While my husband and I were discussing our plans for Y2K, my husband made a comment that has been disturbing me eversince. He seems to think that the government has known about this problem for many years and that since we have not had any major disruptions ie: war or depression in a great many years, that it is entirely possible that the government is doing this as a way to cut down on the population. He says that it would save on social security and medicare. Don't get me wrong nor he or I are for this. But could it really be true? Could the government really be so cruel as to do something as horrible as this. He also mentioned something about underground bunkers. I just kinda nodded my head with that deer in the headlight kinda look. I have no idea what he is talking about and he has never been the kind of guy who thinks the world is out to get him. Is he cracking up and all this stress is finally getting to him or could be really be on to something here. Surely this is not a plot to downsize America. This is just too deep for me. I am sure to be flamed for this but I am really seeking honest opinions on this matter.

-- shellie (shellie01@hotmail.com), March 29, 1999

Answers

shellie; What your husband has mentioned has some merit. There are so many items written about the Govt getting rid of it's population it's unreal. I have many sites that mention documents containing the operation of the Govt to eliminate the population not of just the US but of other third world countries. With the use of the WHO Organization ,their development of biological agents to eliminate the human immune system has alot of people worried,that it is true. Think of it as a cleansing of the world of unwanted people,like Henry Kissenger said many years ago. It sounds so pathetic it could be real,besides, cancer could be one of those diseses that is used to eliminate the population,developed by medical organizations to assist the govt plans. Why was Ebola developed,why was AIDS developed,why was lukiemia developed? And think of all that financial assistance that goes into research, sounds more like a business does it not ??? but could I be wrong ? Furie...

-- Furie (furieart@dnet.net), March 29, 1999.

Shellie,

1. never attribute to malevolence what can just as easily be explained by laziness, venality, and ignorance...in other words, the government didn't do anything because the folks who run the government are lazy short sighted and greedy.

2. People get into politics because they want to control the actions of others...since a total meltdown scenario would lead to anarchy and chaos - the government would lose control - that would be virtually the last thing the poltical power mongers would want to see happen.

just my 2 cents' worth, Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 29, 1999.

I have to agree with Arlin, stupidity at least 3 to 1 over the rest combined. I see it every day.

-- curtis schalek (schale1@ibm.net), March 29, 1999.

Uncle Bill went to school on a little Bus. Don"t TRUST much!

-- && (&&@&&.com), March 30, 1999.

Shellie,

I seriously doubt that y2k is a plot or a conspiracy engineered by the government or anyone else to reduce the world's population. When you consider that a collapse would mean eventual reconstruction, and that people do the reconstructing, it doesn't make sense that anyone would conspire to hamper reconstruction by reducing the work force.

On underground "bunkers:" I believe the one closest to DC is called Mount Weather (sp?), and it was constructed under the old "continuity of government" program that was started during the cold war. The idea was to have underground bunkers near the centers of government so that our leaders would have the best chance of survival in the event of a nuclear war. When the cold war "ended," some of the facilities were kept stocked, just in case. I believe one of the major TV networks did a televised tour of the Mt. Weather facility some time ago, with the facility's director as tour guide.

-- LP (soldog@hotmail.com), March 30, 1999.

I think war is not only no solution to the social security problem, it worsens it. The population of income-generating young people is reduced while not much affecting the number of retirees. Go figure.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 30, 1999.

Yes, I do belive the government is capible of this. Gore wrote a book saying that " to protect mother earth, the population must be reduced by 1/3rd." In another words, 3 billion people must die!! And Clinton agreed with him!! I read the book. They want this disaster!

-- CMR (waddles45@me.com), March 30, 1999.

Shellie, You are giving these morons way too much credit. A vast govt conspiracy requires brains, planning, moxy and a long range vision. This govt is of the lowest common denominator -me,me,me,me..... How much planning went into Monica? Say 10 milliseconds after she flashed the Big Guy!!

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), March 30, 1999.

This kind of speculation is what makes people think you doomers are whackos.

-- doomslayer (1@2.3), March 30, 1999.

Politicians are opportunists, plain and simple. Give a politicain a human disaster and he'll make a photo opportunity out of being a ghoulish tourist going to see where all the people died. "Oh, see where the little girl died in the mud. You can see the outline of her body right here."

Would people like these not cause, but *just allow* something like Y2K to happen? If it would further their own agenda or increase their personal power? If someone in their position desperately wanted Y2K to be avoided do you think things would be handled differently by the government?

Y2K is possibly one of the largest human disasters that will be recorded and of course the politicians are gooing to be looking for opportunities within the crisis. The enviro-wacko liberals will push their issues regarding nuclear power, private vehicles (fuel issues) and population control if those problems are a big part of the Y2K event.

Throw in some socialist-facist zeal and and some politicians might convince themselves that whoever dies because of Y2K deserves it. After all, they were stupid enough to live a lifestyle dependent on computers and technology. Meanwhile, the same political leaders will cower in the highest-tech bunkers available in the free world while the people suffer come what may.

The run-up to Y2K is obviously going to see all kinds of issues come to the front; gun issues, private property rights, federal vs state primacy, international agreements, the true role of government and more. It's going to be interesting. If we come through this mess with anything less than an eight these are all going to be discussed in the aftermath with a lot of new light shed on the issues. If we get an eight or more the issues might not matter for a generation of two, but it'll be good campfire talk.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), March 30, 1999.

WW -- "just allow" nails it exactly.

Klinton is, IMO, passive, reactive and improvisational. Anything BUT leadership, really. I would expect the government to lurch in various directions, beginning in September or so, and probably several directions simultaneously. All with a view to "where is the political advantage....?" Same old, same old.

Also agree wholeheartedly with your post-Y2K scenario.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 30, 1999.

" to protect mother earth, the population must be reduced by 1/3rd." In another words, 3 billion people must die!!

Would that be 2 billion people must die ?

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 30, 1999.