How has mass slaughtering of innocent civilians become called "defending freedom"?

A million Iraqis dead, more than half of them women and children. I saw the bombing and mass murder right here, in the open, on the mainstream news, back in 2003. And now I ask myself: how is defending America's geopolitical agenda come to be called "defending freedom"? How had furthering the Committee of 300's agenda of centralized war authority by exterminating dissenting nations come to be called "fighting terrorism"?



How could the neocons and their media establish such idiocy and apathy in the people?

Sometimes you go to perform one deed, and once begun, you can't turn it loose immediately, or even more folks will die.

Iraq invasion part one, or the defeat of the Iraqi military was accomplished.

We assumed that the southern cities would openly greet us and assume control of their sectors, and we assumed that the bulk of the difficult fighting would be in Baghdad.

Both assumptions were wrong.

By the time we realize this, there's already an Iraqi civil war going on. Now, is it more humane to leave, and let them kill each other by the hundreds of thousands or try to stay, establish some form of stable government, and keep the slaughter down to a minimum?

These folks were going to die anyway in a nasty civil war. Our mistake was not backing off and letting them slaughter each other even faster.

But we stepped in, and lost a lot of good boys ourselves.

Don't mistake their civil war with our presence.

Eventually, they'll have another, and hopefully by then, we'll be the hell out so they can kill each other wholesale.

And how have Americans learned to literally adore the CIA, FBI, and NSA?



HOW WERE AMERICANS SEDUCED INTO SUPPORTING THE PATRIOT ACT???




And why do most people still think a conspiracy to bring down the Twin Towers is implausible? That Bush, supposedly, could have no possible interest in carrying out 9/11 if it's so obvious?


Don't most people know that history is full of conspiracies? So how have most sheeple been trained to laugh at something as obvious as 9/11?




How did they achieve this level of ignorance?????

Since humans have been fighting, we've used every euphemism available to describe our particular brutality. A slaughter is rarely called a slaughter by the ones who perpetrate it.

Hitler once said "Tell a big enough lie enough times and soon the people will believe it"

Now how many times did Bush n Co. bang the war drums in our ears?

Alot.

There ya go.

Oh, and America wasnt seduced to adopt the Partiot Act. The Patriot Act was FORCED upon America without any congressional review.

Dont you just love what they are capable of doing under the guise of a false pretense of "Freedom"!!!





Cheers!!!!

Here's a good article on how that has happened in the current administration...

The neocons took advantage of Bush's ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to China, director of the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state's lieutenant governor has more power). His father is essentially a northeastern moderate Republican; George W, raised in west Texas, absorbed the Texan cultural combination of machismo, anti-intellectualism and overt religiosity. The son of upper-class Episcopalian parents, he converted to Southern fundamentalism in a midlife crisis. Fervent Christian Zionism, along with an admiration for macho Israeli soldiers that sometimes coexists with hostility to liberal Jewish-American intellectuals, is a feature of the Southern culture.

The younger Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz ("Wolfie," as he calls him) even before 9/11 gave him something he had lacked: a mission in life other than following in his dad's footsteps. There are signs of estrangement between the cautious father and the crusading son: Last year, veterans of the first Bush administration, including Baker, Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, warned publicly against an invasion of Iraq without authorization from Congress and the U.N.

It is not clear that George W fully understands the grand strategy that Wolfowitz and other aides are unfolding. He seems genuinely to believe that there was an imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," something the leading neocons say in public but are far too intelligent to believe themselves. The Project for the New American Century urged an invasion of Iraq throughout the Clinton years, for reasons that had nothing to do with possible links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Public letters signed by Wolfowitz and others called on the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq, to bomb Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, and to threaten states such as Syria and Iran with U.S. attacks if they continued to sponsor terrorism. Claims that the purpose is not to protect the American people but to make the Middle East safe for Israel are dismissed by the neocons as vicious anti-Semitism. Yet Syria, Iran and Iraq are bitter enemies, with their weapons pointed at each other, and the terrorists they sponsor target Israel rather than the U.S. The neocons urge war with Iran next, though by any rational measurement North Korea's new nuclear arsenal is, for the U.S., a far greater problem.

www.antiwar.com...

It's a good read...

"The end does not justify the means but for the greater good".

Something had to be done to get U.S. control of the oil and an invasian of Saudia Arabia would have been noticed for what it was. We didn't get the oil and look what happened... our auto industry collapsed. Coincidence?

reply to post by peggy m


Oh NOEZ!!! Not our auto industry!!! NOW what are we gonna do?!

Who cares about all those foreigners who lost their lives, their land, their past (yeah, we looted their treasures, babies!!) and their futures. We lost our flippin' auto industry. That's just irritating. I need a chocolate sundae to get over this bit o' blues.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


The point I was trying to make was that we invaded Iraq for their oil and strategic middle east location if it became a U.S. territory. If the terrorists were the real target, we would have invaded Afganistan where they were hiding. We didn't and we didn't get the oil. The U.S. government had no business committing us to that invasion and occupation. It was to have been quick and easy and under U.S. control in less than two years. Didn't happen that way.

In the meantime, while billions of dollars is being thrown away across the ocean, people are losing their jobs here at home. When the auto industry goes under, it will be enough of a catalyst for something far bigger. An estimated 2 1/2 million jobs off the top are expected to be lost. Those are just the jobs directly related to the auto industry and their suppliers. It is a dominoe effect.

What freedoms do you think a starving people will be willing to give up? Wouldn't it be sad if the only job a kid fresh out of high school can get is in the military? Perhaps you should stock up on your sundaes.

Originally posted by thetruth777
And now I ask myself: how is defending America's geopolitical agenda come to be called "defending freedom"?

We're defending the freedom to imperialistically dominate the world.

How could the neocons and their media establish such idiocy and apathy in the people?

Years and years of radio and TV brainwashing, poor education, etc..

reply to post by peggy m


Guess what? My son just graduated HS. Guess what? He leaves for the Army on 12 Jan. Did I mention that he's both my only son and my firstborn?


I don't give a stuff about cars. But even if the auto industry were booming, it wouldn't have made a difference job-wise.