While I wholeheartedly disagree with everything you've said about going after Bin Laden or not, even if it were true, WTF does it have to do with trying to proactively intercept terrorism here in the states instead of waiting for it to happen and then saying "oh shit". I have heard some things I considered far fetched as far as complaints about this administration, but to say we aren't actively trying to get bin laden is the worst yet.

I would venture the guess that if the FBI and CIA let something slip through and a disaster took place, you would also blame Bush for not doing something he should have, right?

Again, which is it? You want to be protected or not?

 

Problem is, Iraq was not tied to any terrorism, so invading that country did not solve or pre-empt sh1t. If anything, it has increased terrorism...anyway, I believe the war was about oil and not terrorism with regards to Iraq anyway. I didn't say we weren't going after Bin Laden, your commander in chief said that, see quote about. As for your question, how about protection without losing our rights? What's wrong with that? I don't see why it can't be done. Seems to me like it was just an excuse to push through big brother policies that would otherwise have never been even considered.

But again, we are straying off topic. The original thread was about using "Shock" and "Fear" to push through unfavorable policies like the Patriot Act, using the fear of "terrorism," and the Iraq war using words like, "yellow cake," "WMD," "mushroom clouds" and now the Wall Street crisis, using words like "economic disaster". This thread is not about the Iraq war or Osama, I don't know how it got to that. But can we stay on topic...the question is...is the latest Wall Street crisis yet another shock and fear strategy? That's all I'm saying and interested in hearing people's opinion. As far the war, Osama, let's leave that debate for another day as it is old news.

 

What rights have you lost?

Would you consider that possibly whatever WMD was in Iraq was shifter to say Syria while we were pussy footing around with failing UN sanctions? Possible, no?

Even if we are there for oil (which I don't believe and think is ridiculous), so what? Having cheap oil is what makes this country go.



OK, just read the rest, you want to stay on topic... I think you are a conspiracy theorist. The economy goes up and down. it's down now. Nothing more, nothing less. What's next, a link to the site where people think the moon landings were a sham?

 

IMHO, the current mess, which is way above my pay grade's understanding, is the result of the bungled real estate bubble. Seems every time there's a crush of people trying to make big bucks buying and selling homes, flipping real estate, instead of buying a home to settle down and live in, we get some sort of financial meltdown.

This could be too costly to the Republicans for it to have been a shock doctrine tactic since it could be too easily spun to sound like the result of too much deregulation.

Now, for conspiracy buffs, I could buy the sudden House Republican push back yesterday as being a tactic to deflect attention from Ms Palin's interview with Katie Couric.

 

In the interest of staying on topic, I'm going to leave some of your opinions on the war, oil etc unanswered as those were not the reason for the original post.

As for conspiracy theorist...I don't agree, the Shock Doctrine of which we are discussing is not about conspiracies, it is about strategy. The strategy of being able to push through unfavorable policies using shock and fear. According to the University of Chicago economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, who was the genesis of this strategy, he stated that changes usually does not occur unless through an abrupt crisis, which causes shock and fear, making citizenry malleable to manipulation and more accepting of unfavorable policies, that in good times would never even see the light of day. I just thought it was an interesting strategy and seems to explain some political maneuvers well.

Economies go up and down, but it is not a random act that got us into this mess...a lot of deregulatory policies, such as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the adoption of the Phil Gramm deregulations when he was still a senator, as well as the Community Reinvestment Act, the artificially low interest rates under Greenspan and influx of foreign capital, Shady lending practices etc etc. got us here. So I don't think it is as simple as economies go up and down, sure they do, but this one was not market driven, it was deregulation driven in my opinion.

 

Not oil....if so Iraq would be the 51st state, and gas would be $1.00 a gallon!

The rationale for Iraq was all wrong in retrospect, however I think our presence has directed terroristic acts and terrorists into Iraq...good for domestic secutiry....bad for the troops. Sometimes I wonder if our military is being used as bait.

 

The thing that makes me crazy is that people buy into so much false information that it becomes accepted as fact by so many.

Many people at one time thought Iraq was behind 9/11, that

 

Her portrayal of Friedman is less than accurate, which hurts the book's credibility, but that doesn't mean the premise she presents doesn't hold weight. Just keep in mind though, in a truly free market, "disaster capitalism" wouldn't exist because government wouldn't be able to make it possible through credit creation and guarantees. Someone needs to tell Klein that mercantilism and financialization are not capitalism.

 

There goes keeping it on topic. Oh well, since everyone is talking about oil... In my opinion, I think the invasion of Iraq was not so that we can get cheaper oil, since it is obvious that hasn't happened. Some believe that the invasion was to allow the oil fields to be taken, sold and privatized for Western oil corporations, which sort of goes along with the Republican principles of privatization, deregulation, free trade and social welfare reduction. So, in that sense, if it is true, it was about oil profits rather than cheaper oil for the masses.