America's sovereign right to do whatever it pleases.................

[Thinkerman]

Thx Jazeera. Its just a shame that the wasnt more ppl contributing to the debate which left me having to contend with Throth lol which as u can see from the above trail isnt much of a debate.

[JIDAAWY]

Originally posted by Thoth:

More to the point is that Somalia, like numerous other countries can't let the past stay in the past, and learn from it. We as americans try to live a joyous and wonderful life.We as americans try to live a joyous and wonderful life. We don't know alot of the things that the CIA, FBI, or our government has done. Yet for some reason we are held accountable for those things. ".

 

Thothfrom your replies I could tell you are supportive for the jolly little wars in which large numbers of heathen savages are mowed down by western military technology at minimal cost to imperial troops, I wonder how you’d feel if you were looking down the other side of the gun ?!! Would you incline yourself to forget about the murder of your innocent son or daughter and move on to live your "joyous" life? i know i will never forget about the 900 civilian somalis killed by the rangers in 1993.

 

To say that as American you have no knowledge of about the CIA and Bush’s plots to conquer Iraq and probably the world is simply ridicules, Any blind man can see the true objectives of the war against Iraq, The imperial Britain ruled Iraq from the 1920s until 1958 by relying on the RAF to bomb and strafe rebellious tribesmen. Bush now appears set to follow the British Empire by keeping order in its new colony through the use of air power rather than ground troops.

the new U.S. bases in Iraq, will have a far more important role than mere colonialism. The new Iraqi bases will give the U.S. control of the region's second largest oil producer, and allow a lower American profile in Saudi Arabia. They will be stepping stones to U.S. Central Asian bases - in Pakistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan - to dominate their Oil Basin.

Don’t for a minute think we would believe the crude propaganda you outlined to us, the US didn’t invade iraq to free the Iraqi people from a dictator, and rid their country from some weapons of mass destruction they are yet to find a shred of evidence of its existence, never mind a "smoking gun," to justify an entirely illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, violating international law and the UN Charter.

 

Originally posted by Thoth:

Shujui-Moja

#1. You asked who have we helped in the past century? How about every allied country in WWI or WWII. Look at what caused the wars, what became of the axis powers after the wars, and the part of the U.S. governments and military played in each. Do you know the difference in the history of East and West Germany? How about WWII Japan and the current Japan? How about the Korean conflict? Can you see any difference between North and South Korea today? If you don't just let me know I'll send you some internet sites you can visit to gain knowledge in these areas.

take a look at the various regimes that rule the world, regimes whose relations with the US cover a spectrum ranging from “cordial” to “excellent.” Look at the “moderates.” Check for their relations with the US. Some receive economic aid, others, arms, some, both. Some are merely acknowledged as “democratic.” Now, check some human rights reports on these same states that enjoy such friendly and lucrative ties with the US. Do you see the problem? No? Look again.

 

 

Let me clarify one point to you though, no one hates the American people, I come across many of you who believe what’s going on in Iraq is unjust, and people’s hatred is centered towards Bush’s foreign policy. Nevertheless as an American you should be held accountable for that since it’s you and only you who put Bush in the office and its only you who can disarm him by not voting for him on his second term.

[Thoth]

Jazeera

 

My post about the 6 day war was for one reason. It was brought up that Israel attacked Syria, Egypt and Joradn first. If you read the article then you know Israel attacked first. I am sure that someone will come back with some good spin ony why Israel attacked first. Who knows maybe they wanted the Golan heights, some military bases, or oil. If you know military tactics, there is not much you can do when your neighbors cut you off and amas their armies on your borders. You are pushed into a corner and have only two options, death or war. What would you choose?

 

JIDAAWY

 

Thothfrom your replies I could tell you are supportive for the jolly little wars in which large numbers of heathen savages are mowed down by western military technology at minimal cost to imperial troops, I wonder how you’d feel if you were looking down the other side of the gun ?!! Would you incline yourself to forget about the murder of your innocent son or daughter and move on to live your "joyous" life? i know i will never forget about the 900 civilian somalis killed by the rangers in 1993.

 

 

It is interesting that you bring this up JIDAAWY. I was in somalia with the marines when the U.N. first went in to somalia. I have also been in several other areas of war, civil war, or unrest with the U.N. I have looked down the barrel of a gun and been shot at. I can tell you exactly what I would do, because I have done it. I have pulled the trigger of my weapon enough to fill two lifetimes. I don't enjoy war or killing in anyway and I pray to GOD that it would not be needed. But I have never used women and children as human shields, then cry foul when they are killed. And I have seen it done numerous times, expecially in Somalia. I have also seen women and children pick up weapons and shoot. You should ask yourself that question, what would you do? When a gun is pointed at you, I am sure that you would not shoot back but let yourself get killed.

 

To your second part, I stated previously that america has made mistakes. The only way to make peace is to start over. When you don't learn from the past, you are doomed to repeat it. So hold your grudges all you want. When you wonder why there is no peace, look no further than the mirror. It seems so many people want to blame others for their own problems. Like GOD has said, if GOD wills it.

[LANDER]

Thoth

 

Spoken like a true brainwashed American,

 

I have no desire or time to respond to all the points you have tried to argue in this response, however I will say this: America has always acted and will always act selfishly and not for the benefit of world peace or the betterment of human lives in other nations. You have tried to argue that the US helped the destroyed nations of WW2 out of desire to create a peaceful world, however there are many facts that would prove otherwise. Now you can bring up any historical fact about US history or Israeli for that matter and I will be more than happy to show you your nations greed and capitalistic ways in all of those conflicts.

[Thoth]

LANDER

 

If you think that the goal of the U.S. in rebuilding the axis countries at the end of WWII was for greed and capitalistic ways, I would be happy to debate such issues with you.

[LANDER]

Well Thoth,

This is a great example and I’m gonna talk about the rebuilding of Europe that the American historians would like us to believe. First of all some facts; The United-States spent Billions of dollars in rebuilding Europe through the Marshall Plan. Due to the adopted Truman Doctrine, the goal of the US was to stop the spread of communism to the rest of Europe past the Iron curtain. Now Americans would argue that the US government took pity in the desolate situation of the devastated European countries and decided to issue billions of dollars out of pure humanity. However facts of the treaty and the current political situation would indicate otherwise. Americans tend to forget or mention that in the Marshall plan, there was a clause. Most of the money could ONLY be spent on US produced goods (i.e.machinery and grain). So you understand most of the so called aid-money came right back to the US economy, sustaining it and taking it to new heights. Also it had the goal of creating a dependency among European countries for US goods. The US was aware that trade with the European countries and Japan was vital to their own economy and it made sense for them to rebuild these axis nations you talk about. Also we cannot undermind their fear of communism and the return of a Japanese empire and so a military presence in those regions was vital.

 

This in short is what I believe were the true motivation of the US in this manner. If you would like more detail, I could provide them.

[Paragon]

Shujui, Bro this is a nice topic, It took me quite some time to read it all but it is worth... and ... i like this signiture of yours

 

"I speak better English than this villain Bush"

 

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Former Iraqi Minister of Information

 

LoooL I like the fella ... very entertaining... especially when denying tanks stories that cant be denied.

[Thinkerman]

Hey am glad u took time to take a troll through the contributions. So what do u make of our residnet refusnik Throth. He refuses to see reality lol.

 

But hey i still respect the fact that he as taken time to come back and try to argue with me reasonable.

[La Fidele]

Thoth,

I am aware of the events surrounding the 1967 War, and the Israeli preemptive strike is factual. I don't believe the Golan Heights were an intentional seizure than a booty of war. Syria and Israel had previously been quarrelling over Lake Tiberias, at the base of the Heights, for a time beforehand. The Golan is a strategic weapon to have, but just like the occupied territories, I don't believe Israel planned extensively beforehand to the all these lands. The grounds for their preemptive strike were based on their conviction that they'd soon be attacked from the Jordanian, Syrian or Egyptian front, and no doubt there was military build-up. But then again, there is not one military or political action committed by Israel that is devoid of existential paranoia. Um, and oil? If you mean the Sinai oil fields, Israel had no knowledge--neither did Egypt--of the fields until the mid-70s, and the fact did not stop Israel from returning the Sinai.

 

Anyways, my point wasn't to argue about the 1967 war, and perhaps I didn't frame my question well enough.

How does the 1967 War lend to your argument in favour of the United States and their "contribution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

[Thinkerman]

Let me clarify one point to you though, no one hates the American people, I come across many of you who believe what’s going on in Iraq is unjust, and people’s hatred is centered towards Bush’s foreign policy. Nevertheless as an American you should be held accountable for that since it’s you and only you who put Bush in the office and its only you who can disarm him by not voting for him on his second term.

I think the above extract throth represent pretty much the majoirty of ppl's views. And i see u are still yet to engage in any constructive critic of your country's poltical and military institutions which is a shame given the fact that many of the contributors have come forthwith with excellent arguments and you have only picked and chosed to answer some and in an emotional way.

 

You should not that democracry and freedom the 2 things that your regime claims its tryin to give to the Iraq people by bombing it to oblivion, then shooting down peaceful protestors against the presence of your country men/women in their towns and cities is about of a joke mate.

 

And it now seems more clear wih each passing remark ,by that sell-out Colin powel, that sriya will be in some form or another targeted by your administartions. Freedom of speech on this issue is not exactly in abduance in yur own country. I mean the shear arrogance of your countries political elite and Bais news medias is all plan to see. Do you or any other american actual know where the first documented expression of freedom came from??

Najaaf, Iraq some 2000 years ago. So plz take stock of your own countries realitively short and violent, racist, genociadal history

 

Maybe what you as an american citzens should do is follow what the above qouted extract suggested. Because it's your country men and women who need freedom from the actions of this administartion.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Give us back our democracy

 

Americans have been cheated and lied to on matters of the gravest constitutional importance

 

Edward Said

Sunday April 20, 2003

The Observer

 

In a speech in the Senate on 19 March, the first day of war against Iraq, Robert Byrd, the Democrat Senator from West Virginia, asked: 'What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomacy when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?'

No one bothered to answer, but as the American military machine currently in Iraq stirs restlessly in other directions, these questions give urgency to the failure, if not the corruption, of democracy.

 

Let us examine what the US's Middle East policy has wrought since George W. Bush came to power. Even before the atrocities of 11 September, Bush's team had given Ariel Sharon's government freedom to colonise the West Bank and Gaza, kill and detain people at will, demolish their homes, expropriate their land and imprison them by curfew and military blockades. After 9/11, Sharon simply hitched his wagon to 'the war on terrorism' and intensified his unilateral depredations against a defenceless civilian population under occupation, despite UN Security Council Resolutions enjoining Israel to withdraw and desist from its war crimes and human-rights abuses.

 

In October 2001, Bush launched the invasion of Afghanistan, which opened with concentrated, high-altitude bombing (an 'anti-terrorist' military tactic, which resembles ordinary terrorism in its effects and structure) and by December had installed a client regime with no effective power beyond Kabul. There has been no significant US effort at reconstruction, and it seems the country has returned to its former abjection.

 

Since the summer of 2002, the Bush administration has conducted a propaganda campaign against the despotic government of Iraq and with the UK, having unsuccessfully tried to push the Security Council into compliance, started the war. Since last November, dissent disappeared from the mainstream media swollen with a surfeit of ex-generals sprinkled with recent terrorism experts drawn from Washington right-wing think-tanks.

 

Anyone who was critical was labelled anti-American by failed academics, listed on websites as an 'enemy' scholar who didn't toe the line. Those few public figures who were critical had their emails swamped, their lives threatened, their ideas trashed by media commentators who had become sentinels of America's war.

 

A torrent of material appeared equating Saddam Hussein's tyranny not only with evil, but with every known crime. Some of this was factually correct but neglected the role of the US and Europe in fostering Saddam's rise and maintaining his power. In fact, the egregious Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in the early 80s, assuring him of US approval for his catastrophic war against Iran. US corporations supplied nuclear, chemical and biological materials for the supposed weapons of mass destruction and then were brazenly erased from public record.

 

All this was deliberately obscured by government and media in manufacturing the case for destroying Iraq. Either without proof or with fraudulent information, Saddam was accused of harbouring weapons of mass destruction seen as a direct threat to the US. The appalling consequences of the US and British intervention in Iraq are beginning to unfold, with the calculated destruction of the country's modern infrastructure, the looting of one of the world's richest civilisations, the attempt to engage motley 'exiles' plus large corporations in rebuilding the country, and the appropriation of its oil and its modern destiny. It's been suggested that Ahmad Chalabi, for example, will sign a peace treaty with Israel, hardly an Iraqi idea. Bechtel has already been awarded a huge contract.

 

This is an almost total failure in democracy - ours, not Iraq's: 70 per cent of the American people are supposed to support this, but nothing is more manipulative than polls asking 465 Americans whether they 'support our President and troops in time of war'. As Senator Byrd said: 'There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered ... a pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.'

 

I am convinced this was a rigged, unnecessary and unpopular war. The reactionary Washington institutions that spawned Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and Feith provide an unhealthy intellectual and moral atmosphere. Policy papers circulate without real peer review, adopted by a government requiring justification for illicit policy. The doctrine of military pre-emption was never voted on by the American people or their representatives. How can citizens stand up against the blandishments offered to the government by companies like Halliburton and Boeing? Charting a strategic course for the most lavishly endowed military establishment in history is left to ideologically based pressure groups (eg fundamentalist Christian leaders), wealthy private foundations and lobbies like AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. It seems so monumentally criminal that important words like democracy and freedom have been hijacked, used as a mask for pillage, taking over territory and settling scores. The US programme for the Arab world has become the same as Israel's. Along with Syria, Iraq once represented the only serious military threat to Israel and, therefore, it had to be smashed.

 

Besides, what does it mean to liberate and democratise a country when no one asked you to do it and when, in the process, you occupy it militarily while failing to preserve law and order? What a travesty of strategic planning when you assume 'natives' will welcome your presence after you've bombed and quarantined them for 13 years.

 

A preposterous mindset about American beneficence has infiltrated the minutest levels of the media. In writing about a 70-year-old Baghdad widow who ran a cultural centre in her home that was wrecked by US raids and who is now beside herself with rage, New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins implicitly chastises her for her 'comfortable life under Saddam Hussein' and piously disapproves of her tirade against the Americans, 'and this from a graduate of London University'.

 

Adding to the fraudulence of the weapons not found, the Stalingrads that didn't occur, the artillery defences that never happened, I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam disappeared suddenly because a deal was made in Moscow to let him, his family, and his money leave in return for the country. The war had gone badly for the US in the south, and Bush couldn't risk the same in Baghdad. On 6 April, a Russian convoy leaving Iraq was bombed; Condi Rice appeared in Russia on 7 April; Baghdad fell 9 April.

 

Nevertheless, Americans have been cheated, Iraqis have suffered impossibly and Bush looks like a cowboy. On matters of the gravest importance, constitutional principles have been violated and the electorate lied to. We are the ones who must have our democracy back.

 

· Edward Said is Professor of Comparative Literature at Columbia University, New York

[Thinkerman]

I think its very interesting that you (Throt) havent quite managed to get around to answering Landers last contribution very interesting indeed.

 

However i found another quite interesting article, from my prespective which deserves its airing here as well.

Plz feel free to provide an article or a counter to this if you disagree wit h its basic pretence.

 

The rest of you nomads am sure will find it relevant to the debate.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Pax Americana: Real American Agenda Now Becoming Clear

5/8/2003 - Political - Article Ref: TS0305-1963

Number of comments:

Opinion Summary: Agree: Disagree: Neutral:

By: Haroon Siddiqui

Toronto Star* -

 

 

A superpower like the United States does not invade a pipsqueak power like Iraq - outside the framework of international law and against worldwide opposition - only for its publicly stated reasons, in this case, fighting terrorism, liberating Iraq and triggering a domino effect for the democratization of the Middle East.

 

The real American agenda is only now becoming clearer.

 

The conquest of Iraq is enabling a new Pax Americana that goes well beyond the much-discussed control of oil, as central as that is to the enterprise.

 

America is redrawing the military map of the region with amazing alacrity. It has pulled its bases out of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in favor of less-demanding hosts.

 

Its relations with Egypt have been placed on the back burner.

 

It is no accident that those three nations are the region's more populous. And that America's newest partners - Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates - are thinly populated and tightly controlled monarchies.

 

People are a problem for America in the Arab and Muslim world. They are bristling with anti-Americanism, principally over the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

 

The pullout of 10,000 U.S. troops from a Saudi air base was long overdue, not just because it was a favorite target of Osama bin Laden. It so embarrassed the ruling House of Saud that the Americans had to be kept in purdah, away from the public at a remote base in the desert.

 

The base is obviously no longer needed since Saddam Hussein is gone. But its closure, in fact, is America's answer to Saudi resistance to the war and the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were bin Laden Saudis.

 

As the two nations begin a new chapter in their 50-year relationship, America will be less dependant on, though not free of the need for, Saudi oil.

 

The kingdom with the world's largest oil reserves and the highest output will lose clout as America controls the second-largest reserves in Iraq.

 

Turkey, too, has to renegotiate its relations with Washington.

 

America now has a vise grip on the region, with 14 new post-9/11 bases, from eastern Europe through Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the two Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

 

The singular feature of all those new allies is that they are weak states. Most are undemocratic, if not repressive.

 

So, America is replicating its failed model of using unrepresentative regimes to suppress the people, but doing it on new turf.

 

This short-term gain, therefore, may come at the expense of long-term pain. And even that will depend on how well America does with its "road map" for peace in the Middle East, so inextricably linked are Muslims to the plight of Palestinians.

 

Within Iraq itself, the dawn of a democratic era is not unfolding as advertised.

 

In the name of stopping the emergence of an Iranian-style theocracy in favor of what the White House has called an "Islamic democracy" (whatever that means), America seems determined to install its own puppet regime in Baghdad.

 

The majority Shiites are being shunted aside.

 

Those protesting the American presence, including the minority Sunnis in the cities of Falluja and Mosul, are being shot and killed by American troops.

 

The distance between American words and deeds is nowhere more evident than in George W. Bush's triumphalist declaration that he has licked terrorism in Iraq.

 

It turns out that he has a very selective dislike for terrorism.

 

Appallingly, he has quietly cozied up to a most notorious terrorist group, the leftist Mujahideen-e-Khalq in Iraq.

 

Prior to the 1979 revolution in Iran, the Khalq was accused of killing Americans there. Post-revolution, it reportedly supported the student takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. But frozen out of the spoils of power, the group turned against the Islamic regime, killing scores of civilians.

 

Routed out of Iran, it set up guerrilla bases in Iraq from where to harass and attack Iran.

 

On the diplomatic front, the Khalq took full advantage of America's antipathy to Iran and convinced 150 members of Congress to blindly sign petitions in its favor. But the U.S. and the European Union eventually caught up and branded it the terrorist organization that it has long been.

 

In the early days of the war on Iraq, American planes started bombing its bases. But the Khalq PR machines swung into action in Washington to get the guerrillas spared.

 

In a secret ceasefire deal, signed April 15 but not released until Wednesday, the Bush boys agreed to let the Khalq be. The group even gets to keep all its weapons.

 

So the Khalq moves from Saddam's patronage to Bush's.

 

So much for wiping out terrorism and terrorists.

 

Taken together, these American moves do not reflect the high principles of Bush's rhetoric. Rather, they bear an uncanny resemblance to the British colonial enterprise of nearly a century ago, the price of which is still being paid by the people there.

 

 

 

Haroon Siddiqui is the Star's editorial page editor emeritus.

 

Source: Toronto Star

[LANDER]

Nice article Shujui,

 

I am still waiting for THOTH's reply, I think he might be doing some profound reading on The Truman Doctrine and The Marshall Plan..lol. Anyway I wouldn't mind seing his reaction to my reply of his own selected topic, as predictable as it might be.

[Thoth]

I hate to post long paragraphs but I can see know that this is what it is going to take to make my points.

 

*LANDER -

 

You have taken the simple path, and I can see that you are trying to use parts of the Marshall Plan in the form of propaganda. I do agree that part of the plan said the goods were to be bought from America. But Marshall didn't invent the plan with the goal of making america money. America also offered money to Russia and the eastern european countries, this point negates your position unless you fell that america was going to make money by giving Russia and the other eastern european countries money too. I do agree that amercia benefited from the plan so don't respond saying I didn't. If we believe your way of thinking then maybe we should also take back the Nobel Peace prize Marshall was given for the plan. I will also let the countries who benefited from the plan be the final determining factor in this discussion. I wonder how they are doing now? Check out link #4 for the answer to that.

 

http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#summary

 

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/57.htm

 

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/57.htm

 

http://www.lcsys.net/fayette/history/plan.htm

 

 

*Jazeera -

 

My post about the 6 day war was not to use it in any way about the american involvement in the israel-arab conflict. It was simply so that others might understand why it happend.

 

 

*Shujui-1

 

I simply choose to discuss, what should have been the simple points with you, because I truely dislike long posts. You have said that I have not discussed americas political and military institutions. I have said several times that america has made mistakes in several areas. The truth is that you are only looking for someone to blame your problems on. Surely your problems can't be your own, or your peoples doing. That's great to know that freedom was first used in Iraq back 2000 years ago. If only Iraq had been a muslim country back then, instead of the free country that it was, your point might better serve your goals here. If our short history of violence,racisim, and genocidal, is what made us the last superpower today then thank you. Maybe everyone around the world should take notes, so they can also be a superpower. I would ask you how countries that have been around so long can still be living in the dark ages? I am sure you will come back with some great response too. The problem is that your lunacy has no limits, while my intelligence is limited.

[Thoth]

*Shujui-1

 

I forgot one thing for you Shujui-1. Don't be afraid to look up links no matter what the name is. If it's the truth, maybe you will learn something. Your mention of not wanting to read an internet site because of the name is a weak excuse.

[Thinkerman]

The problem is that your lunacy has no limits, while my intelligence is limited.

lol. Really, well i can agree with the second part most definately and well the first part just is a confirmation of the second part of your first sentence. Hey hopefully your intelligence is not so limited so that you cannot follow this paragraph.

 

Anyway enough of the Jouvial Slants . you made some interesting remarks that i will try to adddress in a reasonable manor.

 

The Fact that i categorically rejected visting the Yaahodo link (excuse the miss spelling) is because its flat categorical Lies Misinformation and a perfect exmaple of Jewish Propagation. I did infact visit the links, actauuly all teh links snce you went to the trouble of putting them up there and they where a conucution of lies missinformation and down right indoctrination.

 

Not one of those rights where not writing from a basis prespective. So how can they be a source for determing the truth. How can they help shed light on what u have already acknowledged (i respect you for @ least doing so) are several quite unforgiving inhumane actions of your countries administaryions and various instituations.

 

Now be honest to yourself can you level the same critisms of my sources, adimitedly writers such as Niaomi Chomsky can be labelled as being right wing, but has she got a basis against america in egenral? does she hate americans? is she a muslim? the answer to all of these are NO. Infact if you did read through my pots u would have seen an interesting article from an Isreal author. You have once again quite flatly refused to debate with me on the actions of your country in the past and current climate. So i will stop asking

 

Its not enough for you to say am sorry or acknowledge the wrong doings of america, done in in you and your country's 250 million men and women name. Why? because these actions have created the current climate which alot of the countries that you qouted, quite correctly, as being in the dark ages i.e. Afganistan exist.