US Military Dead during Iraq War 1021

bah

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." George Walker Bush Jnr., 17th September, 2003

The 9-11 commission reported that it had found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda...

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States." National Commission on person Attacks Upon the United States

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George Walker Bush Jnr., 13th March, 2002

And let us remember Bush's part in all of this: A report enbreastled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside America" was placed on his desk...and he IGNORED it...

So, yes, you're right to say ALLOWING Al Qu'aeda to crash planes into the WTC...because this incompetence (maliciousness?) was one of a number of complacencies that ALLOWED the 9-11 attacks to happen...

And, if you review the following series of documentaries - which charts the Neo-Conservative and Radical Islamist movements - the buttertion that "Al Qu'aeda", as some "organised global person network" (rather than groups of Jihadists operating mostly independently), even exists in the first place is open to debate:

ares%20-%20The%20Rise%20Of%20The%20Politics%20Of%20Fear%20(3-Part%20Miniseri

Bush himself has fully disqualified this "excuse"...

And, yet, when Bob Geldof tries to mobilise people to do something to eradicate the poverty by which despots in developing nations so easily hold their dictatorships (generally speaking, you may notice a "pattern" that the rich nations are generally the free nations and the poor nations are the ones under dictators...I buttert that this is NOT entirely coincidental: If you're struggling simply to eat and survive day-to-day, you do not really have the luxury of the basic ability to fight against the dictators)...

What do we hear the media and many people say? "Maintain the status quo"..."leave the dictators be"..."do nothing to help these people"...

Yes, the 10 "benefit concerts" can't do it alone...they were never intended to...they were to get publicity towards the cause of pressurising the G8 leaders to at least begin to take this situation seriously and NOT make the mistakes all over again, of cosying up to dictators...maintaining an injustice on large parts of the world, who very well may, one day, decide as Bin Laden decided that "America is to blame" and come seeking "revenge" on America...

20 years ago, Bob Geldof WAS "naive" and he openly admits to such that he took the wrong approach...because $200 million dollars were raised by Live Aid...and this, today, is equivalent of only meeting the INTEREST on the debts that the rich nations hold over Africa for a SINGLE DAY...but this is not because the situation is beyond Hope...

For example, if Africa could increase its share of world trade by just ONE PERCENT then that would represent FIVE TIMES more income to that continent then we provide it in aid and debt relief...not that I suggest we necessarily do, but we could stop paying them aid and, with that 1%, they'd be many times better off than they are now...

As one person I heard put it, we're forcing these people to "stay on welfare" when, with the right buttistance to make it possible for them to trade for themselves, they could be "earning their own wage"...

It's an insane situation...we pay all this money in "relief" to those in poverty with the left hand...while our right hand holds a debt over them that takes it all away again (and then some more)...

But it maintains the status quo...and the status quo means that the wars in developing countries can be fuelled by our mbuttive arms industries...we have, indeed, often sold arms to both sides simultaneously...not for any political reasons, simply to make millions in profit by funding and fuelling wars...

The Congolese war, taking in 9 of its neighbouring countries, was the largest war to have happened on this planet since World War II...did you hear much about it in your media?

When the Rwandan genocides were happening, what was the main news story? I'll tell you what it was: O.J.Simpson...it was even O.J.Simpson taking up all the news over in Europe too...where we've NEVER EVEN HEARD OF HIM beforehand because we don't follow American sports...yet it was still more important to take up every second of our media with a person no-one had ever heard of before (and even if you had, did you really care? Does it qualify as a "top news story" back in the real world, away from stupid obsessions with celebrities?)...

As if they don't want us to know...because they worry that as Michael Burke's report into Eithopian famine generated Live Aid and other campaigns like Comic Relief...that if we hear too much of these things, we might stop our obsession with pointless "celebrity gossip" (which is 90% invented, anyway, and isn't even true)...and we might start caring about the REAL issues in this world...and if we started doing that...well, lies about "WMD" might be exposed as the lies they are...their "controlling myths" may stop functioning to "herd" us to "defend the rich elite" (you know, the same people who will "downsize" you tomorrow because there's far cheaper "slave labour" over in those countries they don't want you hearing anything about...think it doesn't directly effect you? Think again, sunshine)...

And the status quo also means that people in developing countries are so poverty-striken then a Western company can slap down a "sweatshop" there, charge these people literally slave wages...and they have to accept their effective slavery because the other choice is often starving to rest...the "status quo" makes a lot of people a lot of profit...

That is really why the developing countries are KEPT poor...why dictators are left alone and ignored...or, worse, they are supported and armed...or, worse still, with only "economic advantage" alone as the reason, dictators on both sides are supported simultaneously and both sold arms because keeping the wars going, keeps the poor poor to be our slave workforce - as the countries are ravaged by war - while we make a nice, steady profit on all the rest...encouraging dictators with the prospect of "conquering" other lands by waving the temptation of weapons in their faces, not trying to encourage the wars to end...

It's a long way to go...there's no denying that...but if we change the trade rules to allow that 1 percent to be available to developing countries, they then have incomes coming to the people - DIRECTLY, through trade with us directly, away from governments and dictators (which is who all the aid and debt relief is often currently handed over to...so, yes, a dictator or two decides to use it on arms or his own luxury rather than the people...we made that kind of mistake with Saddam and the "oil for food"...allowing a dictator to "manage" things and he simply kept the food for himself and his troops, allowing - by Red Cross statistics - a million people to die...we handed dictator those powers?!? Are we fracking insane? And then we act "surprised" when the inevitable happens?) - which can at least begin to UNDERMINE all these regimes...

The "ideal" would be that these countries could get themselves OUT of their problematic situation and then we would NOT need to send them "aid" anymore...all those tax dollars can go to our own problems...after all, it's not like we ourselves don't have any...the current "status quo" is truly spending bad money after bad money...it's a "token gesture" that, for too long, our people in the rich nations have "accepted"...because, hey, it LOOKS like we're doing something and being charitable...it makes people think they have a clear conscience...and then the "status quo" persists...but the truth is, our tax money - spent by the current "status quo" - is not really going anywhere useful...what we give with the left hand, we take away far, far more with the right...

That was why Bob Geldof didn't really want money this time (though, some was raised and it will go there)...because it became obvious, over the 20 years, that the problems are more fundamental than just a lack of money...Live Aid raised $200 million but this, as noted, is instantly "zapped" - cancelled out - by only the INTEREST on the debts that Africa is forced to pay by rich Western nations for a SINGLE DAY...who, in truth, do NOT require that money...

Money isn't the true problem...it is the system that the world has cosily fallen into, where the rich nations keep the poorer nations in poverty - quite delibrately, with debts and trade rules and such - because it's a great way to maintain this permanent "slave workforce" who can make a pair of Nike trainers for next-to-nothing...and then they charge us the Earth to buy them...the profits are gigantic and enormous...of course they don't want this injustice rectified...and of course our politicians go along with it because the large businesses and their lobby groups truthfully hold perhaps even more power than the people do in making the politicians do what they want...

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor are poor, they call me a Communist." Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian Priest

"Whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world and hence the world itself" Sir Walter Raleigh (inventor of the potato)

A fairer world will be a safer world...if you really care for your scrawny little arse, then stop supplying reasons for others to hate you and want to attack and kill you...it's hardly fracking "rocket science", for pity's sake...

Beth :