top of page

Letter 3

<<If Not us, then who?>>


The topic is approached as a foregone conclusion. "Somebody must rule the world."

Going forward on that premise (which I feel is flawed and will only serve to sustain a state of perpetual war) then the argument of "Us or Them" makes sense.

But the idea has to be played out to its logical conclusion. Which is, in order for us to dominate 5.5 BILLION other people, we are going to have to create something that we can neither afford nor maintain. Empire doesn't never has and it never will because it runs counter to "natural forces" that will always be greater than the will of just a few.

Oppression (in order to maintain control / "safety") always moves in ONE DIRECTION....more oppression. Eventually, the pressure against the oppressed causes a JUST backlash. If it isn't an immediate backlash, it is a backlash that grows steadily in proportion to the measures instituted to maintain control.

Think about it, what would have happened if the Soviet union would have decided our Democracy was "Evil" and the "suffering of the poor" in our country was intolerable. ...they determined that we needed to be "liberated" from the chains of our "democracy." ...How do you suppose that would have gone over? Would they have had any right to IMPOSE socialism on the United States and even if you say "yes," how would we have responded?

What so many fail to realize is that it isn't our "inaction" that is causing hatred and "gathering threats" against this country. is the exact opposite. It is our constant covert and overt interference. It is our insistence on FORCING the world to be "friendly to OUR desires / interests" without any regard whatsoever how that affects their culture or their interests.

By reading the Northwoods document, you'll get an idea of how those who are convinced "our way is the ONLY way" think. ...if we can't provoke them into attacking us (so we can conquer disguised as self-defense) we'll just attack OURSELVES and then blame it on them. ....Come ON! can that not be seen for what it is? If it really is the "right thing" to do, you shouldn't have to LIE about it, or actually manufacture the circumstances to justify it.

Again, at what cost to us financially will this empire be built and maintained? At what cost in blood, and security? what cost to our freedom? Now, at what cost for all others who will also be affected?

It may start with "We can't allow any other country to gain power enough to challenge us." ...but once that has been accomplished the next logical "THREAT to Peace" will be the COMBINED power of a couple countries that might resent our control over them...what then? we force them to submit again to our desires by mandating a reduction in their power to defend themselves? ...and as we go country by country doing this, are we not increasing the certainty of a GLOBAL EFFORT against us?

If we play out the proposal, we see that it is implausible to think any country (Us in included) should or can "Rule the world." If a dictatorship is considered "bad" for a Country and its people, how could it ever be OK on a global scale?

Our global effort should be to maintain each countries right to choose "freedom" and that does not mean just "our freedom." ...and for those that are truly living under tyrannical rule (the same kind of rule that the NeoConservative approach will inevitably require) well, those oppressed should at least have to do what is required of them to begin the process of freeing themselves. can't "force" a person to be "free." If they don't have the will to earn freedom, they certainly won't have the strength to sustain it.

What is the solution? ...Continue moving in the direction we could have and began to after the Cold war. Do we really need to spend TEN TIMES as much on our defense than the nearest country? (Perhaps if you are the "World Police" but when did we, the American Citizens, sign up for that job and all its costs?)

If we must "remove oppressive power" than it ought to start with the oppressive power we've created here at home. The same power that is working overtime undermining everything this country was founded on, and tying us to agendas that we never had a say in.

The world didn't "Change" on 911. We didn't suddenly find ourselves facing a new ominous threat...Terrorists who've wanted to attack this country have been around for decades. This was a classic manipulation in order to justify moving forward with what the administration already wanted. 

The real "threat" of 911 lie in the catastrophic and unbelievable failures that allowed "19 hijackers" to fly around in US airspace unchallenged for an hour and half. ...that, and all the other "goofs" that led to the event. implausible as the whole 911 story is (especially when you put all the pieces that have been kept out of the media together) it points more to a covert op (similar to what is called for in the Northwoods document) than anything resembling the official account.

People who kill and conspire to kill for a living (always for a "good cause" of course) have an odd way of justifying their objectives. ...they think in terms of war, and so their options are obviously limited.

Imagine if Kennedy would have "Ok'd" the Northwoods plan. It may very well have lead to a nuclear war with Russia. ...all because some people in "high places" were SO SURE that their solution was necessary, they were willing to lie to and manipulate the American people to see it done.

In closing, the surest way to "peace" is to not FORCE another to war. When you impose your will on others, save those who will gladly accept submissive servitude, you leave them no choice. The one thing that seems to be "left out of the equation" in all of this talk is: "How would we respond?"

How would we feel if Russia or China was making these moves for global domination? ...what if they blamed Canada for something it had nothing to do with, invaded it, and set up shop. This stuff is just common sense, and the essential reasons given for justifying it are flawed in logic (and dishonest in aim.)

There is no room for these people in a peaceful, cooperative world...there must be threats and "others to be controlled" for government to maintain and expand it's power. ...job security depends on it.


Best Regards,
Joe Plummer


Back to Home Page
Back to Letters and Commentary Page





bottom of page