Detainees tortured to death by US military [Archive]

Merryprankster

03-28-2003, 07:14 AM

NYer,

I get my news from Australia, the BBC, translations of Al Jazeera, translations of Indian and Pakistani Newspapers, and translations of Le Monde. For consistent, well researched reporting, I still rely on the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Times (British), and Le Monde. I am hardly poorly informed, nor do I limit my news intake.

What I don't do, is decide on a point of view, then go hunting for information, without context, to back up what I have to say. I don't point my browser to opinion pieces or agenda pieces or "newspapers," with well known slants written by people who are trying to sell you their view. Usually, if I see something that piques my interest I start looking into it on my own. I usually find the situation isn't quite as dire or benign as people want to believe.

Let me give you an example--you and several other people on this board have claimed "it's all about oil." On the other hand, there is a good body of research out there--from think tanks, and other sources--not just "what the CIA said," suggesting that several of the reasons the current administration has articulated why we're there have some standing.

On top of that Nigeria is actually more important to the U.S. as an oil producing nation and several American oil companies are losing vast amounts of revenue because of ethnic tension there. ChevronTexaco has had to almost eliminate production. TotalFinaElf, the French oil company, is taking heavy hits too. The current military dictator cannot keep the tribes from killing each other or taking over the oil fields. The oil in Nigeria is light, sweet, crude--requiring little chemical or steam cracking and requiring little sulfur extraction. It's ideal for processing, which increases profit margins enormously. In addition, recently, deep water surveys have suggested their oil reserves are enormous.

Business HATES disorder. Civil Disorder means the economy doesn't work. It means oil doesn't flow. It means money doesn't get made. If it were all about the oil industry don't you think the United States administration would have been lobbying the U.N. to send "peace keeping," troops to Nigeria, instead of invading Iraq? It makes more sense to me, if it were really all about oil, to send peace keepers to Nigeria, increase our standing as a "humanitarian nation," and manage to make a tidy profit and perhaps install some friendly type folks in the Nigerian admin while we were at it, rather than engage in "Operation **** Off the World?"

If you believe the tenuous circumstantial evidence that oil companies and current administration are smart enough and wily enough to have some sort of giant conspiracy, how is they are too stupid to miss this?

You and several other people have claimed it's all about big oil and that France and Russia are doing the right thing--recognizing U.N. authority, and insisting on continued inspections. However, evidence suggests that there's more to it than "U.N. authority." France, Russia, and Egypt are Iraq's largest trading partners. Russia, in particular, has several oil interests in Iraq, and Iraq owes France and Russia quite a bit of cash --several billions in loans-- as I recall. In 2000, according to Iranian newspapers, over 1/3 of the delegates to an Iraqi Trade Conference were from TotalFinaElf. Other reports indicate that France, China, and Russia sent the most delegates overall. France and Russia have been repeatedly accused of consistently ignoring the U.N. trade embargo with Iraq, and have argued repeatedly in the U.N. for looser interpretation of the embargo's provisions.

Not exactly altruistic is it? Sounds too, like they "pick and choose," what to obey from the U.N. rather than recognizing their "authority."

Again, the problem I have with your "arguments," is that they aren't. You haven't taken the time to do any real research. You haven't bothered to learn anything about the situation. You haven't looked at anything in context. You've regurgitated points that fit with your world view, which I'm guessing hasn't been the result of much independant thought; based on your shoddy research capabilities and inability to articulate your POV. You make some pretty heavy assumptions about what I do and do not support, without ever having asked me. Then too you argue from a sense of smug moral superiority - and it is precisely that which I find intolerable.

Chang Style Novice

03-28-2003, 08:46 AM

For an american source (with a decidely leftist bent, but their editorial staff is very diverse) you might try salon.com, too, MP. They have really excellent writers and reporting staff.

Which pakistani papers are available on the web? I sometimes look at the India Times, but that's the only South Asian news source I peek at much.

Merryprankster

03-28-2003, 08:48 AM

Chang, I have access to FBIS information. A perk of my job--It's all unclassified translated material, but I don't know if they have an internet website.

Chang Style Novice

03-28-2003, 08:50 AM

dangit...FREE THE DATA! MEDIA CONCENTRATION IS KILLING INFORMED DEBATE! FOX NEWS IS NOT FAIR AND BALANCED REPORTING!

Merryprankster

03-28-2003, 09:01 AM

I should point out that I'm not limited to reading those papers. I hit whatever interests me. I find the Pakistan-India mess fascinating, so I read those sometimes. Usually, I stick with European and U.S. papers for reliable reporting. Developing nations all too often have newspapers as organs of a party.

Chang Style Novice

03-28-2003, 09:06 AM

I agree, but since deregulation of the press under Reagan, US media has gotten way too concentrated and focuses on the viewpoints of corporate interests way too much. Keeping a critical mindset is important when reading any news source.

I definitely prefer the Guardian to any US paper short of the NYT.

Merryprankster

03-28-2003, 09:10 AM

I find the Guardian a bit biased. But it does provide good leads for real research :D

Chang Style Novice

03-28-2003, 09:21 AM

I feel the same way about Artforum and Art in America. Why must I be interested in so much stuff?!?

GreyMystik

03-28-2003, 09:56 AM

check out www.disinfo.com
alternative stories, some you don't hear much about.
i agree with NYer's idea of getting news from multiple sources , and anyone who thinks they are getting the "pure unvarnished truth" from ABC, CBS, NBC, or ESPECIALLY FOX (where it has already been pointed out that they are not even NEAR "fair and balanced" like they claim to be) is QUITE naive.

Liokault

03-28-2003, 10:54 AM

Merryprankster

I get my news from Australia, the BBC, translations of Al Jazeera, translations of Indian and Pakistani Newspapers, and translations of Le Monde. For consistent, well researched reporting, I still rely on the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Times (British), and Le Monde. I am hardly poorly informed, nor do I limit my news intake.

Yet you are still bilnd because u like every one else only see what u want to see.

You want to belive America is the good guy and only kills bad guys. ...... You got it.

You want to belive that Saddam is a new saladin ..... You got it

You say u read the Times Merryprankster, their is a good bit about this topic in it today.

Merryprankster

03-28-2003, 11:02 AM

You want to belive America is the good guy and only kills bad guys. ...... You got it.

I'm sorry--which part of my posts have you not read? All of them? Oh. That explains it.

Secondly, I DON'T believe this. An example is NYer's persistent mention of Chile and Pinochet. The reason we did it was Cold War era anti-communism, plain and simple, coupled with a nice touch of the Monroe Doctrine and it's Roosevelt Corrollary. It was also completely unjustifiable.

Neither, however, do I believe that we're the anti-christ, which so many people desperately want to believe. I find the oil argument thoroughly implausible and have outlined why on several occasions. I've yet to receive a serious refutation backed up by anything other than tenuous circumstantial evidence to suggest otherwise.

My opinions are well-informed and shaped by available evidence. I have provided clear and articulable reasons based on current research and contextual information. You have responded with an ad hominem attack questioning my ability to objectively reason.

Saddam, for the record, is as far from Saladin as one could get. That man was a scholar-warrior in the finest sense of the word. A man of action tempered with a fine sense of mercy and justice. If Saddam were a later-day Saladin, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Why don't you provide some of your points and reasoning? I've yet to encounter any. It would be quite a novelty.

Archangel

03-28-2003, 11:22 AM

For me at least, this war is not about right and wrong; it's about the lesser of two evils. I've asked myself over and over again, what is more dangerous?

a) leaving a ruthless tyrant who has a history of brutality and genocide to possibly develop weapons of mass destruction

or

b) allowing the american government to impose it's will anywhere it wishes and dominate the globe without any checks or balances

Chang Style Novice

03-28-2003, 11:26 AM

Archangel is correct, with the caveat that opposition will inevitably arise as a result of the US being so aggressive in foriegn policy. I think it's a tough call which is a more grievous situation, although now tha the war has begun it's pretty much an academic question. Now the thing that requires our attention is how to wage this war and administer the aftermath in such a way that both our own national interests are well served and the fewest number of new enemies are created.

Liokault

03-28-2003, 11:38 AM

What part of my post did u not get Merryprankster?

I was not implying that Saddam WAS a new Saladin, but that if that is what you want to belive (and lots will want to belive it) then you will read into press reports that Saddam is indeed the new Saladin.

Your reaction to my post kind of proves my point. You read into my post what u wanted to see!!

Its interestring that you quoted and argued against the line;

"You want to belive that Saddam is a new saladin ..... You got it"

and not the line;

"You want to belive America is the good guy and only kills bad guys. ...... You got it."

Archangel

03-28-2003, 11:44 AM

"Yet you are still bilnd because u like every one else only see what u want to see."

Am I blind? I've seen both sides

Merryprankster

03-28-2003, 11:45 AM

Its interestring that you quoted and argued against the line;

"You want to belive that Saddam is a new saladin ..... You got it"

and not the line;

"You want to belive America is the good guy and only kills bad guys. ...... You got it."

For the visually impaired:

Secondly, I DON'T believe this. An example is NYer's persistent mention of Chile and Pinochet. The reason we did it was Cold War era anti-communism, plain and simple, coupled with a nice touch of the Monroe Doctrine and it's Roosevelt Corrollary. It was also completely unjustifiable.

Neither, however, do I believe that we're the anti-christ, which so many people desperately want to believe. I find the oil argument thoroughly implausible and have outlined why on several occasions. I've yet to receive a serious refutation backed up by anything other than tenuous circumstantial evidence to suggest otherwise.

Hmmmm....

Your reaction to my post kind of proves my point. You read into my post what u wanted to see!!

Pot... this is kettle....:rolleyes:

Ras-Tanu

03-28-2003, 12:13 PM

Found this link; kinda related to what NR was talking about, but on a larger scale:

Film Exposing Pentagon War Crimes Premieres in US (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/afgh-f12.shtml)

SLC

03-28-2003, 12:33 PM

"Yet you are still bilnd because u like every one else only see what u want to see."

I wonder whether you consider yourself included as part of "everyone else", or does that mean everyone else but you?

IF your comment is only basically true (everyone is blind but you), you, not being blind, will know all and see all. We, being blind, however, will not see your superior knowledge. We will not accept it. Then you will be a silly person, doomed to futility, completely wasting your time and ours.

IF your comment is COMPLETELY true, it includes you as well. Thus the blind presumes to lead the blind... one of nature's most humerous cartoons of futility.

Seems a bit of a logic problem, hmmm? ;)

shaolin kungfu

03-28-2003, 12:35 PM

LOL

Budokan

03-28-2003, 01:02 PM

Funny. People all over the world burn our flag, spit on our icons, sh*t on the Constitution, call us Imperialists, but when push comes to shove in the end phase of a war they'll stumble over themselves like Keystone Kops in order to surrender to us instead of the other guy.

I guess they just can't wait to get to all that good ol' American torture and brainwashing -- compared to a quick bullet in the brain which is what they'd get from their other enemies. Gee, imagine that. It is to laugh. No, not really. It's simply hypocrisy on their part. That simpleton burning an American flag and then running for the American lines so his life will be saved when the sh*t hits the fan is nothing but a hypocrite. Pure and simple.

There's a sh*tload wrong with my country. But it would behoove some people to educate themselves first. Then talk.

fa_jing

03-28-2003, 01:11 PM

NYerRoman : stop your whining, please

All government is at the point of a loaded gun. I just hate Europeans acting like WE THINK our government is some kind of God-granted force for good. Ignore those words coming out of our politicians mouths, we certainly do, and we'll return the favor with respect to your governments.

All of these bully and misinformation problems are just not particular to the US.

I got the same thing while I was living in Colombia - "you hate us, you want to invade us and take over, etc." They are wrong. The average american has NO opinion regarding Colombia. Although I do - I think we should stay the fu(k out.

Look at your own government if you want to know who's fu(king up your life.

Budokan

03-28-2003, 01:18 PM

Good point. Your average foreign American basher gives your average American WAY too much credit as far as intelligence goes. Most people in this country couldn't find Columbia on a map if they thought it would give them a toe-curling orgasm. Americans tend to be an ignorant bunch who only waste brain capacity to remember when the next "Survivor" or "Bachelor" show comes on or whether or not they'd like to supersize those fries along with their waddling buttocks. They sure as h*ll don't know anything even remotely approaching global geograpy or geopolitics, or science, or art, or mathematics, or architecture, or...well, you get the drift.

Sad, but true.

fa_jing

03-28-2003, 01:26 PM

First of all it's Colombia, not Columbia wise man. ;)

Also, just to make the point, many here don't know, don't care to know, etc, but one thing we do know is to take what our politicians say with a grain of salt, because they are a dishonest, want-to-brainwash you bunch of leeches. People generally vote because they think a candidate is the lesser of two evils, not because they agree with everything said leech says. So please don't act like we are buying it hook, line and sinker. Again, hopefully we won't hold you to what your politicans say either. It would be a sad day if all of humanity was judged by the words out of a rat fink politicians' mouth.

SLC

03-28-2003, 01:39 PM

I can agree, Budokan, to the extent that our ignorant masses will compete well with the ignorant masses of any nation. I think it is incorrect, though, to say that this is representative of all of Americans. Like all people, we go through our lives concerned about the things of daily relevance to us. It is not often that the geography of obscure countries finds daily relevance.

Hell, I don't even think much about obscure Georgia Counties.... let alone the relative predominance of the Shiites or Sunni Muslims in Baghdad.

I guess I'm catching up on that now though. :cool:

NYerRoman

03-28-2003, 02:00 PM

fa_jing....LOOSA'. I'm from NY. I am American. Thus the NYer part of my nickname....duh.
And besides my info are not told in whines. LOOSA' again.

Merryprankster....I mention Pinochet b/c he was a DICTATOR PUT INTO POWER BY THE US. A democratically elected leader was assassinated by the CIA.
AND YOU DEFEND THIS AS CONTAINING COMMUNISM????

Believe what you want in your bubble. I just don't want to be around when it bursts.
There is a world out here.

jun_erh

03-28-2003, 02:05 PM

Most reports frm gauntanamo were that the prisoners received very very good treatment. The main psycholgical tactic the US used was to attempt to disrupt their prayers, as a means of breaking them down. Agreeable prisoners were rewarded. Disagreeable ones were not.

Budokan- Survivor was originally a hit in Europe. Also, you are a stupid *******. Why are you posting on an American board if you hate Americans s much?

SLC

03-28-2003, 02:46 PM

NYerRoman: "I am American."

LOL!! Nah. Just saying that on an internet forum don't make it so, dude. Why would anyone so ashamed of something as you are, claim to be one? Probably just to be taken more seriously.

shaolin kungfu

03-28-2003, 02:50 PM

So by your reasoning, nobody protesting the war is american.

fa_jing

03-28-2003, 02:53 PM

NYerRoman - never said you weren't American you may have read it that way, but I always knew where you were from. You are also European since you live there.

Yes, I think you are a whiner.

Yes, I know the US has done some f'd up sh!t and that the world is NOT a better place for each one of these actions.

No, I do not oppose the war in Iraq.

fa_jing

03-28-2003, 02:55 PM

P.S. I also think you over-generalize and engage in other propogandistic tactics.

Our forum is certainly the better for having posters like MerryPrankster to answer wankers like you.

:mad:

FatherDog

03-28-2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by NYerRoman
Merryprankster....I mention Pinochet b/c he was a DICTATOR PUT INTO POWER BY THE US. A democratically elected leader was assassinated by the CIA.
AND YOU DEFEND THIS AS CONTAINING COMMUNISM????

Originally posted by MerryPrankster
Secondly, I DON'T believe this. An example is NYer's persistent mention of Chile and Pinochet. The reason we did it was Cold War era anti-communism, plain and simple, coupled with a nice touch of the Monroe Doctrine and it's Roosevelt Corrollary. It was also completely unjustifiable.

I don't think calling something "completely unjustifiable" can be considered defending it. MP mentioned this as an example of something that he is perfectly willing to admit A) happened, and B) was entirely unjustified on our part. He then explained that he doesn't believe that all of our actions are unjustifiable, and not all that we've been accused of has happened.

Seriously, are you even reading his posts before you respond to them? I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your point of view, but you're simply coming across as a nut, because you're making wild accusations at MP about things he hasn't said, in contrast to his calm responses where he cites sources and logical argument.

rogue

03-28-2003, 04:49 PM

It's obvious to me that the US is using real pikers. Pinocets death squads over all those years only 3,000? US sponsor Contras in Nicaragua only 30,000 and half of those were done by the Sandies? C'mon let's list the A-Teams of mass murder. Where are the communists regimes, the third world dictatorships sponsored by our European and Soviet friends, the idiotic genocidal wars in Africa? It's downright unfair to all those hard working murderers who toil away at their craft with no help from the US. :(

Liokault

03-29-2003, 11:08 AM

SLC

I wonder whether you consider yourself included as part of "everyone else", or does that mean everyone else but you?

Yes I mean every one including my self.....and further to the rest of your post I think the blind are indeed leading the blind but I myself do not pretend to be leading any one blind or not.

Merryprankster.

Im just going to stop replying to your posts as I think you just dont come close to understanding what I am talking about!!

NYerRoman

03-29-2003, 12:39 PM

I am American and I have a document that allows me to say what I want, even if it is against my government and their actions.

It's called the Bill of Rights.

I, American, am against this war and against ANY form of terrorism, imperialistic actions in the name of economic interests, and repression of ideas.

I, American, am tired of the egotistical and ethno-superiority complex of my country in the world. It does more harm than good.

I, American, am ashamed of other Americans telling me that if I place myself firmly against an action as disatrous as this war I am less of an American, if not anti-American.

I don't care what spin anyone puts on their opinions that "perhaps America does do bad things, BUT.....blah blah blah."
When it comes to military might, along with economic power, one must be very very careful to use it wisely.

Do we all go out on the street and cause fights and hurt people, then stand for non-aggression, then want to hurt someone who hurts people when we do the same thing?

What has your KF sifu taught you people? What really have we learned reading this magazine and forum?

Think.

SLC

03-29-2003, 02:57 PM

You can can call yourself a c0ckatoo if you like. Maybe that makes you one. That's what is funny about the internet. Call yourself anything you want. :D

Still, just having "NY" in your username and calling yourself an American doesn't make you one. :rolleyes:

NYerRoman

03-30-2003, 04:05 AM

NY is meant to indicate I was born and raised in NY.
Astoria, Queens, NYC, USA.

That makes me American.

I am.

NYerRoman

03-30-2003, 08:41 AM

uhm...duh.

Merryprankster

03-30-2003, 04:55 PM

Im just going to stop replying to your posts as I think you just dont come close to understanding what I am talking about!!

It would help if you could be bothered to explain yourself. Unfortunately, you can't seem to be.

If you mean that we're all subject to interpreting information through our own peculiar filter of perceptions, then 1. I agree with you, 2. that's a phenomenally BANAL observation.

rogue

03-30-2003, 06:18 PM

NY is meant to indicate I was born and raised in NY.
Astoria, Queens, NYC, USA.
That makes me American.

That also makes you my homeboy. :D Born Astoria General, lived by Steinway close to the Greek Church and around the block from Walkens bakery (that's Walken as in Christophers dad). Given your obvious good breeding where'd you go wrong?;)

For me I consider you anti-American because all your posts have focused only on American transgressions, real, imagined and misinformed.

NYerRoman

03-31-2003, 02:46 AM

Rogue....
Hey brother!
Born Astoria General, lived on 46th St. and 31st Ave..point of reference...Close to St. Joseph's. Murphy's candy store even closer. Now we're on 42nd and btw. 28th & Broadway.

You still there? I visit three times a year.

No, that does not make me anti-american. Anti-policy, anti-government action, yes. Where is the democratic control on these decisions?
We can't just vote these asses in and then sit back as they do what they please. That's what happens.

Stop with the whole "You've gone wrong" thing. I've already wrote why I mention these things.

Is Michael Moore anti-American? Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? Amazing movie.

Charlton Heston, NRA pres, admits on the film that violence in America is due to ethnic diversity. He didn't care very much about holding an NRA convention in Littleton after the Columbine shooting. Nor in Flint where the little girl was shot by a little classmate who brought his uncle's gun into school.

Is he anti-American or just a good American who quotes the constitution as his right to bear arms?

Then why am I anti-American if I use my right to freedom of speech?
The founding fathers spoke openly about not having the leaders doing what they want AND not having economic policy dominate political agendas. Especially Thomas Jefferson.

Later

Merryprankster

03-31-2003, 03:45 AM

Then why am I anti-American if I use my right to freedom of speech?

You aren't, necessarily. I do find it pretty fascinating that everytime I counter your "arguments," with some decent research and a sense of history--or FatherDog tells you to actually read my posts--you cease to exercise that right w/respect to anything I've said.

Just goes to show you that talking is easier than thinking.

Budokan

03-31-2003, 11:16 AM

"Budokan- Survivor was originally a hit in Europe."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Need we say more...?

" Also, you are a stupid *******."

Quite untrue. Actually I have a rather high IQ. *smug look* Oh, and I'm better than you, too. Just thought you'd better know before you make yourself look even sillier.

"Why are you posting on an American board if you hate Americans s much?"

Here's where I'm going to rip you a new one, you sh*t-sucking ratf*ck. I'm not like most of these weak-kneed liberals who are unwilling to fight narrow-minded hatemongers like yourself who think that everyone should think the same. I fight back. Your humiliating and public destruction now commences:

I am an American. I pay my taxes. The Constitution (you know, that rag your kind tends to wipe their butts with) and the Bill of Rights (you know, those rules you only pay lip service to) guarantee me the right to say whatever I want, as long as I'm willing to pay the consequences. And since the consequences appear to be getting on your bad side, well then who the fug cares whether or not you're happy with it? Go back to masturbating with the flag and pretending that your narrow-minded worldview isn't intolerant. Oh, and if you have any other problem with that then feel free to come by:

102 Dixson Road
Brandon, MS

I'm open 24/7 and will be more than happy to beat you to f*cking death for telling me that I don't have the right to say what ever I want to say in my own godd*mn country. Motherf*cking Nazi.

And that's my last word on the subject with YOU, sh*tweed.

Black Jack

03-31-2003, 12:34 PM

Micheal Moore is a piece of fat whale s.h.i.t.

He is a rich fat white guy preaching about other rich fat white guys. Bowling for Columbine was a dried cake of propoganda vomit on gun control.

Total Puke.

NYer- There is a difference between criticism and wishing a country ill.

Rogue has you pegged right. Your motivations are crystal clear to me.

Ryu

03-31-2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Budokan
Good point. Your average foreign American basher gives your average American WAY too much credit as far as intelligence goes. Most people in this country couldn't find Columbia on a map if they thought it would give them a toe-curling orgasm. Americans tend to be an ignorant bunch who only waste brain capacity to remember when the next "Survivor" or "Bachelor" show comes on or whether or not they'd like to supersize those fries along with their waddling buttocks. They sure as h*ll don't know anything even remotely approaching global geograpy or geopolitics, or science, or art, or mathematics, or architecture, or...well, you get the drift.

Sad, but true.

Best post ever!!! :D :D

Ryu

NYerRoman

03-31-2003, 02:20 PM

Blackjack - the country is already ill. Aren't you getting it? It's not working. The signs are obvious.

Do you not see it? Peter Arnett is fired b/c he wasn't patriotic enough? He said nothing wrong! He said the US army underestimated Iraqi resistance.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/893115.asp?cp1=1

Come on. Wake up. I want the country to get better. It's not. Increasing military spending is not going to help the American people. Therefore....
Bowling for Columbine was phenomenal.

Merry..I've responded already.
I may email ya perhaps.

Black Jack

03-31-2003, 02:44 PM

Nyer- You are a thoroughbred fool.

Just like heart attack waiting to happen Moore, Peter Arnett is a another piece of s.h.i.t.

He should of been fired a LONG time ago. You should get your history straight on this bonafide fleck of flith. Ask some Vietnam vets what they think of this proven LIAR and his anti-american reporting. A fairy tale he once made up concerning sarin nerve gas and our troops in Vietnam.

It would not suprise me if he and Moore were using their Oscar and Pulitzer to double dong each other to the rythem of a Back Street Boy'z tune.

Merryprankster

03-31-2003, 04:44 PM

No you've not. 'less I'm blind.

I've no interest in cluttering my inbox with your e-mail unless you show more thought there.

jun_erh

03-31-2003, 05:59 PM

Budokan - so are you saying that Europeans are stupider than Americans?

When did I ever say you didn't have the right to come on here. I thought yu were from anther country and wndered why you tortured yourself. Who cares what you think.
We're all aware of the "alternative " view on this issue. I listen to the commie news (bbc, Democracy Now, etc) in my car every day, mostly for variety. I've listened to it and evaluated it as ****. alot of little points and no knockout punch. None of them have figured out how to get rid of hussein in less time and with less casualties than George Bush. So what good are they?

jun_erh

03-31-2003, 06:47 PM

I will never understand for the rest of my life why the hell he said that ****

joedoe

03-31-2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by jun_erh
I will never understand for the rest of my life why the hell he said that ****

Probably because like many other people he was fooled into thinking that the war would be over in a week, and when it wasn't he figured they'd failed.

But let's be fair, I don't think the military planners expected this kind of resistance nor the tactics that the Iraqis are now using. GWB certainly doesn't appear to have anticipated this.

NYerRoman

03-31-2003, 07:07 PM

Merry,....fatherdog and others....
Says the man who probably never read the other threads that I posted and you responded to. Did you answer the questions in the other thread?....ok...I'm game. You insist I give circumstantial evidence. No. I have given facts. CIA kills Allende and puts Pinochet into power. FACT. Do you really need a source. Try CIA documents released in the Freedom of Information Act.
Everything I've stated comes from fact and MY personal opinion on the subject. No UN approval? The war is not justified, apart from the fact war is hardly justified in the majority of cases. UN vetoes since 1972? Check UN archives. I did. It's public info. Check your library. Check google for listings. I'm not making this up. I read Chomsky, yes. He gives a lot of info. Read his UNDERSTANDING POWER. Go to www.understandingpower.com for all the footnotes and sources in the book. There are 500 pages.

He talks about false footnotes in his book coincidently and how an author faked all the footnotes in a book on Israel and how a Princeton student found out and reported it. The poor kid was a grad student. Never got to the doctorate. ****ed the intellectual class off.

NYTimes and Washington Post in my opinion DO NOT have well researched articles. They sput out anything that is corporate friendly. If it is bad or neutral for corporate America, they'll write about it. Let's not even mention Israel. The bias of those two papers, as well as the American ones in general, is atrocious. They reflect the political climate in the Congress and White House who are owned by the rich and corporations. Money buys a lot of power. Not very "freedom of press" now is it?

This war is about oil and US company interests in the "after-War party". I already quoted the Economist in one thread. You look for it. I hardly feel the CIA is a viable source of unbiased information regarding the sway of public opinion.

You mention Nigeria and the need for stable governments. That is why Saddam was our ally. He quelled uprisings. That's why the US supported the Taliban rise to power over the Northern Alliance. They brought stability in order to start negotiations for the oil pipeline that's NOW being built.
Do a search on UNOCAL. You'll find it quite interesting. They're building it. Oh, they have connections to the Bush administration. Big surprise.

Oh yeah, Afghan President Harmid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant.

That is taken from RAI, La Repubblica.
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/speciali/rashid/bridas_unocal.htm
I've seen that in the Guardian, the Independent and a Chomsky interview. (I cannot give you the Repubblica link nor UN archives. One must be a paying customer to have access, even in a link)
I found a lot of info in the book LA VERITE' INDERDITE by two French corporate investigative journalists, Brisard and Dasquie'. It is translated into many languages. I don't know if it is translated into English.

Now if this new war, outside the Afghan crap, is not about oil, then pal...you gotta open your eyes. Why are we not in Burma then? Or in Zimbabwe?
Let alone the crap we did in South and Central America. AND NO I DON'T CARE IF IT WAS A POLICY AND BLAH BLAH BLAH. We interened and killed a lot of people there. Cannot be justified. Governments were elected democratically in El Salvador, Chile, Nicuragua, etc... You cannot use communism, Cold War, Monroe Doctrine, etc. to justify violations of international law when people were massacred. Feels nice saying it is all protected in your house, doesn't it?

Therefore I've read your messages. You can't say, "well it was unjustifiable and horrible...BUT we did do this and we were put in a situation..." NO. That's not precedent setting and not conducive to international affairs. I have a masters in it. It allows people like Saddam to do what he pleases, and Israel, and African leaders, and Osama and....etc.

You stand for something, you better stand for it.

Business does hate chaos. And I would never defend Russia, France, etc. I'm talking about the instigator in all of this - the US. I don't see France starting a war over their interests (I know all about Algeria. It was a tragedy and France has a lot to answer for). I don't think they're heroes at all.

The point is the UN's authority needs to be strengthened. We cannot go on having the US ignore World Court decesions against it nor starting wars without UN approval.

I can continue you know. But I'm off to bed.
later brother.

NYerRoman

03-31-2003, 07:10 PM

And Peter Arnett said it b/c it was true. There is Iraqi resistance. Oh heaven forbid. Fired for that....

It wasn't sh it and what happened to freedom of the press?

I'm shocked and surprised there isn't any protests.
I've been told reports are being very very cautious. That is not freedom folks.

joedoe

03-31-2003, 07:28 PM

I gotta say I was surprised that he was sacked for saying that, but I guess it is the right of his employer to do that. It does call into question freedom of the press, and even freedom of speech doesn't it?

Christopher M

03-31-2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by NYerRoman
This war is about oil...

Out of curiosity, what is the specific proposed mechanism for Bush's monetary gain from oil market changes due to the war?

Black Jack

03-31-2003, 07:57 PM

Nyer- Hate to break it to you lady but unless you are in the pentagon war rooms and have access to that level of military intelligence....YOU DON"T KNOW S.H.I.T.:rolleyes:

Again Arnett is a draft dodging a.s.s.hole. He is a proven liar and traitor. They should of pulled his passport and left his fat ass in Iraq to get butchered by Saddam's murder squads he seems to love so much.

joedoe

03-31-2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Black Jack
Nyer- Hate to break it to you lady but unless you are in the pentagon war rooms and have access to that level of military intelligence....YOU DON"T KNOW S.H.I.T.:rolleyes:

Again Arnett is a draft dodging a.s.s.hole. He is a proven liar and traitor. They should of pulled his passport and left his fat ass in Iraq to get butchered by Saddam's murder squads he seems to love so much.

I may not have gotten the full story of what he has done - why is he a liar and traitor?

rogue

03-31-2003, 08:18 PM

National Geographic Fires Peter Arnett

National Geographic News
March 31, 2003

National Geographic severed its relationship with reporter Peter Arnett today, citing his expression of "personal views" on state-controlled Iraqi television about what he said were failures of the U.S. war strategy.
Arnett, who has been reporting on the war from Baghdad, has apologized to the television companies and the U.S. people for his "misjudgment."

The statement released by the National Geographic Society said the following:

"National Geographic has terminated the service of Peter Arnett. The Society did not authorize or have any prior knowledge of Arnett's television interview with Iraqi Television, and had we been consulted, would not have allowed it.

"His decision to grant an interview and express his personal views on state-controlled Iraqi Television, especially during a time of war, was a serious error in judgment and wrong."

NBC News President Neal Shapiro said in a statement published on MSNBC.com: "It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TVespecially at a time of war and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview. Therefore, Peter Arnett will no longer be reporting for NBC News and MSNBC."

Arnett apologized for the interview in an interview on NBC's Today show this morning.

"I want to apologize to NBC, MSNBC, National Geographic EXPLORER and the American people for clearly making a misjudgment by giving the interview to Iraqi Television," Arnett said. "Clearly by giving that interview I created a firestorm in the United States, and for that I'm truly sorry."

Arnett was in Baghdad to work on a documentary for National Geographic EXPLORER, a documentary TV series that airs on MSNBC. He covered the gulf war in 1991 for CNN.

Source (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0331_030331_arnettfired.html)

I believe that he's a Kiwi so I don't think he's a traitor to the UK or US, but his reporting has been erratic over the years so he may be a liar. And he is an egomaniac.

NYR, I have only been back for a few funerals. You may have mentioned it before but what are you doing in Rome?

In regards to "It wasn't sh it and what happened to freedom of the press?".
MSNBC is a distant third behind CNN and Fox News. With 70% of the US population supporting the war Arnetts editorials would put a stake in MSNBCs heart. The freedom of the press had nothing to do with the firing but advertising did.

joedoe

03-31-2003, 08:21 PM

Yeah he is a Kiwi, but a naturalised Yank so I was told.

I still don't see how he is a traitor for expressing his opinion. It was silly of him to give an interview on Iraqi TV, but it is not like he has betrayed any national secrets or anything has he?

Laughing Cow

03-31-2003, 08:27 PM

Looking at how antsy the americans are at the moment it doesn't surprise me.

Right now I reckon anything anybody sez that does not jive with their view appears to be atuomactially labeled anti-war, anti-us, traitor, saddam lover, etc.

Heck, most of them haven't even caught on that being anti-iraq war does not equal being pro-saddam or thinking he is a good guy.

Looks like the swallowed the "You are either with us or against us." not just hook, line and sinker, but angler and fishing boat too.

Seeya.

rogue

03-31-2003, 08:52 PM

I don't believe that being a pacifists and opposing the war makes one anti-US or anti-UK, but opposing the war because it's the US and UK deposing a monster and not the UN does. After all isn't the idea to get rid of the monster as quick as possible? Remember in Somalia it was the US Marines that made sure the food got delivered not the UN.

I think in the long run this costly field trip will be worth it. Heck I think in the short run it's already worth it.

Source ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030331_1922.html)

BIYARE, Iraq March 31 —
A U.S.-led assault on a compound controlled by an extremist Islamic group turned up a list of names of suspected militants living in the United States and what may be the strongest evidence yet linking the group to al-Qaida, coalition commanders said Monday.

The cache of documents at the Ansar al-Islam compound, including computer discs and foreign passports belonging to Arab fighters from around the Middle East, could bolster the Bush administration's claims that the two groups are connected, although there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.

There were indications, however, that the group has been getting help from inside neighboring Iran.

Kurdish and Turkish intelligence officials, some speaking on condition of anonymity, said many of Ansar's 700 members have slipped out of Iraq and into Iran putting them out of reach of coalition forces.

The officials also said a U.S. missile strike on Ansar's territory on the second day of the war missed most of its leadership which crossed into Iran days earlier.

U.S. officials said the government had reports some Ansar fighters could have made it into Iran and have been shuttling back and forth with fresh supplies.

According to a high-level Kurdish intelligence official, three Ansar leaders identified as Ayoub Afghani, Abdullah Shafeye and Abu Wahel were among those who had fled into Iran. The official said the three were seen being detained by Iranian authorities Sunday.

"We asked the Iranian authorities to hand over to us any of the Afghan Arabs or Islamic militants hiding themselves inside the villages of Iran," said Boorhan Saeed, a member of the pro-U.S. Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. "We asked them about it Sunday, and still don't have a response."

Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned the Iranians to stop meddling in the war. Tehran denied any involvement.

Using airstrikes and ground forces, Kurdish soldiers and U.S. troops have cooperated in the past week to dislodge and crush Ansar militants in 18 villages surrounding the Iraqi city of Halabja about 160 miles northeast of Baghdad.

"We actually believe we destroyed a significant portion of the Ansar al-Islam force there," Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, vice director of operations on the Pentagon's Joint Staff, said Monday. He said forces were investigating the finds.

Among a trove of evidence found inside Ansar compounds were passports and identity papers of Ansar activists indicating that up to 150 of them were foreigners, including Yemenis, Turks, Palestinians, Pakistanis, Algerians and Iranians.

Coalition forces also found a phone book containing numbers of alleged Islamic activists based in the United States and Europe as well as the number of a Kuwaiti cleric and a letter from Yemen's minister of religion. The names and numbers were not released.

"What we've discovered in Biyare is a very sophisticated operation," said Barham Salih, prime minister of the Kurdish regional government.

Seized computer disks contained evidence showing meetings between Ansar and al-Qaida activists, according to Mahdi Saeed Ali, a military commander.

It was unclear how strong Ansar remains.

Officials from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of two parties that share control of an autonomous Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq, say they killed 250 Ansar members during two days of intense fighting and aerial bombardments.

"There was ferocious fighting," Saeed said. He said he chased 25 Ansar militants across the Iranian border and captured nine Ansar sympathizers belonging to a group called the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan.

The remaining Ansar fighters are thought to be in the mountains along the Iraq-Iran border, U.S. and Kurdish military officials have said.

Kurdish soldiers on Monday continued sporadic fighting in several villages around Halabja and along the Iran-Iraq border near the village of Sargat, site of a destroyed building once allegedly used by Ansar militants to produce poison.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday the Sargat compound was probably the site where militants made a biological toxin, traces of which were later found by police in London.

"We think that's probably where the ricin that was found in London came (from)" he told CNN's "Late Edition." "At least the operatives and maybe some of the formulas came from this site."

British police raided a London apartment in January and found traces of ricin, a powerful poison made from castor plant beans. U.S. officials believe the poison and those arrested were linked to Ansar.

The group's leader, Mullah Krekar, is being held in Norway on charges of kidnapping and aiding terrorists.

Krekar has denied any links to Saddam or al-Qaida, but said he considers Osama bin Laden a "good Muslim."

In a recent interview with Dutch television, Krekar said his fighters would use suicide attacks if U.S. troops went after the group.

One such attack came three days into the war when an apparent car bomb killed at least five people, including an Australian cameraman, at a checkpoint near an Ansar training camp.

Associated Press Writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report from New York.

joedoe

03-31-2003, 09:05 PM

I still don't follow how he can be labelled a liar and a traitor. Sorry, maybe I am a bit slow today.

Laughing Cow

03-31-2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by rogue
I don't believe that being a pacifists and opposing the war makes one anti-US or anti-UK, but opposing the war because it's the US and UK deposing a monster and not the UN does.

The people are opposing the war because there IS an international standard and arbitration body for conflicts like this.

People are opposed to the UK and US for taking things into their hands and telling the rest of the world that we are useless, irelevant, outdated(old europe), wimps, etc.
It is that type of gung ho attitude that people are opposed to.

They are also opposed because the UN will most prolly have to fund the rebuilding which comes out of OUR tax-monies and we will pay for something that we were opposed to in the first place.
Example:
Japan would have to fund 20% as that is their share of contributions to the UN, I dout that their economy at the moment can afford that nor that the situation is that different in many countries.

Naturally goverments don't care, but it is the citizens that food the bills, etc.

International air-travel and businesses are already affected by the war and the WHOLE world feels the impact of the war and likely for many more years to come.

The world is different, more inegrated than it was 20yrs ago.

But I gues what I just said is totally wasted and will be attacked by many people.

Seeya.

Black Jack

03-31-2003, 09:18 PM

Rogue- Its not just this current news. He has a track record of this kind of anti-american behavior going back to the Vietnam War and his so-called reporting.

Joe- It's called sedition. It is part of the May 16th, 1918 Sedition Act. Something that the government should start enforcing IMO.

I would say he falls into this line- "promote the success of its enemies or willfully make or convey false reports or false accusations."

The Sedition Act would also do a good job of covering war protestors bent on being more than just critical.

joedoe

03-31-2003, 09:24 PM

So does the Sedition Act override the Bill of Rights?

Black Jack

03-31-2003, 09:30 PM

Joe- Good question.

In wartime I believe it does as that was its intention in creation though I am sure you will get different answes from different civil lawyers and historians.

I don't think you will see it used but again IMO it would be a good tool to bring into play.

I believe they used it in ww2 and Korea?

joedoe

03-31-2003, 09:32 PM

Interesting stuff. And here I was thinking that the US Bill of Rights was a statement of the inviolable rights of the people of the USA.

NYerRoman

04-01-2003, 03:22 AM

Rogue - I can't follow your logic to the anti-american comment. The UN could not sanction a war in Iraq without a reason. The UN cannot just go into a country and depose a leader without a really serious reason and/or violation of international law.
Therefore I don't think it's anti-American to oppose the US and the UK in this matter.
Why should one be considered a traitor for not supporting this?

These infractions and curbs on the freedom of expression, press, speech, thought are dangerous and THAT is the real anti-American way of thinking.

To give you a source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/0,12271,759893,00.html

Blackjack - do you think journalists in general that criticise the gov't are traitors? Not the Arnett Vietnam story, but move beyond that.
James LaMoyne comes to mind from the NYTimes. Why is he not made a hero? He reported from El Salvador two people tortured by left-wing guerillas. It was a tactic to get more US support for the US client regime placed there despite its atrocities. The NYTimes published it. It was distributed to Congress by the State Dept to get more support to the El Salvadorian gov't.
BUT F.A.I.R. (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting - organization that monitors articles..not very effective though) picks up on this from another journalist in Central America, Chris Norton, who exposed it as a fraud. The place and people this happened in and to NEVER existed due to the fact journalists were never allowed in the area. So this Norton guy goes as close to the region where it "happened" and finds that one victim doesn't exist and the other was perfectly fine. Then finds out the story was from an El Salvadorian army officer. F.A.I.R. demands the NYTimes retract the story. Nope. They wouldn't. Until The Nation publishes it and word was getting around. Then they did.

LaMoyne writes another story on arms and the F.M.L.N. in El Salvador having "ample evidence". The World Court didn't know about it. The CIA didn't know about it. F.A.I.R. requests evidence. None given. The US triples its supply to the contras b/c of it.
A year and a half later, the NYTimes retracts the story. By that time, more people were killed in Central America due to these contras. US condemned for int'l terrorism.

Understanding Power (footnotes - www.understandingpower.com chapter 4 pp.114-116)

And Peter Arnett is a monster for speaking his mind, saying what is actually the truth about what's going on?
I don't care if it's war time and people don't want...and etc.
His thesis on the war has been already reported here, in UK papers, in European papers, etc. What he said was not a lie or distortion. It was a valid criticism.

example of source for those that read Italian:
http://www.repubblica.it/online/esteri/iraqattaccosedici/generali/generali.html

Therefore his error in judgement was underestimating the "retards'" (Stumblefist's words) mentality in America that his interview wouldn't be accepted.

You're right joedoe, The Bill of Rights is inviolable. But obviously it can be broken to serve a mob mentality. So much for a civil society.

Merryprankster

04-01-2003, 04:56 AM

I read your entire post NYer--I thought about it carefully, and I've come to the conclusion that you need better writing skills. It's disjointed and almost unreadable. I give you a B for effort and a D- for execution. I realize you're very passionate about this issue, but sputtering about it won't help. Take a tea break and make an outline when you try to communicate with us. It might help.

Secondly, you'll note that I cross reference my reporting. I don't rely on one source to provide the full story--because singular source reporting is invariably not quite accurate. The NY Times and the Washington Post remain two of the most accurate and reliable papers in the United States. There is a reason they are read by intelligensia worldwide, much like those of us who want to know a little bit more listen to the BBC, C-SPAN, read the London times whenever possible, etc.

And to rip you a new one point by point...

You insist I give circumstantial evidence.

You do. It will be discussed shortly.

No. I have given facts. CIA kills Allende and puts Pinochet into power. FACT. Do you really need a source. Try CIA documents released in the Freedom of Information Act.

Nobody has argued this one. We're in agreement here, and your statement is factual in this instance. However, one instance does NOT a trend make.

Everything I've stated comes from fact and MY personal opinion on the subject.

Now we're starting to get somewhere. It's almost making sense.

No UN approval? The war is not justified, apart from the fact war is hardly justified in the majority of cases.

ok.

UN vetoes since 1972? Check UN archives. I did. It's public info. Check your library. Check google for listings. I'm not making this up.

You're right, you weren't. This was never my point. Your list is undoubtedly accurate. Provide historical context, rather than a laundry list and you've got what we call RESEARCH here in the real world! Funny that. As statiticians put it "correlation is not causation," in other words, the data mean nothing without understanding the context behind the data.

I read Chomsky, yes. He gives a lot of info. Read his UNDERSTANDING POWER. Go to www.understandingpower.com for all the footnotes and sources in the book. There are 500 pages.

I read Pat Buchanan on U.S. immigration. Catch my point or shall I spell it out. Chomsky's a smart guy. But he's got an agenda. You may agree with that agenda. His opinions may be well researched. But they are merely his opinions. Another person can take the same data he used and approach it with a different agenda and come to a different conclusion. That doesn't necessarily make their opinion any less valid. The strength of an argument is not just in their research but in the argument itself. Perhaps their argument is weaker. Perhaps it's stronger or the same. But just because Chomsky (or any other person) says, DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. Chomsky's books are agenda pieces, as are Rush Limbaugh's, Al Franken's, the National Review, and Mother Jones. Because of this, only an idiot would take them at face value. Repeat after me: Agenda pieces are jumping off points for intelligent research, NOT valid "evidence." A 500 page opinion article is still an opinion article.

He talks about false footnotes in his book coincidently and how an author faked all the footnotes in a book on Israel and how a Princeton student found out and reported it. The poor kid was a grad student. Never got to the doctorate. ****ed the intellectual class off.

Ah, see--case in point, I will now go RESEARCH this to find out more about it. Why? Because it's anecdotal evidence from an agenda writer. Starting to figure out how this works?

NYTimes and Washington Post in my opinion DO NOT have well researched articles. They sput out anything that is corporate friendly.

ok--your opinion. That's why we use more than just the NYTimes and the Post, but they can't be dismissed, any more than you can dismiss CNN, or I can dismiss Chomsky.

If it is bad or neutral for corporate America, they'll write about it.

You obviously need an editor since you just contradicted yourself. I'll let it slide.

Let's not even mention Israel. The bias of those two papers, as well as the American ones in general, is atrocious. They reflect the political climate in the Congress and White House who are owned by the rich and corporations. Money buys a lot of power. Not very "freedom of press" now is it?

Ah, see, here's one of your little statements I have problems with. You say that the American press is an instrument of the wealthy elite, and I'm supposed to take that at face value. Tell me WHY. Demonstrate to me how journalists, who are overwhelmingly liberal, are slaves of the conservative elite.

This war is about oil and US company interests in the "after-War party". I already quoted the Economist in one thread. You look for it.

As I recall, the article was about Cheney and cronyism with Halliburton--at least the part you quoted. This hardly translates into "Global Oil Conspiracy." It should be looked into, however, as it violates U.S. government procurement practices if he is passing business to Halliburton.

I hardly feel the CIA is a viable source of unbiased information regarding the sway of public opinion.

True, but the CIA world fact book is great for a quick reference guide. However, in my arguments, when discussing terrorism, I have pointed to both national and international academic pieces from global policy think tanks. I'll take their consensus over "Mother Jones."

You mention Nigeria and the need for stable governments. That is why Saddam was our ally. He quelled uprisings.

Saddam was tolerated because Iran was cozying up to the Soviet Union during the cold war, and because Iran was an anti-U.S. regime. We played Saddam as the block for that--not to protect business interests. Unless you're suggesting we act to preserve French, Syrian, and Turkish business interests?

That's why the US supported the Taliban rise to power over the Northern Alliance. They brought stability in order to start negotiations for the oil pipeline that's NOW being built.

Quick history lesson: The Taliban is anti-shi'ite. Iran is Shi'ite. Iran was anti-American. Are you starting to see a pattern here? The U.S. has historically supported or treated with benign neglect, any government that is anti-anti-American regimes. We didn't "support" the Taliban. We treated them with benign neglect--until they started harboring terrorists and enacting horrible humanitarian crimes. Or did you miss that piece in your precious Guardian, written by Phillip Knightly on Oct 08, 2001 which points that up.

I concede that oil is a part of the equation. I've NEVER denied that. But "it's all about oil," is like saying "baking is all about sugar." I seriously disagree with the weight you lend oil as part of this.

Do a search on UNOCAL. You'll find it quite interesting. They're building it. Oh, they have connections to the Bush administration. Big surprise.

Yes, I know. You're getting tiresome. An oil family has ties to oil. Rich people invest in oil. Shocker. Got it. You need to demonstrate that Bush is acting in oil interests. Not "we're going to war, and he's connected to oil business so it MUST be about oil!!!" That's called an allegation and your "evidence" is circumstantial. It wouldn't hold up in a civil court even (preponderance of evidence standard), and I certainly won't accept it.

Now if this new war, outside the Afghan crap, is not about oil, then pal...you gotta open your eyes. Why are we not in Burma then? Or in Zimbabwe?

If it's all about oil, why aren't we in Nigeria or Venezuela?

Re: your countries--Because they don't matter. We have no interest in either Burma or Zimbabwe. It's not important enough. This is the reality of global policy. We have limited resources and elect to deploy them in the best interest of the United States. That doesn't typically include humanitarian interests in third world nations with no significant U.S. interests. A harsh reality, but true. We just don't care enough, and they can't make it worth our while.

I might also add that every time we do do something people like you ***** and complain so much about sovreignty it's not worth the agony. You'd complain about our imperialism and how we wanted to run the world.

Let alone the crap we did in South and Central America. AND NO I DON'T CARE IF IT WAS A POLICY AND BLAH BLAH BLAH. We interened and killed a lot of people there. Cannot be justified.

Merryprankster

04-01-2003, 04:57 AM

Cont:
You're right. It can't be justified. We've been over this. But it WAS a part of our containment policy. Again, notice the pattern--anti-anti-U.S. regimes (not the same as pro-U.S.) get our support whether directly or through benign neglect.

Governments were elected democratically in El Salvador, Chile, Nicuragua, etc... You cannot use communism, Cold War, Monroe Doctrine, etc. to justify violations of international law when people were massacred.

I never did. I merely pointed out WHY we did what we did. I never claimed to support it. Don't put words in my mouth.

FWIW, the Sandinistas weren't democratically elected. They overthrew the government in 1979. We began supporting the opposition as a counter to that overthrow since the Sandinistas were socialist ideologues. Daniel Ortega held elections in 1990 and lost. This appeased the Contras and ended the conflict. I don't seem to recall the U.S. taking any military action against his successor, Chamorro, but maybe I'm just an uneducated idiot, who knows nothing about the world or international politics.

Therefore I've read your messages.

There's no "therefore," here. You have still failed to adequately address Nigeria. Demonstrate to me why the war in Iraq is a better option than stabilizing Nigeria, if it's really all about oil. Show me real evidence that indicate this is a vast oil conspiracy--not circumstantial evidence in the form of business ties. Is it suspicious? Of course--and it bears investigation. But you can't legitimately say it's all about oil.

You can't say, "well it was unjustifiable and horrible...BUT we did do this and we were put in a situation..."

I didn't. You're putting words in my mouth yet again.

That's not precedent setting and not conducive to international affairs. I have a masters in it. It

Agreed. Don't quote me your credentials--appeal to authority. I'm more interested in your arguments, such as they are. Although I'm curious how one gets a master's in such a writing heavy field when you can't clearly express yourself.

You stand for something, you better stand for it.

Sometimes the application of that "something," offends another part of the "something," like "Human rights" and "National Sovereignty." You have to decide which is better, and you have to do so on a case by case basis because this is the REAL world, where ideals MUST be subject to practical limitations.

Business does hate chaos. And I would never defend Russia, France, etc. I'm talking about the instigator in all of this - the US.

My only point was that if you accept the logic that the U.S. is doing it from business interests then so are Russia, France, and China. Consequently, NOBODY is acting from ideals. That is, if I accept the logic that corporate interests reign supreme. I wasn't trying to say France and Russia did it too, so it's ok for us.

The point is the UN's authority needs to be strengthened. We cannot go on having the US ignore World Court decesions against it nor starting wars without UN approval.

And give up our sovereignty? I don't think so--see the part about putting into practice certain ideals violates other ideals that might also be a "good thing." Like people's right to self-determination, for instance.

I can continue you know. But I'm off to bed.

Thank god.

Xebsball

04-01-2003, 07:52 AM

I see a lot of slaves of the american propaganda

VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT
:D

dezhen2001

04-01-2003, 08:20 AM

hey marc - where did you get your new avatar? looks rad :)

dawood

Xebsball

04-01-2003, 09:05 AM

That is Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatistas.
I was looking around then i had a *click* "Hey! My name is Marcos!" So i put him as my avatar :D
And the pseudo-ninja guerrilla-ninja style is so **** cool!!

dezhen2001

04-01-2003, 09:24 AM

yeah - kinda "urban warrior" style :cool:

dawood

NYerRoman

04-01-2003, 04:36 PM

Clap clap Merry. You almost sound cool when you write BUT I will not comment on your spelling mistakes and grammar slips as well.
B overall but you too a D-.
Ain’t that simple to do now? The throwing out the grades thing…

Now, I do apologize since I am bilingual and my English tends to be Italianized at times. But I’m sure you worldly kinds can understand that. I’m sure you’re a man of the world and can see outside the US and have met bilingual people and realize that at times, one language will dominate the grammatical formulations of sentences. You know I'm sure.

When did you become the professor and essay authority? I thought listing facts and giving my opinion on a subject was essay writing and making a point. Obviously it’s not up to par with your savoir faire…that’s French…in writing skills and dismissing people b/c they’re not as amazing as you are.

Now, let’s begin Merryman.

I read Le Monde, El Pais, La Repubblica (center left), Corriere della Sera (center right), Guardian, Independent, The Economist, Dagens Nyheter (Swedish center), Espresso, Zmag, Ha’aretz, Al Jazera (censured in Italy at the moment), IPE authors from my school Johns Hopkins U where I got my Masters in International Affairs and Economics, graduating with honors (clearing voice sound and boast) BBC, Radio 4..to name a few. I read Chomsky b/c the first thing you learn in International affairs school is….? Come on…come on…

All right, I’ll tell ya. It’s economics is the driving force of politics and business interests influence to a great deal politics and lobbies influence law and if you’re poor and have no political power, well then your fu(ked.

Your list is undoubtedly accurate. Provide historical context, rather than a laundry list and you've got what we call RESEARCH here in the real world! Funny that. As statiticians put it "correlation is not causation," in other words, the data mean nothing without understanding the context behind the data.

Do you not read the contents of the vetoes? The vetoes are to either not legitimize the PLO, or to recognize Palestinian rights, or a condemnation of atrocities by Israel, or atrocities by the US. Pick one. They all seem straight forward to me. Everything has a context, yes. But the amount and content of the vetoes is shocking, no? The UN doesn't try to pass idiotic resolutions that just need to be vetoed by the US. They are attempts to rectify inconsistencies with one country and international law. But don’t offend the biggest power in the world with your trifling whines of the US being at par with other countries in the world….no no no.

Chomsky brings up points that penetrate the core of issues. I read him, research and investigate, then I start to recognize a patter that Dr. Chomsky writes about. He states facts. I don't take his opinion on things for face value. Rush Limbaugh does the same...but he comes from a limited and at times racist mentality that supports business interests alone. I remember his show and seeing an African man dancing in tribal clothing and Rush saying, "He's happy because his welfare check came in."

Chomsky makes the point that welfare is a miniscule part of the budget. Not even really relevant given the nature of defense and corporate tax breaks, etc. I tend to agree. The US is on a spiral downwards and it is going to take down a lot of others trying to grab hold by force. It’s not working inside due to poverty, the ill treatment of the poor, no social programs that work, no social programs that don’t stigmatize you, health care, education free even through college, gun control laws, racism. Should I continue? Racism is very subtle in the US. It is broadcasted in many ways. We tend to just think of the Klan or the n-word or hicks in the south. No. It’s ingrained in all of us from the start. Our history is. Our present is. Watch the news. Any local or national news.

News is highly controlled in the States. Just refer to Peter Arnett and his oops, comment that supports every expert’s belief and analysis in the field. The point being he was “unpatriotic.”

About your upcoming research into the case I presented and the Princeton student. The book was a bestseller From Time Immortal by Joan Peters (1984). The rave of the intellectual elite. The elite that read your NYTimes. She proved there were no Palestinians and the ones that live there now were recent immigrants. The NYTimes loved it! It was so amazing. This Ph.D. student in Princeton researched the footnotes. They were all wrong. They were made up. He spent an entire summer in NY Public Library. He sent it to the NYTimes. Ignored. He was then blocked from teaching and getting any position in a university b/c the English reviewed it later. This kid sent his findings to them. They trashed the book and its contents. The NYTimes had to then retract their review and called the findings nonsense. Read up about it. Merry research Merry.

That’s what Chomsky states. I looked it up. It was true. I looked at the London Review and the Times Literary Supplement…English book review journals. All panned out.

Ah, see, here's one of your little statements I have problems with. You say that the American press is an instrument of the wealthy elite, and I'm supposed to take that at face value. Tell me WHY. Demonstrate to me how journalists, who are overwhelmingly liberal, are slaves of the conservative elite.

Liberal? Journalists in America are liberal? Why? Because they don’t use racial epithets? How are they liberal? Peter Arnett could argue the case better. Do they ever, ever really criticize the system? What is the media? CBS or NYTimes – who are they really these “journalists”. They are major corporations. They are not “us” as Chomsky upholds…and others…like my professors at JHU SAIS. They say the same thing. Where is the news coming from? Corporate news and papers? If they are a huge money making news organization, they will never do anything to give another point of view that may actually damage their status. Does the media represent every stratus of society? No. I don’t think so. The public is dynamic with differing believes and points of view. Not just a one sided argument over shades of gray.

And liberals are supporters of private power. There is nothing different really between left and right really in the US power structure. Both represent big business and money. Unions certainly don’t get the best deal under democrats and in Congress Dems vote Republican and vice versa.

It’s all reflected in the media to have us believe that there is a debate. On what? Screw the business loopholes, cut defense, health care and education for all AND MOST IMPORTANT give the poor some hope and dignity. That would never be reported or investigated by your “liberals” in the media.

Now…the oil and war. This war is about oil. We know it. I am not debating anything that resembles how evil the man is. He was evil and we armed him, financed him and renewed trade with him from 1979 until 1990 (killed Kurds in 1986). It’s about getting our share. It’s about UNOCAL in the Afghani case. Read the French book I gave you. Read Le Monde. Oh you do. You must have missed that article.

We played Saddam as the block for that--not to protect business interests.

We reflagged Iraqi oil tankers with American flags in the Persian Gulf. Remember that? It was about protecting the oil. Not the civilians. Not against communism. I hardly think Iran under the Ayatollah was flirting with communism. Please give me a break. Oil precedence to the Soviets and not us? Never. Saddam was a great US client.

Merry, quick lesson. Taliban representatives and Mullah Omar’s aids in the White House under Bush and their paid representative in the US was Laila Helms. Ring a bell? It should Mr. “I read the CIA quick guide book.” She is the niece of Richard Helms, CIA director and ex-Ambassador to Iran. They were our pals as we negotiated the pipeline and gas-line throughout the late 90s. The negotiations under Bush went array. The French have done a spectacular job on this one investigating it. Read the book I gave in the other reply.

Actually Michael Moore’s new documentary will deal with the Bush family ties with Osama. Can’t wait for it.

If it’s not oil, then why are we not putting Africa together? Oil is the big part of the equation. It has everything to do with it.

FWIW, the Sandinistas weren't democratically elected. They overthrew the government in 1979. We began supporting the opposition as a counter to that overthrow since the Sandinistas were socialist ideologues. Daniel Ortega held elections in 1990 and lost.

Who did they overthrow? A right wing dictator US client for four decades. It was a mass upheaval. Health care was reinstalled. Social programs. Even a free press. As if they were the big spreaders of communism. We like dictators as long as they’re right wing? There was a rebuilding of the country after the overthrow of Somoza. The US didn’t tolerate that. Alas the ruling of the World Court.

You did see Olly North testify, yes? What did you get out of that? A good looking middle aged man in a uniform? Come on. He told it all to everyone what the US did in Nicuragua.

About Nigeria….is Nigeria opposing the US and making it difficult to get the oil? No. Therefore why start a war with Nigeria. But to be fair to your attempt at a point…
Nigeria is poor and has absolutely no intention of causing problems b/c it needs international money and aid.

Plus I’m sure the foreign oil companies have already or will begin to rape the country soon.

I’m off to bed again.
I lived in DC. May visit next time I’m there. We should get together over a beer and discuss this.

Christopher M

04-01-2003, 04:47 PM

Gotta remember Chomsky is an authority on linguistics and philosophy, not politics.

Originally posted by NYerRoman
This war is about oil...

Out of curiosity, what is the specific proposed mechanism for Bush's monetary gain from oil market changes due to the war?

Still curious.

@PLUGO

04-01-2003, 05:27 PM

Gotta remember Chomsky is an authority on linguistics and philosophy, not politics.

Well, it seems to me Language is a major factor in alot of what's been going on.

Can anyone tell me where the term "Enemy Combatant" came from?

Merryprankster

04-01-2003, 05:41 PM

The fundamental difference between us is that you are a neo-marxist and I am not. You view the world as driven by economic interests. I find that this is not the case. It is driven IN PART by economic concerns, but they don't overwhelm everything else. I think in many cases you'll find "blood is thicker than money." I realize that it does work the other way round as well, but you look at the world through a pair of glasses I find out of focus.

I wasn't trying to get into a ****ing contest with you about "who reads better papers." I was trying to demonstrate that I think what I think without taking the "biased U.S. media's" word for it.

The U.N. list is out of context because we have no idea what the resolution said. We don't know the language, and in some cases lack the historical context. I'd need a case by case review to come to any trend analysis conclusions that were valid.

I don't care who the Sandanistas overthrew. You lumped them in with "democratically elected" -- they weren't. I'm fully aware of the Oliver North trial, I believe the Iran-Contra affair was disgraceful and I believe the Reagan administration was up to its eyeballs in it, from the top down.

I'm glad you agree with your professors, and I'm glad you like Chomsky.

I will agree with you that the distance between left and right in this country is nowhere near as great as that found in Europe.

I copped an attitude because you're a snot. It's clear in your writing that anybody who doesn't agree with you is either willfully obtuse or spectacularly stupid. I find that unconscionable. It's not your politics--it's your demeanor.

At least you're starting to put sentences together in a reasonable way.

You've won this war of attrition. I'm too tired of trying to get an independant thought out of your head rather than a regurgitation of what you learned in class or "what Chomsky says."

I can't argue with conspiracy theories. They're self-perpetuating paradigms. Evidence against it is just an example of how deep the conspiracy runs.

Chris M--they can't. And they can't because on a macro-economic scale there is only one world price for oil, thanks to the oil futures market.

unrelated

04-01-2003, 09:48 PM

It is probably a bad idea to get into the middle of this, but it seems that a few points could be made:

Those who argue that this is all about oil are not very coherent. You are probably better off to argue that this is about money. If this is your belief then it appears that you are Materialists (in the philosophical sense). In this case, you would have to accept this premise as true for all the nations involved (US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, etc)

You might think about reframing your arguments. Perhaps you could start by asking who benefits, and how? (Sort of like Christopher did). By “who” I do not mean a single person or company, but a group of people or companies who share a common interest. Some international relations people call this an “interest group”. It is usually an interest group that people are referring to when they start talking about conspiracy theories.

To answer the question, it would be helpful to know which interest groups benefit and how? E.g. Oil industry, defense contractors, construction firms, publishing, airlines, shipping firms, tourism, toy manufacturers, healthcare, human rights organizations, etc.

Here is a sample method that might provide you with a bit more credibility, using oil as an example:

First begin by asking who benefits under certain prototypical scenarios. For example, 1) who benefits when the price of oil is high (say $30+ per barrel) or 2) who benefits when the price of oil is low (say $15 per barrel) or 3) who benefits under either scenario? And so forth…

Next ask if any of the interest groups that benefit under the various scenarios have any power to make those scenarios a reality. Most people are probably comfortable with the methodology up to this point -- after all it is basic business strategy. It is this step is where things get tricky. Most people’s reactions break down along philosophical lines.

It is helpful to understand a little about how the market for oil works and what is involved. Some would argue that the futures market does not control the price of oil (or any commodity) but merely reflects the expected price of the commodity at a given time. That is, the causal relationship is reversed from what most people think. Thus prices may go up if there is a fear that the supply of oil will be interrupted for one reason or another (e.g. a cut in OPEC production targets). They may also go up if there is a belief that demand will increase without a corresponding increase in supply (e.g. a sudden cold weather snap.)

If you believe conventional economic theory, then prices are set based on the supply and demand of the product. In the case of oil, prices consist of 1) the value of the underlying commodity 2) the extraction costs 3) the refining costs 4) transportation costs 5) storage costs 6) financing costs 7) taxes and 8) profits.

To simplify the analysis for oil, lump the costs together as a single item – cost to bring it to market. Thus the price of a barrel of oil consists of:
1) the underlying value of the oil -- say $1
2) the costs to bring it to market -- depends on the country
3) profit – depends on the amount of oil available relative to the demand for oil

Some oil producing countries are high cost producers, some are low cost, and some are in between. Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries are low cost producers. North Sea Oil is high cost. I don’t have exact cost information available, so I’ll continue the example with a heuristic. Assume:
1) Middle East is Low Cost, say $9
2) North Sea and US Gulf are High Cost, say $27
3) Others are Middle Cost, say $19

What happens when we look at the various oil producers under the scenarios created? We see that the Middle East can make money under any of the scenarios we have mentioned thus far. Similarly, consider the relative size of the reserves and the rate of extraction. The Middle East is the clear leader here. Having a price and capacity advantage provides an interest group, such as the OPEC cartel, the possibility to influence the price of oil. (Cartels influence prices by adjusting output. DeBeers is an example of another cartel.) This in turn, affects their profit. Though there is the possibility of cheating, being the low cost producer enables them to enforce their production targets.

Now that you have this information, you can begin to answer the original, rephrased, question: “If this is all about money then who benefits?”
1) Its unlikely it is about the oil, as the oil is only worth a few dollars per barrel
2) Maybe it is about the profits, as they can range from a few dollars to many dollars
3) Maybe it is about the dollars spent to bring the oil to market.

Done? No. Now consider the other interest groups again. Break them down by industry and political alliances. For example, the “Oil Industry” is not ****genous. Some groups within the industry may be in favor of one scenario or the other. French oil may have interests opposed to US oil. US oil firms may have interests opposed to each other. What do the airlines want to see in the price of oil? Do groups from different industries/countries have similar interests?

After this, then look at the relationships between business interests and the government interests (yes, governments have interest groups too). Are there alignments between interest groups, ideologies, components of the government administration, and, most importantly, actions? Describe in detail, not general terms, what actions were taken and how they benefit each interest group. What counter actions were taken by interest groups opposed? And so on…

At this point, then you can begin to formulate a reasonable argument, supported with reasonable analysis. However, it is unlikely that you will ever find the type of source information that you need to “prove” your point.

NYerRoman

04-02-2003, 01:11 AM

Merry,
What? You're the only one who can show your diversified list? My list is just to impress you?
Love the cliché words you use. Neo-Marxist? Have you any idea what IPE theorists are or about? Conspiracy Theorist? That's a key word used a a put down.

Do I believe everything I hear? No. Do I believe anything Chomsky states or my professors for that matter? No.
I have mulled and distorted and beat myself over the head with all this stuff for years. What comes out after living here for such a long time is a different perspective and the obvious intransigence of the American mentality.

But since I share many beliefs as my profs and Noam, and since YOU have insisted to know where my thoughts have come from as a source to back it up b/c your essay critiques warrented them, I listed them. Then you derail me for mentioning them. I have an independent mind sir.

We Americans don't want to really admit that things are really bad, not the way we were taught in school, or God forbid not working. You try to see the US from the outside in an international context and see what is happening and being said and felt about America by diverse people, political scientists and gov'ts of the world. I can't just stand by and keep quiet. Things have to change on the int'l spectrum immediately.

I, a snot?....love that one. Whaddeva.

And oil prices have an elasticity effect. Change price Quantity changes immensely. The prices are thanks to not markets but the cartel OPEC I believe, no?

Merryprankster

04-02-2003, 03:25 AM

Neo-Marxist in the classical sense, as unrelated relayed--a materialist. A person who believes that economic forces are THE driving forces in history. Not a pinko commie *******, in the McCarthian sense.

My "list," was in direct response to your assertion that people in the U.S. are U.S. media led sheep. I'm well aware of your international credentials. You keep taking such great pains to list them.

We Americans don't want to really admit that things are really bad, not the way we were taught in school, or God forbid not working. You try to see the US from the outside in an international context and see what is happening and being said and felt about America by diverse people, political scientists and gov'ts of the world. I can't just stand by and keep quiet. Things have to change on the int'l spectrum immediately.

Maybe YOU don't want to admit they're as bad as they are. I think they're pretty awful in many places. I also think they're a hell of a lot better than they were in the past thanks to human progression. I think blaming the United States and global capitalism for every single thing that happens that you don't agree with is indefensible, and ignores several hundred years of history in many cases. Arguing that we "have the power to change/fix things," is just the flip side to the argument that "the war is all about U.S. oil-government collective interests."

Glad you're an activist. Good for you.

I, a snot?....love that one. Whaddeva.

Yes, you, a snot. A pretentious elitist. It's pretty simple. You keep hammering home the same messages:

1. The United States and it's corporate interests are responsible for everything that ever was wrong with the entire planet, or ever will be.

2. If you don't agree with the above, then I need to educate you. What? STILL don't agree with me--oh, well, you either need to "open your eyes," to the truth or you're just not very smart.

It's a case of fundamental true-believerism if I ever saw one. Kinda like arguing with a Jehovah's Witness. Not too useful and it only convinces the Witness that you're going to hell, but hey, HE sees the light and is saved.

RE: OPEC--you're stuck in a 20 year old paradigm. Several oil-producing nations don't march in lock step to OPEC's will and the oil futures market was created to reduce cartel influence on prices. I admit they continue to wield a good chunk of power, but it's nowhere near what it once was. They literally had the world by it's balls years ago, but things are not so cut and dry now.

Christopher M

04-02-2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Christopher M
Out of curiosity, what is the specific proposed mechanism for Bush's monetary gain from oil market changes due to the war?

Anyone... Bueller...?

NYerRoman

04-02-2003, 10:49 AM

Ah Merry.
No need for name calling. I understood exactly what you meant the first time. But other IPE theorist claim the modern poli-eco developments on the same without having to label everything Marxist, you ********.

Just kidding. I hit the * key many times.

Yes, you, a snot. A pretentious elitist. It's pretty simple. You keep hammering home the same messages:

Cheers. Yes, b/c I believe it. I listen to other opinions. I know what happens in the world. I know the mecchanisms. But the base formula is exactly what I sustain.

Evils of the world:
- Poverty
- Environmental distruction
- War

Let's see...hmmm....what could cause these if not capitalistic ventures? Attenzione: Economic gain is the main cause of war.

Sorry to be so snotty. Just thinking about the world b/c it's getting really late for it.

baci

Christopher M

04-02-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by NYerRoman
Evils of the world:
- Poverty
- Environmental distruction
- War

Not having money is worse than illness, psychosis, loneliness, suicide, neglect, murder, torture, rape, child abuse, misery, lack of freedom, etc? :confused:

Originally posted by NYerRoman
Let's see...hmmm....what could cause these if not capitalistic ventures?

So people spending money is a greater cause of suffering than arrogance, ignorance, hatred, egotism, tribal thinking, prejudice, etc? :confused:

You seem to care an awful lot about money.

red5angel

04-02-2003, 12:40 PM

hehe, haven't been to KFO in a week or two. Looks like I am missing all the fun.

NYRoman, you have to step back and take a deep look at your arguments, in style and substance. I think people are understanding your points, the problem is that you are making a lot of claims about yourself that just aren't being seen. For example, you claim to be listening to others opinions, however you have been extremely narrow minded in your approach and so vehement in your expression of your beliefs that I have a hard time feeling you can see beyond them at all. You're full of Anti-American sentiments, not because you oppose the war but because you make sweeping, broad, and ignorant statements about "americans" in general. I know a lot of different kinds of americans and I would think that being italian and from NYC you would understand that this country is huge melting pot of all different sorts of people. America is a big place and even from one end to the other things can change quickly, now throw in all the people not from here or whose parents aren't from here. Makes your sweeping generalizations look a little small doesn't it? am I to believe you are the only "enlightened" individual within our borders? I got news for you son, there is a lot you still get to learn. I say get because there is a lot you need to learn, a lot you will learn and a lot you going to get to learn, from all sorts of varied sources in and outside of the US. I would be thankful if I were you, not everyone gets those oppurtunities.
I've got news for you NYRoman, you may not like it either. You're an American. not only that but your the "American" you are so dusgusted by, except in my opinion, sort of a negative or opposite. You think you have America and it's needs and desires so nailed down and thoroughly understood that you now can't see past your own vision of the world. It's a tight noose you are weaving for yourself, do you really want to go down that road?

I think it's funny some people, including you NYRoman want to throw around their education as if that makes you more of something then someone else. You're education realy means nothing. Not if you haven't made something from it. I know plenty of college grads who are more dumb then a box of rocks. college education, so what. It's a question of how much you learned and how much you have expnaded your own mind, not what your paper says. You're as close minded and potentially as ignorant as the masses of Americans you claim can barely comprehend you viewpoint much less follow it. I say go ahead and grow up, open your own eyes and take a look around you. Take off the viewpoints you have solidified in your own mind and really take a look around you, at the people struggling to make a living. At the people trying to better themselves in some way, and the people who don't bother.

And before you get the urge to retort, let me get most of the basics out of the way. You'll claim to have done plenty of research so that your understanding of your beliefs is full and almost (because a smart man is always humble right?) foolproof since you have the education and read media sources outside of the US.
You'll also probably claim that your non US heritage really opens or has opened your eyes to american ignorance and close mindedness. Of course I have done a little travelling myself and funny thing that. Doesn't really seem to be a predominantly American trait.
Oh yeah, you might also claim, because they always do, that your sources are credible, most likely because you have done all sorts of research and establisjed their credibility. Of course what's credibility? Probably just an opinion...

Did I cover all the basics? Let's see, Education - not worth what you might think it is - check! Background and Heritage - everyone in the world has one, what makes yours better or different? - check! Intelligent, thoughtful seeking of credible sources - how do you define that again? Really? - Check!
Ok, go ahead, let em rip NYRoman Let's see what sort of man you really are now. I am not fighting facts, or sources or education, I am just challenging you to take a closer look at the way you view the world.

NYerRoman

04-02-2003, 02:52 PM

You know, I hardly throw my education around. Forget it. I give a background regarding where I'm coming from. If I didn't say that, you'd attack me regardless for, I dunno, not being learned enough. You know something...you don't need a Masters to read and do research.

I don't generalize Americans. I generalize the structure and system which is the same.
Sure, ok. You claim I'm self-loathing b/c I don't agree with anything being shot out of the government mouthpiece. Many people don't. Not just me. Many people are getting frustrated. Not just me.

I have a point of view to defend. We are killing people right now. Do you not undestand that?

http://www.repubblica.it/gallerie/online/guerra_in_iraq/hilla/index.html
http://www.repubblica.it/gallerie/online/guerra_in_iraq/bass/index.html
http://www.repubblica.it/gallerie/online/guerra_in_iraq/nass/index.html
http://www.repubblica.it/gallerie/online/guerra_in_iraq/dolore/index.html
http://www.repubblica.it/gallerie/online/guerra_in_iraq/feritimercato/index.html
http://www.repubblica.it/gallerie/online/guerra_in_iraq/fugabasra/index.html

Take a freaking peek. This is war pal. Nah, it's about a dictator. Sure. We're going to help these people.

You know, fine. The War is cool. America has done **** but who cares, we can do what we want without worrying about the consequences. Sept. 11th, just idiots jealous of our wealth. Blah blah blah. I'm gonna just not question and challenge b/c I'm a good American who doesn't like to make waves.
OK. Thanks for showing me the light.

And Christopher M.
Those are societal problems. I agree with you on the list. I listed world-global problems.
So just make points with your pals and wave flags.
close. I'm done.

red5angel

04-02-2003, 03:30 PM

"If I didn't say that, you'd attack me regardless for, I dunno, not being learned enough."

Absolutely not, thats an assumption on your part alone. Some of the most "scholarly" or atleast well learned and wise people I have met have had little to no college education. not all of them of course, but a few. college isn't a requirement in my book for being either, and it doesn't automatically set you on steady ground in my book. I have met plenty of experts who are more full of crap then they are of knowledge.

"I don't generalize Americans. I generalize the structure and system which is the same."

Actually, that's not true, on this thread alone you use "Americans" a few times. Go ahead, take a look. thats different to me then the American Government or the American System.

"Sure, ok. You claim I'm self-loathing b/c I don't agree with anything being shot out of the government mouthpiece"

Not my point at all but it helps to illustrate one of mine, listening. You have to work on it. I never mentioned self loathing, nor did I mean to imply it. What I did say was that it is hypocritical of one to assume everyone else in a large group is naive or narrow minded while being the very same. One who is open minded never goes about dismissing others as much as you have so far, and not just on this thread. Saying one is open minded doesn't make one open minded. It's something you have to work at.
Also, I find that open mindedness is somewhere in the middle, and I find quite a few people who claim to be, swing to the other extreme and become, ironically, as close minded as those they accuse of it. for example a freind of mine is so bent on alternative view points he can't see that sometimes, the "norm" is not full of lies or deceit, to him, it couldn't be any thing other then some sort of conspiracy. He calls himself open minded and swears everyone who doesn't see the same things he does is clos eminded. I see his style of argument in yours.

"I have a point of view to defend. We are killing people right now. Do you not undestand that?"

More then you apparently are aware. However, to make anothe rpoint, thats a moral stance, and morality often plays loosely for those who want to stand totally behind it. Sometimes real life breaks through. "We" have been killing people since the very concept emerged. It doesn't make it right or wrong, but it is a fact of life. We, like nature often fight for survival. We as human beings sometimes have loftier goals but survival is always at the bottom of it all.

"Nah, it's about a dictator. Sure. We're going to help these people."

right, about a dictator who just happened to get in Americas way and make himself a nuisance. not all Iraqis will feel we have done them a favor but I am willing to bet more then not will feel in 10 years or so that life is much better and much more safe then it used to be.

On your last paragraph - the US does what it feels it needs to do, and sometimes that doesn't necessarily involve the rest of the world. Are every last one of your decisions based on how it would affect EVERYONE in your life? Probably not, and like you there are times when the US has to do what it has to do. the acts of those on 9/11 were the acts of mad men, regardless of wh they felt they were doing it. Mad men don't go away but that doesn't mean you don't do everything you can to safe guard yourself from them.

But, life goes on as it always does right NYRoman? You will continue to see Conspiracies where there may not be any, and the government who runs this country will probably always be less then what you are satisfied with. Thats life, the world and politics and I imagine that if you found a better place you would have moved to there by now right?

Christopher M

04-02-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M
Not having money is worse than illness, psychosis, loneliness, suicide, neglect, murder, torture, rape, child abuse, misery, lack of freedom, etc? So people spending money is a greater cause of suffering than arrogance, ignorance, hatred, egotism, tribal thinking, prejudice, etc?

Originally posted by NYerRoman
Those are societal problems... I listed world-global problems.

Are you saying that when people are in large enough groups, they stop acting according to arrogrance, ignorance, hatred, egotism, tribal thinking, prejudice, etc? Or are you just maintaining that, for large groups, you feel money is more important?

rogue

04-02-2003, 07:32 PM

Someone from that well known organ of the Vast Right Wing, the Village Voice. (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php)

I have a point of view to defend. We are killing people right now. Do you not undestand that? Why so surprised Roman, it's called war. Many here understand that when in those times when diplomacy and words fail to solve a problem people may die.

What did you do to stop Sadaams murders and mutalations, slavery in the Sudan, the slaughter in Kosovo? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/phot_06.html) Where was Chomsky? Where were the "anti-war" protesters?

At least we know where these folks were. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82432,00.html) And that's not mentioning the UK troops who are doing more than their share.

joedoe

04-02-2003, 07:47 PM

Some might say that diplomacy had not really been given a proper chance ;)

Serpent

04-02-2003, 08:08 PM

Rogue, Bush was spoiling for a war big time and no amount of diplomacy was going to prevent him from taking it to Iraq. Surely you don't dispute that?

rogue

04-02-2003, 08:19 PM

Nat Hentoff
Why I Didn't March This Time
Their Tongues Were Cut Out for Slandering Hussein
March 28th, 2003 3:30 PM

Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein. ?John F. Burns, "How Many People Has Hussein Killed?" The New York Times, January 26, 2003

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

I participated in many demonstrations against the Vietnam War, including some civil disobedience?though I was careful not to catch the eyes of the cops, sometimes a way of not getting arrested. But I could not participate in the demonstrations against the war on Iraq. As I told The New York Sun in its March 14-16 roundup of New Yorkers for and against the war:

"There was the disclosure . . . when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information. . . . So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don't want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?"

I did not cite "weapons of mass destruction." Nor do I believe Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to this country, any more than the creators of the mass graves in the Balkans were, or the Taliban. And as has been evident for a long time, I am no admirer of George W. Bush.

The United Nations? Did the inspectors go into the prisons and the torture chambers? Would they have, if given more time? Did they interview the Mukhabarat, Saddam's dreaded secret police?

An Iraqi in Detroit wanted to send a message to the anti-war protesters: "If you want to protest that it's not OK to send your kids to fight, that's OK. But please don't claim to speak for the Iraqis."

In The Guardian, a British paper that can hardly be characterized as conservative, there was a dispatch from Safwan, Iraq, liberated in the first days of the war: "Ajami Saadoun Khilis, whose son and brother were executed under the Saddam regime, sobbed like a child on the shoulder of The Guardian's Egyptian translator. He mopped the tears but they kept coming. 'You just arrived,' he said. 'You're late. What took you so long?' "

The United Nations? In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started.

Bill Clinton refused to act as well, instructing the State Department not to use the word genocide because then the United States would be expected to do something. And President Clinton instructed Madeleine Albright, then our representative to the UN, to block any possible attempts to intervene despite Kofi Annan. Some 800,000 lives could have been saved.

The United Nations? Where Libya, Syria, and Sudan are on the Human Rights Commission? The UN is crucial for feeding people and trying to deal with such plagues as AIDS; but if you had been in a Hussein torture chamber, would you, even in a state of delirium, hope for rescue from the UN Security Council?

From Amnesty International, for whom human rights are not just a slogan, on Iraq: "Common methods of physical torture included electric shocks or cigarette burns to various parts of the body, pulling out fingernails, rape. . . . Two men, Zaher al-Zuhairi and Fares Kadhem Akia, reportedly had their tongues cut out for slandering the president by members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994. The amputations took place in a public square in Diwaniya City, south of Baghdad."

As John Burns of The New York Times wrote in January: "History may judge that the stronger case [for an American-led invasion] . . . was the one that needed no [forbidden arms] inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."

When it appeared that Tony Blair's political career was near extinction, he gave a speech in the House of the Commons, as quoted in the March 18 issue of The Guardian:

"We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means?let us be clear?that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.

"And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means?what then?

"What will Saddam feel? Strengthened beyond measure. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence, what will they take from that?. . . Who will celebrate and who will weep?"

The letters section of The New York Times is sometimes more penetrating than the editorials. A March 23 letter from Lawrence Borok: "As someone who was very active in the [anti-Vietnam War] protests, I think that the antiwar activists are totally wrong on this one. Granted, President Bush's insensitive policies in many areas dear to liberals (I am one) naturally make me suspicious of his motives. But even if he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, have they all forgotten about the Iraqi people?"

And, in the March 23 New York Times Magazine, Michael Ignatieff, a longtime human rights investigator, wrote of "14,000 'writers, academics, and other intellectuals'?many of them my friends?[who] published a petition against the war . . . condemning the Iraqi regime for its human rights violations and supporting 'efforts by the Iraqi opposition to create a democratic, multi-ethnic, and multireligious Iraq.' " But they say, he adds, that waging war at this time is "morally unacceptable."

"I wonder," Ignatieff wrote?as I also wonder?"what their support for the Iraqi opposition amounts to."