It's time for you to start apologizing, Mr. Bush - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-14-2005, 05:17 PM   #31
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Bush's half-assed admittal of mis-speaking today (y'all took it wrong) was a surprise, because I don't think the man has much of a conscience. If I were him, I'd wake up in a cold sweat every night, thinking about what I'd done.
__________________

__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 05:44 PM   #32
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:37 PM
only time will decide who's right and who's wrong
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 09:39 PM   #33
The Fly
 
PrimaDonna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 39
Local Time: 09:37 AM
2 important things not to forget:

1) If there's any hotbed of terrorist activity in Iraq it's only now, after the war. Chaos, disorder, and infiltration of 'terrorists' followed the fall of Saddam because the U.S. didn't provide the same level of security and stability. Sure life under Saddam's tyranny was marked by strict oppression, but at least it was predictable (opposition equalled torture/death) and didn't include relatively indiscriminate bombing of cities (yes we know the Kurds were attacked by Saddam, but that's 'cause they tried to secede and help Iran in the war against Saddam). US forces secured the oil ministry and oil refineries and neglected other civilian infrastructures...shows you the administration's true priorities...which should make clear the real reasons for this war: money: power: Halliburton's/Cheney's intent to profit from uncontested contracts and the administration's need to control oil and establish hegemony.

2) Another thing that bothers me is when people try to blame Middle Eastern tyranny on "radical Islam." Let's not forget that Saddam's Baathist regime was socialist and very secular. Saddam was at odds with religious leaders, probably because he didn't want them to become too powerful. Let's just be honest and admit that the oppression in Islamic countries is because of the regimes' thirst for power and domination, not because of "radical Islam."
__________________
PrimaDonna is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 10:13 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:37 PM
On point number two; The existence of un-Islamic regimes across the Arab Muslim world is a critical factor in the Islamist ideology, it is this percieved deviation from the path of Allah that drives them, they wish to eliminate all of the petrodollar fueled royal families and socialist dictators and replace them with pure Islamic governments. That is why the liberalisation of the Arab world is important, to remove the dictatorships and stem the support the Islamist ideology recieves from the opressed peoples.

Freedom and democracy are not instant cure-alls for the problems of the world, they have a heap of problems associated with them and people can become disolusioned very quickly but when looking at the problem of religious inspired terror and the factors contributing towards it poor governance and lack of political freedom is high up on the list. You sound like a realist and to that all I can say is that the price of that obscure stability that existed under Saddam is being dug out the desert sands (www.massgraves.info). Do not be so quick to excuse one form of slaughter and condemn another - that can often be the worst form of hypocrisy.

There is nothing wrong with securing oil refineries and infrastructure; I hope that you havent forgotten the results of the Iraqi army torching the oil wells in its retreat from Kuwait. It would be negligent not to secure them, in addition it is the money resulting from that which will in the long term ensure a viable state can continue to exist.

The idea that the US is just there to take the oil is laughable, if they wanted cheap oil they could have just had the sanctions lifted, we know that France and Russia were enjoying the benefits of the smuggled oil and getting china to vote to lift the sanctions would be easy enough. And at the end Saddam would still be in power, there would be cheap oil and Iraq could become strong again and restart all of its side projects at will - everybody wins .
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 10:15 PM   #35
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by PrimaDonna
2 important things not to forget:

1US forces secured the oil ministry and oil refineries and neglected other civilian infrastructures...shows you the administration's true priorities...which should make clear the real reasons for this war: money: power: Halliburton's/Cheney's intent to profit from uncontested contracts and the administration's need to control oil and establish hegemony.

Gee, we're sure getting rich off of this war! Bush's popularity has skyrocketed since he plunged us into war, killed our soldiers, ruined our international reputation. My how his power has grown!
I wonder how much Halliburton's kicking back to Cheney for this one. They sure owe him for starting this war for him. Clinton sure was dumb, he could've started a war for his friends and made millions, even billions!.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 03:05 AM   #36
War Child
 
stagman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Sunshine State - Australia
Posts: 936
Local Time: 01:37 PM
It's both Saddam's and the the UN's fault that it came to war. End of Story.
__________________
stagman is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 07:06 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 03:37 PM
Fuck apologizing.

Generally, I´d rather have liars pay for their lies. Uh, now that´s gonna be a long bill.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-17-2005, 04:31 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Jamila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,454
Local Time: 07:37 AM
thank you for having the courage to speak your mind and for starting this post -

Bush has always talked out of both sides of his mouth. That's why he doesn't know what he's saying most of the time.
__________________
Jamila is offline  
Old 01-28-2005, 05:25 PM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark


I don't think he ever linked Saddam directly. Perhaps you have a quote? I'm not sure about lurid tales either.
you don't remember Condi talking about 'mushroom clouds'?
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 01-28-2005, 05:33 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:37 PM
OF COURSE CONDI LINKED SADDAM TO AL QAEDA MICHAEL MOORE PROVED IT SO OBVIOUSLY YOUR RIGHT WING HACKS
Quote:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
PROOF, THEY LIED THE LIARS LIED SO MUCH FOR THIS ILLEGAL HALLIBURTON NEOCON ZIONIST OCCUPATION WAR.

/end striking impression of the pop-left mind.

Now of course this was the Dr. Rice said on November 28th of 2003
Quote:
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself
and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they’re all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...."
So you see the arguments used prior to the war of democratic change in the Arab world stand and are used today
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 10:54 AM   #41
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
On point number two; The existence of un-Islamic regimes across the Arab Muslim world is a critical factor in the Islamist ideology, it is this percieved deviation from the path of Allah that drives them, they wish to eliminate all of the petrodollar fueled royal families and socialist dictators and replace them with pure Islamic governments. That is why the liberalisation of the Arab world is important, to remove the dictatorships and stem the support the Islamist ideology recieves from the opressed peoples.

Freedom and democracy are not instant cure-alls for the problems of the world, they have a heap of problems associated with them and people can become disolusioned very quickly but when looking at the problem of religious inspired terror and the factors contributing towards it poor governance and lack of political freedom is high up on the list. You sound like a realist and to that all I can say is that the price of that obscure stability that existed under Saddam is being dug out the desert sands (www.massgraves.info). Do not be so quick to excuse one form of slaughter and condemn another - that can often be the worst form of hypocrisy.

There is nothing wrong with securing oil refineries and infrastructure; I hope that you havent forgotten the results of the Iraqi army torching the oil wells in its retreat from Kuwait. It would be negligent not to secure them, in addition it is the money resulting from that which will in the long term ensure a viable state can continue to exist.

The idea that the US is just there to take the oil is laughable, if they wanted cheap oil they could have just had the sanctions lifted, we know that France and Russia were enjoying the benefits of the smuggled oil and getting china to vote to lift the sanctions would be easy enough. And at the end Saddam would still be in power, there would be cheap oil and Iraq could become strong again and restart all of its side projects at will - everybody wins .

I have to disagree here. The first paragraph represents to me a form of moral absolutism for which I can gather no argument. What about liberalism makes it inherently better than an islamic republic? Is it freedom? Freedom is a sticky word that represents an internal feeling. It's not an absolute concept as neo-liberal doctrine would have us believe. I also encourage you to remember that the best that wars of this nature have accomplished in the past is to replace unfriendly dictators or democratic governments with more friendly ones. Case in point equals America's numerous interventions in Latin America. If we believe that our liberlaism is somehow inherently superior to other ideological forms, then we are as intellectually oppressed as the islamic fundamentalists.

I will insist that neo-liberal wars on words like "terror" are almost as ideological and religiously inspired as the jihad. If freedom and the people are the real issue here (which, make no mistake they are not) then perhaps you are right in that we should not be so quick to excuse this slaughter after having condemned Saddam's. That is just as hypocritical.

What the Iraqi's did to the Kuwaiti oil fields is neither here nor there as are the actions of France and Russia. Their wrongdoings do nothing for the validation of THIS war. Outsourcing responsibility is lazy. The idea that the Americans are not in Iraq to take oil is even more laughable. The US has a clear, long history of coercive, economically driven intervention...re Latin America, again. Lifting sanctions, as you demonstrated, was not an option. The only thing the US fears more than high oil prices is a hostile arabic republic with nuclear capabilities. No doubt this war killed two problems. Why does the US fear high oil prices? Because western economies still run on oil. There is a direct correlation between oil supply, prices and the economy...hence the OPEC crisis in 1973 and the advent of modern era global free trade. It is clear that the growth in china's economy is and will continue driving oil prices up. The Americans economy (as well as ours), highly dependent on oil, requires a foothold and another friendly government in the middle east. Of course, I doubt they will find a long standing one with the mess they have made out of the lives of millions of Iraqis. If the US is not there for oil, then what are they there for? Since I don't have access to the admin, I can only tell you what was publicly put forward; The reason and the results.

Whether the US believed, falsified, lied or misinterpreted evidence of WMD is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the entire world did the same thing. Legitmacy lies in the truth os falsity of the justification. The United States and a small group of allies went to war on the major premise of a threat from WMD and it was a false one. With this evaporates the major legitimate cause for the war. Idle chit chat about the benefits of democracy in Iraq is nothing but smoke and mirrors, a "weapon of mass distraction", a red herring. War is a matter of life, death and hardship for millions of people. The decision to go to war is not one to be taken lightly. The Bush admin's fear of WMD in Iraq may in fact have been legit, but fear is not enough to justify war. The burden of proof is on the aggressor, like in any argument. The US was the aggressor here. It was up to them to prove Saddam had weapons. I see no such evidence. Did Saddam get rid of them in the lead up to the war? Any answer here is just a guess. Sorry, the responsibility for justifying this war is on the US. Fact: The US went to war on the major premise that Iraq was an immediate threat to their security. Fact: False. So where does the justification come? Costs and benefits to us are a ridiculous measure of justification because they are ours, and only too self serving.


Jon
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 01-30-2005, 02:02 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klink



I have to disagree here. The first paragraph represents to me a form of moral absolutism for which I can gather no argument. What about liberalism makes it inherently better than an islamic republic? Is it freedom? Freedom is a sticky word that represents an internal feeling. It's not an absolute concept as neo-liberal doctrine would have us believe. I also encourage you to remember that the best that wars of this nature have accomplished in the past is to replace unfriendly dictators or democratic governments with more friendly ones. Case in point equals America's numerous interventions in Latin America. If we believe that our liberlaism is somehow inherently superior to other ideological forms, then we are as intellectually oppressed as the islamic fundamentalists.

I will insist that neo-liberal wars on words like "terror" are almost as ideological and religiously inspired as the jihad. If freedom and the people are the real issue here (which, make no mistake they are not) then perhaps you are right in that we should not be so quick to excuse this slaughter after having condemned Saddam's. That is just as hypocritical.

What the Iraqi's did to the Kuwaiti oil fields is neither here nor there as are the actions of France and Russia. Their wrongdoings do nothing for the validation of THIS war. Outsourcing responsibility is lazy. The idea that the Americans are not in Iraq to take oil is even more laughable. The US has a clear, long history of coercive, economically driven intervention...re Latin America, again. Lifting sanctions, as you demonstrated, was not an option. The only thing the US fears more than high oil prices is a hostile arabic republic with nuclear capabilities. No doubt this war killed two problems. Why does the US fear high oil prices? Because western economies still run on oil. There is a direct correlation between oil supply, prices and the economy...hence the OPEC crisis in 1973 and the advent of modern era global free trade. It is clear that the growth in china's economy is and will continue driving oil prices up. The Americans economy (as well as ours), highly dependent on oil, requires a foothold and another friendly government in the middle east. Of course, I doubt they will find a long standing one with the mess they have made out of the lives of millions of Iraqis. If the US is not there for oil, then what are they there for? Since I don't have access to the admin, I can only tell you what was publicly put forward; The reason and the results.

Whether the US believed, falsified, lied or misinterpreted evidence of WMD is also irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the entire world did the same thing. Legitmacy lies in the truth os falsity of the justification. The United States and a small group of allies went to war on the major premise of a threat from WMD and it was a false one. With this evaporates the major legitimate cause for the war. Idle chit chat about the benefits of democracy in Iraq is nothing but smoke and mirrors, a "weapon of mass distraction", a red herring. War is a matter of life, death and hardship for millions of people. The decision to go to war is not one to be taken lightly. The Bush admin's fear of WMD in Iraq may in fact have been legit, but fear is not enough to justify war. The burden of proof is on the aggressor, like in any argument. The US was the aggressor here. It was up to them to prove Saddam had weapons. I see no such evidence. Did Saddam get rid of them in the lead up to the war? Any answer here is just a guess. Sorry, the responsibility for justifying this war is on the US. Fact: The US went to war on the major premise that Iraq was an immediate threat to their security. Fact: False. So where does the justification come? Costs and benefits to us are a ridiculous measure of justification because they are ours, and only too self serving.


Jon

What is fact is that Saddam's regime failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD per multiple UN security Council resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. Military action was authorized by the UN if Saddam failed to comply with the resolutions and verifiably disarm. Saddam failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD which inspectors as late as 1998 noted that he had.

While its true WMD has yet to be found in Iraq, it does not change the fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of the unaccounted for stocks of WMD as listed by the UN weapons inspectors in the 1990s.



The regimes past behavior, the invasion and attacks on four different countries in area's vital to the planets energy supply, the murder of 1.7 million people, the use of WMD more times than any leader in history, and finally the failure of the regime to comply with the resolutions and ceacefire agreement of the first Gulf War all made military action a necessity and was in fact long overdue.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-31-2005, 07:43 AM   #43
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Besides the horrific failure of similar past economically driven wars all over the world that have resulted in the slaughter of millions of people, I leave you with a moral argument:

"The last temptation is the greatest treason; to do the right deed for the wrong reason."
-TS Eliot


Even if this is the "right deed" there are hosts of web sites that can give you brief summaries of US foreign interventions and their results. Many have been far more disastrous for the people than Saddam's regime and many have led to the installation of right-wing dictatorships at the expense of freedom/liberalism and deomcracy. Here's 1 I like. There are plenty more.


http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/AmericanCarnage.html

Best,
Jon
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 01-31-2005, 07:54 AM   #44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 08:37 AM
Again, no disrespect to Americans here. I very much like the US, but I find this an interesting read.

Jon



A History of American Carnage

by Larry Mosqueda, Ph.D. - The Evergreen State College

Like all Americans, on Tuesday, 9-11, I was shocked and horrified to watch the WTC Twin Towers attacked by hijacked planes and collapse, resulting in the deaths of perhaps up to 10,000 innocent people.

I had not been that shocked and horrified since January 16, 1991, when then President Bush attacked Baghdad, and the rest of Iraq and began killing 200,000 people during that "war" (slaughter). This includes the infamous "highway of death" in the last days of the slaughter when U.S. pilots literally shot in the back retreating Iraqi civilians and soldiers. I continue to be horrified by the sanctions on Iraq, which have resulted in the death of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, including over 500,000 children, about whom former Secretary of State Madeline Allbright has stated that their deaths "are worth the cost".

Over the course of my life I have been shocked and horrified by a variety of U.S. governmental actions, such as the U.S. sponsored coup against democracy in Guatemala in 1954 which resulted in the deaths of over 120,000 Guatemalan peasants by U.S. installed dictatorships over the course of four decades.

Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the horror I felt when the U.S. overthrew the governments of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and helped to murder 3,000 people. And it reminded me of the shock I felt in 1973, when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Chile against the democratic government of Salvador Allende and helped to murder another 30,000 people, including U.S. citizens.

Last Tuesday's events reminded me of the shock and horror I felt in 1965 when the U.S. sponsored a coup in Indonesia that resulted in the murder of over 800,000 people, and the subsequent slaughter in 1975 of over 250,000 innocent people in East Timor by the Indonesian regime with the direct complicity of President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissenger.

I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war (the World Court declared the U.S. government a war criminal in 1984 for the mining of the harbors) against Nicaragua in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 innocent people (or as the U.S. government used to call them before the term "collateral damage" was invented--"soft targets").

I was reminded of being horrified by the U. S. war against the people of El Salvador in the 1980s, which resulted in the brutal deaths of over 80,000 people, or "soft targets".

I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt during the U.S. sponsored terror war against the peoples of southern Africa (especially Angola) that began in the 1970's and continues to this day and has resulted in the deaths and mutilations of over 1,000,000. I was reminded of the shock and horror I felt as the U.S. invaded Panama over the Christmas season of 1989 and killed over 8,000 in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner, now turned enemy, Manual Noriega.

I was reminded of the horror I felt when I learned about how the Shah of Iran was installed in a U.S. sponsored brutal coup that resulted in the deaths of over 70,000 Iranians from 1952-1979. And the continuing shock as I learned that the Ayatollah Khomani, who overthrew the Shah in 1979, and who was the U.S. public enemy for decade of the 1980s, was also on the CIA payroll, while he was in exile in Paris in the 1970s.

I was reminded of the shock and horror that I felt as I learned about the how the U.S. has "manufactured consent" since 1948 for its support of Israel, to the exclusion of virtually any rights for the Palestinians in their native lands resulting in ever worsening day-to-day conditions for the people of Palestine. I was shocked as I learned about the hundreds of towns and villages that were literally wiped off the face of the earth in the early days of Israeli colonization.

I was horrified in 1982 as the villagers of Sabra and Shatila were massacred by Israeli allies with direct Israeli complicity and direction. The untold thousands who died on that day match the scene of horror that we saw last Tuesday. But those scenes were not repeated over and over again on the national media to inflame the American public.

The events and images of last Tuesday have been appropriately compared to the horrific events and images of Lebanon in the 1980s which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousand of people, with no reference to the fact that the country that inflicted the terror on Lebanon was Israel, with U.S. backing. I still continue to be shocked at how mainstream commentators refer to "Israeli settlers" in the "occupied territories" with no sense of irony as they report on who are the aggressors in the region.

Of course, the largest and most shocking war crime of the second half of the 20th century was the U.S. assault on Indochina from 1954-1975, especially Vietnam, where over 4,000,000 people were bombed, napalmed, crushed, shot and individually "hands on" murdered in the "Phoenix Program" (this is where Oliver North got his start). Many U.S. Vietnam veterans were also victimized by this war and had the best of intentions, but the policy makers themselves knew the criminality of their actions and policies as revealed in their own words in "The Pentagon Papers," released by Daniel Ellsberg of the RAND Corporation.

In 1974 Ellsberg noted that our Presidents from Truman to Nixon continually lied to the U.S. public about the purpose and conduct of the war. He has stated that, "It is a tribute to the American people that our leaders perceived that they had to lie to us, it is not a tribute to us that we were so easily misled."

I was continually shocked and horrified as the U.S. attacked and bombed with impunity the nation of Libya in the 1980s, including killing the infant daughter of Khadafi. I was shocked as the U.S. bombed and invaded Grenada in 1983. I was horrified by U.S. military and CIA actions in Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina, and Yugoslavia. The deaths in these actions ran into the hundreds of thousands.

The above list is by no means complete or comprehensive. It is merely a list that is easily accessible and not unknown, especially to the economic and intellectual elites. It has just been conveniently eliminated from the public discourse and public consciousness. And for the most part, the analysis that the U.S. actions have resulted in the deaths of primarily civilians (over 90%) is not unknown to these elites and policy makers. A conservative number for those who have been killed by U.S. terror and military action since World War II is 8,000,000 people. Repeat--8,000,000 people. This does not include the wounded, the imprisoned, the displaced, the refugees, etc. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in 1967, during the Vietnam War, "My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence." Shocking and horrifying.

Nothing that I have written is meant to disparage or disrespect those who were victims and those who suffered death or the loss of a loved one during this week's events. It is not meant to "justify" any action by those who bombed the Twin Towers or the Pentagon. It is meant to put it in a context. If we believe that the actions were those of "madmen", they are "madmen" who are able to keep a secret for 2 years or more among over 100 people, as they trained to execute a complex plan. While not the acts of madmen, they are apparently the acts of "fanatics" who, depending on who they really are, can find real grievances, but whose actions are illegitimate.

Osama Bin Laden at this point has been accused by the media and the government of being the mastermind of Tuesday's bombings. Given the government's track record on lying to the America people, that should not be accepted as fact at this time. If indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of this action, he is responsible for the deaths of perhaps 10,000 people-a shocking and horrible crime. Ed Herman in his book The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda does not justify any terrorism but points out that states often engage in "wholesale" terror, while those whom governments define as "terrorist" engage is "retail" terrorism. While qualitatively the results are the same for the individual victims of terrorism, there is a clear quantitative difference. And as Herman and others point out, the seeds, the roots, of much of the "retail" terror are in fact found in the "wholesale" terror of states. Again this is not to justify, in any way, the actions of last Tuesday, but to put them in a context and suggest an explanation.

Perhaps most shocking and horrific, if indeed Bin Laden is the mastermind of Tuesday's actions; he has clearly had significant training in logistics, armaments, and military training, etc. by competent and expert military personnel. And indeed he has. During the 1980s, he was recruited, trained and funded by the CIA in Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. As long as he visited his terror on Russians and his enemies in Afghanistan, he was "our man" in that country.

The same is true of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who was a CIA asset in Iraq during the 1980s. Hussein could gas his own people, repress the population, and invade his neighbor (Iran) as long as he did it with U.S. approval.

The same was true of Manuel Noriega of Panama, who was a contemporary and CIA partner of George H. Bush in the 1980s. Noriega's main crime for Bush, the father, was not that he dealt drugs (he did, but the U.S. and Bush knew this before 1989), but that Noriega was no longer going to cooperate in the ongoing U.S. terrorist contra war against Nicaragua. This information is not unknown or really controversial among elite policy makers. To repeat, this not to justify any of the actions of last Tuesday, but to put it in its horrifying context.

As shocking as the events of last Tuesday were, they are likely to generate even more horrific actions by the U.S. government that will add significantly to the 8,000,000 figure stated above. This response may well be qualitatively and quantitatively worst than the events of Tuesday. The New York Times headline of 9/14/01 states that, "Bush And Top Aides Proclaim Policy Of Ending States That Back Terror" as if that was a rationale, measured, or even sane option. States that have been identified for possible elimination are "a number of Asian and African countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and even Pakistan." This is beyond shocking and horrific-it is just as potentially suicidal, homicidal, and more insane than the hijackers themselves.

Also, qualitatively, these actions will be even worse than the original bombers if one accepts the mainstream premise that those involved are "madmen", "religious fanatics", or a "terrorist group." If so, they are acting as either individuals or as a small group. The U.S. actions may continue the homicidal policies of a few thousand elites for the past 50 years, involving both political parties.

The retail terror is that of desperate and sometime fanatical small groups and individuals who often have legitimate grievances, but engage in individual criminal and illegitimate activities; the wholesale terror is that of "rational" educated men where the pain, suffering, and deaths of millions of people are contemplated, planned, and too often, executed, for the purpose of furthering a nebulous concept called the "national interest". Space does not allow a full explanation of the elites Orwellian concept of the "national interest", but it can be summarized as the protection and expansion of hegemony and an imperial empire.

The American public is being prepared for war while being fed a continuous stream of shocking and horrific repeated images of Tuesday's events and heartfelt stories from the survivors and the loved ones of those who lost family members. These stories are real and should not be diminished. In fact, those who lost family members can be considered a representative sample of humanity of the 8,000,000 who have been lost previously. If we multiply by 800-1000 times the amount of pain, angst, and anger being currently felt by the American public, we might begin to understand how much of the rest of the world feels as they are continually victimized.

Some particularly poignant images are the heart wrenching public stories that we are seeing and hearing of family members with pictures and flyers searching for their loved ones. These images are virtually the same as those of the "Mothers of the Disappeared" who searched for their (primarily) adult children in places such as Argentina, where over 11,000 were "disappeared" in 1976-1982, again with U.S. approval. Just as the mothers of Argentina deserved our respect and compassion, so do the relatives of those who are searching for their relatives now. However we should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the media and U.S. government into turning real grief and anger into a national policy of wholesale terror and genocide against innocent civilians in Asia and Africa. What we are seeing in military terms is called "softening the target." The target here is the American public and we are being ideologically and emotionally prepared for the slaughter that may commence soon.

None of the previously identified Asian and African countries are democracies, which means that the people of these countries have virtually no impact on developing the policies of their governments, even if we assume that these governments are complicit in Tuesday's actions. When one examines the recent history of these countries, one will find that the American government had direct and indirect influences on creating the conditions for the existence of some of these governments. This is especially true of the Taliban government of Afghanistan itself.

The New York Metropolitan Area has about 21,000,000 people or about 8% of the U.S. population. Almost everyone in America knows someone who has been killed, injured or traumatized by the events of Tuesday. I know that I do. Many people are calling for "revenge" or "vengeance" and comments such as "kill them all" have been circulated on the TV, radio, and email. A few more potentially benign comments have called for "justice." This is only potentially benign since that term may be defined by people such as Bush and Colin Powell. Powell is an unrepentant participant in the Vietnam War, the terrorist contra war against Nicaragua, and the Gulf war, at each level becoming more responsible for the planning and execution of the policies.

Those affected, all of us, must do everything in our power to prevent a wider war and even greater atrocity, do everything possible to stop the genocide if it starts, and hold those responsible for their potential war crimes during and after the war. If there is a great war in 2001 and it is not catastrophic (a real possibility), the crimes of that war will be revisited upon the U.S. over the next generation. That is not some kind of religious prophecy or threat, it is merely a straightforward political analysis. If indeed it is Bin Laden, the world must not deal only with him as an individual criminal, but eliminate the conditions that create the injustices and war crimes that will inevitably lead to more of these types of attacks in the future.

The phrase "No Justice, No Peace" is more than a slogan used in a march, it is an observable historical fact. It is time to end the horror.

In a few short pages it is impossible to delineate all of the events described over the past week or to give a comprehensive accounting of U.S. foreign policy. Below are a few resources for up to date news and some background reading, by Noam Chomsky, the noted analyst. The titles of the books explain their relevance for this topic.

For the most current information see www.commondreams.org

For information on how the media distorts the news see www.fair.org

For excellent links on the Middle East see al-awda.org/newyork/links.html

For background reading by Noam Chomsky see:

Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (with Ed Herman)
Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians Deterring Democracy



E-mail your comments to amirali@ilaam.net
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 01-31-2005, 03:48 PM   #45
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Jon, could you do me a favor and break down these numbers into categories of civilian casualties vs. armed combatants, those killed directly by US soldiers vs. non US soldiers, etc..., and coould you give us a little background on each of these conflicts... and could you please give an estimate in human lives the cost of the US not being involved in each instance? And why aren't the Germans and Japanese we killed mentioned?

Because without this perspective the above article is a bunch of meaningless drivel from a left wing propagandist indoctrinating American college kids.
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com