Pentagon crash 9/11

[McRocket]

I didn't know that about it. The shape was pretty unmistakable black against the white clouds. I can't explain why he would tail us if he couldn't shoot, we were over D.C.

Maybe in a pinch they can be outfitted to carry AIM-9 Sidewinder's - a heat seeking air-to-air missile. But I have never heard of it; though I am not in the military.
You are right in that it is a pretty unmistakeable shape.

 

[McRocket]

As far as patriotism goes I agree. Remember though, patriotism means different things to different people. To me it means not only upholding the beliefs and liberties that you think are a sacred to you and your country, but also standing up and defending the liberties of your fellow countrymen. Even if someday the situation is dire enough that it requires you to sacrifice your life so the people that come after you will always have the benefit of the beliefs and liberties you fought for. That is what patriotism is to me anyway. Are there people that use it to for blind loyalty? Yes, and I find it very incredibly sad.

Yes, if one's country is being attacked, then to lay one's life down for your fellow countrymen is noble. But I see a big difference in defending one's country. And invading a country half way around the world when no state of war exists and (it turned out) no direct threat to the sovereignty of the US was at stake.
I think that every soldier should have the right to refuse to fight if it is not on home soil and there is no state of war with the country involved. I am quite sure almost all would have gone to invade Iraq even if they had the choice. But I wonder how many would still be there if they could decide for themselves?

Yes, I am a dreamer. ANd this humanity first will doubtless not happen in my lifetime.
But I believe that it starts with everyone being out of poverty and persecution. Religious fanatacism usually doesn't rear it's head unless one of those two things is apparent (imo). I think if all the world were democratic and all had enough to eat; that - I just realized how obvious this sounds. SO I will stop.

I DO think it is possible. It is just that the older I get (and I grant that I am far older - 42 - then most on here) the more I feel more loyalty to humanity and less to my or other countries.
And until the masses start thinking for themselves and trust politicians less (if at all) then they will continue to be called upon to do all the dirty work that those in power order them to do.
And words like patriotism and duty will be thrown at them to get them to do these things.
I just wish people would question things more. THat is why I support the basis of this thread. Questioning. WHat can it hurt - as long as it is done without anger?

 

[In-4-mant]

aparently, saving your own ass is more important than saving thousands of lives.
at the end of the day, those people will be dead, but you'll still have a job.

 

[McRocket]

aparently, saving your own ass is more important than saving thousands of lives.
at the end of the day, those people will be dead, but you'll still have a job.

As far as I recall, there has not been a terrorist incident in North AMerica (U.S. and Canada) since 9/11. ANd there hasen't been an Al Queda incident in Canada period (where I live).
So what exactly are the troops saving my ass from?

America seems to be locked down pretty tight. There was a 'loophole' in airline security in the U.S> before 9/11. Apparently it is long gone now. ANd everything else is relatively secure.
Besides. I don't think anyone with half a brain in Al Quada (spelling?) thinks that the 9/11 attacks were successful.
Before 9/11 they had a fiercely Muslim most of country (Taliban run Afghanistan) to live and train in with relative security. They could recruit at will. Now they are on the run in Western Afghanistan/eastern Pakistan.
Before the world barely noticed them. I mean they bombed that US military apartment in Saudi Arabia and ****** hundreds or soldiers. ANd most civilians around the world barely noticed. They bombed the U.S.S. Cole and nobody hardly noticed. And they could have kept doing that for a long time I suspect.
But after 9/11, everything changed. It is now (I assume) MUCH harder for them to get funds and train and live and communicate. The whole western world is 'on to them'.
No. Strategically, imo, 9/11 was a colossal failure for Al Queda. They should have stuck to military targets. Now they have woken the bear and it's gunning for them.
SO the U.S. going into Iraq isn't (imo) going to save any American or Canadian lives. And of course, AL Queda would have had to have ****** thousands of AMericans in attacks to **** more then the number of U.S. soldiers that are dieing over there.

No. Now Iraq is probably going to have a civil war.

Look at the British. THey were the colonial 'experts' in the last century and back further. They had ALL those countries under their control. ANd they eventually had to give them up.
India, Ireland, Cyprus, Palestine. Even the United States. All under British control. ANd all given back to the people. ANd what happened? Every time there was a civil war or huge amounts of terrorism.
And they even tried to pre split many of them up to avoid those situations - and wars and/or extensive terrorism STILL happened.
The bottom line. The U.S. Bush administration in their arrogance forgot the British lesson. ANd now they have unleashed a potential civil war on Iraqi's. Oh, it probably would have happened eventually. You cannot (imo) ***** people to live a certain way in relative poverty and not expect them to get pissed off. And the way they seem to always vent their frustration is through religion.
SO now by the U.S> invading Iraq and disbanding the Iraqi military (a HUGE mistake - imo); now the lid is about to blow - possibly. Civil war seems more and more likely now.
And this could all have been avoided. Wrong as it was; if the U.S> had gone in, overthrown Saddam, held quick elections (no matter how they would have worked), left the military and police intact and then left. The odds of a civil war may have still been high. But the U.S. would have been thought of as heros to Iraqi's. Thousands more Americans (and maybe Iraqi's) would not have died and the U.S. would be out of that mess that they are now stuck in for possibly years to come.
How is that not better?
But no. The U.S. got greedy. They wanted to install a friendly government (forget it now). They wanted to establish (and started building apparently) huge military bases in Iraq that they could use to police the middle east (forget that now). And they wanted terrorism to leave Iraq - and it's oil - completely alone (absolutely forget that now).
Is their really nothing the U.S. could think to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars on that this thing is costing them?

And what freedom are they buying? The terrorists in Iraq aren't attacking U.S. soldiers because they **** America's way of life. They are attacking them bacause they want them out of their country. And the more vicious fighters want the U.S. out so they can have their civil war for their particular faction or religious sect.
I like Americans alot. As much as any humans. But if they invaded my country to overthrow a dictator and wouldn't leave - I might take up arms against them also. Probably not - but I would consider it.

No. IMO, IRaq is now a mess and all the U.S. is doing now is costing American lives, spending shitloads of U.S. greenbacks and in the end they will probably end up with nothing. Yes, Saddam will be gone. But I doubt a civil war in one of the most oil rich countries in the world is what the U.S. had in mind back in 2003 when they first invaded Iraq.


I just wanted to type this. I regret that it is not completely on topic. But I just was thinking about it and wanted to get it off my shest.

Thanks.

 

[McRocket]

Yep...the posting problems I had are definitely gone...wtg Boldy.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

No. Strategically, imo, 9/11 was a colossal failure for Al Queda. They should have stuck to military targets. Now they have woken the bear and it's gunning for them. SO the U.S. going into Iraq isn't (imo) going to save any American or Canadian lives. And of course, AL Queda would have had to have ****** thousands of AMericans in attacks to **** more then the number of U.S. soldiers that are dieing over there.

That's true, if you keep score by just counting the number of dead bodies. I'd say their attacks were a raging sucess. Yeah they "only" ****** about 2800 people which is a mere blip on the radar screen of daily death in America but the ramifications were much farther reaching. The attacks sent our economy plunging into a deep recession, two of our most recognizable monuments to American success were destroyed, and now we all think we have no personal freedoms anymore and air travel can be a bitch. But times change and the world changes with it. They say there's no such thing as bad publicity except, as you pointed out MCr, in the case of Al Aqaeda. The 9/11 events brought a huge spot light on the issue of terrorism and now those dipshits can no longer operate under the cover of secrecy. And why? Because of exactly what you said - The woke up the bear and he (along with the british and a few others) are gunning for them.

Yeah, America "seems" to be locked down pretty tight, it "seems" to be relatively secure. That's exactly what millions of people were thinking on September 10, 2001. But insidious evil never ****** and it never learns. There will most likely be another ****** on US soil and complacency would be a welcome mistress to their efforts. Now we're on high alert and there is a global intelligence effort working endlessly to avoid another such ******. The troops on the ground, no matter where they are in the world, are the front lines of the effort to save the lives of the people they have a duty to protect. So, to answer your question, that's exactly what the troops are saving your ass from.

 

[McRocket]

The troops on the ground, no matter where they are in the world, are the front lines of the effort to save the lives of the people they have a duty to protect. So, to answer your question, that's exactly what the troops are saving your ass from.

Well, like I have said (or alluded to before) I do not think those troops over their are dieing for anything that is good for the U.S..
I see no evidence that the Iraq situation will end anytime sonne. Rumsfeld himself said that it could go on for 12 years. They seem to be dieing in a hopeless cause as far as I am concerned.
Don't you think that America would be safer if those troops were deployed stateside so they can guard airports, nuclear power plants and major transportation facilities then dieing from roadside bombs in Iraq that Rumsfeld himself says may not be resolved for over a decade?
I assume you do not. But I do - obviously.

I do not in any way consider that they are 'saving my ass.' I think all they are doing is making more and more people angry at Americans and making Al Queda's recruitment drive easier. Seeing AMericans in Iraq and refusing to leave we KNOW infuriates many people all over the middle east and the world.
But if they were at home with their families they would **** off no one and be there for their ******** and save the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars. Seems very logical to me.

I appreciate what the soldiers are trying to do. That is noble. But I believe they are dieing for nothing.

So thanks for trying guys and gals. But I really think all you are doing is helping to paint an ever larger bullseye target on U.S. citizens everywhere.
And I do not believe that AMerica is stronger with a huge percentage of their military employed in costly and rather fruitless policing operations in a country that maybe disolving into civil war.

ANd I also object to the government sending others to die while not putting themselves on the line at all.
As far as I am concerned, if you are going to send men and women to their deaths - then you should put yourself in harm's way also. When Rumsfeld retires he should volunteer to help out in Iraq on an militray base or in the green zone in Baghdad. Think he will? Of course not.
I guarantee you that if the leaders put themselves in harm's way as often as they do their little trained minions - that the U.S. would not now be in Iraq.
Obvious I know. But I feel strongly about that.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

MCrocket -

Have you ever served in the Military?

 

[McRocket]

MCrocket -

Have you ever served in the Military?

Yep, but only very briefly. They discharged me for having a criminal record.

You?

 

[Peter Gazinya]

No, I never have and it was a pretty stupid and irrelevant question anyhow. I do enjoy your utopian views however I just don't think there logical in some respects.

Yesterday you said that America seems locked down pretty tight and "There was a 'loophole' in airline security in the U.S> before 9/11. Apparently it is long gone now. ANd everything else is relatively secure." But today you say America would be safer if our troops should be at home lined up around airports and nuclear power plants.

Yesterday it was "(I assume) MUCH harder for them to get funds and train and live and communicate. The whole western world is 'on to them'." Today it's "I think all they are doing is making more and more people angry at Americans and making Al Queda's recruitment drive easier. Seeing AMericans in Iraq and refusing to leave we KNOW infuriates many people all over the middle east and the world.

So which one is it Crocket? Should our troops stay at home protecting our security interests or do they not need be here to "save our ass" because we haven't been attacked in almost 4 entire years? Are the terrorist finding it easier to recruit because we're there "******* everyone off" or are they having a tough time because now the world is "on to them" as if in the past nobody had an idea they existed? Or is the point whatever conveniently fits the argument of the day?

I definitely agree, however :glugglug: , that we are in a no win situation in Iraq. It would be nice if we'd never been there in the first place. But the world works in complex ways that neither you nor I completely understand. It'd would be nice if our troops could just stay at him within the borders we are trying to protect. But every move our country makes has an economic reason, it's called "protecting your interests". America is the world's number one economic and military superpower and with that position many unpleasant, unfortunate things will happen on a constant basis. We provide humanitarian aid all around the world but let's face it, it is for economic reasons. You do business around the world for both good and bad. You develop trading partners all in an effort to further your own country's economic position. And once those relationships are in place, they MUST be protected and that is why the US has troops everywhere. We are simply protecting our interests and in the process many nasty things happen on a continuous basis because not everyone is created equal and not everyone has what everyone else has and they will continually try to take it from us.

And I still find it appalling that you don't realize that you answered your own question "So what exactly are the troops saving my ass from?" with your immediately previous statement of "As far as I recall, there has not been a terrorist incident in North AMerica (U.S. and Canada) since 9/11. ANd there hasen't been an Al Queda incident in Canada period (where I live)."

 

[McRocket]

Yesterday you said that America seems locked down pretty tight and "There was a 'loophole' in airline security in the U.S> before 9/11. Apparently it is long gone now. ANd everything else is relatively secure." But today you say America would be safer if our troops should be at home lined up around airports and nuclear power plants.

Well, I did use the term 'relatively' for a reason. It could always be more secure. ANd I meant it was far more secure then it was before 9/11.
I think America would be safer with the additional security that the troops could provide. And currently police do much of the security work. Does anyone think that crime in AMerica could not use more policeing? No, I think freeing police to do more policeing and less security work. And using troops to do less policing (and dieing) in Iraq and more security work in AMerica would make America that much more secure and would probably help to lower the crime rate a bit.
Troops are for guarding and police are for policeing. Right now many are doing the opposite.

Yesterday it was "(I assume) MUCH harder for them to get funds and train and live and communicate. The whole western world is 'on to them'." Today it's "I think all they are doing is making more and more people angry at Americans and making Al Queda's recruitment drive easier. Seeing AMericans in Iraq and refusing to leave we KNOW infuriates many people all over the middle east and the world.

Again, a relative statement. I meant that it was much harder to recruit (imo) immediately after 9/11 then before it. But since Iraqi Freedom (in 2003) I would guess that recruitment became easier then before it.
That is what I meant. I should have been clearer.

So which one is it Crocket? Should our troops stay at home protecting our security interests or do they not need be here to "save our ass" because we haven't been attacked in almost 4 entire years? Are the terrorist finding it easier to recruit because we're there "******* everyone off" or are they having a tough time because now the world is "on to them" as if in the past nobody had an idea they existed? Or is the point whatever conveniently fits the argument of the day?

Well, hopefully I have answered that above.

I definitely agree, however :glugglug: , that we are in a no win situation in Iraq. It would be nice if we'd never been there in the first place. But the world works in complex ways that neither you nor I completely understand. It'd would be nice if our troops could just stay at him within the borders we are trying to protect. But every move our country makes has an economic reason, it's called "protecting your interests". America is the world's number one economic and military superpower and with that position many unpleasant, unfortunate things will happen on a constant basis. We provide humanitarian aid all around the world but let's face it, it is for economic reasons. You do business around the world for both good and bad. You develop trading partners all in an effort to further your own country's economic position. And once those relationships are in place, they MUST be protected and that is why the US has troops everywhere. We are simply protecting our interests and in the process many nasty things happen on a continuous basis because not everyone is created equal and not everyone has what everyone else has and they will continually try to take it from us.

I agree that economics is why America is in Iraq. But two things to that.

1) The American people (and soldiers) were told it was for WMD's and to give Iraqi's their freedom. Assuming that was a lie (as I did right from the beginning I believe - as did many, many others). Then the U.S. people were conned into invading Iraq. They should have been told the truth. (well duh. I know - lol)
If you are going to cost people hundred's of billion's of dollars and have them die in their thousands they should at least know why.
Would the U.S. public have agreed if they know the truth? I do not know. But I doubt it.
And that is my major arguement. People should ALWAYS assume they are being lied to by their politicians unless their is absolute proof to the contrary.

and 2)
Now if people are starving; that is one thing. But American's are not starving. They have far more then they need.
So are you suggesting that it is just (or in any way justified) to invade countries so that your citizens can have far more money and goods then they need? That the deaths of two thousand plus Americans is worth that? That the deaths of perhaps 100,000 Iraqi's is worth America keeping their swimming pools (in essence)? I disagree.
I strongly disagree. I have been semi rich and I have been semi poor (I am now inbetween). And if me being semi rich meant that Iraqi's (or other innocent world civilians on America's quest for economic utopia - and no doubt many have) had to die for it - I don't want it thank you very much.
And BTW. I am Canadian. And we have a per cpita GDP that , while not as high as the United States'; is pretty darn good. And we don't have to send our troops all over the world to invade countries. Seems to work for us. We still have our swimming pools (though no doubt a bit smaller then American ones) and our way more money then we need. Plus we get free health care and no one is trying to blow us up.
And other then America's protection from all out invasion (thanks Yanks btw), we don't need America's military help.
How many Canadians have died because of terrorism? How many American's?
I'll take our way thanks.

And I still find it appalling that you don't realize that you answered your own question "So what exactly are the troops saving my ass from?" with your immediately previous statement of "As far as I recall, there has not been a terrorist incident in North AMerica (U.S. and Canada) since 9/11. ANd there hasen't been an Al Queda incident in Canada period (where I live)."

You are actually appalled? You are overcome with consternation, shock or dismay? Overcome? I think you are taking this a bit seriously - but that is your choice. Or maybe you meant another word. It's just that you seem to have such a great grip on the English language (better then I do anyway - and it's my only language - lol). No matter.
Anyway, I still do not think they are saving my ass. I think (as I have tried to explain) that they are actually causing my ass to have more of a target on it.
The reason that their have been few terrorist incident's in North AMerica is that security is SO tight. And those that are providing almost all of the homeland security are border guards and inspectors, security guards and police. The military (other then patrolling air space) apparently has little to do with the actual reduction of ****** stateside. So other then the Air ***** pilots - that are just doing their job and get to go home and ***** in their own beds at night (unlike the poor troops in Iraq) - they are not saving my ass (imo).
And since their presence in Iraq seems to be hurting America's image abroad and making people more angry at the U.S. and the West then they are actually making the threat pf terrorism more likely (imo) then less likey.
Their hearts maybe in the right place - but their actions are doing, I think, much more harm then good. As well as putting themselves in harm's way.

 

[McRocket]

No, I never have and it was a pretty stupid and irrelevant question anyhow. I do enjoy your utopian views however I just don't think there logical in some respects.

Yes, I am an Idealist. But I have seen some of the darker sides of life. And I found that those people that allow themselves to do horrible things to others (myself included) are either (imo) mentally unbalanced or find constant justification for what they do.
The latter know what is right and wrong but they allow for their transgretions because of circumstances.
I find that once you start making allowances for your's and others actions then you can end up going down a very slippery slope. You may allow for things one year that you wouldn't have dreamed of the previous one.

So I 'preech' idealism' Or what I like to think of as realistic idealism.

 

[McRocket]

MCrocket -

Have you ever served in the Military?

Oh, and not that this bothers me in the slightest. But it is McRocket. Like McDonald's. Not MC Rocket or M.Crocket.
The Mc comes from my name. And the rocket part I just like.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

dude, it looks like mcrocket, with all lower case it was hard to tell. But now I know :glugglug:

America is so full of scum bags that we could always use more policing, on that note too much would never be enough. Everybody be sure I mean more POLICE not more laws, I'm so fucking sick of laws.

As far as WMD's go, yeah I think most of us knew that was a bag of **** but still had hated Suddam for many years and didn't give the **** of the reason for ousting him. But now, as you've said many times, we're in a real **** storm over there and there ain't no good way out of it. You gotta finish what you started, I'm just not sure what exactly it is we started - ******* Shiites? ******* our own troops? Nabbing all the oil and getting gas down below $1.50 again? Whatever the hell it was, I'd just like this no-win situation finish soon.

Now, I know it's a small point for both of us but America may not be "starving" but it is so deeply in debt, most states are over budget, and government spending, as we both know, is so out of fucking control that we need all the help we can get. My point? I don't know, thought I'd just mention it. When you look at the balance sheet, you guys are probably a hell of a lot better off than us.

On your last point, and I think you'll agree with this: It's not the actual troops that are making your ass a bigger target, it's the politicians and decision makers. Whose view of I share with you, you cannot be a good, honest person and still make it in politics these days. I believe the profession requires an inherant sociopathological quest for power that can only be achieved through dubious ways. I would not trust any politician for 5 feet on my skateboard.

But lets not miss the point that reduction of terrorism begins far outside our borders and that is where I am referring to our troops being a global front line of defense against it. I just hope you have the same appreciation of these men and women that I do. It takes special character to be willing to do what these people do.

 

[McRocket]

Your skateboard? I am left wondering just how old you are? Not that it matters, but I am curious. I am not asking, just expressing curiosity.

It seems we agree on much more then I first thought.

It is not that I do not appreciate what the troops are trying to do. Or the sacrifice they are making. Or the nobility of what they seek.
To risk your life to help others is noble FOR SURE.

But I just fear that their efforts (and lives) are being ******. ****** by the rich and powerful who will profit the most from all of this. They will reap the rewards of what the soldiers and innocent Iraqi's will go through. And yet when the soldiers come home all they will get is a couple of free burgers and ****. A pat on the back. A couple of medals (that in my opinion the government often - but not always - use to keep soldiers inline) and that's it. They will be poorer. Especially the reservists and guards units that have to take time off from their regular jobs to serve. Their ******** will know them just that much less.
And all of it I believe they would not have done were they told the truth (and had a choice) and understood the truth as you seem to back when they werre ordered over there.
No Peter. I think there is a better way then doing it this way. And if the politicians (or their ********) were ****** to accompany the troops into battle - I guarantee you they would find another way. But as long as troops do whatever they are told and the masses support the politicians who order them - then those politicians will have no incentive to even consider doing it another way. So what if Bush or Cheney haden't been relected. They would both still be stinking rich. Rich and safe.

And yes, I should have thought the name spelling through better when I signed up. I didn't think I would be around THIS long.

 

[WSLer]

Just a small side point.

I was flying over Washington not long after 9/11. We were in thick cloud cover, and I carry a GPS when I fly just to pass the time, so I knew exactly where we were, the speed, altitude, heading, every turn the pilot took. As we ****** Washington, I looked out and against the clouds saw the silhouette of an F-117 pulling away from the rear of the plane, an ****** to make sure the pilot didn't take it down.

I also saw a group of vapor trails over NY, change direction at very high speed in tight turns at a very high altitude following 9/11.

I don't think anything like this was going on before 9/11 because it took everyone by surprise, so don't think flight 93 on 9/11 plane was shot down.

I seriously doubt it was an F-117 as there aren't any stationed anywhere near Washington DC.

I'm betting it was an F-16. Oh, and it wasn't an ****** to make sure that the pilot didn't take the plane down, but rather to let the pilot know that if the plane did start making any suspicious manuevers or drifted out of it's assigned flight path it would have been blown from the sky.*


*The pilots would have been given several warnings over the radio, but in the end it would have been "Katie bar the door" time.

 

[lovejoy]

1. The Pentagon repaired the damage immediately and if you go back to the site, you can not really find any major damage due to the crash site. Why did the US Government poured millions immediately before any US Congress investigation into 9/11 and repaired everything and totally destroyed all the evidence.

2. As today, the WTC still stands still and even Donald Trump can not do a damn thing about the World Trade Center, WTF

3. Where is the Black Box ? Can the Black Box sustained 4,000 degree of temperature and not disintegrated ?

4. Did anyone remember right after 9/11 ****** on the Pentagon, they put up a large "half a football size" blanket-like cover and blocked off the entire area.
After the fire was extistingished, and the dust settled, the damaged building was re-built immediately and in less than 1 year, everything went back to normal.

5. The Pentagon did show the footage and showing the desks were intact and even paper and pens were still sitting still at the crash site indicating it was a precision ****** by a missile and not a plane ! (just a thought ?)

P.S. USA did ****** Canada and Mexico, as one reader mentioned Mexico but actually US Navy went all the way to Nova Scotia and also north of New York State across the border to invade Canada (at that time was called Upper Canada, British Territories)

 

[4G63]

The sad truth is we'll never now. Most people are to complacint to ask questions, and in another decade this will all be forgotten. Buy a Chevy, buy an iPod, don't let the economy fall, terrorists terrorists terrorists terrorists WMD WMD. BULLSHIT. It's the fall of Rome all over agian, not enough people care, and the info is in the hands of a goverment who thinks that it's people are to stupid to trust with such valuable information.

I wish "they" had crashed a plane into Washington Heights in NY or Cabrini Green in Chicago. The 2 worst housing projects in the country. the people who live there would never let such things go, fuckin Bush would have been hung in the streets.

Our goverment knows that. Knows that it can't survive if the lowest class were ever to rise up. I'm just rambling now... sorry.

 

[McRocket]

The sad truth is we'll never now. Most people are to complacint to ask questions, and in another decade this will all be forgotten. Buy a Chevy, buy an iPod, don't let the economy fall, terrorists terrorists terrorists terrorists WMD WMD. BULLSHIT. It's the fall of Rome all over agian, not enough people care, and the info is in the hands of a goverment who thinks that it's people are to stupid to trust with such valuable information.

I wish "they" had crashed a plane into Washington Heights in NY or Cabrini Green in Chicago. The 2 worst housing projects in the country. the people who live there would never let such things go, fuckin Bush would have been hung in the streets.

Our goverment knows that. Knows that it can't survive if the lowest class were ever to rise up. I'm just rambling now... sorry.

I for one love these 'rambling's'. And I think you are dead on. And the fall of Rome was what I was thinking also.

Enjoy your world domination while it lasts America. Because as history shows - it NEVER does. Greed usually sees to that.
That's too bad. Really.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

Yeah it is. My grandchildren will be speaking Chinese, Soccer will be the most popular sport in the country, and the white people will be landscapers again.