lewrockwell.com — (T)he Democrats have decided that it is easier to be complicit in war crimes than to represent the wishes of the electorate and hold a rogue president accountable. If Cheney again prevails, America will supplant the Third Reich as the most reviled country in recorded history.
Jun 6, 2007 View in Crawl 4
andrewcoolJun 6, 2007
I don't know about this story. Seems to extreme.
rexkwandoJun 6, 2007
If we go to Iran, we will see the FALL of the great American civilization. History will repeat itself again. A great nation over-asserted itself and succumbs to its' own belligerence. Next in queue is China. I wonder if they'll fall too. Maybe it is just inevitable.
thex1138Jun 6, 2007
By it's neighboring countries..most likely...by countries thousands of kilometres away...Asian? Why would they?There's always a bigger fish...
Closed AccountJun 7, 2007
Last night's republican theatrical debate included test marketing for a preemptive nuclear strike. That news is quickly spreading around the globe:<a class="user" href="http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=republicans+%22nuclear+strike%22&btnG=Search+News">http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=republicans+%22nuclear+strike%22&btnG=Search+News</a>'I think it is time we all watch "Planet of the Apes" again to remind ourselves how idiots with nukes can destroy the human race.
jdenigmaJun 7, 2007
junkyarddawg, the response by you and fearmediea just goes to show that we can't do anything right without having the group of you complaining about our submissions. I'm sick of all your excuses you make that we submit too many Ron Paul pieces and that it is spam and so on. You do the same thing too with the LewRockwell.com submissions, which I think goes to show that this really has nothing to do with you being upset about Ron Paul and spam. That's just your cover. We'll never be able to make you guys happy. You'll always be bitching to us about something. Obviously people can't seem to get along with each other as demonstrated on digg as people splinter up into "groups" and then bicker about what the other "groups" are doing. Any time some percentage of people regularly submit something in common that you don't like you automatically bully them by accusing them of ruining the community and start burying everything.This LewRockwell piece is talking about something of dire importance to our world and all you and your ilk can do is parrot the line about spam and then bury this. Is it possible that maybe some of us are submitting TOO MANY Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell pieces now? Maybe. That might be, but did you ever stop to consider that the reason that might be is because of YOU? Think about it. You try to bully and push people around and control them so much and you keep pushing and pushing them, eventually you're going to push them over the edge. Perhaps all these submissions are like our version of blowback. That's the way cultural changes in society work. You start swinging the pendulum harder and more violently in one direction, the more violently and extreme it will swing back in the other direction. Pushing begets more pushing. So maybe you ought to think about the idea that perhaps those like you are the ones who have reaped what they have sowed.
jdenigmaJun 7, 2007
@jcm267Ok, explain what you mean by "9/11 truther". That could mean about anything. If you want to accuse him of being paranoid about the world supposedly ending, well just give the human race enough time with governments, and watch what happens.Why don't you address what he has to say instead of attacking the man?
dforty3Jun 7, 2007
From this article in 2005... <a class="user" href="http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html">http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html</a>"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." Why do you suppose they replaced the Army guy at Central Command with a Navy guy. It seems they are about to transition from a ground war to aircraft carrier based war. You'll see a bright flash and a mushroom cloud before you see the corporate owned media reporting on this.
jdenigmaJun 7, 2007
@jcm267I can see how you would have an issue of credibility in your eyes given what would seem to be shades of conspiracy talk from him about 9/11. I looked over those quotes of his and he of course didn't come right out and directly state that he thought there was a conspiracy particularly one involving the government being complicit in 9/11. He was however questioning official reports on the evidence and was being skeptical of their conclusions. Now whether he is wrong in his assessment of the official reports and his questioning of the engineers who debunked the building collapse conspiracy theory, is another thing. He could be off base and wrong in his conclusions he's forming on that, but that aside, he didn't affirmatively state that he knew what happened on 9/11 nor did he come right out and state that he thought the government was involved. Rightly or wrongly, he was merely questioning what he feels in his eyes, are some unanswered questions about the crime scene and that he believes there isn't conclusive enough evidence for us to form a factual based opinion one way or another. That's what I got from those comments of his. He didn't sound like a raving conspiracy lunatic.To clear the air here, I'm not one who is inclined towards believing in the conspiracy talk that speaks of the government being involved in the attack. As much as I distrust and hate government, that is a bit much for even me to believe although I shouldn't leave it out of the realm of possibilities given history and the nature of government. I would believe it to be possible but not probable. However, although I'm skeptical of that conspiracy talk, I'm not against people openly trying to seek the complete and accurate truth as to what really occurred. There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, after all wasn't there a botched job with the crime scene with the removal of steel for evidence for investigation from the site? I could be wrong about that, but that's one example I'm thinking about. I suppose that the bigger the conspiracy and the more people involved, the more unlikely that it could be pulled off secretively, hence my disbelief in the moon landing hoax conspiracy for example. Anyway, forget this conspiracy talk. If I remember correctly, Paul Craig Roberts once wrote for the Washington Times. I think they dumped him because he became too much of a loose canon who wasn't towing the line for the right wingers. He was an established, reputable writer at the time who was well recognized. Maybe he does go a bit over the top at times and uses hyperbole like I suppose many of us probably also do from time to time, but regardless of all of that, does that necessarily negate everything he says all the time? Does that necessarily take away from his overall message? Again, I understand the issue of credibility, but then again credibility is more of an issue for the journalists and AP writers for example who are supposed to be delivering the facts than it is for commentators. That's not to say it isn't important for commentators, but with commentary you take it for what it's worth. It's commentary and thus if you have the time, you verify their sources if you really want to investigate and distrust the writer. Even if there are issues of credibility, sometimes you've just gotta look past that and look at the message instead of getting so hung up on the messenger.