A few comments, Sir Knight.
Who is making money off of the WAR over there?
Directly, those who sell gas, food, services, maintenance contracts, ammunition, shipping services, and spare parts to the US Military and other nation building efforts in Iraq.
Aside: Defense contracting scams were a big deal in WW II as well. Back in the banana wars, Smedley Butler came to the conclusion that he was fighting for a bunch of New York bankers, and it made him somewhat bitter. See his "War is a Racket" essay. This dynamic is not new, nor is it news. It is part and parcel the influence brokering in Washington, and elsewhere.
Indirectly, the instabiilty in the World's Gas Pump has helped drive up the price of crude, along with other market forces, which means anyone selling gas, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Sultan of Brunei, or any Canadian oil concern is pulling in some nice returns without any additional investment thanks to market fluctuations.
Add to that the "nicely orchestrated" hurricane
or two last fall which damaged US refinery capacity a bit, and you have a price increase with modest expense increase. So, are those gents responsible for the attacks as well? Is it possible that an opportunity was seized upon? But wait, some companies lost a bunch of infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, and lost production, so they had to eat some red ink. Over all, the global cost increase benefitted anyone pumping oil.
I think that another party making money are media organs -- if it bleeds it leads -- and perhaps they can sell their ad spots at a higher premium. Or not. Don't have any figures in front of me.
Also making money are those who invested in gold, since its price has roughly tripled since 2000.
the GOV is run by powerful people, it isn't for the people and by the people anymore.
I don't completely disagree with you there, but this problem wasn't invented by the GW Bush administration. It goes back to the 16th Amendment where Federal Income tax became a reality, followed by the welfare state induced by the Great Depression, then FDR's creation of a warfare state in 1940. (The Draft and other initial moves that became the War Production Board.) Things scaled up unevenly.
The US turned into a genuine world power, which some folks now call "empire" and that makes for a very different environment than pre WW I politically, in both domestic and foreign matters. The current president wasn't the first to play in that new role. FDR set the Imperial, globalist standard, following in Woodrow Wilson's internationalist footsteps. Each successor has had to deal with that role, with varying results.
How does all that make GW Bush and his cronies party to attack on New York and the Pentagon? It doesn't. Is it possible that some folks had foreknowledge of the attacks? Yes. Do you think any of them would admit it now? I don't. How else does one prove a conspiracy? It's tough in court, though it can be done, and it usually takes insider information.
As to 9-11, loopholes in security have been around for some years, as have the lax and evadable immigration policies. All an enemy needed to do was try to be as clever as possible, and pull off the stunt they did. Given thirty years of airline policy that dictated "play along, get the plane on the ground, and let the experts negotiate with hijackers" a surprise attack occurred. Check under "principles of war" and you will find "surprise" as a standard method where achievable. Those hijackers chose to change the rules of the game. I guess from their perspective, if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying. Per earlier comments with John, the habit of suicide car and boat attacks was already established. A plane was just a bigger, slightly more complex vehicle for delivering a standard attack mode by a particularly dedicated group of people.
If so why weren't the people asked to give up the rights of privacy instead of it just being taken away?
This is a constitutional republic we are talking about. Check Political Theory 101 for how a constitutional republic works, and what its shortcomings can be. The duly elected representatives of the people either didn't hear from the people on the Patriot Act, heard from them and mostly heard "Baaaa, Baaa," or chose to act and see if they were called on it. So far, there is some dissent. The active opposition to GWB and friends playing fast and loose with FISA, and with "signing statements," have garnered political opposition. This battle is not over. Keep writing to your friends, and Senators, and Congressmen, and keep the pressure on. That is what you
can do. The Navy lawyer who led the charge on challenging the Gitmo method had what motive, I ask you? Rule of law?
And so much of what I was posted was just ignored. No one wants to believe it. I don't either, but that doesn't change the facts what certain people can do with their power.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. As to what you wrote, and credibility, it is poorly structured, filled with emotion, and unfocused.
If you stick to the topic of this thread, instead of ranging all over the map with your scattergun prose, you'll find some decent discussion here.
DR
)
