IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Al Gore Doesn't Accept The 9/11 Cover Up, So Why Do You?

Sue
post May 30 2007, 07:40 PM
Post #21





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 400
Joined: 8-January 07
Member No.: 418



QUOTE
Gore is a self serving politician that is compomised and paid for just as the other mainstream candidates. Even if he decides to run and get in, he will just continue the same ole' same ole' and pander to his lobbyists.


Absolutely, dv8!

If Gore were to become president, we would:

NOT have a recission of the Patriot Act

NOT have a recission of the National ID Act

NOT have a recission of draft registration for 18 year old males

STILL have the Federal Reserve controlling our money

STILL have the Federal Reserve meeting in secret

STILL have a government controlled, in many ways, by the Isreali lobby

STILL have a media controlled by the government

STILL have a CIA that works against American citizens

STILL have US troops stationed in some 80 places throughout the world

STILL have an unconstitutional "war on drugs"

STILL have the IRS unconstitutionally exercising its alleged powers

have HIGHER TAXES to pay for his socialist programs

I don't understand this Gore love-fest going on here. GORE IS NOT A TRUTHER AND NEVER WILL BE. The knowledge he has from being an insider, and not telling us the truth, MAKES HIM PART OF THE 9/11 COVERUP. Gore was vice-president when we had Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales, and about a dozen other incidences where the federal government trampled on the rights of and/or murdered its own citizens. Gore was vice-president when we had Filegate, Travelgate, the Vince Foster murder and the murders of about 40 or 50 associates of Bill Clinton. Do you honestly believe he knew absolutely NOTHING about all these things?

If you want a wealthy, priviliged, bought and paid for Washington insider who looked the other way when Clinton had people murdered and is part of the 9/11 coverup then Al Gore is your candidate. But then, so is any of the Democratic or Republican candidates, with the one notable exception of Ron Paul.

Well, this is all much ado about nothing anyway because I'm sure Al Gore knows that the "fix" is in for Hillary to become president. He knows better than to get in her way.

Now I will give you Gore-lovers one thing: he would not be as bad as Hilla the Hun!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post May 30 2007, 07:53 PM
Post #22


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Exactamundo Ms. Sue.

Gore ain't as bad as Hildabeast, just like syphilis ain't as bad as gohnerria.

If not Ron Paul, who?
If not now, when?
If not us, THEN WHO EXACTLY is going to take this freakin' country back?

I know Ron Paul's chances don't look very promising RIGHT NOW. But Bill Clinton's chances didn't look worth sh*t until less than a year before he got elected. Same sh*t for Jimmy Carter. Of course, both of these asswipes sold out to the globalists to get their funding to get nominated and then elected. God knows what else they did to get competitors eliminated in the process.

I'll go down swinging for Ron Paul. f*ck the usual "lesser evil" choice of the fucktards we call "career politicians" and "leaders" of our country.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MichaelMR
post May 30 2007, 07:54 PM
Post #23


Veteran


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 737
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 46



QUOTE (Sue @ May 30 2007, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE
Gore is a self serving politician that is compomised and paid for just as the other mainstream candidates. Even if he decides to run and get in, he will just continue the same ole' same ole' and pander to his lobbyists.


Absolutely, dv8!

If Gore were to become president, we would:

NOT have a recission of the Patriot Act

NOT have a recission of the National ID Act

NOT have a recission of draft registration for 18 year old males

STILL have the Federal Reserve controlling our money

STILL have the Federal Reserve meeting in secret

STILL have a government controlled, in many ways, by the Isreali lobby

STILL have a media controlled by the government

STILL have a CIA that works against American citizens

STILL have US troops stationed in some 80 places throughout the world

STILL have an unconstitutional "war on drugs"

STILL have the IRS unconstitutionally exercising its alleged powers

have HIGHER TAXES to pay for his socialist programs

I don't understand this Gore love-fest going on here. GORE IS NOT A TRUTHER AND NEVER WILL BE. The knowledge he has from being an insider, and not telling us the truth, MAKES HIM PART OF THE 9/11 COVERUP. Gore was vice-president when we had Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales, and about a dozen other incidences where the federal government trampled on the rights of and/or murdered its own citizens. Gore was vice-president when we had Filegate, Travelgate, the Vince Foster murder and the murders of about 40 or 50 associates of Bill Clinton. Do you honestly believe he knew absolutely NOTHING about all these things?

If you want a wealthy, priviliged, bought and paid for Washington insider who looked the other way when Clinton had people murdered and is part of the 9/11 coverup then Al Gore is your candidate. But then, so is any of the Democratic or Republican candidates, with the one notable exception of Ron Paul.

Well, this is all much ado about nothing anyway because I'm sure Al Gore knows that the "fix" is in for Hillary to become president. He knows better than to get in her way.

Now I will give you Gore-lovers one thing: he would not be as bad as Hilla the Hun!

worthy.gif handsdown.gif worthy.gif

Excellent points, Sue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guinan
post May 30 2007, 09:01 PM
Post #24


Location: Netherlands


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 72



QUOTE (Cary @ May 31 2007, 01:53 AM)
Exactamundo Ms. Sue.

Gore ain't as bad as Hildabeast, just like syphilis ain't as bad as gohnerria.

If not Ron Paul, who?
If not now, when?
If not us, THEN WHO EXACTLY is going to take this freakin' country back?

I know Ron Paul's chances don't look very promising RIGHT NOW. But Bill Clinton's chances didn't look worth sh*t until less than a year before he got elected. Same sh*t for Jimmy Carter. Of course, both of these asswipes sold out to the globalists to get their funding to get nominated and then elected. God knows what else they did to get competitors eliminated in the process.

I'll go down swinging for Ron Paul. f*ck the usual "lesser evil" choice of the fucktards we call "career politicians" and "leaders" of our country.

All's well with Ron Paul so far Cary (boy... you are back with a vengence!), but there's more than a year to go.
When's the next Bilderberg-meeting? If he doesn't get an invite he hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of winning (ask Al Gore and John Kerry), and if he does get one... can we (or rather you) still trust him??
Even Ron Paul is not as simple a choice as he seems now.

G.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post May 31 2007, 12:15 AM
Post #25


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



I resent the "love-fest" remark, Sue. Insulting and uncalled for.

All the things you want. How are you going to get them?

You're going to get Ron Paul elected?

You and whose army?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MichaelMR
post May 31 2007, 12:52 AM
Post #26


Veteran


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 737
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 46



I don't get that logic, Painter. We've got a man in congress that practically encompasses all of our ideals, beliefs, hopes and dreams for this country. But instead of showing unconditional support for him because of the possibility that he may not get the republican nod, you’d rather give Gore the opportunity because in your optimistic beliefs, he’ll change later on? Regardless of the fact that he isn’t even currently running?

Ron Paul is currently an avalanche right now online and thanks to the debates on public T.V, he’s earned an even wider fan base. Counting him out so early is LAST thing ANYONE should be doing. That’s like saying 9/11 truth has an extremely small possibility of being exposed, therefore we should just give up and choose something else with less importance and a higher probability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post May 31 2007, 12:59 AM
Post #27


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (MichaelMR @ May 30 2007, 08:52 PM)
I don't get that logic, Painter. We've got a man in congress that practically encompasses all of our ideals, beliefs, hopes and dreams for this country. But instead of showing unconditional support for him because of the possibility that he may not get the republican nod, you’d rather give Gore the opportunity because in your optimistic beliefs, he’ll change later on? Regardless of the fact that he isn’t even currently running?

Ron Paul is currently an avalanche right now online and thanks to the debates on public T.V, he’s earned an even wider fan base. Counting him out so early is LAST thing ANYONE should be doing. That’s like saying 9/11 truth has an extremely small possibility of being exposed, therefore we should just give up and choose something else with less importance and a higher probability.

No one is getting it.

I give up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MichaelMR
post May 31 2007, 01:03 AM
Post #28


Veteran


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 737
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 46



Then lay it out in Layman's, P.

You’re an extremely intelligent guy, there most be a reason why you want Gore in office that is legitimate.

No one is getting it because there is nothing to get. But if you’re seeing something that we aren’t, let’s hear it. dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post May 31 2007, 01:52 AM
Post #29


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (MichaelMR @ May 30 2007, 09:03 PM)
Then lay it out in Layman's, P. 

You’re an extremely intelligent guy, there most be a reason why you want Gore in office that is legitimate.

No one is getting it because there is nothing to get. But if you’re seeing something that we aren’t, let’s hear it. dunno.gif

First of all, I did not say I WANT GORE in office. Those are your words. What I'm saying is, he is very likely the next reality we're going to have to deal with.

1: Is Ron Paul going to win the Republican nomination?
2: If he doesn't, is he going to run third party?
3: If he does, is he going to win the election?

My answer to all three is "NO".

I'm pretty sure Gore is going to run. I think he is especially going to run if Shallow Throat (see Shout Box quote) is right. I think Gore is waiting for a sign.

I know a lot of you think Al Gore is the devil incarnate. He isn't. He isn't Clinton. He is a liberal Democrat. I'm sure that would make a lot of you x-Republican conservatives want to chuck your cookies. Go ahead. Be my guest. When you-all put that coke sniffing rat-bastard scull and bones brat in the WH I thought I was going to scream my f*cking head off. THE BUSH FAMILY ARE A NAZI CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE AND HAVE BEEN FOR AT LEAST THREE GENERATIONS GOD f*cking DAMN IT!!!! And you people VOTED for that f*ck-wad moron? blink.gif rolleyes.gif

Gore may be a lot of things but he is not a fascist. He is a FDR Democrat. Listen to him speak. Understand what he is saying. He is talking about creating the infrastructure necessary to turn this situation around. Read what I've already written up above. Don't make me have to connect all the dots for you. He's a hairs breath away from saying that 9/11 was an inside job. No, he isn't saying it -- yet -- and neither is anyone else. Not Ron Paul, not Kucinich, not anyone anywhere. What the hell do you expect? Will he ever come right out and say it? Hard to say but it isn't completely impossible. It depends on what WE do.

Will he go against the Federal Reserve -- which we all know is the bottom line -- the answer, as I've already said, is no. You have to put in place the infrastructure for that. We need a NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM. We do not have that infrastructure. But once we have it, then we can go there. Until then, to even attempt to go there -- first of all will FAIL but, worse, even if you could succeed, would lead to total economic disaster. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REPLCACEMENT SYSTEM.

Listen to what Gore is saying. Listen to what he does not say but you can hear right behind what he does say. Unlike our current idiot-in-chief the man is smart. He may be a f*cking genius. He knows how to play poker and WIN. More importantly, he is not the son of a Bush and is not being controlled by a S&B PNAC death cult.








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post May 31 2007, 04:48 AM
Post #30





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



I'm not a Gore fan but how many of you believe we would have had a 911 if Gore was in the White House in 2001, who wrote the PNAC document, why was imperative that the election in 2000 and 2004 be stolen or that Clinton be impeached for his adventure with what's her face?

It's probably too late for any of this, and no national leader may be able to save us at this point, but I always felt sympathy for the political left, you know civil rights, anti war, anti imperialist commie pinko stuff, too bad it took so long for some conservative to wake up, cause all this sh*t was not necessary...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guinan
post May 31 2007, 09:27 AM
Post #31


Location: Netherlands


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 72



QUOTE (MichaelMR @ May 31 2007, 06:52 AM)
I don't get that logic, Painter. We've got a man in congress that practically encompasses all of our ideals, beliefs, hopes and dreams for this country. But instead of showing unconditional support for him because of the possibility that he may not get the republican nod, you’d rather give Gore the opportunity because in your optimistic beliefs, he’ll change later on? Regardless of the fact that he isn’t even currently running?

Ron Paul is currently an avalanche right now online and thanks to the debates on public T.V, he’s earned an even wider fan base. Counting him out so early is LAST thing ANYONE should be doing. That’s like saying 9/11 truth has an extremely small possibility of being exposed, therefore we should just give up and choose something else with less importance and a higher probability.

Michael, a lot can happen between now and election-day. I read Painter this way (please correct me if I'm wrong Painter):

First, the Rep's: Ron Paul can win or lose the nomination. I'm sure the movement will do it's damnest to see him win, but in case of that failing (which is a large chance), y'all could be stuck with a Rep like Ghouliani (great find, that name) to run against the Dem. candidate.

Second, the Dem's : Hell-ary looks like she's ahead now, but - given the chance - I think a lot of Dems would choose for Al Gore, rather than that shrew.

The choices:
1) Ghouliani - Hell-ary = bad choice all around - wet dream of the elite.
2) Paul - Hell-ary = no question where the 'Truth'-vote would go
3) Paul - Gore = by this time Paul will have been built up by the Reps and could well stand a chance, go for Paul
4) Ghouliani - Gore = in that case, Gore may be the lesser of 2 evils and could surprise us yet.

I think basicaly that is what Painter is trying to say. It's not all black-and-white, there are also shades of grey in this situation, and where we would prefer lilly-white, grey is preferrable to black.

my

Guinan
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dv8
post May 31 2007, 10:09 AM
Post #32





Group: Contributor
Posts: 652
Joined: 24-October 06
From: Detroit
Member No.: 160



The left (liberals) are anti-war?!?! News to me. I guess the bombing of Serbia in 99' was just playing. Only an estimated 10,000 people died as a result of that adventure. Republicans, Democrats are the same, no difference. They play each side as standing on polar opposites of issues while at the same time both fill the pockets of the MIC and corporate elites. Gore is a politician that speaks from both sides of his mouth. A vote for him will be nothing more than a vote for the lesser of two evils, and evil is still evil regardless. If Gore decides to run and say he wins the Presidency, I can guaratee you will never hear him utter any words related to a new investigation of 9/11. And isnt this what this whole thing we are doing is all about? To think Gore would do so is way beyond delusional. I know Paul has a snowballs chance in Hell to win. Why? Not because of the fact that most Americans would support him and are beggining to support him, but because his pricipals cannot be comprimised. The election, in my opinion, is pretty much determined by the PTB and the rest you see now is just a dog and pony show. The tactic of supporting Ron Paul is not so much to believe that he will actually get in as it is to have the majority of the people supporting him and watch the way in which the election process is rigged to deny him. Its to expose the lies of the entire election process. Right now Paul is gaining momentum in leaps in bounds with American public thank God to the internet. People are wising up and are sick and tired of every politician on both sides of the camp and sick and tired of all the lies and deciet, but with Paul, they see a man who is finally speaking genuine truth. It is truly NOW or NEVER, LAST CHANCE, 4th down, HAIL MARY, 2-Minutes to Mid-night and all the other cliches' you can think of. If Ron Paul fails to win, then the country fails PERIOD!!! A vote for Gore is a wasted vote. A vote for Paul is a vote for attempting to do what is right!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guinan
post May 31 2007, 10:50 AM
Post #33


Location: Netherlands


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 72



QUOTE
A vote for Gore is a wasted vote. A vote for Paul is a vote for attempting to do what is right!


Sure, if those two wind up as oposing candidates... but that is a very big 'IF'.

Anyway, 'voting' doesn't even come into question untill you have 2 nominees.

First things first, Paul needs all the support he can get to be nominated.

And if Gore does wind up the Dem nominee, that's still better than the alternative.

G.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post May 31 2007, 12:20 PM
Post #34





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



QUOTE
The left (liberals) are anti-war?!?! News to me


Yes, as an ideology the left is anti-war and anti-imperialist, how the democrats (liberals) got to be so spineless and corrupt, well that's another story, maybe assassinations, corporate media attack and lack of public support had something to with that. Ron Paul is ''smeared'' as a liberal and being in the wrong party, just for telling the truth, that should give you an idea.

QUOTE
I guess the bombing of Serbia in 99' was just playing. Only an estimated 10,000 people died as a result of that adventure.


Yes, that's after Genocide was committed by the Serb Forces, you've got the mass graves to prove that. The west intervention was pushed by public opinion, it's a scandal that the intervention took so long, it's not as clearcut as you might think.


As I said previously at this point it really does not matter, the lines between left and right has been blurred, it's all the same, too late for any politician to make any difference but I would have to agree with Painter, Gore may have a better chance of postponing the worst and giving us some time, and Ron Paul has no chance of winning the republican nomination...that should be obvious to anyone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MichaelMR
post May 31 2007, 12:56 PM
Post #35


Veteran


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 737
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 46



Thanks Guinan, I get everything you're saying. However, my mentality is to first and foremost aim for the lily white, not the grey, see what I'm saying? You aim for white, you may fall to grey, aim for grey and you may fall to black.

And I couldn't agree anymore with what you’ve said, Dv8. Your post is right on the money.

QUOTE
I know Paul has a snowballs chance in Hell to win. Why? Not because of the fact that most Americans would support him and are beggining to support him, but because his pricipals cannot be comprimised. The election, in my opinion, is pretty much determined by the PTB and the rest you see now is just a dog and pony show. The tactic of supporting Ron Paul is not so much to believe that he will actually get in as it is to have the majority of the people supporting him and watch the way in which the election process is rigged to deny him. Its to expose the lies of the entire election process. Right now Paul is gaining momentum in leaps in bounds with American public thank God to the internet. People are wising up and are sick and tired of every politician on both sides of the camp and sick and tired of all the lies and deciet, but with Paul, they see a man who is finally speaking genuine truth.


If only everyone in America could realize that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dv8
post May 31 2007, 01:09 PM
Post #36





Group: Contributor
Posts: 652
Joined: 24-October 06
From: Detroit
Member No.: 160



Not to continue the argument much further Andre', but I disagree. Genocide was the given reason and highly publicized in the MSM just as the WMD's were for invading Iraq. Molosovic stood trial and defended himself without a lawyer in the Hauge for almost 7 years with out evidence given to convict him of such accused crimes. If the so-called "mass graves" and genocide had taken place, why was there no conviction? Because they never had proof of any. There was, however, ethnic divisions and vilolence occuring on both sides, Croats against the Serbs, Albanians against the Serbs, Bossnians against the Croats and so forth, but nothing to indicate mass genocide as the Clinton admin and MSM had you believing. The bombing and invasion was nothing more than the contiinued imperialistic expansion of American hemgony in the Balkans. Lets not forget, the Serbs were our WWII allies that helped in succeding the spread of Germans accross south-eastern Europe. By bombing Serbia and backing the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) a muslim faction, we in effect backed terrorim. The KLA recieved its weapons and funding from OBL's Al Queda, a kown fact. If the reason for intervention was mass genocide, then why wasnt Turkey invaded during that time in which 500,000 Kurds were being slaughtered as fact by the international red cross?

and MR, thats what my entire post is about. To do everything we can to alert and make people aware of what Ron Paul is saying. Most everyone I speak to wants what he is saying and believe in the smae things. The more exposure he gets the better the chance we have. The online community is a great way to raise public awarness en-mass and his poll numbers are begining to show it. Lets just hope we have enohg time and enough people wake up and support him 100%.

This post has been edited by dv8: May 31 2007, 01:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post May 31 2007, 02:47 PM
Post #37


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



How many people bashing Gore on this thread voted for George W. Bush?

I sincerely want to know.

rolleyes.gif

@ dv8: Clinton is/was no more "liberal" than W is a "conservative."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dv8
post May 31 2007, 03:01 PM
Post #38





Group: Contributor
Posts: 652
Joined: 24-October 06
From: Detroit
Member No.: 160



No argument there Painter. Clinton was voted into power by the Liberal base running on a Liberal ticket. My point is, Clinton declared war on Serbia in 99' which was all based on BS, just like the WMD lies in Iraq, and perpetuated by the MSM. Same back then as it is now, no difference. Gore was part of that admin and thus just as responsible for it. I dont recall him ever speaking against it. Its not that I am bashing Gore, its just that he has been involved in high crimes, lies, and cover-ups as well. The only time Repubs and Dems become anti-war is when the other side declares it.

I've been voting Libertarian and Independents since 92'. I did vote for Shrub 1 in 88' before I learned about the crimes of the Bush family and their historical ties to the Nazi's.

This post has been edited by dv8: May 31 2007, 03:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Jun 1 2007, 12:40 AM
Post #39





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



QUOTE (dv8 @ May 31 2007, 05:09 PM)
Not to continue the argument much further Andre', but I disagree. Genocide was the given reason and highly publicized in the MSM just as the WMD's were for invading Iraq. Molosovic stood trial and defended himself without a lawyer in the Hauge for almost 7 years with out evidence given to convict him of such accused crimes. If the so-called "mass graves" and genocide had taken place, why was there no conviction? Because they never had proof of any. There was, however, ethnic divisions and vilolence occuring on both sides, Croats against the Serbs, Albanians against the Serbs, Bossnians against the Croats and so forth, but nothing to indicate mass genocide as the Clinton admin and MSM had you believing. The bombing and invasion was nothing more than the contiinued imperialistic expansion of American hemgony in the Balkans.

Funny, I must have imagined the siege of Sarajevo, that city was laid to waste while civilians where blown to shreds on a daily basis, the ethnic cleansing, the emaciated muslim men in the camps, the mass graves in Srebrenica, never happened...

And I suppose the struggle for national self determination in Croatia, and Bosnia was just a western plot, a fabrication with no Historical or cultural basis...

On this rare occasion foreign intervention was justified, but it should have happened much sooner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dv8
post Jun 1 2007, 10:52 AM
Post #40





Group: Contributor
Posts: 652
Joined: 24-October 06
From: Detroit
Member No.: 160



No, dont confuse ones internal civil wars and ethnic conflicts as genocide or ethnic cleansing. Those were Western propaganda terms used to garner public support for our intervention. Our very own civil war could have easily been catagorized as "ethnic cleansing" by those standards. So do we now have an obligation to march around the world and involve ourselves in every country in which there is a struggle for self-determination? During every civil struggle it is violent and bloody and brutal in which atrocities are commited on all sides. Tell me exactly which side was innocent during the entire regional break-up of Yugoslavia? Again, you want to talk about genocide and ethnic cleansing, during that very period, then why not Rawanda or Turkey in which 1000X more civilians were dying as a result? Where was our intervention there? or foreign and international intervention for that matter? Our invasion of the Balkans was the same as it is now in Iraq and Afghanistan, for its economical and natural resources. In 2000 when the regime was toppled, the country was opened to massive privatization, and huge public-sector industries, businesses, and natural resources fell into the hands of U.S. and multinational corporations. Nations that do not give in to the demands of the empire and the expansion of global capitalism are targeted by an undercover, well-designed plan to change the political situation in the country, and open it up to corporate investors. But why had the U.S. targeted Serbia, and, even more specifically, the small province of Kosovo? The answer goes back to the Reagan administration and a 1984 secret document on “US Policy towards Yugoslavia.” A censored version was revealed in 1990 advocating “expanded efforts to promote a ‘quiet revolution’ to overthrow Communist government and parties.” The US government had worked on dismantling and dividing the socialist Yugoslavia for years, supporting any and all independence movements within the individual provinces, including the 1999 military intervention to help the province of Kosovo break away. What was once a relative economic success under the famous Josip Tito, the socialist economy, based on socially-owned, worker-controlled companies, did not allow for foreign investment or US capital. This was a mortal sin in modern global capitalism. Breaking up the country into smaller, dependent states and destroying their public-sector economy was the ultimate goal, and Milosevic, an admirer of socialist Tito, was the only thing standing in their way. Once Milosevic was gone, one of the first actions taken by the new government was the to repeal the 1997 privatization law and allow 70% of a company to be sold to foreign investors. In 2004 the UN Mission in Kosovo announced the privatization of 500 enterprises, and U.S. corporations came out the big winners. Phillip Morris bought up a $580 million tobacco factory, U.S. Steel got a $250 million deal on a steel producer, Coca-Cola grabbed a bottled water producer for $21 million, and the list goes on. So your correct Andre', its not as clear-cut as one would think. wink.gif

This post has been edited by dv8: Jun 1 2007, 12:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th November 2019 - 03:55 AM