What is War Terrorism Violence
This community is offered to anyone whose life is affected by terrorism or violence, either directly (loss of life, injury, psychological effects) or indirectly (concern, changes i...
Join Now
This community is offered to anyone whose life is affected by terrorism or violence, either directly (loss of life, injury, psychological effects) or indirectly (concern, changes i...

|
The effect of the fall of Russia on the U.S.
|
Watch this |
| View More Posts Ignore |
The late 1980's and early 1990's saw many changes in the world - not just in Europe or Russia.
And that paves the way for what is happening in the U.S. today. In 1993, George Bush Sr. was our president. And in his administration were Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Armitage and others who later became part of the Bush Jr. administration . And that is when "The Project for a New America" (PNAC) was formed. Their members included Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Bolton and many others who later became part of the Bush Jr. administration. And 1993 is also when Wolfowitz wrote the Defense Planning Guide of 1993 (also known as "The Wolfowitz Doctrine"). This Defense Planning Guide said that the U.S. could use pre-emptive strikes whenever we chose - and which planned for the invasion of Iraq as the first step towards taking over the Middle East. And they were not very happy that Saddam Hussein had recently nationalized the oil in Iraq thus cutting the U.S. out of oil contracts there. And this followed the philosophy of PNAC. which was: Since the fall of Russia, the U.S. was the remaining super power and it was our chance to take over the world - by any means. Although PNAC rightfully foresaw the collapse of the American economy; I totally disagree with their plans on what to do about it. And so did Bush Sr and the Republican Congress at that time who were all so upset about this "planning guide" that Bush Sr. had the Defense Planning Guide of 1993 rewritten. But the people from PNAC had their agenda, part of which was they believed if they could control the oil in the world, they would hold all the power. They did not want to oil as fuel, but rather they believed if they could control all of the oil, then they could control the world by saying which countries could and which could not get oil. Cheney bided his time, as did the other members of PNAC. Then came the 2000 election, which was a total coup. Bush Jr. was not elected by the people of the U.S., but rather by a Republican stacked Supreme Court which took the unprecedented step of deciding the American election - based in part on the problems in Florida, in which Bush's brother was the Governor. So, now Cheney, Bolton, Armitage, Rumsfeld and all of their cronies were finally in the White House. And immediately, Cheney set up the Cheney Energy Task force where he met in secret with the CEO's of the major oil companies. This is now known because the records of those meetings have been unclassified and are now online at some of the Universities and other places who joined in suing for them under the Freedom of Information Act. And the documents from the Cheney Task Force included maps of the Middle East that showed where the oil fields were - as well as lists of foreign countries that had or were getting oil contracts in Iraq. And it was during that time that they resurrected the "Wolfowitz Doctrine", the Defense Planning Guide of 1993 - which said that the U.S. could use pre-emptive force. That is now what is referred to as the "Bush Doctrine." And, then 9/11 happened. And although I have no idea whether or not it was planned by this corrupt administration, they certainly used it to further the PNAC agenda. 1. To invade Iraq as a first step towards taking over the Middle East and it's oil. 2. To increase the powers of the Office of the Presidency - one of Cheney's goals ever since he was in the Nixon administration. This Bush administration made the American people more afraid after 9/11 by naming a world-wide threat. Just what did North Korea have to do with 9/11? And they did not go after al Queda - who claimed responsibility for 9/11. Of course they didn't go after al Queda. If they would have caught the people who are alleged to have caused 9/11, then that administration could not have used this horrific event to keep scaring the the people in the U.S.. If not, the people of the U.S. couldn't be frightened so badly that they would agree to the invasion of Iraq - and would not freely give up their rights and freedom. BTW, I think it is interenesting to note that almost a year to the date before 9/11 happened, PNAC wrote in their "Defense Planning Guide" dated Sept. 2000, that without another "Pearl-Harbor like event", it would be more difficult to further their agenda. Quite honestly, I expect that Cheney and crew will find a way to be back in the White House running it as they did under the Bush Jr. administration. They waited for years until they got in under the Bush Jr. administration, and they will continue to wait until they can run this country again - behind the scenes, as usual. BTW, I read this on a government site about Russia: "Corporatist states, marked by high-level criminality but bearing the trappings of democracy, differ more than is sometimes recognized from Western-style market democracies. Their markets are driven by oligarchs whose highest goal is increasing their personal wealth. Freedom of the press and other civil liberties are suppressed. Laws are frequently ignored or suspended and constitutions obeyed only when convenient. Corruption is rife from the streets to the halls of power. Personalities, contacts, and clans count for more than institutions and laws. " Different from the Western-style democracies??? From my view, this describes the U.S. Posted on 11/06/09, 02:11 pm |
| 18 Replies | Most Recent | Add Your Reply |
| View More Posts Ignore |
Well, there is this theory - and think about some of the discussions we've had here about media and pundits:
Some authors, such as Zulma Riley, Keith Riley, Mathew Marquess, and Robert Michels, believe that any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy. This theory is called the "Iron Law of Oligarchy". According to this school of thought, modern democracies should be considered as oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an 'acceptable' and 'respectable' political position, and politicians' careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites. Thus the popular phrase: there is only one political party, the 'incumbent' party.
|
|
|
|
||
| View More Posts Ignore |
And I think that is pretty right on, KB. Just look at how much Bush and Obama are similar when it comes to banks, etc. And I don't see Obama pulling out of the Middle East.
And still giving in to the big corporations. Have you ever heard of the "Super Class", those people here in the U.S. and some from around the world who hold something like 96% of the wealth? IMO, they are the ones who are running the U.S.
|
|
|
|
||
| View More Posts Ignore |
I realize that I am new to this site, but I am a little suprized that there is such a focus on the Bush family. While they have had alot to do with the current history, the effects and lessons of the USSR/ Soviet Union, Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia, and the other regions in this area are not just important as they relate to this time frame.
Sorry to offend anyone, but to see history and/or politics as Bush or Obama is a little confining.
|
|
|
|
||
| View More Posts Ignore |
Yeah, well for someone new, you sure have jumped right in. Whatever!
|
|
|
|
||
| View More Posts Ignore |
Well, maybe that wasn't very nice. But I don't just see this as Bush or Obama. The whole world interacts with everything. But I do see that the events beginning with the Nixon administration had a lot to do with where the U.S. is today.
|
|
|
|
||
| View More Posts Ignore |
to the poster reply #4
I am so sorry if I offended you, Are you the person in charge of this board? If so, maybe you could tell me where to find the rules. I read the DS rules and other stuff, and it said sometimes it is a good idea to say you are new when you are first posting, but I haven't found anything as to when it is okay to post what. I didn't make any posts in other groups after you pointed out that as someone new I shouldn't say alot, so maybe you could tell me where to find some better guidelines. Thank you for any help you can give me. Nikkiforshort
|
|
|
|
||
| View More Posts Ignore |
Nikki you joined a board about war and terrorism and I would say 90% of the topics are political and mini war zones.
I hope you have a thick skin, because this board is mostly petty fighting back and forth between two groups. with a couple people in the middle.
|
|
|
|
||
| View More Posts Ignore |
Thank you for the response. I thought that was so, I just wasn't sure after the remark about jumping in. I guess it was meant to scare me off, or maybe just test my skin. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
||
| View More Posts Ignore |
It's not so much Bush/Obama (although Bush certainly came from a monied/powerful background) but business...who really controls things? Who has the most powerful lobby groups - big business, who owns media - huge corps/wealthy...I don't know what the current figure is but it used to be something like 10 percent of the population controls 90 percent of the wealth...
|
|
|
|
||
| View More Posts Ignore |
...but in Russia's case, there was no democratic machine/government in firm place and so it just got taken over by the wolves, so to speak...from outright communism to unregulated capitalism in one leap, not good.
|
|
|
|
||
| First | Previous | Page: 1 2 | Next | Most Recent | Add Your Reply |
