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

[LANDER]

Toth,

 

I see you have done some reading on the Marshall Plan, and yet you still fail to comprehend its objective. First of all I said the main point of the Plan was to keep communism at bay. In order to achieve this goal, the US had to bring about its economic influence upon most critically the Western European Countries. Now imagine they could spread that same influence to the Iron Curtain? You can certainly see that this would lead to instantaneous collapse of Communism and would probably isolate Russia unless they decided to follow suit, and give in to Capitalism. Truman had no intentions of given real aid to Russia or the Iron curtain for that matter. He knew Stalin was going to refuse the offer. Now it is typically American to claim any success stories for themselves even though they had very little if anything at all to do with it. I refer to your assuming that because of this so-called US aid in WW2, the European countries on your link owe their success to the US. Those nations have existed and thrived long before the US was even born, and they continued in their tradition after WW2. Even the Economics treaties of the E-U introduced by France had a lot more to do with those countries success then the false and arrogant American ideals your bring about.

Nowadays every time I turn on American T.V and they are discussing whether to invade another country or not (i.e.Afghanistan, Iraq), the pro-attack speakers always refer to “America rebuilding Germany and Japan” as laughable as this argument might be, they still take credit for the worlds 2nd and 3rd largest economies. If medals were being offered for this field, America would demand gold, silver and bronze…lol. Now you say I use propaganda when I’m simply stating facts, and yet you fail to see the real propaganda coming out of Americans mouths everyday.

[JIDAAWY]

Originally posted by Thoth:

 

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.

Thoth..

 

First and foremost let me assure everybody here that you were not looking down the same gun my fellow Somali’s were looking at during the ranger’s genocide in Mogadishu in 1993, you and your fellow rangers were well protected in your Bradley armored vehicles roofed by several Apache helicopters which has massively assaulted the Somali women and children. So for you to cowardly claim to have looked the same barrel and been in the same shoes as those who got killed while running for cover is absolutely unacceptable.

Imagine the terror of a mother, cowering with her children on the road as "some 21-year-old soldiers" decide whether to kill them, or kill the old man who is looking suspicious? The children are clearly little "scouts" used as shields; the women are, well, who knows and who cares? Now imagine that happening in your hometown Seattle during an invasion by mightier troops. Absurd ? of course yes, simply because that only happens in countries like Somalia and Iraq, which can be attacked at will and without a semblance of legitimacy or morality: weak countries, of course, and never countries with weapons of mass destruction like Korea..

 

Originally posted by Thoth:

 

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.

You need to understand that not all grievances against the US are Muslim and Arab. Not by a long shot. Anti-Americanism is a phenomenon that is rapidly sweeping the globe, as evidenced by spontaneous outbursts everywhere from Germany to China. this is comes as no surprise, given the scope of US imperial involvement around the world. a crucial misconception you must overcome if you actually seek to understand what’s going on around you, a misconception that only serves to solidify stereotypes of US arrogance. Obviously you think the hostility towards the US is merely a facet of the “Underdog syndrome,” in which support of the weaker party or “underdog” is also coupled with a hatred of the larger belligerent (the US in any given case). In other words, you were attempting to explain to me that my hostility towards US foreign policy was generated by nothing more than my own ineptitude and personal failures, and this farcical little theory could be extrapolated further to explain away a couple of generations who will grow up hating America. The primary downside to this theory, one could hold, is that it is based on a demented conception of US infallibility. The US administration cannot possibly have done anything to earn such rabid hatred, and therefore, there can be no legitimate basis for any such sentiments. I, and many millions of others, would like to assure US citizens that this is not the case.

[Gabbal]

wow! I missed a lot didn't I? I never even dreamed that this thread would have been this interesting.

 

I encourage Thoth to keep on goin with the debate even though he seems to be cornered; and loool even though I'm an "American" I applaud your works Shujui, and you too, Lander.

[Thinkerman]

HA Your more than wlcm to join in the debate bro

[Gabbal]

How has a subject about how America abuses power gone up to the Marshall Plan of Europe?

 

Secondly I fail to understand how Thoth labels America as his country and Somalia as "one of those numerous countries". :confused: :confused: :confused:

 

I would never in my life defend America's foreign policy as would the majority of the citizens of the U.S, too.

[LANDER]

Horn Afrique,

I asked Toth to give me an example in history where americans have aided another nation out of their pure desire to spread "peace, freedom and Prosperity". He choose to mention the "axes countries of WW2" and thats where the Marshall Plan comes in.

[JIDAAWY]

well done Lander and Shuju.. Well done.

[Thoth]

*LANDER

 

If that is your understanding of the Marshall plan, then so be it. It is not mine. I understand your position, but this whole subject has dragged on way to long for me with no possible end in sight. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

 

*JIDAAWY

 

Just some F.Y.I. I wasn't in the rangers, nor was I in any bradley fighting vehicle. I was in the Marine Corps, and always on foot. I was shot at numerous times before I ever returned fire. Even when I was handing out food and water, I was shot at. I can say that the people I have shot, ALWAYS shot at me first, and when you shoot at me I will shoot back at you. So please don't assure everyone here about people or actions that you don't know anything about.

[LANDER]

Jidaawy

 

You have explained very thoroughly the situation in Mogadishu (1993) in the hopes that Thoth would overcome his own prejudice. Unfortunately he has decided to over simplify the argument into a “killed or be killed” scenario. Nevertheless I applaud your efforts.

 

Thoth

I sincerely hope you can take some new perspectives from these postings exchanged between You, Jidaawy, shujui and I. That is the whole point of these forums, so we can exchange each other points of view. We can all benefit from one another in one shape or form, and certainly your experience as a Marine might bring a somewhat unique perspective to this argument. However your views were nothing I hadn’t heard from American government and media and therefore were not “new”. On the other hand you can say that the information we are sharing with you are unique in their own perspective because you will certainly not hear them on CNN, although they are no so unique in the rest of the world but more widespread. I might respect you as an individual, but respecting your views is another thing. I hope that you and your fellow Americans learn to question the over-simplified propaganda that is often feed to you by your own government concerning matters of foreign affairs.

[Thinkerman]

I found this article today on yellowtimes.org it was quite interesting.

 

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

 

America's favorite conspiracy theory: the moral argument"

Printed on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 @ 08:56:08 CDT ( )

 

By Matthew Riemer

YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

 

(YellowTimes.org) -- Putting aside the usual lengthy and semi-philosophical discussions that attempt to accurately explain the term "conspiracy theory," let's turn to a brief summation much more useful for the purposes of this essay: A "conspiracy theory" is simply any explanation, reason, or cause that strongly offends or contradicts others' ideologies or historically sensitive political systems and models. And, more generally, it is an explanation for events that seems wildly improbable and elaborate.

 

So to some, the idea that the United States fought a war in Iraq over issues other than weapons of mass destruction -- even though the expert global consensus was that Iraq had either none or very small quantities of WMD and Colin Powell presented forged documents to the United Nations when making his case -- is a "conspiracy theory" because of how they view U.S. foreign policy (this is the first definition). These individuals see the U.S. as a benign, almost naively bumbling, superpower guided only by altruism. Ulterior motives are spirited away by associating them with some kind of exaggerated and paranoid realpolitik. And it is this historical theory, filled with a kind of de facto racism and condescension, which is quickly becoming America's favorite conspiracy theory: the moral argument (this is the second definition).

 

This popular conception's basic assumptions are embodied perfectly in a recent essay by Michael Kinsley in the April 21 issue of Time entitled "The Power of One." In this curious piece, Kinsley, at times, both praises and criticizes Bush rhetorically while offering little of substance in his criticisms. He states that Bush lacks "a certain largeness of character or presence on the stage," but also that he is a "great man." Kinsley immediately qualifies this by indicating that "great" doesn't "necessarily mean good or wise."

 

The author then combines the praise and criticism in a single, equivocal sentence: "Bush's decision to make war on Iraq may have been visionary and courageous or reckless and tragic or anything in between, but one thing it wasn't was urgently necessary." This seems to be a trend among journalists and critics: be just equivocating enough so as not to "take sides" or really say anything substantive while getting in your pot shots and simultaneously calling the butt of your pot shots a "great man."

 

It's later in the article when Kinsley gets into the conspiracies: "Why did Bush want this war? His ostensible reasons were unconvincing. Whatever we may find now in the rubble of Baghdad, he never offered any good evidence of a close link between Iraq and al-Qaeda or of weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the U.S. His desire to liberate a nation from tyranny undoubtedly was sincere, but there are other tyrants in the world. Why this one? On the other hand, the ulterior motives attributed to Bush by critics are even more implausible. He didn't start a war to serve his re-election campaign or avenge his father or enrich his oil buddies or help Israel. The mystery of Bush's true motives adds to the impression of a wizard arbitrarily waving his wand over history."

 

Here Kinsley lays things out fairly clearly. Since the "ostensible reasons" for the need for war were "unconvincing" and those offered by Bush's critics "even more implausible" (he doesn't say why), it must be Bush's (and by association America's, since Kinsley never uses the labels "Washington" or the "U.S." but only "Bush") sincere "desire to liberate a nation from tyranny." Moreover, this is the only possible conclusion one could have as the author likens Bush to a "wizard arbitrarily waving his wand over history" whose "true motives" are mysterious.

 

Such observations are interesting for their notable lack of analysis. As mentioned above, Kinsley gives no explanation as to why theories of why the war was fought advanced by Bush's critics are "implausible," only that they are. So he discredits both lines of thinking -- those of the administration itself and then those of its critics. And in the final analysis, the President is abstractly portrayed as a mysterious wizard, albeit a sincere and morally guided one. Thus we have America's favorite explanation for world events. It's also known as the "bumbling bear theory," which, to reiterate, places the United States in the role of the benevolent benefactor of the global community whose guiding principles are Christian morals and who only unintentionally and accidentally does bad things. Some will even blame Washington's unquenchable desire and exuberance to do good as the reason that things sometimes go wrong.

 

Kinsley's historical construction is finally topped off by a healthy dose of cynicism when he says: "Bush is not the only one who decided rather suddenly that disempowering Saddam had to be the world's top priority. When Bush decided this, so did almost every congressional Republican, conservative TV pundit and British Prime Minister. In polls, a large majority of Americans agreed with Bush that Saddam was a terrible threat and had to go, even though there had been no popular passion for this idea before Bush brought it up. You could call this many things, but one of them is leadership."

 

Either the author is employing some incredibly dry sarcasm or he's very naive when it comes to politics and war in the 21st century.

 

First, the decision was not Bush's. He was simply the man who was president when influential, lifetime politicos such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's long-time geopolitical aims came to fruition spearheaded by the increasingly well-known neoconservative ideology given great stock in Washington these days. These men were calling for the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad when Bush was still Governor of Texas and didn't even know what the Ba'ath Party was.

 

Second, and more importantly, Kinsley attributes the Congress' and public's sudden decision to view the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a top priority to Bush's leadership as well as his "spiritual power over so many minds." There's no mention of a pervasive and propaganda filled media that reached new heights of manipulation even by American corporate media standards. That the BBC openly questioned and even complained about stories coming out of the Pentagon, calling them "disinformation," and said American news agencies were too patriotic is immaterial when it comes to Kinsley's "great man" who is neither wise nor good theory. Implicit in the author's words is the sense that the media is of little influence over what the historically unaware American public thinks and that Republicans in Congress "during a time of war" feel no need to parrot what a Republican president thinks.

 

Michael Kinsley, as well as a host of others, would well benefit from a viewing of the documentary The Trials of Henry Kissinger in which the former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor explains that it is impossible for states to interact in the way individual human beings do. Kissinger observes that people are typically guided by some kind of moral system when interacting with one another, but that this is impractical, if not undesirable, for state-to-state relations. The overvaluation of individual's rights and the need to protect the innocent can impede political objectives that have more pragmatic issues as their focus, such as resource security and regional hegemony.

 

But it is critical that this is not how the Bush administration (U.S. administrations for decades have feared this as well) is seen by the general public, so -- to counteract this reality of geopolitics -- the American public is sold the mother of all conspiracy theories: the moral argument. Why delve into obscure and often difficult to understand historical and political topics -- for which most don't even have the time -- when world events can be summed up much more neatly with an us good/them bad, altruistically based explanation?

 

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]

 

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

[LANDER]

Hope you somalis debating about supporting america can read through some of this topic started by Shujui.