US policy is State Terrorism

[Nofuture]

Two things have initiated me to open this thread. The unfinished discussion with Bodacious (because the other thread being closed) and the recent speech of Bush (State Union).

Maybe you forgot that line right there. Prove to me that the US invaded Iraq for political gain and I will say that the US is a terrorist nation. Seeing as how the rest of the world has a great amount of dislike for the US I fail to see how the US invaded for political gain.

As I was talking about the USA, I didn´t mean only Bush and Iraq. I`ll come to it a bit later here.

en.wilkipedia.org

Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political goal. The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or random civilians.
…
The violence, i.e., terrorism, committed by state combatants is also considered more acceptable than that of the 'terrorist,' who by definition does not follow the self-serving laws of war, and hence cannot share in the acceptance given to establishment violence. Thus the term is impossible to apply by its rational definition - states who engage in warfare often do so outside of the laws of war and often carry out violence against civilian populations, yet rarely receive the label of 'terrorist.' The common public distinction between state violence and terrorism is based on a perception that terrorism is random, and therefore more irrational than state violence, which is assumed to be more considerate of human life. History does not always bear this out however, and language reflects this: few would question that deliberate attacks on civilian refugee columns and camps is an attempt to induce terror in the enemy population and is therefore a terrorist act. As such the most accurate definition of "terrorism" must be based in its abstract nature as a term for characterising the violence of an enemy as conforming to an immoral code of conduct.
...
State terrorism can be effected directly, at the hands of national military or security forces, or indirectly, through state sponsored terrorist organizations. States can terrorize their own populations, to secure rule and suppress dissent, or foreign citizens, to support favoured or destabilize unfavoured foreign regimes.

The distinction between state and nonstate terror has been criticized as distracting from or justifying official terrorism (Chomsky and Herman, 1979).
Some acts of state terrorism also qualify as genocide, democide, crimes against humanity or mass murder.

United States
A number of critics have labelled actions of the United States of America as terrorism. For instance, the US has taken sides in various foreign civil wars and conflicts, notably siding with Israel against other Middle East countries, often working with organizations with questionable human rights practices. The CIA, in particular, has been accused of supporting terrorist organizations in other countries. Such support has been labelled state terrorism.

Other actions have also been criticized as terroristic in intent.

The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is considered by some as another example of mass killing of civilians which went beyond the laws of war. This has been a highly debated issue over the years.
The legal defence for this action can be found in

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)

- 25 The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
- 26 The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
- 27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It was a bombardment of defended towns because countries had air defences. It was an arial assault so no warning need be given and all necessary steps as far as possible were taken. There were a number of legal arguments against this view, but unlike Karl Donitz, who was tried and found guilty of of waging "unrestricted submarine warfare" for which no one in the US Pacific submarine campaign was ever tried, (which is often cited as a case of Victors justice), as no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, "assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory", it is not possible to state categorically that that aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory during World War II was or was not a war crime.

The firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden during WWII, which killed many thousands of people, especially civilians, is also considered state terrorism by some.

Another example is the U.S. intervention in Chile.

The United States' military action against Nicaragua in 1984-1985 was criticized by some commentators as terroristic after the International Court of Justice, whose authority the US does not recognize, found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force".

The US Army runs the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation training camp, the successor to "The School of the Americas", in Georgia, USA where some of its graduates have gone on to commit acts of what others consider to be state terrorism in Latin America.

Culture of Terrorism in USA

At international level US track record of violence since World War II is incredibly high, as 23 countries have been subjected to bombings. … Moreover, in the Post-World War II USA assisted in over 20 different coups in the various parts of the world and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of heads of states.

There is also element of naked Machiavellianism in USAs strategic thought process. Two examples may be cited:

President Truman is reported to have said on 24 July 1941, the day Nazis invaded Russia: “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and in that way let them kill as many as possible”.

In the context of Iran - Iraq war Ramsey Clark says: “In contrast to its reaction to Iraq’s, relatively bloodless entry into Kuwait ten years later. Washington expressed no moral outrage at the 1980s Iraqis attack on Iran. The attack served US interests by weakening Iran and of course war against much larger Iran would weaken Iraq as well. Washington did not want either side to win”. Henry Kissinger said without moral pinch, “I hope they kill each other and too bad they both can’t lose”.

The plan in Afghanistan appears no different. The Northern Alliance is being promoted and encouraged to weaken Taliban. USA thus is prone to channelizing ‘anger’ and ‘revenge’ for strategic ends. The Pearl Harbour anger was directed to demonstrate the nuclear might of USA - as dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not serve any military logic. The Gulf War of 1990 was to ensure the full control of the oil wealth of Arab and the Gulf states and not to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait. The onslaughts on Afghanistan are for a similar gain - the rich reservoir of oil and gas in the Caspian Sea basin. The Dushambe Plan is contrived to atomise Afghanistan into various autonomous zones - the Great Old Game of Balkanization. How far USA and its allies could succeed in this dangerous adventure is hard to tell, but one thing can be said with relative certainty that ‘Afghan spirit’ has unique resilience to succeed and survive.

More to the gains:

The Vietnam war: War on communism.
In 60´s and 70´s dictators had been supported such as Somoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in Philippines or Mobutu in Zaire, as long as they were anti-communistic, using the motto: „Yes, he is a swine, but he is our swine”.

Since the 70´s the US foreign policy was partly composed on tactically based supporting of the governments of authoritarian regimes: E.g. Saddam Hussein, Mujaheddin in Afghanistan.

Saddam Hussein is made in the USA, there probably weren´t Al-Qaeda without the US support of the Mujaheddin. What about Bush-Bin Laden connection? US cause problems themselves and than scream: Terror, terror. What a hypocrisy!

Since the fall of the Sovjet Union the USA are the only one Superpower and according to their own concept the World Power making “New World Order”.


In Iraq matter we can also find purpose of political gain, e.g.:

To detract from inside issues such as economic situation. To fight terror: US has invented their theory about terror, to scare own people, to attract voters.

US Elections: What Happened? by Huck Gutman

Let’s start with that war. It is a near-truism of American politics that, to cite an adage so often repeated it has almost grown stale, “You don’t change horses mid-stream.” No American President has ever failed to be re-elected during the course of a war, although Lyndon Johnson in 1968, burdened with a war that like Iraq was costly and had no end in sight, chose not to seek re-election.

The current American President, faced with an act of terrorism on 11 September 2001, turned that tragic event into a “war on terrorism”. For that is what Bush always calls it, signaling his deep desire to fight terrorism with every resource the American nation has available. But a war on terrorism has no possible conclusion: there will always be terrorists, or the threat of terrorists, or the possibility of terrorists. (A corollary of the war on terrorism, in political terms, is that you can never change governments, because that would mean changing horses mid-stream.)

Thus, the war on terrorism itself had to be sold to Americans. To do that, Republicans reversed one of the boldest pronouncements made by an American President. In his first inaugural address in 1932, President Franklin D Roosevelt proclaimed, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” thus offering a American nation in the midst of economic depression an optimism that is nowhere in evidence today. Quite the contrary. The plan of Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political strategist, was to create a deep well of fear in Americans, and to get them to vote on the basis of that fear. When the WTC was attacked and demolished, Rove saw that it might be possible to convince Americans that no American, no community, would any longer be safe. Irrational and evil men from abroad could attack at any moment. No single school or shopping center was safe. People who had sworn to destroy Americans were liable to rise up anywhere, wreaking destruction and havoc on even the most serene or innocent American neighborhood.

Bush’s campaign strategy centered on showing that the incumbent President was a leader who could be trusted to command the USA in time of war, and to unmask Kerry as someone less than trustworthy or capable. Bush’s advisors insisted he keep the attention of the electorate focused on the war against terror, since they did not want voters choosing which candidate was better for the economy, or which candidate was attentive to the needs of the working and middle classes.

Besides political gain there is an other gain, Imo a more disgusting one: Economic. To assure the oil supply. By crashing the government (political gain).



From Bush speech (State Union):

"Our country is still the target of terrorists who want to kill many, and intimidate us all - and we will stay on the offensive against them, until the fight is won. “

“Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror“
“Mr Bush also singled out Syria, pressing it to "end all support for terror".

Isn´t it disgusting, a state, which makes a policy of state terrorism, supported terrorists itself, announces its goal fight on terror?

There’s a famous definition in the Gospels of the hypocrite, and the hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others. By that standard, the entire commentary and discussion of the so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception. Can anybody understand that? No, they can’t understand it.
Noam Chomsky, Power and Terror, 2003

Eleventh public hearing of the 9/11 Commission, with testimony by Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani. See the family members of the victims chastise the whitewash commission, where a family member of a victim says, "remmeber this, your government trained and funded Al-Qaeda" - as the rest of the 9/11 families applause.

Discussing the issue of the coming war on Iraq with an American English teacher someone of us, students, said: For US is so easy to start the war. Europeans use diplomacy, US not. That is a very sad thing.
The teacher said about Saddam being very dangerous because of the WMDs … Our position was to clear the matter internationally, not unilaterally.
The other thing I was disappointed of was that he was very astonished how can someone have such an opinion as we had …
How can someone be so arrogant to think that Europeans should agree with and support the US policy?!

Now we know for sure, who had right …


Conclusion: The USA supported terror, have been performing and perform now a lot of terror, what breeds more terror in the world.
Reformulating Bush´s phrase: Today, the USA remains the world's primary state performing state terrorism.

As long as this policy woun´t be changed, to hear from lips of the USA officials about war on terror is extremely hypocritical and ridiculous.

The world lost respect for USA. Is that clear or some of you here still think you are the greatest?


A time ago when I didn´t know the true face of the US politics I used to be a kind of US fan.
More or less I would like to be it again. Despite being extremely disappointed, I don´t completely reject this option.

But as long as the USA don`t admit their mistakes and at least don´t try to correct them and don´t change their politics, that´s impossible.

The policy which makes not friends but enemies. Even ones who were friends earlier, aren´t them any more...

Bth, I´ve heard US are getting a police state after 9/11. Should we now say the United States of Terror corresponding it to interior issues too? (Comparing with the Bush´s vocabulary axes of evil, US of Terror sounds rather harmless, doesn´t it?)

Police State

TOTAL POLICE STATE TAKEOVER

http://www.infowars.com/goodphotos.html

 

[UltraProAnti]

The United States' military action against Nicaragua in 1984-1985 was criticized by some commentators as terroristic after the International Court of Justice, whose authority the US does not recognize, found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force".

Actually the US was found guilty of state terrorism by the World Court (1986 to be exact), an open and shut case since the Contras were funded by the US and authorised to attack 'soft targets' (i.e. civilian targets) rather than the Nicaraguan military. The purpose of this was to force the Nicaraguan government (then in the middle of social reforms) to divert much-needed resources into dealing with the Contras, so that ordinary Nicaraguans would become disillusioned with the Sandinista government.

After the World Court ordered the US to pay huge reparations to Nicaragua, the US - to add insult to injury - put economic pressure on Nicaragua to abandon its claim to the money, which eventually it was forced to do. Further economic pressure ensured that Nicaraguans voted for the 'right' party (i.e. the US-backed pro-business party) in the (I think) 1988 elections. As a result, Nicaragua slid back into being a typical 3rd World basket case with huge inequality and widespread poverty. All of this was purposefully brought about by US (Reagan) policy.

 

[burner69]

There's no getting out of it, it's sick.

But there's no denying, we all do it - you need to to stay powerful. When human beings can't seem to get along, it seems it will always be like this. The US will fall from it's thrown, another country will spring up, and do just as many evil things.
It's a nasty world.

 

[KoreBolteR]

There's no getting out of it, it's sick.

But there's no denying, we all do it - you need to to stay powerful. When human beings can't seem to get along, it seems it will always be like this. The US will fall from it's thrown, another country will spring up, and do just as many evil things.
It's a nasty world.

youde like to know that the terrorists in iraq, iran and north korea are trying to get this role atm. all doing evil things as we speak i bet.

:sniper:

 

[jondy]

youde like to know that the terrorists in iraq, iran and north korea are trying to get this role atm. all doing evil things as we speak i bet.

If you want a decent debate or discussion, take the time to spell out posts correctly, and research your opinions instead of basing them on emotive, eye for an eye principles.

 

[Razor]

The truth is, no matter how many years Al Queda have been going, or how long Sadame would of been in power, or what sort of weapons North Korea have, when it comes to State Terrorism, no one has caused more "Collateral" damage then the United State's Administrations through the years....well, apart from Hitler, and possibly Stalin.

 

[KoreBolteR]

If you want a decent debate or discussion, take the time to spell out posts correctly, and research your opinions instead of basing them on emotive, eye for an eye principles.

wtf, my spelling? look i dont take my time lookin at my spelling, i know i'd generally typing mistakes when i spell a word incorrectly.

look jondy, when you say research. how the hell do i know what im reading and researching is true? u know the media are really pissing me off lately with thier motives to change people opinions, it jus proves that whatever the media say, thats it, people believe every letter of it. but not me.

how can you prove that your research isnt fake, and that the source jus wanted to add a few words into the article. its easily done, nobody can trust the media nowadats, and mostly the websites. every little detail of the mistakes made by americans and the west are posted everywhere, and non of the civilian killing terrorists are published.

biast, i heavily doubt the terrorists in iraq have done nothing. and of course n korea is a menace. i havnt got a clue whats goin on in Iran atm... and i guess none of us would ever know the real story, jus some fairytale stories made up or made look worse by the media. like i said, people swallow every bit of it. :x

 

[burner69]

The terrorists get a lot of media coverage. And to suggest we should concentrate on terrorists, rather than the US, shows a massive bias IMO, considering all the stuff the US (and other Western countries) have done around the world.

Totally off topic, where in Wales u from? I'm in sunny Aberystwyth! Yay!

 

[KoreBolteR]

The terrorists get a lot of media coverage. And to suggest we should concentrate on terrorists, rather than the US, shows a massive bias IMO, considering all the stuff the US (and other Western countries) have done around the world.

Totally off topic, where in Wales u from? I'm in sunny Aberystwyth! Yay!

im from Rhondda.

...but every time i see the paper it has anti-coalition statements in it.

 

[jondy]

You shouldn't expect to be respected if you can't be bothered to take the time to make sure your posts are readable. Might be just me :stare: but seems to me it should be the first thing you do. Nvm.

You have a valid point about media, up to a point - bear in mind that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Obviously all news sources are biased to a certain extent, but you shouldn't be so cynical as to disregard everything that comes from newspapers and television. The sources to watch are the sources with an agenda - owned by big companies with known political motives ( cough*FOX*cough ).

Bear in mind that some press sources - the BBC as an example, although they are not entirely unobjective - have built their name upon being reliable and factually accurate. It's no good turning a blind eye to everything in the media, because without any outside sources telling you what's going on further out than your backyard, you become ignorant, no matter how unbiased and untainted your opinion is by the media.

Pinches of salt, not the whole damn salting-keg buddy

-jondy

 

[The Mullinator]

I am 99% certain that you could easily find evidence to say that the policy of any country that is over 200 years old currently supports or did support "state terrorism" at one time.

 

[KoreBolteR]

You shouldn't expect to be respected if you can't be bothered to take the time to make sure your posts are readable. Might be just me :stare: but seems to me it should be the first thing you do. Nvm.

You have a valid point about media, up to a point - bear in mind that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Obviously all news sources are biased to a certain extent, but you shouldn't be so cynical as to disregard everything that comes from newspapers and television. The sources to watch are the sources with an agenda - owned by big companies with known political motives ( cough*FOX*cough ).

Bear in mind that some press sources - the BBC as an example, although they are not entirely unobjective - have built their name upon being reliable and factually accurate. It's no good turning a blind eye to everything in the media, because without any outside sources telling you what's going on further out than your backyard, you become ignorant, no matter how unbiased and untainted your opinion is by the media.

Pinches of salt, not the whole damn salting-keg buddy

-jondy

like you said, everyone is entitled to an opinion, you know what my opinion is, and if that makes me unrespectable to you, then so be it

 

[staticprimer]

I am 99% certain that you could easily find evidence to say that the policy of any country that is over 200 years old currently supports or did support "state terrorism" at one time.

But how many of them have declared a war on terrorism?

 

[kirovman]

The US will fall from it's thrown, another country will spring up, and do just as many evil things.
It's a nasty world.

It's going to be China next, most likely. It's difficult to tell if they will be more benevolant than the USA though. They seem a relatively peaceful nation from history (excluding Tibet, and their unchanging Taiwan policy).

However maybe they feel bitter from the past, when the western imperial nations trampled over them.

Or more rationally they invade Siberia or other Asian nations for resources.

Trouble is when nations get so much power they think they can do anything, despite contradiction to popular opinion. This is the source of their demise in my opinion.

 

[Absinthe]

Trouble is when nations get so much power they think they can do anything, despite contradiction to popular opinion. This is the source of their demise in my opinion.

The USA's heading down that path rather nicely.

 

[jondy]

The USA's heading down that path rather nicely.

Q.F.T >_<

 

[Razor]

It's going to be China next, most likely. It's difficult to tell if they will be more benevolant than the USA though. They seem a relatively peaceful nation from history (excluding Tibet, and their unchanging Taiwan policy).

However maybe they feel bitter from the past, when the western imperial nations trampled over them.

Or more rationally they invade Siberia or other Asian nations for resources.

Trouble is when nations get so much power they think they can do anything, despite contradiction to popular opinion. This is the source of their demise in my opinion.

China might already be there, it has an absolutely massive economy behind it now, the largest and pretty well equipped airforce, a good navy and a huge army as well. It would also have the support of countries like Russia when it comes to political support, seeing that it is a communist nation.

 

[The Mullinator]

But how many of them have declared a war on terrorism?

I am sure all of them have done equally hypocritical things during their own time of "state terrorism". Besides, hypocritical as it might be it is still hypocritical on the part of most other people outside the U.S. living in countries like Britain (which in the past have also done some pretty terrible things that could easily constitute state terrorism) and talking about the U.S. as if it is an evil overly powerful nation that does nothing but terrible things to the rest of the world.

 

[kirovman]

I am sure all of them have done equally hypocritical things during their own time of "state terrorism". Besides, hypocritical as it might be it is still hypocritical on the part of most other people outside the U.S. living in countries like Britain (which in the past have also done some pretty terrible things that could easily constitute state terrorism) and talking about the U.S. as if it is an evil overly powerful nation that does nothing but terrible things to the rest of the world.

True we did deal drugs in Asia around the end of the 19th Century, I'd call that at least criminal activity. But I think most of my countrymen would acknowledge that as evil, so it would be nice of the US government could show some remorse for their actions or recognition of what they are doing may be at least marginally wrong. I don't like their unwaivering "We were sent to do God's work" attitude (remembering GWB actually does believe he was sent by God).

edit: this is the same attitude taken by bin laden "we were sent to do God's(or Allah's) work"

 

[jondy]

I am sure all of them have done equally hypocritical things during their own time of "state terrorism". Besides, hypocritical as it might be it is still hypocritical on the part of most other people outside the U.S. living in countries like Britain (which in the past have also done some pretty terrible things that could easily constitute state terrorism) and talking about the U.S. as if it is an evil overly powerful nation that does nothing but terrible things to the rest of the world.

Perspective is important, but what happened in the past doesn't condone whatever shit happens in the future. State terrorism is still abhorrent.

 

[The Mullinator]

True we did deal drugs in Asia around the end of the 19th Century, I'd call that at least criminal activity. But I think most of my countrymen would acknowledge that as evil, so it would be nice of the US government could show some remorse for their actions or recognition of what they are doing may be at least marginally wrong. I don't like their unwaivering "We were sent to do God's work" attitude (remembering GWB actually does believe he was sent by God).

I don't know much about British history in the 19th century but I suspect the changes in government and popular opinion since the 19th century have been far more drastic than the changes taken place in the U.S. since WW2. Its easy to admit you were wrong when you can basically say that the nation was almost completely different at the time of the problem. After all most of the U.S. will now admit that the enslaving of blacks was a terrible thing in its history.

As for GWB's beliefs all I can say is that I really don't like him but he won't be in power for too much longer anyway so he really doesn't matter. The next president probably won't have nearly the same attitude as him.

Perspective is important, but what happened in the past doesn't condone whatever shit happens in the future. State terrorism is still abhorrent.

Your right it is still terrible, but just remember to keep in mind that the U.S. is not the only nation out there that has done evil. Chances are the country you live in (by you I mean anyone reading this) has done some pretty terrible things in its history as well.

 

[Razor]

I don't know much about British history in the 19th century but I suspect the changes in government and popular opinion since the 19th century have been far more drastic than the changes taken place in the U.S. since WW2. Its easy to admit you were wrong when you can basically say that the nation was almost completely different at the time of the problem. After all most of the U.S. will now admit that the enslaving of blacks was a terrible thing in its history.

As for GWB's beliefs all I can say is that I really don't like him but he won't be in power for too much longer anyway so he really doesn't matter. The next president probably won't have nearly the same attitude as him.

Your right it is still terrible, but just remember to keep in mind that the U.S. is not the only nation out there that has done evil. Chances are the country you live in (by you I mean anyone reading this) has done some pretty terrible things in its history as well.

We oppressed 1/4 of the world 100 years ago, but like you said, England has definately changed a lot since the first world war. Infact, i think it was both world wars that helped England go from the biggest empire in the world to what we are today, i.e. a far more diverse nation. America, right up until Pearl Harbour was a relatively weak nation without much influence or power, and then with all the weapons and tanks the American industry could churn out in World War 2, along with getting out of World War 2 completely unscratched, it is no surprising that they faired much better in the post World War 2 era, especially with the constant warnings about communist spies and the "evil" empire wanting to murder them in their sleep, they have grown to be very arrogant, very quickly.

 

[jondy]

I don't know much about British history in the 19th century but I suspect the changes in government and popular opinion since the 19th century have been far more drastic than the changes taken place in the U.S. since WW2.

Bear in mind Britain was moving away from monarchy at this point; you can't really compare the two.

 

[kirovman]

Bear in mind Britain was moving away from monarchy at this point; you can't really compare the two.

I don't really think it is about moving away from monarchy since that was done a couple of hundred years earlier with the Union of British nations (1700s?) and civil war(1600s?), all the monarchy had at this point was a figurehead role. Similar to today.

But the British Empire was based on trade and an early model of capitalism. They weren't interested in absolute rule, they just wanted a piece of the local wealth. Even if it meant sinking naval fleets because they didn't agree with the Opium trade.

Which can be given at least a moderate comparison with the USA today. (Although you can analogously replace the Opium trade with Starbucks, MacDonalds and Oil industry, in a vague kind of way).

 

[burner69]

As for GWB's beliefs all I can say is that I really don't like him but he won't be in power for too much longer anyway so he really doesn't matter. The next president probably won't have nearly the same attitude as him.
.

Don't be so sure. We're locked in it now. As soon as a politician comes along saying; hey guys, we really don't need to be invading all these countries, they aren't a threat - they'll just get no where. People genuinely believe the world is out to get them, and they'll vote for people who promise to tackle that problem.

 

[GhostFox]

Apparently the concept of having to support the lesser of two evils is beyond you people. Next you will want FDR disinterred and put on a pike for working with Stalin to defeat Hitler.

 

[Absinthe]

Apparently the concept of having to support the lesser of two evils is beyond you people. Next you will want FDR disinterred and put on a pike for working with Stalin to defeat Hitler.

Apparently, you can't grasp the simple fact that you're installing some of the worst people into power around the globe. Nor can you accept the fact that you knew very well how horrible some of these people were when you were doing business with them. You'd like to convince people that they were just bad mistakes and that people like Saddam were merely bad eggs that you had no idea would turn out to be so terrible. But that's BS.

So, come on now. Just own up to it and admit that you don't care who you work with, so long as it goes in your favor.

 

[UltraProAnti]

You have a valid point about media, up to a point - bear in mind that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Obviously all news sources are biased to a certain extent, but you shouldn't be so cynical as to disregard everything that comes from newspapers and television. The sources to watch are the sources with an agenda - owned by big companies with known political motives ( cough*FOX*cough ).

Bear in mind that some press sources - the BBC as an example, although they are not entirely unobjective - have built their name upon being reliable and factually accurate. It's no good turning a blind eye to everything in the media, because without any outside sources telling you what's going on further out than your backyard, you become ignorant, no matter how unbiased and untainted your opinion is by the media.

Pinches of salt, not the whole damn salting-keg buddy

-jondy

A news outlet can be factually accurate without telling the whole truth. After all, editorial decisions are made deciding what is and isn't 'news'. Mostly news outlets express their biases by suppressing the parts they don't deem to be 'news'. It isn't very common to simply make things up because these can be fact-checked and can ruin the reputation of the media outlet in question if they are found out. The BBC does this too, though probably not to the extent of Fox. US mainstream media in general is pretty notorious for this kind of suppression. For instance, the crimes committed under the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories are better known in Israel than in the US (Israel's sponsor) because those crimes are suppressed and ignored in the US. Strange but true.

 

[jondy]

Yeah, I realised about about an hour afterwards that I hadn't included the whole 'news selection' thing, but by that time I couldn't edit my post :O You're completely right.

 

[GhostFox]

Apparently, you can't grasp the simple fact that you're installing some of the worst people into power around the globe.

Honestly ask yourself why the US would do this? Why would the most benevolant nation that ever existed pusposfully instill horrible dictators? Why would a nation that maintains a huge army simply to protect the rest of the world, purposefully create instability. Why would a nation that has focused on spreading democracy for 200 years try to hurt democracy at the same time?

Do you have any reasons for your beliefs or do you just hold them simply because of your jealousy and anti-americanism? Most people are genuinely good people. Hitler wanted to rule Europe because he had syphilis and went crazy trying to wipe out jews. Muslims want to wipe out all non-muslims because of religious brainwashing. Do you see cause and effect?

So if you really believe your rediculous assertion, why don't you go back through-out the history of the US, and set down what travesty you think that govt. commited, and it's reasons for it. I would love to hear what you come up with.

 

[GhostFox]

The BBC is govt. controlled and thus subject to huge bias issues. No US news agency has anything close to being considered bias comparative to many worldwide news agencys. Al-Jazera is biased. Fox News just happens to have more Conservative commentaries.

Let me give you a for-instance. On US news networks as Bush's approval rating goes up and down, you hear more of less about people griping about him, but you always hear a lot because it's not like 100% of people voted for him.

In Canada Paul Martin's approval raiting has never been higher then Bush's. In fact the last poll put it at 41%, while Bush had 52% in the US. Yet there has never been a single negative word uttered about him on the CBC. And people here don't get it. They trust the CBC because it is run by the govt., and consider other news sources less reliable.

I am not a govt. conspiracy nut, but when the govt. controlls your news outlets, it is time to start getting worried.

 

[CptStern]

Honestly ask yourself why the US would do this? Why would the most benevolant nation that ever existed pusposfully instill horrible dictators? Why would a nation that maintains a huge army simply to protect the rest of the world, purposefully create instability. Why would a nation that has focused on spreading democracy for 200 years try to hurt democracy at the same time?

oh come on I can whip up a list in 2 minutes flat of democratic governments overthrown by the US

Do you have any reasons for your beliefs or do you just hold them simply because of your jealousy and anti-americanism?

I really really dispise this idea ..why do so many of you equate criticism with jealousy ..you know, the US isnt the best place in the world to live ..I have a source to back that up too :E

Most people are genuinely good people. Hitler wanted to rule Europe because he had syphilis and went crazy trying to wipe out jews. Muslims want to wipe out all non-muslims because of religious brainwashing. Do you see cause and effect?

*runs off to muslim secretary and asks if she wants to wipe out christians ...is met with blank stare*

So if you really believe your rediculous assertion, why don't you go back through-out the history of the US, and set down what travesty you think that govt. commited, and it's reasons for it. I would love to hear what you come up with.

hmmm maybe you should have a look yourself, look up operation paper clip, honduras, Zaire, Iran (1953), Guatemala, Laos, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile etc etc etc

 

[CptStern]

In Canada Paul Martin's approval raiting has never been higher then Bush's. In fact the last poll put it at 41%, while Bush had 52% in the US. Yet there has never been a single negative word uttered about him on the CBC. And people here don't get it. They trust the CBC because it is run by the govt., and consider other news sources less reliable.

.

you're kidding right? are you canadian? I am ...look up the sponsorship scandal

oh look here's his former boss being investigated for corruption

http://www.cbc.ca/

Paul martin is next to take the stand

 

[Tr0n]

These people need to watch that vid I posted and see the truth.

 

[GhostFox]

*runs off to muslim secretary and asks if she wants to wipe out christians ...is met with blank stare*

My mistake. I meant extremist muslims, not moderate muslims. I hold nothing against the muslim faith when it isn't used to abuse the people who follow it.

I can whip up a list in 2 minutes flat of democratic governments overthrown by the US

Please do. And please read my point. It is not that the US has never done that, only that it was the choice between a lesser of two evils at the time. Should we have left Hitler in power too?

hmmm maybe you should have a look yourself, look up operation paper clip, honduras, Zaire, Iran (1953), Guatemala, Laos, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile etc etc etc

Again, my contention is that the US govt. supported the lesser of two evils in those situations. If you disagree, please come up with a list of motivations that the govt. had to evily subvert democracy or what ever it is you are claiming.

I really really dispise this idea ..why do so many of you equate criticism with jealousy ..you know, the US isnt the best place in the world to live

Because we are not talking about criticism here. There is a difference between "US healthcare reforms are needed" and statements like "The US govt. is evil". Do you see the difference? The first is a well founded criticism, the second is a crazy assertion that usually comes from rabid anti-americans whose beliefs are usually fostered because of jealousy.

People will have their own ideas about the "best place to live", but you cannot deny the rampant jealousy of the US that has influenced Europe for almost 100 years. The US is unlike any other country to ever exist before it. It was probably a chance occurance that caused the specific formation. But that doesn't mean you can deny the sheer magnitude of the influence the US has on the whole planet. And how it has devoted itself to protecting and spreading freedom, rather then empire building as other superpowers always had.

 

[Absinthe]

Honestly ask yourself why the US would do this? Why would the most benevolant nation that ever existed pusposfully instill horrible dictators? Why would a nation that maintains a huge army simply to protect the rest of the world, purposefully create instability. Why would a nation that has focused on spreading democracy for 200 years try to hurt democracy at the same time?

Because you need to support yourself at any cost.

You put Saddam in power. And even when you were fully aware of his tyranny and oppressive methods, you stuck by him and vetoed a UN resolution against him. You supported Diem in South Vietnam, and the many more corrupt leaders that would follow. You illegally funded the installation of Hassanah Bolkia in Nicaragua. You pumped money into Chan Kai-Shek in Japan. You maintained business relations with South Korea's Park Chung Hee, despite his horrible human rights violations. And what about Pinochet? Or Pol Pot? Or Trujillo?

BTW, benevolence my ass. The majority of the USA's actions have been guided by self-interest and the securing of power rather than genuine kindness.

Do you have any reasons for your beliefs or do you just hold them simply because of your jealousy and anti-americanism?

Ouch. That really stings. You know, since you essentially said that I both envy and hate myself.

Most people are genuinely good people. Hitler wanted to rule Europe because he had syphilis and went crazy trying to wipe out jews. Muslims want to wipe out all non-muslims because of religious brainwashing. Do you see cause and effect?

The USA wants to trample out the opposition by whatever means possible. What are you getting at.

So if you really believe your rediculous assertion, why don't you go back through-out the history of the US, and set down what travesty you think that govt. commited, and it's reasons for it. I would love to hear what you come up with.

Go ahead and look up some of the names I've given you above. Fascinating little history lesson, I tell ya.

 

[GhostFox]

you're kidding right? are you canadian? I am ...look up the sponsorship scandal
oh look here's his former boss being investigated for corruption

I live in Winnipeg Stern. And no I am not kidding. Yes good 'ol Joe is being investigated, but Martin and Chretien have been at odds for years. Matin was the finance minister at the time. He is the one person who might be more involved in the SS then Chretien. Yet the only thing you hear about Martin is that he knew nothing about it. Hmmmmmmm.

I don't think Martin is a bad guy, I was actually a big supporter of his once. However he has followed the Chretien status quo of doing nothing in office and with the SS my support for him slips every day. And after reading all the letters to the National Post last week about all the people who only watch the CBC and listen to CBC radio, it scared me. It really did. I'm not saying the govt. is evil. But when it comes to influence in news sources, the less govt. interferance the better. If I could only arrange the downfall of the CBC and the Nazi CRTC, I'd be a happy man and Canada would be a better place.

 

[GhostFox]

OK...let me try to spell this out slowly for you. Let us say that the US put Saddam in power (obviously ignoring the historical fact that he siezed power in a bloody coup). What did the US have to gain from this?

I am not saying the US has never worked with bad people. But the police often use the thief to catch the murderer. Should they not be allowed to do that? Should the DA not give plea bargains to the guy selling the child pornagraphy to convict the child rapist?

The USA wants to trample out the opposition by whatever means possible. What are you getting at.

Oppisition to what?

 

[burner69]

There is a difference between "US healthcare reforms are needed" and statements like "The US govt. is evil". Do you see the difference? The first is a well founded criticism, the second is a crazy assertion that usually comes from rabid anti-americans whose beliefs are usually fostered because of jealousy.

People will have their own ideas about the "best place to live", but you cannot deny the rampant jealousy of the US that has influenced Europe for almost 100 years. The US is unlike any other country to ever exist before it. It was probably a chance occurance that caused the specific formation. But that doesn't mean you can deny the sheer magnitude of the influence the US has on the whole planet. And how it has devoted itself to protecting and spreading freedom, rather then empire building as other superpowers always had.

What? Believe me, very few people I know are in any way jealous of the US. I often wonder where this idea that the world is so jealous of the USA comes from, and why THAT used to explain why people slag it off. What is even more sick is when people claim 9/11 was about jealousy. Wake up people.

Yeah, the US have massive influence over the world, and tend to do things that benefit THEM. You might be able to say the "lesser of two evils", but only because the government asserts that anybody against them IS evil. Why did terrorists attack the US? Well, because they're jealous evil people of course.
Protecting and spreading freedom? Then why are innocent people being locked up for terrorism, with no evidence to hold them? Why are heavy export laws implaced on poor countries? Why did they sell WMD and chemical weapons to Saddam AFTER he gassed and killed 5000 innocent people? Why does the US give Israel millions of dollars in aid to help fight off the people who attack them, then sell the people who attack them 80% of their weapons? Why invade a country on a lie? Why let Hitler sweep through Germany, then only step in when attacked yourself?
Then there are the operations Stern mentions.


But of course, I'm green with envy, of course I'll bring this stuff up.

 

[CptStern]

My mistake. I meant extremist muslims, not moderate muslims. I hold nothing against the muslim faith when it isn't used to abuse the people who follow it.



Please do. And please read my point. It is not that the US has never done that, only that it was the choice between a lesser of two evils at the time. Should we have left Hitler in power too?



Again, my contention is that the US govt. supported the lesser of two evils in those situations. If you disagree, please come up with a list of motivations that the govt. had to evily subvert democracy or what ever it is you are claiming.



Because we are not talking about criticism here. There is a difference between "US healthcare reforms are needed" and statements like "The US govt. is evil". Do you see the difference? The first is a well founded criticism, the second is a crazy assertion that usually comes from rabid anti-americans whose beliefs are usually fostered because of jealousy.

People will have their own ideas about the "best place to live", but you cannot deny the rampant jealousy of the US that has influenced Europe for almost 100 years. The US is unlike any other country to ever exist before it. It was probably a chance occurance that caused the specific formation. But that doesn't mean you can deny the sheer magnitude of the influence the US has on the whole planet. And how it has devoted itself to protecting and spreading freedom, rather then empire building as other superpowers always had.

arggghhhhh!!! I was typing up my reply including a long list of democratic governments overthrown by the US ..and then I lost it all!!!!! stupid crashing IE. I'll re-type it when I get a chance later today