what does "waging war on terror" really mean?
Has American foreign policy has become no more than a tool for "elite takeover" of world governments ?
Privatizing world governments - for profit.
While the audience banters about antics of the actors (politicians, their supporters and detractors) "on the stage," no one seems to notice ...
The building in which both stage and audience reside - is on fire.
To assume a worldwide guerilla war is no more than waged against " ... attempt of the great powers to divide up the world in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, which provoked revolution, secession, and partition" [John B. Judis] is in my view to miss the fact that no matter what their religion, human beings are not going to sit still to being overrun by forces which intend nothing other than to enslave them - even as such enslavement is described as "democritization" or "guaranteeing freedom" ...
People have a basic right to determine their own course - even if it kills them; a right to evolve political or other systems different from, unlike, or even contrary to, political or other systems which may at any time be more frequent or common - for which such people need allowed to perform their social experiment within certain boundaries - in peace - as long as they do not attempt to subvert other peoples and territories against their will.
The so-called *War on Terror* ... "should be redefined as a police and intelligence operation" - which is what it should have been all along ... especially coming from a nation with a premise of Rule of Law - supposing that same nation intends "law" to rule in the rest of the world.
Posturing and "conflicts-in-waiting" squabbles between major world leaders are mostly smoke and mirrors among mostly MEN who exchange currencies in handshake agreements not only without regard to peoples of nations involved - but with no apparent regard whatsoever to the effects those same deals will have on the supposed "conflicts-in-waiting" for which those peoples are supposed to live in fear, which leaves one to ask how or why then such "conflicts-in-waiting" are to be taken seriously any longer.
How or why are those "major world leaders" to be taken seriously any longer as it becomes more and more clear their deals are made to profit someone who is not a citizen of any nation any one of them represents ?
Who can rationally continue to suppose that a so-called "major world leader" actually represents best interests of his own nation when he approves sale of *secret technologies* and obstructs or diverts his own nation's strategic advantages ?
Why suppose such a man even holds office without approval of those who profit from his *dealmaking* - or even that his dealmaking is not also approved by the same entities ... or suppose that "lesser" world leaders are not approved, or cannot or will not be replaced or bought ?
Who can now look in a mirror and truly decide on which side of the glass one stands ... ?
.
Privatizing world governments - for profit.
While the audience banters about antics of the actors (politicians, their supporters and detractors) "on the stage," no one seems to notice ...
The building in which both stage and audience reside - is on fire.
To assume a worldwide guerilla war is no more than waged against " ... attempt of the great powers to divide up the world in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, which provoked revolution, secession, and partition" [John B. Judis] is in my view to miss the fact that no matter what their religion, human beings are not going to sit still to being overrun by forces which intend nothing other than to enslave them - even as such enslavement is described as "democritization" or "guaranteeing freedom" ...
People have a basic right to determine their own course - even if it kills them; a right to evolve political or other systems different from, unlike, or even contrary to, political or other systems which may at any time be more frequent or common - for which such people need allowed to perform their social experiment within certain boundaries - in peace - as long as they do not attempt to subvert other peoples and territories against their will.
The so-called *War on Terror* ... "should be redefined as a police and intelligence operation" - which is what it should have been all along ... especially coming from a nation with a premise of Rule of Law - supposing that same nation intends "law" to rule in the rest of the world.
Posturing and "conflicts-in-waiting" squabbles between major world leaders are mostly smoke and mirrors among mostly MEN who exchange currencies in handshake agreements not only without regard to peoples of nations involved - but with no apparent regard whatsoever to the effects those same deals will have on the supposed "conflicts-in-waiting" for which those peoples are supposed to live in fear, which leaves one to ask how or why then such "conflicts-in-waiting" are to be taken seriously any longer.
How or why are those "major world leaders" to be taken seriously any longer as it becomes more and more clear their deals are made to profit someone who is not a citizen of any nation any one of them represents ?
Who can rationally continue to suppose that a so-called "major world leader" actually represents best interests of his own nation when he approves sale of *secret technologies* and obstructs or diverts his own nation's strategic advantages ?
Why suppose such a man even holds office without approval of those who profit from his *dealmaking* - or even that his dealmaking is not also approved by the same entities ... or suppose that "lesser" world leaders are not approved, or cannot or will not be replaced or bought ?
Who can now look in a mirror and truly decide on which side of the glass one stands ... ?
.
posted by JamesB at 11:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home