The current terrorism threat level is: Terror Alert Level Downing Street Memo Certified Domestic Terrorist

Thursday, November 29, 2018

The boy who cried Iraq.

The Boy Who Cried Iraq A bitter, angry, sarcastic rant by Dan Berman Written Feb 2003. Too much here is still relevant "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor The second in command of the Third Reich "These [terrorist] attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible, and this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail…The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed." -George W Bush (1946- ) Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces President of the United States of America Introduction. I wrote this to bring to light what the media and the government will not tell you and me: the truth. Instead, I chose to find it myself, and as a proud American it is my responsibility to share it with you. I wrote this because standing by complacent and ignorant of events being carried out in my name makes me as guilty as the man ordering the bombs be dropped, it makes me as guilty as the man who orders brave, valiant soldiers to get killed in hostile territory so he can see his bank accounts grow. I wrote this because I am aware of the deceit and tyranny coming from Washington DC and I can't sit idly by while lives are stolen. With that, it is important to note that my goal is not to turn you for or against the war. My goal is to expose you to truth and let you decide. I defend your right to argue for or against this war, the unconditional right to have your own opinion, as long as the argument is based on fact and reason and not the flimsy base of lies the government would have you believe. My goal is to educate you. But in order to learn, you need to explore this information with an open mind. Too many people, on either side of the argument, form an opinion that they will defend irrationally. Read this, take in the data, and if you learn something new, apply it accordingly. However, if you are going to read this, you must commit to reading it in its entirety. In our fast paced world, our attention spans are shorter than Warwick Davis. Each point made in this essay, big or small, serves as an essential piece of the puzzle. And whether made with fact, comedy, or flat out rant, the points still hold true. So print this out, go get a cup of coffee and get comfortable. I'll wait. In order to do this, I will attack the issue from a couple of different angles. I will break down the lies and propaganda being fed to us by the White House and label it as such. I will counter each argument with fact and history that proves otherwise, exposing the information as the lies they are. I will show you why our blind sheep faith in our lying wolf president will not only cause even more unnecessary death and murder, but lead this world right back to the darkest times of the last two hundred years. I will show why this unprovoked attack is only for oil and money and that "freeing an innocent people" is a convenient, yet fraudulent, excuse the Bush administration is using to rally public support. Finally, I will tell you why you should even care, then explore where we can go from here. "A Lie Told Often Enough Becomes The Truth" -Vladimir Lenin As American bombs are indiscriminately obliterating Iraqi building, soldier, and civilian alike, the White House propaganda engine is working overtime to rally public support by means of irrelevant data, half truths, and flat out lies. We are told that this is a war for our safety and freedom, where, as I will show you, our brave soldiers are really getting killed or wounded in the name of domination and greed. In a move eerily similar to Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, troops have been ordered to attack and take over another country for reasons of expansion of power and overall global domination. What you are not being told is George Bush's illegal and immoral war against Iraq is solely for money and oil. Many more innocent lives will be lost or ruined so a few rich men can get even richer. And to make it even worse, George Bush and his administration are disgracing the memory of everyone that died in 9/11 by using their tragic deaths as a means to silence dissent and alter public opinion. In order to go to war, the White House has followed a predefined ten step plan: 1. Create the enemy George Bush Junior had it easier than most presidents - his father effectively demonized Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. He ignored the fact that Hussein up until very recently was an ally that America armed with conventional and chemical weapons. Instead he is now focusing on the horrible things Hussein has done with the weapons we gave him. Bush's first attempt to rally the country and the world behind attacking Iraq was on January 29, 2002 when he labeled Iraq part of the "Axis of Evil," a name that he could have just as well stolen from an episode of The Tick. "The Decency Squad vs The Axis Of Evil and Dinosaur Neil" would have made a fantastic episode. One short month later, on February 28, the White House upped its stance from disarmament of Iraq to complete "regime change." While yes, Saddam is a brutal ruler doing horrible things to his people, why would America target him while ignoring the 90 other countries with similar situations? Why target a despot that has neither the capability or desire to attack the United States of America instead of somewhere like, say, North Korea, which, on January 12, 2003, threatened to turn the United States into a "sea of fire" and then promptly withdrew from nuclear treaties and began testing long range missiles. The American government has no interest in saving Iraqi lives any more than necessary for public support. Sadly, it has always been like this, which shouldn't surprise you considering most of our leaders' great grandparents owned your or your friends' great grandparents. Well, except for Colin Powell's, but I'm sure they got to work inside the house. In order to look at this rationally, it is important to realize that in most cases, America is not the peace loving humanitarian force the government paints itself to be. In World War 2, for example, American troops were not sent in to rescue Jews and stop Hitler. Roosevelt knowingly failed to take many steps that would have saved thousands of Jewish lives. In fact, it was Germany that declared war on America, not vice versa. And even then, saving Jews was a low priority left to the State Department (A People's History Of The United States; Zinn, Howard). Humanitarian Aid is a great excuse, but unfortunately nothing but a ruse. In order to rally enough support to go to war, George Bush needed a better excuse. When he realized this, Saddam Hussein became a threat to you and me. Saddam was accused of harboring terrorists or looking to build weapons of mass destruction that he should not be allowed to have. Is this a legit argument? Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, The United States and Israel all have nuclear arsenals. Iran and North Korea are actively, and publicly, seeking nuclear capabilities, while many other countries are secretly researching them. What about non-nuclear "weapons of mass destruction?" All countries are prohibited from developing chemical and biological weapons. But right here in Nevada and we are storing, and actively developing and testing, illegal chemical weapons featuring Anthrax, VX gas, and everything else Saddam is accused of harboring. So, why are we attacking Iraq and seeking diplomacy in North Korea? Even if Iraq did have nuclear weapons, they would never be able to reach US soil. What happens when Syria, Libya, and Egypt start developing nuclear weapons? Attack them all too? And then those after? That sort of imperialism would surpass the Third Reich's wildest dreams. It would make the Roman Empire look like a militia. That sort of imperialism would equate to world domination, and how long can an empire exist when the entire world is against them? The irony here is that the United States literally created the enemy. We are the ones who armed Hussein in the first place. Iraqi soldiers are using American weapons to kill American soldiers. Yes, "Allied forces" created this enemy in the literal sense as well. If irony was a crime, Texas would execute the preceding sentences. After the Ottoman Empire fell at the end of World War 1, Britain took over much of the Middle East. They made pacts to sell oil to the west at extremely low prices while denying it to the Soviet Union. Numerous Iraqi revolts for this "freedom" we've been hearing so much about were crushed by RAF troops and bombers. Finally, in 1958, Colonel Abdul Karim el-Kassem overthrew Iraq's West-friendly tyrannical government and restored Soviet relations. The First World, of course, could not have this. Eventually, American-friendly Saddam Hussein was able to take over Iraq with the weapons and help of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Known as the Arab Stalin, Hussein ruthlessly ruled Iraq with an iron fist, using oil revenues from Western countries to modernize Iraq and weapons from America to keep the Iraqi people suppressed. In the late 1970s, When Iran's Islamic government threatened oil domination, the United States and Britain empowered Hussein even more to attack the neighboring country. Empowerment included massive arms shipments and plans for the manufacturing of chemical and biological weapons. When Hussein turned around and used the chemicals on the Kurds, the CIA turned a cold shoulder and even went so far as to increase funding. The White House next tried to tie Hussein to the real threat to America, Al Qaeda. George Bush Junior began telling us that Saddam Hussein is supporting and arming terrorists and we need to get him before its too late. Any opposition is "supporting the terrorists," and what American would want to do that? It sounds scary, but it's a flat out lie. A senior CIA official stated publicly that "Saddam Hussein initiating an attack in the foreseeable future is…low" (10/02). Shortly thereafter, George Tenet, the head of the CIA, the source of all of this country's military intelligence, said on November 7th, 2002 that Iraq "appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical weapons against us." Both of these statements were made after 9/11. Unfortunately, the only country really arming the terrorists is America. On September 11th, George Bush Junior was given what he needed to glue all of his unproven accusations together and scare our country enough to support everything he does. Now, a lot of Americans will go along with anything that falls under the guise of fighting terrorism. We have illegally gone to war against a country because "it's fighting the war on terrorism." George Bush was able to use a tragedy that left 3000 innocent Americans dead to defy the peace keeping UN that America created, defy international law, defy international opinion, and attack a country in a way that makes the World Trade Center tragedy look like a firecracker went off. People fear what they do not understand, and George Bush leveraged that to effectively create the enemy. Time for step 2. 2. Be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you. To the dismay of naïve politically correct optimists everywhere, racism is still a fundamental part of this country. Not near where it was but it's still here. If you don't believe me, you're probably white. George Bush has always been careful in reassuring us that "not all Arabs are terrorists," but if Iraq was not an Arab country, he would not have been able to use that excuse to invade and conquer the oil rich country. The news talks about Al-Qaeda fighting along with Iraq. Kind of like the French helping us win the Revolutionary War I guess. Oops. If that shows us anything, it's that a lot of Iraqi nationalists will be joining Al-Qaeda very shortly, if not already. And if you need to be reminded, Al Qaeda is our real threat. As the war is waged, the media does everything possible to demonize the "evil" enemy. By convincing the country that the Iraqi way of life is far inferior to American culture and that the enemy is a horrible person that deserves to die, the White House is able to rally even more public support. Donald Rumsfeld is on the news talking about how Iraq is breaking all sorts of laws of combat. Oh, I see. The law needs to be followed when it suits what you're doing. Got it. The news is also highlighting Iraq's "unconventional" fighting style. They are drawing the American soldiers into the streets, pretending to surrender and dressing like civilians. Mass media makes sure to point out that only an evil murderous force could do that But really, what do you expect? Both sides line up and fire muskets? They're doing exactly what America did in the Revolutionary War. WHATEVER THEY CAN to stand up to a much bigger and stronger enemy. Like lobbing bombs from out of the enemy's reach is any more fair. One can't call the Iraqis on their "unfair" methods when the other side is doing something so similar. Bill Maher got fired for pointing that out. America, the land of the free. 3. Continue to reinforce these differences The Bush Propaganda engine, co-headed by Colin Powell, the man greatly responsible for covering up the Mai Lai massacre where over 400 Vietnamese women and children were murdered by American soldiers, pounds manipulative, incendiary keywords into your head to elicit an emotional response. Hussein's government has always been referred to as a "regime," which we instantly equate with "bad." Usage of this word is passed to the public by the media and becomes part of everyday speech. What sort of "terrorist" would oppose taking a "regime" out of power? (I mean besides our government when it's making money) If I had a dollar for every time I've heard the word evil I could buy an oil company and run for president. Remember, these accusations are coming from the same guy that undid 30 years of progress by withdrawing America from global nuclear disarmament treaties and announcing the right to pre-emptive strike and the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. Who, again, is the threat to world peace? 4. The government uses the "unbiased" media to broadcast their propaganda into your living room The saddest thing is some people are calling the media leftist liberals. Calling the media left is like calling Dick Cheney a pacifist. In a democracy, it's the media's job to convey accurate, factual information. It's naïve to expect that, but realistic to want it. If the media accurately portrayed to us the repercussions we will face for years to come, a lot of Americans would be rethinking the situation. But they won't. The media exists to further the government's agenda. Mark Twain said that "a newspaper is not just for reporting the news, it's to get people mad enough to do something about it." Unfortunately, it is used in our country to do the exact opposite. To keep us complacent and show us only what we need to see to rally behind our corrupt government. For example, the media never disputed Bush's fraudulent claim that the "world agrees" with the White House. CNN and Fox News spent much time talking about the British documents that show Iraq is actively seeking nuclear weapons from Niger. These documents were used in excess by Colin Powell and George Bush, but were proven to be forgeries as soon as they were made public. The UN's nuclear commission declared the documents were forged and "not authentic." The war-mongering media did not spend too much time reporting that little fact. In June 2002, Dr Mohamed el Baradei, General Director of the Internation Atomic Energy Authority, said that "there are no indications that Iraq has nuclear weapons, weapons usable material or the practical capabilities to produce them." I seem to have missed that report as well. Why does Fox News show pictures of the pro-American Iraqis but not the flag burning protesting ones? Americans are for a war when they think it is helping the people in the other land. Would those same people be for this war if they were shown that many Iraqis prefer Hussein's death squads over American Occupation? Of course not. Why is it that I have to go to other counties' news sources to get accurate information? Why doesn't CNN show, or even talk about, all of the 1000+ Iraqi civilian casualties? They're making headlines all over the rest of the world. While reporting the Iraqi [Kurd] civilians that are happy to see American forces, the media also fails to mention that many Hussein-hating Iraqis are actually joining the Iraqi Army in the same "lesser of two evils" argument some pro-war activists use to rationalize this attack. Of course, every side is going to be biased, if not because of government's controls because of editors and advertisers. But the more sources you read, the better picture you can paint for yourself. In the 1940s and 1950s, GE head Charles Wilson was so happy about the wartime situation he suggested a continued alliance between business and military, advocating a "permanent war economy." GE owns NBC. During the Vietnam War, the media played a significant role in ending the war. A major change was said to have come after Walter Cronkite declared the war un-winnable. Today, reporters aren't even allowed to slightly question the government. So why now wont the media do its job and provide fair and accurate analysis? The FCC is close to deregulating media ownership limits. This would allow the mass media to expand to globally dominant organizations. This is very important to them all, so they'll do anything to stay on the government's good side. Being that Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC, opposing the White House would sway the FCC to rule against the corporations. Therefore the media outlets are acting as the White House's cheerleaders, doing their part to disseminate government propaganda. The media is about as fair and accurate as Mark Fuhrman. 5. Portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine. "Saddam's 'regime' is evil!" "He murders and gasses his own people!" "He's a murderer who doesn't deserve to be in power!" Sound familiar? For the record, he didn't gas his own people. He gassed the Kurds. With money and chemical plans supplied by the CIA. While, yes, geographically they live in Iraq, calling them Iraqi is like calling Palestinians Israelis. But yes, he is a bad man. No one is disputing that. That is the argument used by many people to support the war, that he murders and tortures his own people. They paste testimonials of former Iraqi inhabitants, vividly describing his horrible rule. But that is not what this war is about. As I've stated, taking down a repressive despot is a good side effect, but an even better excuse. Our government could care less what happens to some poor brown people. American wars are waged for political and economic gain, not for freedom of some oppressed people. If you really doubt that, pick up some history books and start learning. Here is the United States' war record over the last 100 years: PHILIPPINES, 1898 - 1910: seizes from Spain, 600,000 Filipinos killed PUERTO RICO, 1898: seizes from Spain PANAMA, 1901 - 14: separates country from Colombia and annexes canal zone HONDURAS, 1903: US marines intervene against revolution NICARAGUA, 1912 - 33: 20-year occupation and war against guerrillas HAITI, 1914 - 34: occupation DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, 1916 - 24: occupation CUBA, 1917 - 33: military occupation, made into economic protectorate RUSSIA, 1917 - 22: troops sent five times to try to overthrow revolution YUGOSLAVIA, 1919: marines intervene against Serbs PANAMA, 1925: marines suppress general strike CHINA, 1927 - 34: marines stationed throughout the country EL SALVADOR, 1932: warships sent during revolt JAPAN, 1945: firebombs Tokyo and other cities, drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki PUERTO RICO, 1950: independence rebellion crushed KOREA, 1950 - 53: US and South Korea fight China and North Korea to stalemate. US threatens to use nuclear bombs. At least two million Korean civilians killed or wounded IRAN, 1953: CIA overthrows democracy GUATEMALA, 1954: CIA directs invasion after government nationalized land belonging to US United Fruit company LEBANON, 1956: US troops land VIETNAM, 1960 - 75: two million Vietnamese killed in longest US war INDONESIA, 1965: one million killed in CIA-assisted coup GUATEMALA, 1966: troops intervene CAMBODIA, 1969 - 75: US carpet-bombs. Two million killed by years of bombing and starvation CHILE, 1973: CIA-backed coup overthrows democratically elected government ANGOLA, 1976 - 92: CIA assists South African backed rebels LIBYA, 1981: two Libyan jets shot down EL SALVADOR, 1981 - 92: troops and air power assist death squads, 75,000 people killed NICARAGUA, 1981 - 90: CIA directs Contra invasions LEBANON, 1982 - 84: US forces intervene, navy shells Beirut HONDURAS, 1983 - 89: US troups build bases for death squads GRENADA, 1983: US invasion LIBYA, 1986: capital Tripoli bombed in effort to kill President Gadaffi IRAN, 1987: Iranian passenger jets shot down over Persian Gulf PANAMA, 1989 - 90: invasion, thousands of civilians killed GULF WAR, 1990 - 91: US-led coalition kills 100,000 Iraqis. Post war sanctions kill an estimated one million civilians in the following ten years SOMALIA, 1992 - 94: US-led United Nations occupation EX-YUGOSLAVIA, 1995: bombs Serbs and assists ethnic cleansing SUDAN, 1998: bombs pharmaceutical factory IRAQ, 1998: four days of air strikes, raids continue until present day SERBIA 1989: 78 days of NATO air strikes AFGHANISTAN, 2001: US-led war kills thousands IRAQ, 2002/3: ... [see end for sources] 6. Eliminate opposition to the ruling party. According to John Ashcroft, I am a terrorist. And by reading this far, you are too. I can't help it. I like to read. I prefer to form my OWN opinion. I wouldn't kill or hurt anybody, but our attorney general has defined terrorism as even speaking against the government and holding opposing views. So if you need me, I'll be over there with the other terrorists. Oh, no, not the real terrorists. I mean George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony, and everyone else that has strived for something better. Right after 9/11, The Bush Administration was quick to capitalize on the death of innocent Americans by declaring that dissent and opposing views (also known as reason and common sense) are now un-American. How dare you speak out against our government. Remember 9/11! I am. That's why I'm writing this. Bush furthered this fascist notion with his "You're either with us or against us" policy he announced on November 5th, 2001. All of a sudden being anti-war, even questioning a single government action, has become "anti-American." Anti-War protesters are accused of not supporting our troops? Are you kidding me? Is there any BETTER way to support our troops then by GETTING THEM OUT OF A WAR? What kind of backwards logic is this? The troops are going to hear about a large portion of their countrymen protesting for their return, for their removal out of harms way, and get demoralized because they WANT to be stuck in the desert right in the middle of bullets and a seemingly infinite number of suicide bombers? Of course not! Why are these "Americans" that so adamantly support a war to "free" people the first to try to take someone else's away? These people with their backwards oppressive jingoism would fit better on Saddam's side. If irony was a constitutionally protected figure of speech, John Ashcroft would take away this section. 7. Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions. I'm going to tell you something that may upset you. Putting flags on your car does not make you an activist. In fact, it makes you the opposite. It makes you complacent. Policies will not change, or be created, because you put two flags on your car. Instead, it tells the government that they can do whatever they want right now and you will stand by it and wave your flag proudly while you fill up your 10 mile to the gallon road-brontosaurus with gas that is coming directly from the country where the real terrorists came from. Let's hear it for irony! And how is it that putting four flags on your car makes you more patriotic than the soccer mom with only three flags on her car? Does her "God Bless America" sticker count for anything? It should, being God is obviously on America's side. The real irony here is that George Bush goes against everything the flag stands for. Suddenly the stars and stripes represent the repression of dissent and promotion of global imperialism. That's why I smile when I see them on German cars. Wave them proudly, America. 8. Align all actions with the dominant deity. "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." (Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46) Does anyone else find it bitterly coincidental that God was apparently on Bin Laden's side when he ordered his soldiers to crash planes into the World Trade Center as well as on Bush's side when he ordered his soldiers to turn Iraq into a sea of fire? Sorry. A precision-based sea of fire. What ever happened to "Thou Shalt Not Kill?" Whether you are religious or not, do we really want someone with the ability to destroy the entire earth 100 times over believing in invisible super heroes? What happens when the Green Lantern comes to him in a dream and tells him it's time? Do we really want Bush to put his faith in God the same way Mohammed Atta did? Look at the bumper sticker on the next car that cuts you off. I bet it says "God Bless America." Come on. Is this God blessing you and not the Iraqi people defending their homeland? And Jesus' homeland, at that? I thought God was everywhere and everyone was his child and all that. Oh. Only white people. That makes more sense. No wonder you turned Jesus into a white man. Seriously, is claiming a "peaceful" diety a way to justify murder for money? Of course not! The Vatican stated publicly that that "there is no moral justification for pre-emptive war in Iraq." And the Pope himself called this war a "defeat for humanity." These quotes coming from an organization that didn't even publicly oppose the Nazis! What else do you need? A burning bush? Well, head on over to Baghdad cause there's a fucking LOT of them there. 9. Design propaganda to show that your soldiers have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones. The media is making it very clear that the army is doing everything they can to avoid casualties, going so far as to NOT report what's really happening. CNN actually has a web page up personifying each American soldier that has been killed. It shows a picture of them, lists their hobbies and family members. Alternatively, they barely even mention the hundreds of dead Iraqi bomb victims. I do honestly believe that most of the soldiers are trying to save lives. I don't think a few bad apples -cough- Amiriya - cough - should ruin the integrity of the soldier. But civilian casualties, intentional or not, are a part of war and should be reported accurately. Al Jazeera, the Middle East's primary news source, is plastering the television and papers with images of bombing victims, of civilians that had their lives stolen by Bush. A 9 year-old girl that had the back half of her skull blown off. The boy that had both of his arms ripped off by an American bomb. But CNN is only showing troops surrendering or Iraqis cheering the Americans. Now of course Al Jazeera is just as much a propaganda engine as CNN, but being aware of both will give you a more accurate view of everything. Al Jazeera recently put their English speaking website online. Instantly it was attacked and taken offline, then cracked and replaced with a big American flag. I could be wrong, but isn't that the same flag that stands for the freedom of speech? Isn't that the same flag that we are rallying behind while freeing an oppressed people so THEY can have the freedoms that we supposedly enjoy? Wouldn't seeing the news from a different bias help us form a better, more educated opinion? "Educated opinion" Bwahahaha Why, again, is it that so many people that are for this war for freedom are against the freedom of speech? 10."Orange you glad I didn't say Red" Since September 11th, Americans will apparently support absolutely anything that "fights terror." George Bush knows this and has used it to become the single most powerful leader in modern history. During his speech on October 8, 2002, George Bush used the word "terror" 30 times in 30 minutes. And it worked! I'm going to invent some sort of "terror-fighting" laundry detergent or something. I'll sell it for twice that of any of my competition and become an instant millionaire because if you don't buy my product, the terrorists win. Then I'll come out with the new and improved version that fights twice the terror while keeping your colors bright and making your whites whiter. Don't let stains terrorize your shirt! Speaking of colors, what better way to keep America in a state of fear than with a color coded chart! I don't want to get too much into 9/11 and terrorism, but we need to touch on this color coded system that the administration is using to instill fear and faith in the public. Let me ask you this. How exactly will a color system do anything more than help you test the pH balance of a swimming pool? Let alone stop terrorism. Here is a secret: It won't. What does a heightened state of alert really mean? Look at brown people more suspiciously when the color is closer to brown? Even after Tom Ridge, head of the Ministry of Truth, tells us to go on with our lives just the same? Is the FBI on higher alert when the color changes? Of course not. They're smart enough to know that terrorist strikes will occur any time, especially when not expected. So what really comes out of this color system? Fear! The color is orange. The terrorists are coming! Duct tape your doors shut and your eyes closed. Really, just duct tape your hands to your ankles and your cheeks open and wait for Ashcroft to come to your door to thank you personally. The public is appeased by a leader that will protect them. As soon as there is danger, the public looks to Bush for protection. And that is exactly why this color system exists. In fact, it's absolutely genius. It's what Pavlov wished he could have done. It's like Simon Says but for keeps. When has the color been raised to orange? [by the time of this writing] Before the attack on Afghanistan While rallying support to attack Iraq When the attack on Iraq began Notice the alert has never gone all the way up to red. And I don't think it will. Once it gets THAT dangerous, people will question their safety and the effectiveness of the White House. Are they protecting us? Can we trust this color system? And why didn't this system exist BEFORE 9/11? How did Tom Clancy know about this but the entire CIA, FBI, and American public not? [Well, according to internal sources, they did, but I won't touch that one yet]. Why doesn't the government just hire writers? People that HAVE to think to get paid? Lets not stop there. I say we replace Condoleezza Rice with Madam Cleo. Not like either ISN'T full of shit, and at least Cleo will relax the FCC. By installing fear throughout the country of an unknown enemy Bush can effectively rally enough domestic support to carry out his plans of domination and still get a second term. Because Americans love peace, and war brings peace. And freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. I know, I've read that book, too. [10 Steps taken from the song "Anatomy of your Enemy." See end for source] The Boy Who Cried Wolfgang What happens when something is so over referenced that it becomes common place? Simple. It's ignored. The farmers won't come stop the wolf from eating the sheep after hearing the same cry night after night. Except this time, the American people are the sheep, the Bush administration is the wolf, and the Democrats, who should have been the farmers, are too scared that they'll be sent more Anthrax if they oppose the administration. Tom Daschle, that fuck. But now, the analogies have come true. Some people, like George Bush Senior, try to compare Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. Other than both having a last name that starts with the same letter and living in a place most Americans refer to as "Not America," they don't have too much in common. Given, both are American adversaries and neither would be, let's say an "ideal neighbor," but anything beyond is just stretching. One could argue that they both kill their own people. Whereas the Kurds live in Iraq as the Jews lived in Germany, both could more accurately be referred to as being in the right place at the very wrong time. Where Saddam Hussein terrorizes his own people to keep them in line and in fear, Hitler rallied his people behind him with promises of expansion and "homeland security." Israelis claim that Iraq is a threat to their homeland. I disagree. Israel could militarily crush Iraq with lightning speed and precision. In fact, Ariel Sharon announced on December 7, 2002, that if Iraq did in fact launch missiles, chemical or conventional, Israel would retaliate tenfold. Not a single missile has been fired at Israel. Maybe some will be, but they will be fired as final acts of desperation when Iraq sees imminent defeat. If America didn't illegally invade Iraq, Israel would not have to worry about missile attacks from Iraq. Hitler on the other hand, did launch an illegal invasion, and if Israel existed at the time, would have been directly threatened. Hitler had massive goals of continental, and possibly global, domination. He had the means to do it and almost succeeded. Hussein, even if he wants to, has no means or ability to do so. In fact, I would argue that George Bush has more in common with Hitler than Hussein does. And I'm going to! Don't let this throw you off. I'm not claiming we are Nazis or George Bush Junior would be able to create concentration camps. However, what I am saying is that public sentiment, putting blind faith in a phony leader using the guise of security and protection, is what allowed Hitler to do what he did. After all, Hitler was "liberating" people too. The overall public sentiment in this country is starting to mirror the public sentiment in 1930's Germany. Nazism has been referenced so much that people tune it out and dismiss it as common cliché. What I will do is simply compare and contrast today with Nazi Germany and let you make the decision. "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our homeland. " - Adolph Hitler, 1922, Creating the Gestapo "Our first priority must always be the security of our nation… We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland" - George Bush, 1/29/2002 Here are some fundaments of Nazism: 1. Individualism over Collectivism In 2001 the army changed its motto from "Be All That You Can Be" to "Army of One" People are more concerned with themselves than the whole. I would even argue that the only people, other than public servants and teachers, who both get paid near nothing for the most important jobs out there, are our soldiers. Ironic that we are sending them to die into a maelstrom of fire and bullets. I say we bring them all back and pay them to teach people how to work together and support one another. I mean, why are people really still driving SUVs? Is soccer practice in the middle of the fucking Rockies? Do you REALLY think if you "out-bling" the next guy on Sunset that some group of girls will pull over and get in your car? I mean has that EVER worked there? EVER? I'll bet you if it was somehow made fact that if everyone traded in their SUV and bought an economy car there would be no more terrorism, the public's response would be "Ah fuck it, so there's terrorism." "…I'll just add a third flag on my seventh door." I'm going to buy a short school bus. My car will be bigger than all of yours and I, unlike you, the Terrorist Support Committee, won't be hiding the fact that I'm fucking retarded. 2. Merit Over Equality Nothing inherently bad with this. However, still a significant aspect of both Nazism and capitalism. [You may claim this is a democratic republic, but it's all governed by the dollar] It is important to illustrate that Nazism is very different than Communism, the catalyst of 30 years of nuclear brinkmanship. It's not some far off, defeated concept. It's among us. 3. Competition over Cooperation Also a fundament of this country. From birth, we are programmed to win at all costs. You won't hear that "it's how you play the game" excuse from the winner. And that is why winning a war, no matter why it started, rallies a country and a diplomatic solution doesn't. 4. Power Politics and Militarism over Pacifism With great power comes great responsibility. Sad that the only one to ever say this and follow it at the same time was Spiderman, and he's not even real. As the world's only super-power [right now], we are leveraging our influence over the world very heavily. There are American Troops in over 45 countries, influencing their politics, culture, and economy to fit our needs. Throughout American history, our troops have influenced culture and toppled governments at the President's command. For example, when the Marxist Sandinista Movement overthrew the corrupt, American sponsored Somoza Dynasty in Nicaragua, President Reagan began immediately planning the overthrow of the Sandinistas. While they set out to give more land to peasants and spread health care and education to all, the CIA organized a secret contra force to re-install an American-friendly establishment. Unsupported by the people, the contras were forced to reside in America-dominated Honduras. From there, they would stage raids into Nicaragua. Former contra colonel Edgar Chamorro testified to the World Court "...Many civilians were killed in cold blood. Many others were tortured, mutilated, raped, robbed, or otherwise abused…[It] turned out to be an instrument of the US government" (source: Zinn, p.356) The United States has a long history of murder and militarism when economic interests are at stake. In 1932, popular rebellions were threatening El Salvador's military government. Two percent of the population owned 60 percent of the land, and the repressed people were starting to stand up. This threatened American business interests, so the freedom loving United States sent "a cruiser and two destroyers to stand by while the government massacred thirty thousand Salvadorans" (source: Zinn, p.361) Thirty THOUSAND. And that is exactly why when Osama Bin Laden attacked us over 80% of the world was happy about it. 5. Capitalism over Marxism Again, without attacking capitalism, both Americans and Nazis believe in, and are influenced by, the same economic system. 6. Religion over Secularism Touched upon above. Both cultures are fundamentally influenced by religion. Both George Bush Junior and Hitler [and bin Laden] used God as a justification for war. And in each case, the public bought it. That is why, while I fully support your right to believe what you want and practice whatever you believe, I do not think religion should have any place in politics. God did not bless this war. Dick Cheney's business partners did. Doubleyou-speak The George Bush propaganda machine is changing our thoughts and opinions with Orwellian Doublespeak 1. "Regime" You will never hear Hussein's CIA-sponsored Ba'ath party referred to anything but a "regime." After all, what kind of American could support a "regime?" 2. Operation "Iraqi Freedom" Who can oppose freeing Iraqi people? How can the war be about anything but freeing an enslaved people if it's called Operation Iraqi Freedom? I guess "Operation Iraqi Freedom…. From having homes" would be more accurate. If George Orwell were still alive, he'd spend his time lamenting about why he couldn't think of something so nefariously genius. Who could oppose freedom? Only tyrants and terrorists. Go back to bed, America, Iraq will be free in no time. Does George Bush intend to free Iraq the same way he freed Afghanistan? If you rely on domestic news sources for your accurate information, you've probably missed the sarcasm. After 9/11, George Bush Junior retaliated against the terrorist-harboring country with our favorite hobby: indiscriminately bombing the shit out of a country full of brown people. Seems ironic that a bombing of civilians is retaliated by a BIGGER bombing of civilians. To put it in perspective, lets just call the White House's Middle East policy "Nine Eleven… Billion" More innocent Afghani civilians died by American bombs than those at the World Trade Center on 9/11. (And we never even did get our targets) Afghanistan is now worse off than before. The country is in economic shambles, in a state of anarchy violently ruled by drug barons and warlords. George Bush Junior promised to stand by the Afghan people, too. He promised food and healthcare to the Iraqi people. But since 1991's sanctions, over one million Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the American Led UN Resolution 1441. Over 500,000 of those were children. George Bush Junior announced that immediately after Iraq is taken over, it will be controlled by General Tommy Franks as a military dictatorship. Leaked documents have exposed details on the martial law that will be imposed. If irony was oil, George Bush Junior would bomb my house and steal that paragraph. 3."Coalition of the Willing" Countries that support Bush are being referred to as the Coalition of the Willing. I guess this is accurate if willing to do something means being bullied into it. The United States has incredible political and economic influence over most of the world. While the administration claims that it did not strong-arm any nation into the coalition, fact (Bush's real nemesis) points in the opposite direction. America can block any country from entering NATO and uses this as leverage. Want in NATO? Not if you oppose the United States. The United States accounts for 25% of all economic activity on Earth and is able to use that to effectively impose its will on smaller nations. In 1991, during the first Gulf War, China was going to veto the UN Resolution allowing the war. A bribe of economic and diplomatic aid, especially right after Tienammen Square, quickly turned them right around. The votes of many smaller countries were also bought with money and aid. But it's the countries that can't be bought that need to be added up: On February 20, 2003, representatives from 52 African Nations gathered in Paris and issued a statement opposing the war except as a last resort. On February 25, 2002, 116 nations passed a statement opposing the war. The countries with the largest GDPs in Europe, South America, Africa, and Asia all oppose the war. Yet George Bush Junior has the audacity to call the UN "ineffective." If by ineffective he means "doing everything they can to support peace at the will of over 170 nations," then yes, I'd have to agree. What happens when bin Laden uses the same excuse to justify his next attacks? What happens when he says that "The United States can no longer resort to blackmail and terrorism" and that he must pre-emptively strike before the United States tries to invade the next Arab country? If irony were Filipino slave laborers we could out-produce Nike. America sees support from the absolute monarchies of countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey because of the amount of money at stake. They are all dependant on US dollars, as well as the United States military to keep them in power. Of course, there are countries that support the war without being strong-armed. Spain, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Portugal and Japan officially all support George Bush's war. However, their populations don't, and the massive protests have made that very clear. The entire sum of the populations of the coalition countries adds up to a mere 10.4% of the world population. That's assuming 100% of the population agrees with their country's official stance. Based on polls and protests, about 10% of this sum supports the war. If 9/11 taught us anything, it's that our new enemies are the individuals, not the states. That's over 5 billion potential bombers. We couldn't even stop 19. When Yemen voted against the war resolution, they were told by an American diplomat that that "would be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast," and three days later America cut all financial aid to Yemen. I wonder how many Yemenites were affected enough to join Al-Qaeda or one of the numerous other terrorist organizations looking to attack our homes. I bet more than one. Syria was removed from the "Terrorism-Supporting Country" list after supporting UN Resolution 1441 against Iraq. I wonder if after the UN voted all of the potential terrorists changed their minds. Take Mexico, for example. The United States buys more than 80% of their exports. America could easily buy those products from another country, and would! Mexico's economy would instantly collapse. AND can you imagine how much more racist this country would be against Mexicans, and peoples from other countries that looks similar? Just look at what happened to France. 4."Freedom Fries" Like Eurasia was to Orwell's Oceania, France is America's favorite non-threatening enemy. This is being actively promoted by the government and media. Politicians are threatening to raise tariffs or just block imports from France all together. The same people claiming to not be racist are the very ones supporting this. Let's be realistic. How is France's protest of this war any different than the American people's protests of the Vietnam "conflict?" Given, France is protesting for economic reasons, but I personally welcome the opposition to global imperialism any time I can get it. If that makes me un-American, then I can be as proud to be called un-American as Schindler was to be called un-German. Look at this from 80% of the rest of the world's perspective. And the absolute worst thing to happen to culture since, well, since "ever," many "Americans" have begun calling French Fries "Freedom Fries." If you support this, don't even finish reading this. I don't want you to. Just believe me when I say that this world will be a LOT better off without you. I have a better idea. Why don't you go tear down the statue of liberty? You know the French made that, right? You do that, and I'll be watching from the mainland, eating French Toast and French Fries and drinking Evian. And I don't even drink Evian. But I'm going to start to because fuck you. Oh, and make sure to think of me next time you're freedom kissing your girlfriend. The main argument against France is that they have a weak military history, like that is somehow at all relevant to anything at all. What kind of fucked up adolescent high school bigger-dick-than-you jock mentality dictated that one? That's like pitting Gary Kasparov against a hungry, wounded lion, awarding the win to the lion when it eats Kasparov, then renaming "playing Chess" to "Feeding the hungry" and protesting the Chess Board for disputing the win. People love to bring up the fact that if you type in "French military victories" in the Google search engine it gives you a page that recommends "French military defeats" Well, I love to bring up the fact that people are fucking stupid. I just haven't made a webpage about it yet. Look at the URL next time you're claiming that search engine results should dictate foreign policy. It's not even a Google page. It's a spoof webpage. Some guy made it. Maybe the same guy that Tony Blair hired to fabricate his "proof." Bill Maher put it perfectly: "At least the French have the balls to stand up to the Bush Administration, unlike the Democrats." Remember when the opposite party at least pretended to offer opposing views. Now we have Tom Daschle, senate minority leader, saying one tiny little comment and then taking it back when the republicans give him the eye? We need France's opposition more than ever. The Axis Of Oil France, Russia and China are the main opponents of this war. Because innocent people will die? Of course not. Russia and China aren't exactly the poster children of human rights. So why are they so adamantly opposed to US intervention in Iraq? Oil, of course. Iraq possesses about 12% of the world's oil reserves- an estimated 112.5 billion barrels. It's widely believed there may be a lot more untapped oil there, making them the number one source of oil in the world. Rather tempting to a world dependent on the finite resource. I say George Bush Junior just cuts the bullshit already and just uses all the Iraqi oil to buy a fucking Death Star. The sad thing is, if he wasn't against cloning that wouldn't surprise me. Mr. Speaker, members of Congress, and fellow Americans, I present to you Darth Bush. In 1997, Lukoil, Russia's primary oil company, reached an agreement to develop the West Qurna oil field, one of Iraq's largest oil prospects. The $3.7 billion dollar deal lasted until December 2002, The deal was cancelled because Russia was looking for post-Saddam oil deals. The only way for them to regain the contract was to keep Saddam in power. Similarily, China's National Petrolium Corporation had been in talks to develop Iraqi oil fields after UN sanctions were lifted. China National also signed an agreement with Iraq for the North Rumailah field. Their needs of Persian Gulf oil is expected to grow from 1997's 0.5 million barrels of oil a day to 5.5 million barrels of a oil a day in 2020. Once they become dependant on America for their oil, they become strongly susceptible to "Western" diplomatic and economic influence. I don't think they want that. France has also been in talks with Iraq to develop the Majnun field after sanctions were lifted. There are five companies that dominate the world's oil market. It shouldn't be surprising that two of those are American companies and two are primarily British countries. And where is the fifth company primarily based? France, of course. The United States and England had a ¾ share of Iraq's oil production. They lost this share when Iraq nationalized oil production in 1972 and turned to France and Russia for partnerships. By installing a new, American-controlled dictator in Hussein's place, the US and UK effectively gain control of possibly the world's largest oil cache, and can privatize it right into the hands, and bank accounts, of the big four oil companies. Is it any surprise that these countries would oppose the United States controlling this land? Why is the Bush family so much more hell bent, sorry, "heaven bent," on Iraq's oil than the other presidents? Because the Bush administration and their associated henchmen have more to gain than any other presidents: Both George Bush Junior and Dick Cheney both worked in the oil business, and still have strong ties therein 41 Senior White House officials were former oil executives and have significant stock holdings or other financial ties National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice is a former director of Chevron, and even has an oil tanker named after her In 1944, The United States and Great Britain signed an oil pact on "the principal of equal opportunity." Six years after that, UK Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd outlined the First World's oil policy: "At all costs these oil fields must be kept in Western Hands." Forty two years later, Dick Cheney restated it: "Our strategy must now focus on precluding the emergence of any possible competitor." As occupying power, the United States will assume sole responsibility for Iraq's immense oil reserves, making it a virtual member of OPEC, and the most powerful one at that. And big oil and the government know that. In 1998, Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr told the San Francisco Commonwealth Club that "Iraq poses huge reserves of oil and gas… reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." One year after that, Commander-In-Chief of US Central Command, General Anthony C. Zinni, testified to Congress that Gulf oil is of "vital interest" to the United States, and that the United States "must have free access to the region's resources." Predetermination If only John Calvin knew that half of it. Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, or "Evil Sadistic Murderer" for short, has significant economic reasons to go to war beyond just oil. Until he stepped down to become George Bush Junior's running mate, Cheney served as chief executive of Halliburton, a large corporation that makes billions of dollars from Middle East refining and "reconstruction." Dick Cheney still earns over $1 million dollars a year from the company and has significant stock holdings. His severance package alone was $30 million. Cheney has been using his power to provoke war and negotiate deals in order to raise his stock prices. In 2001, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root scored a ten year long Pentagon deal called the "Logistics Civil Augmentation Program" for "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite delivery and quantity." The company has since made over $830 million dollars in the deal. They also have the Pentagon contract for controlling Iraqi oil fields, in what may add up to as much as $1.5 billion in contracts. Can we trust a man who will see immense profit in a war to tell us the truth or even push us in the right direction? Maybe that was a question to ask before we didn't elect them in the 2000 elections, but now that they have the office anyways, it's a little too late. Now that America has successfully freed the Iraqi oil fields, Halliburton has been awarded, without competition, a $7 billion contract to put out the Iraqi oil fires. If irony was a Tom Daschle statement, these paragraphs would be rescinded, that pussy fuck. Alternatives There is no question that this war is about oil and money. Pro-war arguments about "freeing the oppressed Iraqis" backed up with statements like "Why don't you go live over there and then see if you support the war" are irrelevant. Again, freeing the Iraqis and taking down a brutal dictatorship is definitely a positive effect of this massive blitzkrieg, but still, just a side effect. Similarly, taking out Saddam Hussein's American-funded government will not hinder terrorists or make us any safer at home. It sure will increase the number of our enemy though. The only pro-war argument I've ever come across is the educated Republican stance: We are dependant on oil and controlling the oil supply will keep us on top, therefore I believe this unprovoked invasion is worth it. If this statement was factually correct, then it would be a completely valid argument. However, oil is no longer our only option for power and energy. Alternative fuel sources are constantly being developed, with completely new ones coming up every few months. The technologies are being advanced and refined in universities and independent laboratories, but are not backed enough to effect the market. A relatively small investment by the government or energy companies could give these labs the resources they need to perfect and mass produce these fuel sources. In early March 2003, researchers at St. Louis University created a new type of fuel cell powered by Ethanol alcohol. Shortly before that, a Carthage plant figured out how to turn turkey byproducts into diesel fuel. Fuel cells are close to powering small electronic devices, and hydrogen cells have continued to make progress and shown immense potential. But how would the energy companies make money off the Sun? How does the government tax an un-measurable source? California has tried to tax solar power, but has so far been unsuccessful. They can't, and that is why they will not put in the resources necessary to bring these alternative fuel sources into our homes, offices, and cars. As the industrial revolution ushered a new age, alternative fuel sources will bridge the gap to the next era of humanity. America's military budget is almost $400 billion dollars. Less than ten percent of that would be more than enough to perfect existing alternative fuel sources and leave oil, with the greed, torture, and murder it brings, in our past. The money spent on this unprovoked invasion alone would have been enough to make significant strides in the technologies. Some would argue that along with securing oil resources for ourselves, being able to control oil distribution to other countries would further define America's role as sole superpower. While true, it is still defeated by efficient and reliable alternative fuel sources. While the rest of the world would fight to control what's left of the finite, material resource, we would be decades ahead of them all with an infinite energy source. Imagine how much stronger the military would be without being dependent on oil. Imagine how many more $300 checks George Bush Junior would be able to send out to buy even more support. The possibilities are endless. But alas, oil is the black gold, and in the same way Columbus murdered an entire race of Indians for gold, oil will continue to bring about war and murder and terror until it is all gone. 40° N "If you want to know your past life, look into your present condition. If you want to know your future, look into your present action" -Padmisambha Our country has developed a cultural divide, a virtual Mason-Dixon line separating the sheep and the intelligent people in a way that would make Pol Pot jealous. We have a portion of this country blindly supporting the presidency no matter what is carried out. Questioning the Washington Autocracy is met with fascist accusations of not supporting troops and supporting terrorism and every other backwards declaration of stupidity imaginable. Whether you are for the war or against it really doesn't matter now. What does matter is if you are for America or against it. Trying to suppress dissent and blindly supporting the swift destruction of the constitution is not being American. No matter how many crosses are waved or "God Bless America" stickers are put on cars. This country was founded on dissent. Our greatest president encouraged dissent to keep the government in line, publicly declaring that the day the public stops questioning the government is the day democracy in this country has died. This is the eulogy. How did the anti-freedom pro-war zealots get to reserve the "support the troops" propaganda for their side? That makes as much sense as an arsonist yelling to support the firefighters. Supporting the troops is desiring to get them out of harm's way. Supporting the troops is trying to end an unjust invasion that has caused over 100 American soldiers to be killed. Supporting the troops is not supporting the crooked dynasty that has caused more death globally than any Iraqi dictator ever could. People bring up the fact that "I'd rather live here than there" and all that irrelevant drivel. That's not an excuse to let things go. The "lesser of two evils" argument does not cut it. Hitler was not better than Stalin because he killed less people. We must strive for more. For better. It's the same as telling a black guy in the 40's to "deal with it, at least you're free" - it's just doesn't work. Nothing should ever be "good enough." The people that resort to this baseless nonsense are the same people that would have owned slaves. Of course, now they would be the first to say "racism is wrong!" while carefully using political correct terms to "politely" keep up the dividing lines. It's just amazing to me how people can say the most unbelievably racist things against Iraqis and Arabs and French and whoever else we are told to hate and really think they are not racist. Someone needs to explain to these narrow minded Klan candidates that racism means judging ANY race, not just black. Even worse is the "if you don't like it, leave!" cliché. Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany. Tell Martin Luther King Junior to go to Canada. Tell Rosa Parks to walk. Tell George Washington to find a new continent. Tell Susan B. Anthony to go vote somewhere else. Look at the bigger picture. It's the mentality. Sure, many people can now agree that slavery is bad, but only after being raised that way. It's relative to the environment. Hating the French because they can actually stand up for themselves? Oh, so you still can hate an entire group of people. Relating Bush to Hitler isn't accusing him of trying to set up death camps and murder ten million people. But it is illustrating that he and his administration are taking the same steps and doing the same things that Hitler did to accomplish what he accomplished. We don't need a color-coded early warning chart to see the danger in that. In order for us to live in a free country, dissent should be encouraged. The government, by nature, will always end up being an oppressive and corrupt body. It is up to the people to continuously question the government and tell the politicians what to do. We need to become aware of what our government is doing, and we can't rely on their media to tell us the truth. On September 11th, we learned why. It is important that we are aware of how our actions affect other people in other countries. Osama bin Laden himself stated that the reason he will target civilians is that in a republic like ours the actions of the government are representative of the will of the people. That statement is correct. If we do not become aware of what is being carried out in our name, we will continuously, and more frequently, be attacked and killed in acts of desperation and retribution. That is why we must educate ourselves about the results of our actions and respond to them accordingly. Our culture is in a horrible downward spiral aimed right in the center of the story that Adolph Hitler, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley all wrote chapters of. Our future is not bright. Things will not "get better." Praying will do nothing but encourage complacency. Our only hope is to work together, to rise up from our sheep mentality and educate ourselves. Once we are aware of where we are and why, we can take the right steps to move forward to better things. And that is why I wrote this. Now do your part. Read more. Educate yourself. Educate others. Encourage dissent and questions. Do what needs to be done to make this world a better place for everybody. Thank you for reading. Sources A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present (Zinn, Howard) 10 Steps To Start A War taken from Anatomy of Your Enemy (Antiflag) NY Times Washington Post Recommended Reading Books 1984 (Orwell, George) 9-11 (Chomsky, Noam) Brave New World (Huxley, Aldous) A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present (Zinn, Howard) Ishmael (Quinn, Daniel) Manufacturing Consent: The Political... (Herman, Edward; Chomsky, Noam) Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties (Chang, Nancy; Zinn, Howard) Terrorism and War (Zinn, Howard) We (Zamyatin, Yevgeny) What Uncle Sam Really Wants (Chomsky, Noam) Websites The Onion

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

exclude from internet archive

Please exclude this site from being listed at the Internet Archive. Joseph G.