...put a lot of money in South America in the 1960's, so they could keep
communism away from the region?
They provide money and weapons, to the generals who took over different
nations for instance Augusto Pinochet(Chile)'s.
Is the desire to keep away an opposite way of government an excuse to
kill 1000's of people?
Is the CIA accomplice with all these dictators that killed people to
their right and left?

well yes I did. did you know 911 was an inside job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMWn-bQYfSc


this is an easy one, and its just part 1 of 4

if the link doesnt work go to you tube and put in 911 mysteries or
terrorstorm or loose change 2


its very simple

ok i'll try it

Hey B&W how ya doin?

I would like to see a better link. You have been pushing that link
since I got on here. (sometimes in threads that have nothing to do with
current events).

I saw it as an interesting theory but did not see what I would consider
solid proof.

Could you please push a better link.

just PM me I got hundreds

Here you go AdventureBegins

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

now, take the swords off your walls and get ready, those that lie,
murder, and back torture are destroying this country.

ohh yeah, get some tissues too, cuzz it might make you cry like it did
me.

But then you get energized to stop the liars.

Is the desire to walk the moral high ground and not meddle in other
countries a good enough reason to let other countries go in unopposed
and create governments and situations contrary to our country's
interests, including setting up communistic or militaristic regimes that
are a threat to our nation?

A better question might be why isn't our country doing more now.

Under Carter, Panama Canal was given away and Iran was let to go
fascist. Under Clinton North Korea was given freedom to create nuclear
weapons. Under Clinton Venezuela was given over to a communist who hates
the US and wants to dominate the region.

Are you suggesting that doing nothing in these cases was the right thing
to do?

Have you noticed that when certain communist governments take over they
kill millions of people rather than thousands? Have you noticed that
their taking over might only require thousands?

Mr. Philosopher:
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just asking questions.

I don't see how we could consider the panama canal a problem. Part of
our initial treaty in CREATING the canal was that we'd give it over to
Panama at some time or another, I forget the exact date. We ended up
keeping it almost a century longer than the original treatis. Because
every 20 or so years, it'd come up to the expiration date, and we'd
sweet talk ourselves another couple decades.

And I think we're hypocrites about the nukes. We have them. Everyone
else is afraid of them. So they want them, just so they don't have to
fear us. Bring a gun to a knife fight, and everyone else is gonna want
guns.

As to Venezuela.... yea, we shoulda stopped that one. But we can't,
now, without having *another* Iraq on our hands.

Mr. Philosopher>

Panama canal was not 'let go' we signed a treaty when it was built to
the effect that it would revert to the control of panama upon a certain
date.

Would you have had us violate that treaty?

And Iran always has been "fascist" in one sence or another. Or at
least, a monarchy/dictatorship/theocracy. In the history of the
middle-east.... there's only been those three government types since the
fall of Babylon (which, oddly, sits on modern Iraq- in fact, Bagdhad is
less than 10 miles from the famous hanging gardens).

I think the only treaty agreeing to give up Panama was during Carter's
reign, but I won't argue the point as I didn't read any treaties
personally regarding Panama. Have you? If you have read the treaties
I'll have to defer to your expertise.

Otherwise as to the reasonableness of breaking such a treaty, probably
not. Treaties are treaties after all. As for giving up Panama, it did
not have to be done. Carter negotiated that for his own aggrandizement.
Having said that, I think the Panama issue is a smaller one than
Venezuela and some of the other more current events, North Korea,
Venezuela and Iran.

I would say that a reasonable thinking person could have foreseen the
events leading to the overthrow of the Shaw. Certainly our government
had some idea of what was coming.

Same with Venezuela. Somebody in government said "We can not do anything
about it" or perhaps "Its not important enough to do anything about it"
or "The risks are too great". Chavez was beating around Venezuela's bush
for years before he succeeded in ascending to his present position. Do
you think he had neither financial nor political support from outsiders?
Are you so sure that Russia had no hand in helping him to rise, or
perhaps gave him political guidance about how to go through the process?

Walker, I am not advocating the killing of innocents, nor killing of
anybody for that matter. I don't mean to say you suggested anything in
particular, but like pollsters who ask questions, certain questions and
the way they are posed illicit certain feelings and certain sorts of
answers. So what I am suggesting is that your question was of that
nature and that I disagree with the direction it was guiding people to
think.

As for the hypocrisy of the United States and their position as a
nuclear power while preferring that certain other regimes do not join
the nuclear club, I think that is mostly bunk. Here is why. Suppose you
have a prison, and all the guards have weapons, but the prisoners have
no weapons. Do you make the guards give up their weapons? Do you give
weapons to all the prisoners? You might do it, but it would not be
smart, otherwise, why have a justice department at all.

Let me remind you that in the free world we have trade. People build and
sell goods. If they do well they can prosper. In certain other countries
effort and production are not the measure of a person's prosperity. That
prosperity is based on who you know and how you support their
government. The rule of law is the rule of power. Whoever has it takes
what he wants from the rest. To let such governments gain the upper hand
in controlling large shares of natural resources and military power
would be short sighted and dangerous for posterity.

As for Iran always being fascist. That is a very simple way of
describing a complex people, and not entirely accurate. The shaw was
supported by the United States and Brittan. This support kept Iran out
of Communist control for several decades and was probably a good thing.
Certainly his government was better to his people than the present one.
Iran was on a progressive track and behaving as a friend to the US.

Well, our treaty with the Panama government when we INSTALLED it was
that we'd keep military control over it for like 50 years or so. Then
it'd be theirs to use for however they saw fit. Since WW2, there's never
been a military vessel small enough to use the canal, anyways. So we'd
been using it merely for supply shipping. And it was actually cheaper to
let Panama do that, and we just pay a fee.

And did you just compare the rest of the world to PRISONERS. They are
sovereign nations. We aren't guarding them. We're not their jailors.
We're their NEIGHBORS. We own guns. They want to own guns, too. Because
we have a bad habit of threatening them when they do something we don't
like. And every time someone else gets an arsenal- it gets even scarier.


I'm going to skip the other stuff. I'm calling you, and hard, on
comparing the world political structure to a prison.

Well. I think 50 years or so is more like I remember the details. I
think that in particular there was not an absolute deadline for
transferring the control of the canal. At some point it had to be done
though. Carter just rushed it forward. I'm didn't mean to complain about
the canal so much as so point out that at some point the state
department and executive office may possibly have begun to neglect
issues that were important to our country. This was in response to the
question about whether the CIA was maybe a little overactive in South
America. Probably they have been over zealous in some cases and not
active enough in others. I also think there has been plenty bad judgment
to go around.
There are plenty of sovereign nations around, but they are not my
sovereign. Also, I didn't mean to compare the rest of the world to
prisoners. I was trying to point out that not all people are as
trustworthy with weapons as others. Keep in mind that there are many
countries in the world and only a very few are pursuing nuclear weapons.
It is glaringly obvious, how can you not see and face the fact, that the
countries pursuing them have behavioral problems. Prime examples are
Iran and North Korea. Let me point out that while the leaders of those
countries are not prisoners, they most likely should be. Ahmadinejad for
his involvement in the kidnappings of the American statesmen at the
embassy in 1979 and Kim Jong-il for counterfeiting and illegal drug
trade, among other things. If you can not find any other reasons why
they should be prisoners then you are not paying attention, or you are
ignoring the facts. In either case it is pointless to debate this issue
further. So if you can't see there is some difference here then I am
done with this discussion.

I'll point out something that is grist for the mill in this discussion
that you might like and nobody is discussing. Right now the nuclear
arsenals in the major nuclear powers are controlled more or less
depending on the country. We assume there is some stability and
security. We know who the major players are and believe we can trust
them to behave rationally. a hundred years from now it will be a new
world. Our progeny will progress several generations. 25 presidential
elections will have taken place in our country. Other governments will
have evolved or been replaced. As shown with the transition of the USSR
to Russia there are issues regarding the management of the arsenals.
Ultimately who controls the nuclear weapons will change hands
repeatedly. In France where there is a growing militant Moslem minority,
England too and eventually the US may follow that path. But whether it
is Moslems or any other fringe group it is always possible for fanatics
to gain control of nuclear weapons. The world must work together and
find a way to solve the international problems without war. This must
happen. Without that life on earth could deteriorate into a very
unpleasant situation. With international cooperation if things are not
managed well, the situation could be even worse. An example of a worse
situation might be what could happen if some regional despot were to
rise to power over the world or even a large part of it. Perhaps if we
allow Ahmadinejad to have nukes he will be the one to come up with an
Islamic Red Book and take the Maoist movement to the world. Perhaps not.
Are you proposing we give him the nuke to find out?

In all fairness, even now, Iran has a fairly liberal and westernized
view of things. And all men are mortal- no matter how a dictator
behaves, he must one day die. I'd rather Iran have the bomb- because
it'll give them the power, and thus the responsibility, to use it
rationally. If there was any force in the middle east that I'd trust to
run the entire mess, it would be Iran. And they could unify the Islam
world, if it were clear they could stand toe-to-toe with the
"superpowers" of the world.

Of course, the only way they could hold unity is by forming a radically
liberal government, by middle eastern standards. In fact, they already
DO have a more liberal government than most of the world. Atomics would
be a great thing in Iran's possession. A unified islam wouldn't be the
best government in the world- but it would be on par with America
approximately 150 years ago. In many ways, better. And a unified middle
east has something to lose.

And that's where the insurgents and terrorists would fade away. People
only use suicide bombs when there's no choice and nothing to lose. And
those few psychotic die-hards would be rapidly (and brutally) dealt
with, internally. Because a unified islam would seek to avoid a war that
would guarantee its destruction.

As to the inheritance of the bomb- what makes you think AMERICA will be
here in a century? Unless we have a sudden and drastic change, america
will cease being a superpower by the later half of this century. And
considering how badly we've pissed off the rest of the world.... forget
about it.

In your first paragraph you said: "I'd rather Iran have the bomb-
because it'll give them the power, and thus the responsibility..."

In your second paragraph you said: "Atomics would be a great thing in
Iran's possession."

I think that both of those comments are misguided. Watch history twenty
years from now and ask whether you were right.

In your third paragraph you said: "People only use suicide bombs when
there's no choice and nothing to lose." Iran by supporting Hamas and
Hesbollah are promoting terrorism now and they certainly not in a
position where there is no choice or nothing to lose, so that comment is
clearly false.

As to your last paragraph, One hundred years from now the country will
look a lot different. There is a very strong likelihood there will be a
single world government or at least an oversight body of control similar
to the United Nations. Perhaps there will be some sort of world-wide
republic. Personally I think some good characteristics of people are to
be found in various places around the world. Hopefully the world will
benefit from a variety of the best ideas and movements. Whether America
is here or not, somebody will inherit the control of the bomb. The best
we can hope for is that sanity will prevail and there will be some means
to regulate authority.

As in the recent case of the prosecutor Nyfong, probably spelled that
wrong, sometimes authority figures get out of control. Police may have a
little more power than they warrant in some cases. Governments are
certainly like that. Nobody can reign in the rogue governments without a
lot of power. So there must be some military force at this point. What
would be the point of having a military that was only strong enough to
lose. Better to regulate its use yet have it be strong. The trouble is,
who does the regulating.

Some people would prefer that the United States have neither the power
nor the influence that it now has. Can we assume you to be among those?

Have you considered petitioning congress to give Iran a few nukes so
they can have a balance of power? It might be interesting to see your
neighbors responses when you asked them to sign the petition.

No, I think the US having that kind of power isn't a bad thing. I think
us HOARDING it and refusing to let other nations come into their own is.
Iran is a respectable government- it uses tactics against a percieved
(and in fact, VERY REAL) enemy. We're that enemy.

If Iran had the backing of atomics to protect it, we'd no longer be
that kind of overwhelming threat. We could settle down to a nice,
comfortable Cold War mentality. With standard espionage and standard
competition. Suicide bombers would then be detrimental to Iran's cause
(aka- beating us). As would open warfare.... being nuked= not good for
anyone. So we'd have another space race, another technology boom,
another contest of cultures and wills. Part of Iran's obvious strategy
would be consolidation of the middle eastern nations.

Whatever you think of Iran, it has a stable and functioning,
institutionally strong and fairly well liked internal government. It is
quite liberal by middle eastern standards- including allowing
non-muslims most human rights. No condoned persecutions (except of
course, the jews, but that's understandable considering Israel's general
activities). Iran's a country that can be respected.

Of course, I'm probably a "biased" opinion. I've actually spoken with
Iranian people. They have as open an access to the internet as almost
any other nation with the same basic poverty levels. Which, to be fair,
is higher than you'd see in most first-world nations. But considerably
lower than you'd see in most third-world ones.


The nation I'm afraid of having the bomb is the one that has it- Korea.
Kim Jun Il (however that's spelt exactly) is a certifiable madman. His
policies will lead to a horrible internal collapse- not in his lifetime,
of course, but definately after his death. And he's one of the few I
don't doubt would be willing to unleash that hell on the world. That's
the thing Iran doesn't have- a madman who doesn't mind destroying
himself and the rest of the world in one fell swoop.

I completely disagree with you about Iran and I think not one but many
madmen are in power there. In fact I will go so far as to say that a
small but insane portion of their population is extremely radical and a
danger in the world.

There is an Iranian in my shop that I talk with daily. Obviously you
aren't hearing the mullah stories that I am hearing. I know there are
decent people there, and some may be in government, but I don't believe
there is a moderate attitude there. Certainly not in power. Their
government can not be trusted where Palestine and Lebanon is concerned,
and the treatment of their own people has serious problems with fairness
and justice.

I do not agree that there are no persecutions either. Only recently a
woman was beheaded there for having sex. The girl was a 16 year old
child. If that is moderate I am not interested in that kind of
moderation nor in that kind of moderate having the bomb.

Doesn't it trouble you at all that a country would want to make the
world into an Islamic state, with sharia law, and then take the steps to
build a military to enable it to do so? Wouldn't that interfere with any
of your ideas of personal freedom?

If you don't hoard the bomb, as you say the U.S. is doing, that is
tantamount to saying anyone should be able to have one, which is
irresponsible.

Mr. philospher.

You mentioned watching history. Perhaps you need to read some history
before you make statements. You stated that former pres J. Carter
rushed the turn over of the Panama canal. The original treaty signed
when it was decided to build the darn thing in the first place specified
EXACTLY when the canal was to be turned over to control of panama. Pres
Carter just happened to be President at the time.

As far as Iran having nuclear weapons. Not much we can do about it.
Lets put this in perspective. If I have a gun and a history of using
guns how would you feel if I pointed it at you and said thou shalt not
own an equivilent weapon.

Would you pay any attention to me. I doubt it.

That said I personally feel that all such weapons should be immediatly
disabled in all parts of the world.