are there with him. Dont hand me the f-ing line either that you do! He has actually been motivated by the crap of protests.....it pissed him off! THE ANGER HE FEELS ........IS A PURE KIND OF THING, I FELT IT IN NAM...IT GOT ME THROUGH TOO MUCH. I didnt need "aaaaaaaaaaaanger management" I didnt need counsel! I NEEDED TO SEE THE TRUTH, That we must defend this country not only in parts of the world, but sadly, here at home. You can rest assured you will have a fight on your hands when you decide you want to take what is ours, and not yours to have. You didnt earn it, you sure as hell didnt pay for it........

And so much desire to deal out death and judgment. Yet, I promise you this, no matter how much death and judgment you deal out, it will not ever lead you to peace and security. You can never kill all those who disagree with you, their friends, their families, their colleagues, their supporters. Civilization has been trying this for thousands of years and it has not worked. The more death and judgment is dealt out, the more of the same comes back to us. Remember, those that committed the 9/11 attacks were anxious to deal out death and judgment too, and we can see that it did not work for them, and we can see that it is not working for us.

I am saddened that you and your son have become so angry and have taken that anger to the battlefield. Anger causes mistakes, and mistakes cost lives, on one side or the other. You cannot predict the future, and as the war drags on, your son may come to regret it. Make sure he does not come to regret you. Keep your mind open, you may change your mind about the war, or you may let your anger and hatred destroy your body, mind, and spirit. It is your choice; think carefully about whether you truly want to be a person that threatens the lives of the people in his own country. The soldiers I know from all branches of service would find that disgraceful.

Listen, Marine Dad, Even Bush will tell you that this kind of anger is wrong... and at least the servicemen and women I know have respect for people and are "fighting" because they want to make the world better, not because they are angry. That is phycopathic, to fight because you are so angry and filled with hate. So incredibly destructive. Hate will never help the world. a popular phrase; the best generals are reluctant generals; the ones who know what war really is, and want to avoid it at all costs. Don't tell me that's bullshit, Marine Dad; I could name off an entire list of Generals throughout American history who fall into that catagory; a lot of people you would claim to respect.
Unite*Resist

P.S. Marine Dad- are you Ossama Bin Laden???? you sounds SSSSSSSooooooooo much like him.

he doesn't have angeer management issues he's just pissed at the asshats here

good debate all and as for my "well get rich" quote i think it holds
what is rich anyway ? see above post

Richness is what you have inside, not what you have in your pocket or in the bank. Enjoyed the conversation. This
really attracted a lot of responses. Best wishes to Marine dad and son. Hope life treats you both well. Not everyone
who disagrees with you is an asshat, or whatever. Many vets do not hold your views, but hey, no two people are alike.
Peace.

You say he doesn't need anger management? Marine Dad is calling for violence against anyone who doesn't agree with him, including killing of Americans, not to mention anyone else. The guy is homicidal. And he said he raised his kid to be even worse. What's worse is that he's probably also a cop - one of Portland's Worst.

You sick puppy. you slimey piece of excrement........ Where did I SAY I would kill AMERICANS? if your an AMERICAN.........and your not! you would see the people that dropped the WTC towers are evil, not me! But you defend those who have sworn to kill us> MY GOD. do you think ILL stand by and let you get away with that. Most of the posting here is about the destruction of something...... capitalism, the goverment, the milatary, the President. You pieces of crap aren't peace loving...you want to burn and blow things up... you honar the ELF there Terriost right here. Your mantra of peace is a lie ..........you need to go to a country like IRAQ before we got there and protest Saddam........ then while he guts you alive...you scream for a Marine to rescue you but there not coming... why die for a pile of manure?.

Terrorists wanted to kill United States citizens and civilians and you want to do the same. A true American is one who understands the consitution and its desire to protect everyone, including those who you don't agree with. I do not want to burn and blow things up; I can look at you and many other soldiers to see how negatively that impacts one's psychology and soul and how it does not produce the desired results. I do not kill, you do, terrorists do, your son does. Where do you think the line should be drawn? If you don't agree with people in this country and don't want to defend them then don't. The soldiers I know wouldn't welcome you unless you believed in defending the rights of all Americans regardless of their beliefs and views. Peace is the answer, and it will come in one form or another. But the longer people cling to their beliefs that they can kill others to bring about peace and security the longer peace and security will remain outside their grasp. We have thousands of years of history to learn from; we should choose to learn from them. War has never brought about peace; only peace can bring about peace. Like many people, I do not want your support nor need your protection. I understand that you want to play the role of protector but you come across as just another angry bully who wants to show that might makes right and killing is a way to get people to agree with you. If you take the time to examine your life, you will find that this hasn't worked. Your anger, hatred, and intolerance just make you another terrorist, one whose beliefs justify the killing of others. You need to relax, and yes, I'll agree with the others here, that you should really seek some counseling. Your anger cannot be good for you on any level. Anger needs to be released to keep one's mind open and if it is not a person is likely to suffer, just as you appear to be now.

then why did you so-called peace types break up down town pdx............ burn a friends logging trucks in estacada........... block streets..... destroy business fronts.........plot to harm people who just work for your so-called corporate types...... burn things i hold dear//////my flag not yours ,defile and defecate on lawns and sidewalks....... take welfare instead of working...... seen you in the stores with your oregon trail cards........ you are not people who want peace.....that is a lie.....i have seen you hit cops, hit people who got in the way of your "peaceful my ass protests"....... you are the dirt, the waste .......and ill work to see your cleaned up.

You summed it up for me, Marine Dad, just exactly how i feel about soldiers "fighting" for America-

Why die for a pile of manure?

Take some time to think, and try not to have a heart attack; it worries me that you let yourself get so worked up. In all of the actions you listed, the number of people who have been killed has been 0. That doesn't mean that all the actions have been appropriate or peaceful but is very different from the 3,000 people killed in the 9/11 attacks, or the 7,000-10,000 civilians killed in Iraq. They are simply different situations altogether; in one you have the deaths of thousands, and in the other, no deaths at all, nor even any injuries that could be considered significant. You are obviously very caught up in your worldview and I know that I cannot change your mind, but you cannot expect people to equate thousands of deaths with people blocking streets. That's just insane. You have made your views clear: you are willing to hurt and kill those who don't agree with you, that makes you a bully and a murderer and I thank you for sharing that side of yourself for us all to see.

I definitely agree with the statement: "Why die for a pile of manure?" Now if we could figure out how to convince all soldiers everywhere of that simple truth we would be getting somewhere.

Ok looky here people, it seems that nobody gets it. The oil is running out and the one who has control of the oil sets the price. SO if X has the oil and Y needs it and Z has no say in it. Well I am here to tell you Z does have a say in it and its a more powerful say than X or Y. Z is the people that get supplied by Y. Y goes out to get it and X gets fucked in the process. While Z pays for Y to screw X, Z gets what it needs and Y takes credit for bringing it to Z. X is a victim of geographical circumstance and diregarded by Y leaving only ill will towards Z. Hummmmmmmmmm let me think,,, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out why X is flying planes into Z's buildings all because of Y's antics. And Z goes "hey what is happening" like the little uneducated child who has never been taught the basics. Y keeps the basics from Z and Z thinks all is good. X is made out to be the bad guy for Z's need and Y's greed. Revolution is the solution and Y should be hung by Z and apologize to X. Problem solved. Z has some bright ones amongst the rest of the Z's but for the most part Z is victim of Y and its only Z's fault. If Z would just stand up to Y there would be no need to fuck X anymore. But until Z figures this out Y is a bad representative of Z and need to be removed and made an example of (SUPER HARSHLY). Its fucking nothing more than idiots at the wheel. Wake up. Losers. Z has become nothing more than comfortable slaves and are fine with it. Well its all about to change so consider this Fair Warning...........