Alright, you asked for it. I’ll try to keep my wits about me, though the emotional base upon which this argument is built is quite tumultuous.
Why would I say that I “hate” George W. Bush? Isn’t that a little strong? Isn’t he just your average politician? Isn’t this just some natural extension of your overall left-leaning political views?
No, not really.
[…]
…the final mark of disrespect… the gut-level intuition that leads me to label him an EVIL man, rather than a merely despicable one is his casual contempt for human life. There aren’t words to describe the horror I feel when I see Bush look into the nation’s television cameras with that sadistic little smirk and tell us euphemistically, as if half-choking on a stifled snort that our enemies… “let’s put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.”
[…]
When I look at George W. Bush, I don’t see a patriot. I see a lying, psychopathic narcissist. And it pains me, it grieves me, it WOUNDS me to realize that this puts me not only in the minority… but in the “whacko fringe.”
— ‘Geoff’, Why I hate George W. Bush (via Len)
I have to agree completely with Waylon. As for his first point i guarantee almost none of you could even do 1% as good as he does because all you can say is the F word and give no arguments. Creating foreign policy is extremely complex and would be difficult for anyone. Many of you bash President Bush for his use of religion in politics, but that is his right as secured by freedom of religion. It does not interfere with seperation of church and state, and he is following God throughout his presidency. The President has the same rights as any other US citizen, and those rights include freedom of religion. Basically to sum this up, I completely agree with Waylon and would like to congratulate him on an excellent post.
Belka95:
Ooh, I’ll give you some arguments against those ‘facts’ you’ve given me. I’ll also give you some grounded arguments on why Bush should go. For instance, the guy who has written the book completely criticising President Bush’s home defence policy before 9/11, unfortunately his name slips my mind. I mean do you guys not read the news? This guy was the leading authority on ‘terrorist’ matters on U.S. soil. He claims that 9/11 MAY have even have been avoidable! Now if that isn’t a reason to oust Bush, what is?
Another example of your immense intellect
“the UN put sanctions on Iraq which the UN failed to uphold, and the dictator was allowed to continue illegal activities.”
Please give me a source. To my knowledge the economic sanctions were upheld throughout the 90s till march 2003. They also happened to kill 567,000 children (that was a conservative estimate taken out by the United Nations Children’s Fund – UNICEF and the Red Cross. Check it out, I dare you.
Wana bet what Madelien Albright said on national T.V. about that? Well, she said it was worth it, that is to say, the sanctions were worth the deaths of half a million children! Please type her name in with other information on any good search engine and you’ll find the answer.
Any way the point is that America and Britian voted to hold the sacntions on Iraq. Not the United Nations as a whole, which is exactly what you are implying. It was the American and British representatives who voted the sanctions in at the start and it was them who kept them going till the second gulf war.
A little taste of what’s to come.
“This is why in 1998; President Clinton ordered the bombing of strategic targets inside of Iraq, many inside Baghdad itself.”
Yes they did attack Iraq, but one of the bombs landed on a factory that was suspected of producing arms. It turns out the most lethal substance they produced was paraceotomal (if that’s how you spell it)! They killed 50 people including women and children.
I’m going to have fun rebutting your inaccurate representations of America’s history but unfortunately I haven’t the time. Expect more from me in the future, I’ll also cite sources to make it really easy for you…
As my right honurable friend put it
Try and explain this
Check this out.
http://www.iacenter.org/sanimpct.htm
Belka, Waylon and Read the facts, Possibly the most humerously ironic thing about this recent right wing blitz denying that any of us liberals have facts with which to back our arguments, is the way it coincides with the testimony of Richard Clarke to the 911 commision. For those of you who may not know what I am talking about, he is the former Counterterrorism Czar of the Regan, Bush 1 Clinton, and Bush 2 administrations, and he was testifying to the commision about the way that Bush 2 and co. disregarded his warnings about the threat posed by Al Queda i prior to the attacks of 9/11. Clarke also feels that the war with Iraq is undermining the war on terror. Your attack seems rather like a repeat of a phenomenon I see over and over these days: the right wing doesnt like the facts as they stand, so they deny them and make up new ones. Just for your benefit, I have decided to post a list of facts that support my dissent of the Bush administrations policy.
1)The administration used the aftermath of 9/11 to make war with Iraq, by using scare tactics involving WMD, links with Al Queda, and claims that Iraq was buying uranium from nigeria, none of which have been validated one year after the war was declared.
2)The reconstruction of Afghanistan was put on the back burner for the war on Iraq.
3)President Bush is now presiding over an overall decrease in american jobs, he is the first president to have earned this distinction since Hoover.
4)President Bush has stood in the way of the 9/11 commission on numerous occasions including his effort to deny them his daily breifings from prior to the 9/11 attacks, documents for which supeonas were eventually threatened.
5) The Bush administration has recently tried to deny that they claimed Iraq was an imminent threat to america in favor of a more humanitarian focus, one which you all seem to have bought into.
6) Bush devised tax cuts to give a peice of the budget surplus he began his term with back to the american taxpayers. This surplus is now a $500 billion defecit due to these tax cuts, which he is now calling on congress to make permenant.
7)Halliburton, Dick Cheneys old company was given contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq and to allow them to supply the troops in Iraq with meals without any bidding. Halliburton has recently come under fire from officials who say that they are overcharging the government.
8)Neither the expected expenditures from the war on Iraq or the presence in Afghanistanwere taken in to consideration during the drafting of the current budget.
Well this list could go on and on for quite sometime but I have limited time and I think you get the point. I dont read the news paper every damn day to have a bunch of conservatives tell me that in order for something to be true, it has to be officially sanctioned as beneficial news to the white house.
By the way one point I missed earlier about religion… I am not opposed to any religion or the usage of the religion by those in office. What I oppose in George W Bush is the fact that he hides behind his religion and uses it as confirmation for his personal morality while at the same time shitting on the message of Jesus Christ as told by the Bible. Christian or not I do not care, but I find it very offensive that he will call himself Christian, and at the same time launch a war unprovoked on another soverign nation in the name of saving its people. Jesus didnt save with bombs, that wasnt his message. Jesus found peaceful ways of resolving conflict and dealing with opression, and even though there was plenty of evil in the time of Jesus he didnt run around branding people as “evildoers” but forgave them thier sins and asked that we try to do the same. “Judge not lest ye be judged and found wanting” said Jesus and Bush, that true and pure Disciple has presided over more executions than any govener in the history of the US, has lashed out at allies of our nation, and made war with Iraq over a vendetta. I will consider Bush a Christian the day I have my head filled with maggot ridden horseshit. Understand I know that everyone sins, noone is perfect, but Bush isnt even trying. He doesn’t care. Christianity is his platform not the guide by which he aspires to live. THis is why many people (myself included) who are religious (I myself am a Universalist) are abhorred by the president’s faith-based militant doctrine. And with good reason, after all isnt Osama bin-Laden also a religous man? Frankly I would be thrilled by a Christian president, but only if he is willing to act the religion more than he preaches it to Pat Robertson, and the moral majority.
P.S.
With regard to the question of whether or not i think I could do a better job than Bush in teh presidency it doesnt really matter as I am 20, and that makes me inelligible to run. However I am in college and doing better than Bush did in a harder feild (Biochemistry). My personal opinion however is that Bush is the WORST president in the history of America, and that John Kerry would do a much better job (or almost any politian in the country for that matter).
Hurin,It is true that Osama Bin-Laden is a religious man, but he takes his religion and twists it out of proportion. No where in his religion does it state to fly planes into buildings and kill as many civilians as humanly possible. Quite frankly I think it is wrong to insult the man who has actually made an effort to hunt this man down, and still is. And what right do you have to judge him about what religion he is, and how it guides his life, only 1 person can do that. Now the war in Iraq may be lacking sufficient proof to prove any of the initial reasons we went in for, but doesn’t freeing those people from a tyrant, and trying to help them more almost justify our being there. I have a friend over there enlisted now. I pray for him every night that he is safe. Just because I see a need for our troops to be there, even if it isn’t to find weapons of mass destruction, doesn’t mean I don’t care about them. Now I mean no personal insult by this, but, when is the last time you saw a need for a president to use a biochemistry degree. I’ll admit President Bush didn’t do so well in school, and the frat party photos of him don’t help, but when is the last time you saw any president take a stand for something they believe in this close to an election and stick with it, wrong or not. Examples (the war in Iraq, war on terror, and on a lighter note, his opposition of homosexual marriages.) If anything that very last example should be a sign of his religion guiding him in his work, because if he was thinking pure polotics, he would have realized that he just screwed himself out of millions of votes. By the way Read “Derilection of Duty” by Robert Patterson if you think President Bush was so bad.
Read the facts
I just cant get over the irony of your name! Ha ha ha ha…
Why dont you try reading “Bushisms”. Watch your smile grow as you see how dumb Bush really is. Ha Ha Ha Ha…
FUCK YOU GEORGE BUSH YOU MOTHER FUCKING GOD DAME MOTHER FUCKING TERROIST, I HOPE YOU GET CAPTURED JUST LIKE SADDOM DID YOU FUCKING EVIL CHILD KILLER.YOU KILLED MY THREE SONS YOU BASTERD.I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL YOU MOTHER FUCKER!
David,
I’m sorry but you seem to have taken my statement to be something its not. I am pro-Bush. However, I don’t consider my self to be either republican or democratic for that nature, both sides are too corrupt, and all the other ones are so tied up in special interest groups its no longer funny. Lets face it, not all of our Presidents have been geniuses. But it becomes an issue when they fail to do their job because of it. In my personal opinion, President Bush has not failed to do the job he was elected for. If anything I feel he is doing more that some previous Presidents to help ensure the national security of this great country. Not to mention, this is on a seperate note, when is the last time you saw any President go into an area designated an active battlezone, just to have dinner and small talk with our troops, the only example I can think of is Richard Nixon in Vietnam, however he wasn’t in a designated danger zone to the best of my knowledge, I may be wrong. Sure you people may all hate Bush, but he is the one sending our troops overseas to defend your right to criticize the man, to ensure that none of us have to live in fear of a man who wants to kill us just because of the country we live in. It may not convince you that he is doing his duty as President, but it convinced me. I know this comment doesn’t really go along with my name, because it is mostly my opinion, but I figured I should just put it out there, show where I stand in the matter. I mean no personal insult by this, I only want to bring things to light.
Read the facts, You took in half of my point about Bush and Osama bin Laden, however the point that you missed was the fact that Bush also twists his religion out of proportion. Jesus was not about violence or intolerance as Bush has shown himself to be in practice.
You assert that Bush is fighting in Iraq to secure our liberties at home but all the while the Patriot Act is undermining the freedoms he is supposedly fighting for, In recent months for instance i heard of a case where a court tried to supeona a college where a protest was held for dubious resons that seemed to be more related to the protest than anything else. Here is another example Josef Padilla has been held outside the U.S. in Guantanamo bay as an “enemy combatant” he still has not been given the right to see a lawyer or charged with anything. He is there because he alledgedly conspired to set off a dirty bomb, however no evidence has been produced to back this claim. He has been there for two years.
Bush is hunting bin-Laden at this point in time but when breifed by Richard Clarke about al Queda shortly after his administration took power he showed little desire to take action. After invading Afghanistan he went on to attack Iraq without having finished the job in Afghanistan, or collecting bin Laden. THese are the reasons why Richard Clark, the respected Counterterrorism czar of several administrations resigned from the service of this administration, and has recently taken to attacking it. This is also why you will probably hear a lot of character assasinations directed toward him by administration officials and republican allies.
I do have to agree, the Iraqi people are better off without the dictatorship of saddam hussein, i think any resonable person would agree with that, however the way in which this was acheived has compromised our relationship with many of our allies (just ask Bill), and frankly if Bush doesnt suceed in the re-building of Iraq the dictatorship to come has the potential to be a lot worse. In case you dont know the U.S. has a history of support for Hussein, even having given him WMD to use on the Iranians, during the Iraq-Iran war. Now that there is a significant terrorist presence in Iraq the fundamentalist state that might arise from a bungled nation building would almost certainly represent an imminant threat to America. Despite the high stakes of this America and coalition have gotten almost nowhere with this, an interim constitution was just recently signed only to be protested by the leader of the Shiite majority several days later. We were wrong to go in with out the UN and now we are paying the price. By the way, my condolences for your friend who is leaving for Iraq, I hope he makes it out alright. I had a friend who was in danger of going, however he realized early in boot camp that he would not be able to kill if it came down to it and received a status as a concientios objector.
In response to your question, I do not think a president nessesarily needs a degree in biochemistry, it was mostly just to make a point that I mentioned it. Bush does have a record of disregarding science in his policies however, this was recently pointed out by a panel of concerned scientists comprised by 60 prominant scientists including 20 nobel lauriates. Often his scientific views are either blatantly uninformed, or comprimised by his personal religious convictions. This is another sore point for me toward the administration. Well I could continue on with this but my post is approaching the size of a novella, and I dont want to be here staring at my computer all night. Sorry about its somewhat rambling nature, I was more focused on vomiting facts than forming a cohesive thought.
Hurin,
First of all I appreciate the formality of your argument, its alot harder to take people seriously when every other word out of their mouths is cursing. Second of all, your right Jesus wasn’t a violent man, but he wasn’t a man either. And even Jesus chased people from the temple with a whip or a leather band when he was enraged. But God knew that war between people was an undeniable certainty. I wish I could quote directly from scripture but there is a line in there that goes something along the lines of Those who stand against God shall fall, while those who are with me shall never perish, or something along those lines, I can’t quote scripture like I used too. As for your hatred of the patriot act, yes I do feel that it is an invasion of privacy, however if the enemy was sitting at your front door, you’d want the government to do everything possible to find them, and if you don’t have anything to hide, why be worried. Now I do know that the patriot act does promote some amount of profiling, unfortunatly this is a necessary evil of it. But I can’t say that I’ve actually seen an asian muslim extremest. (No insult was meant to anyone by that comment) No as for that case about Josef Padilla, I’d like a little more information, such as his citizenship status, nationality, and the exact charges if you don’t mind. Now as for the U.S. giving Iraq wmd’s for the Irag/Iran issue, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of that, I’ll assume for the sake of argument that it came from a reliable sorce, if you want to give me a link to that as well I’d be appreciative, but the U.S. also gave weapons to Afghanastan during the russian occupations by the spetznaz. Now we are having to clean up messes in both countries that we helped out in the past, our good deeds are coming back to haunt us it would seem to me. Now as to the comment about the U.N. it is my personal opinion that they have become useless. It would seem they do everything in their power now just to not help us. We had their support when we went to Kosovo, again to help out innocent civillians, but with Iraq, they had seemingly no interest, their exact reasoning I can’t be sure of, but the weapons hunts certainly didn’t help things any. As to why they choose to help with only certain things and not others just as great in importance I can’t understand why. Now the problem with the current government trying to be established in Iraq is, they haven’t quite grasped that seperation of church and state thing, and given their culture and history, I really don’t think they ever will, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to help. Also, are you a democrat or republican, or other?
By the way, I appreciate your concern for my friend, but please no condolences, those are for the dead, and he is not amongst them.
Ok, to start things off, I would like to adress this mainly to Bill and Hurin. First of all, your understanding of this issue makes me laugh Bill. The UN put sanctions on Iraq to stop him from continuing building a war machine that he could threaten the world with. Saddam Hussein was given several billions of dollars in economic aid as part of his sanction, but yet we killed nearly half a million children? Seems to me that the money was not going to feed the children. The man was building palaces for himself and continuing to build a weapons program. You criticize bush for his war, but you obviously fail to remember Clinton’s near war with Saddam in 1998. The same problems were arising then, and recently on Larry King Live, Bill Clinton said that his administration knew Saddam had WMDs, but he did not have the chance to act on the matter. It was Bush’s acting on it that Clinton said he admired the Bush administration’s commitment to making the world safer. When the UN failed to uphold their sanctions, it was in essence, The UN who didnt stop the deaths of the children. It was the responsibility of the UN to get involved, remove Hussein, and ensure the economic aid was properly distributed. I would like to touch base on one other point while Im at it. The gas attack on the Kurdish village…..that was cold-blooded and intended murder of men, women, and children.
The next issue I would like to touch upon is Hurin’s comments about Richard Clarke. First of all, we are not dumb, we know who Richard Clarke is and you only highlighted parts of his testimony that stand for your position. If you watched the whole thing, you would find him talking about the lack of inter-agency cooperation and the going through thousands of pieces of information a day, and then piecing it together. He said it was nearly an impossible job, which it would obviously be with the world being as large as it is. You comment on how he said the situation may have been avoidable, but the situation could have also been resolved in the Clinton administration following the attack on the USS Cole. Im sorry, but 6 Tomohawk Cruise Missles is a relatively weak response. That was Clinton’s entire response to the Cole. If he would have taken the oppurtunity to declare a war on terrorism, Im sure 9/11 would not have happened. Also as to Clarke’s statements, he mentioned that it was only vaguely discussed, the possibility of planes being used as bombs, and it was not considered the threat by the CIA, FBI, or the Counter-terrorism agencies.
Now I would like to touch upon the issue of religion. Jesus was the only perfect man to walk the Earth and is the only man who will ever be perfect. However, we are all missing on very important part of the religious argument. The Bible. The Bible says that there will be wars and rumors of wars until the 2nd coming of Christ, and it also goes to mention that the young nation will win victory in the city of Babylon. The city of Babylon is where present-day Baghdad is, and the young nation is in referral to America. I know I am kind of bouncing around on subjects, but please forgive me for I am very tired, but I would like to comment on a quote by Plato: “Only the dead have seen the end of war”. Sadly enough this comment is true. Now as for Bush hiding behind his religion? He isnt hiding behind it, he is letting it guidde him in his leadership of this country. If you study the founding fathers, you will find that they were all deeply religious men, and that they followed God throughout the creation of this country. Now Im going to touch it before you liberals out there slam it, I understand they wrote in the constitution a seperation of churh and state. That comment is meant to stop the nation from creating a national religion. It does not say to keep religion out of government, but we have managed to do that and ensure that we will not quarrel over it anymore than we already do. I know one thing though as a Christian. As long as we follow God, this nation will continue to prevail, and I hope that every person reading and posting these forums hope that America continues to prevail, because guess what, its our home and its a mighty nice home.
A quick comment to John O’Kill: Seek Anger management help.
Well I want to end on a more positive note. I want to thank Read the Facts and Hurin for helping to keep this debate clean from cuss words, and I will look forward to continue our debate. Support our troops and God Bless America.
“I Pledge Allegiance,To The Flag,Of The United States of America, And To The Republic,For Which It Stands, One Nation, UNDER GOD, Indivisible, With Liberty, And Justice For All.”
That’s funny, I thought the reason American and British troops were being attacked was because they were invading countries not ‘liberating’ them. Seeing that Bush’s compassion for humanity in these poor countries comes under constant criticism, maybe we should find out just why troops are attacked almost everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well, maybe the recent attacks in Afghanistan are due to this:
The New York Times reported, ‘ [Bush] demanded the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population’. (Strictly humanitarian of course.)
Or maybe its:
The US is the only state on record to have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua) and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law. (You see, this I what I like to call an example of ‘land of the free, home of the slave’.)
Or maybe its because:
As the U.S. is clearly a model for the rest of the world to follow, perhaps we should look at those ‘suspected’ terrorists at home. More terrorists are given training and sanctuary in the United States than anywhere on earth. They include mass murderers, torturers, former and future tyrants and assorted international criminals. This is virtually unknown to the American public, thanks to the freest media on earth. (I know you’ll laugh, but listen to the following, and maybe you’ll stop laughing because these people are living and well, in the United States – legally.)
In his book Rogue State , former senior State Department official Bill Blum describes a typical Florida trial of three anti-Castro terrorists, who hijacked a plane to Miami at knifepoint. ‘Even though the kidnapped pilot was brought back from Cuba to testify against the men,’ he wrote, ‘the defence simply told the jurors the man was lying, and the jury deliberated for less than an hour before acquitting the defendants.’
General Jose Guillermo Garcia has lived comfortably in Florida since the 1990s. He was head of El Salvador’s military during the 1980s when death squads with ties to the army murdered thousands of people. General Prosper Avril, the Haitian dictator, liked to display the bloodied victims of his torture on television. When he was overthrown, he was flown to Florida by the US Government. Thiounn Prasith, Pol Pot’s henchman and apologist at the United Nations, lives in New York. General Mansour Moharari, who ran the Shah of Iran’s notorious prisons, is wanted in Iran, but untroubled in the United States.
Al-Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan were kindergartens compared with the world’s leading university of terrorism at Fort Benning in Georgia. Known until recently as the School of the Americas, it trained tyrants and some 60,000 Latin American special forces, paramilitaries and intelligence agents in the black arts of terrorism.
In 1993, the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war; two-thirds of them had been trained at Fort Benning. In Chile, the school’s graduates ran Pinochet’s secret police and three principal concentration camps. In 1996, the US government was forced to release copies of the school’s training manuals, which recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses’ relatives. This really makes me laugh. Absolute bloody hypocrisy. If you don’t like the facts, check them up. It’s no wonder there are so many anti-American supporters all over the world.
The opinions you have seem to be structured around media representations of history. Well maybe you have (by now) come to the conclusion that what the mass media say, tends to be different to what independent media organizations say. This could be put down to a number of things, none of which I’m going to go into. The point is, ‘don’t believe what you read in the papers’, nothing at least that you read in the papers run by multinational media-moguls.
Here is a good exercise you can do to test the bias that occurs in newspapers (just in case you don’t believe me). Find two of the same stories that are printed in different newspapers, read them, compare them – just see how much bias there really is. And if you don’t take that as evidence for bias, this man couldn’t have put it better. A leader in his field of Western media, this man sure knows his stuff.
Professor Richard Falk Cornell University said western foreign policy, is propagated in the media ‘through a self righteous, one-way moral/legal screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence’.
Well maybe he’s a mad professor, but he still knows a hell of a lot more about Western media culture than you do. Anyway, back to the point, U.S.’s supposed ‘helping’ of Iraq and Afghanistan:
As Hurin said, the U.S. has done nothing to help Iraq ever since the Brits invaded it in 1912. Afghanistan was not ‘helped’ by America, more used as a foothold in the oil markets of the Middle East. You see that’s why Putin and his Russian cronies won’t give up Chechnya – because it lies directly on the border of Afghanistan. (Afghanistan being one of the worlds biggest oil suppliers.) That’s why America ‘supported’ Afghanistan, that’s why they’ve invaded Iraq.
Here I’m not saying this is the only reason why America have attacked these ‘rogue states’, but it still plays a big part. The case of Libya and Britain shows us blatantly the intentions of Western governments. The agenda is, take the resources, such as oil. The minute Gaddafi gave up his WMD programme, he was no longer a terrorist. At the same time, however, Shell moved in to secure a billion $ oil deal and Britain’s largest weapons manufacturer BAE got huge contacts too. There are also 24 Scottish companies who have secured deals – these are the companies from the same country that Gaddafi’s cronies attacked (Lockerby bombing).
The message is clear; you are no longer a terrorist if you let foreign investors in. The evidence is everywhere, for example, Saudi Arabia (supposedly where the September 9/11 hi-jackers came from). Do we see an invasion? No, because there are numerous ties between America, the IMF and the World Bank. These terrorists are pro-American
I eagerly await your response…
P.S Belka95, i have just seen your response and will deal with it later. And no, your understanding of history makes me laugh. Prepare your self for reliable sources and not just the mindless regurgitation of the ideological pundits you so willingly follow.
Can I just say Belka95, I am going to demolish your argument (you must excuse me for being this blatant, usually I’m more I’m subtler, but for you I will make an exception.
You said:
“Saddam Hussein was given several billions of dollars in economic aid as part of his sanction, but yet we killed nearly half a million children?”
Wrong. If you had bother to read up on the history of the sanctions you would find the U.S. Government has given absolutely nothing to Iraq. Yep, that’s right, not one cent. The billions of dollars were given in exchange for oil. You see that’s what is known as the ‘oil for food’ program. Read up on it. The funny thing is: they didn’t just take the oil and give the humanitarian aid, no, “The United Nations Secretary-General Report” in October 2001, says the obstruction of $4billion of aid was the biggest cause of poverty, illness and premature deaths. Yes, they refused the country the aid that I had already bought from its oil reserves. And that’s not all.
Another study conducted by Paul Conlon, “United Nations Sanctions Management: A case study of the Iraq Sanctions Committee” carried from 1990 to 1994 concluded “that [the U.S. and U.K representatives for the sanctions committee] have frequently delayed and vetoed baby food, agricultural equipment, heart and cancer drugs, oxygen tents, X-ray machines, 16 heart and lung machines, a fleet of ambulances…” The list goes on and on. And if you want to buy the study, it’s made available by Transnational Publishers based in New York, which was released in 2000. (Check out pages 73 to 74)
You said:
“The UN put sanctions on Iraq to stop him from continuing building a war machine that he could threaten the world with.”
You’re gona love this: Do you want to know what Dennis Halliday said? Well he worked at the U.N for 34 years, until he quit at the rank of Assistant Secretary General. He said, and I quote “I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has affectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them…”
He also added that “[the sanctions] have undermined their own charter, the Geneva Convention and the Declaration of Human Rights”. Wonderful, isn’t it? The truth is that sanctions do not affect dictators; they only strengthen them. The U.N knows this, they’ve conducted studies on it. Unfortunately I’ve misplaced a book denouncing sanctions otherwise I’d give you another source.
You said:
“Seems to me that the money was not going to feed the children.”
The sanctions committee calcualted that each person living in Iraq gets a hundered dollars a year to survive (this includes the maintaning of transport services, emergency services etc) Do you think the money they gave the country, which was only 2/3 of the total amount as the U.N. claimed ‘costs’, was sufficient to live on?
You said:
“When the UN failed to uphold their sanctions, it was in essence, The UN who didnt stop the deaths of the children.”
Now this seems to be the root of your argument. You seem to believe the culpability lies within the U.N. You also seem to belive that it was the ‘U.N.’, not the governments of Britian and America – wrong. Even though the U.N. is seperate from the U.S./U.K. governements, the representatives of countries represent countries. Doh! Oh, and George Bush openly supported the sanctions as did his ambassador, Madleine Albright!
(By the way, when exactly did the U.N. stop the sanctions? Because that’s what you were implying. The sanctions have never been stopped.) I’ll admit you are right the U.N. was the organsation to blame, but the only people supporting the sanctions are the British and, primarily, the American Governments. It’s convenient that you failed to mention the fact the George Bush Senior (one of your sacred Republicans) was the one who started sanctioning Iraq after the first Gulf War.
You also said:
“You criticize bush for his war, but you obviously fail to remember Clinton’s near war with Saddam in 1998.”
Why are you saying this? I am not a democrat and even if I was it doesn’t automatically mean I would support anyone brandishing that name. (That would be the defintion of an idiot – you’re getting confused.) I think both parties are equally corrupt. I hate Clinton as much as I hate Bush.
You said:
“If he would have taken the oppurtunity to declare a war on terrorism, Im sure 9/11 would not have happened.”
Well maybe if Bush had been more observant, 9/11 may have never happened.
Now you go into a religious justification for a war, which, in itself, is absolutely ridiculous. Do you realise people such as Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Ariel Sharon (and all his predecessors) have used religion to justify wars? Do you know that faith is by no means a justification for war? Do you know how many contrdictions the Bible actually has? The point is: Christianity is far from perfect Belk, so don’t try and go on a morale crusade using it as a premise.
You said:
“Jesus was the only perfect man to walk the Earth and is the only man who will ever be perfect.”
Now I’m not a religious man, but that doesn’t make me a bad man. So maybe Jesus was a ‘perfect’ man, maybe he wasn’t. If he was was his body perfect? Seems it must be. So tell me, how long are perfect fingers? I know mine are 3.5 inches but is that perfect? Maybe they’re too fat, or too skiny, beats me, I’d really like to know the perfect finger. Get back to me on that one and I’ll consult my doctor in order to get my fingers ‘perfected’!
I await your response. And remember, also support the dying people of Iraq as well as the troops!
It seems Belka95 that you are a very religious man. Where do you stand on womans rights, gay marrige, and contaception? It would be interesting to know where Republicans get thier half-witted policies from.
I was considering the other day, when i was walking down the street, whether or not to punch someone spontaneously! When i got arrested i’d claim it was a pre-emptive strike and that i was hitting him before he hit me! Surely, if i used Bush, it would hold up in an international court of law!
Belka95 and Read the facts:
You said:
“The gas attack on the Kurdish village…..that was cold-blooded and intended murder of men, women, and children”-which was financed by the American Government
You said:
“Now as for the U.S. giving Iraq wmd’s for the Irag/Iran issue, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of that, I’ll assume for the sake of argument that it came from a reliable sorce, if you want to give me a link to that as well I’d be appreciative…”- Well here’s your evidence, thoguh I havent checked if you can find it on the interent yet.
“The Guardian” on May 2 and 8, 1992, as well as “The U.S. General Accounting Office, IRAQ: US Military Items Exported or Transferred to Iraq in the 1980s”, on February 1994, concluded that “Bush and his advisors financed, equipped, and soccoured the monster[Saddam Hussein] the later set out to slay, and no they were burying the evidnece.” That was qouted off Hnery Gonzalez , chairman of the House of Representatives Banking Committee.
You said:
“but the U.S. also gave weapons to Afghanastan during the russian occupations by the spetznaz.”
I know I claimed the same thing in a previous argument; I, as well as you, was wrong. On July 3, 1979, unknown to Congress and the American public, President Carter authorised a $500million covert action programme in support of the tribes known as the ‘mujaheddin’. The aim was to overthrow Afghanistan’s first secular progressive government. This had nothing to do with the Soviet invasion 6 months later. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security advisor, claimed in an interview published in “Le Nouvel Obsevateur”(A French magazine) in January 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began during 1980, that is after the Soviet Army invaded Afganistan … But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise.”
There you have it: another example of histroy distorted to benefit those in power. Well if you guys used a source other than Larry King Live, you may sound more convincing. But until then, peace and prosperity.
I’ve just seen there are lots of typing errors in the above argument. If you don’t understand what i’m trying to say, i’ll clear it up with you if you mention it.
Bill I was just putting up a request for information, why do you feel the need to insult someone like that assuming that I am dumb enough to consult only one source before proceeding into an argument blindly. Thats just insulting. Now as to your comments about Jesus being perfect and about the size of the perfect finger. If you are going to start arguments about petty crap thats fine, but don’t go into religion. Your right Jesus was perfect, does that make you bad, no, you determine that one my friend. Was his body perfect, no, he was the son of God in HUMAN form. He was perfect in the eyes of God because of his sinless nature, his body was still prone to the same pains that man had. Now your choice in religion, or possibly lack there of, isn’t really a concern of mine, but if you plan on being taken seriously about any arguement you post please for future reference, don’t go picking fights about petty crap, keep to the subject at hand. By the way, the reason its called faith is because no one knows for sure you can only put your faith in it, think about that one for awhile.
I really do not have a great deal of time at the moment, and I will make an attempt to do post a longer message tomorrow. Bill it seems to me that you are an unpatriotic bastard. Im sorry but that is how you seem. You do not support any government of the United States and you dont support US wars. Let me give you a little information: Wars are what create, build, and define societies. Fortunately America has had extremely good success in our armed conflicts and that is what makes us the best country on Earth. We also take care for the innocent and we kill as very few as possible civilians. We are not a brutal society that goes out on a killing rampage like half the world’s dictators. When those men do such things, we respond to police the situation. Just like regular society, the world also needs police. Sometimes I think of the UN as that fat cop with a doughnut that cant get off his ass to do his job. America is that in-shape cop that does an effective job. Now you cant tell me you dont like police. If you dont then you really do have mush up there for your brains. The fact is that America fights for its own citizens as well as the citizens of other nations. You can find this policy in the tablet that Lady Liberty holds. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. The people of Iraq 2 years ago were not able to breathe free. They now are. Americans, had it not been for the fierce battles we fought so ever bravely, would not be a free people. But we are. It was defined by war, which is a terrible thing. But it is also usually for the best in the long run.
Sorry Read the facts, Belka95, but i get emotional when such matters are raised. In the future I will endevour to not sound as offensive. I will respond to all ‘politically’ motivated arguments from now on.
P.S.
Just becuase i dont support my country 100% that doesnt make me unpatriotic. As my right honorable friend put it
“an unquestioning worship of the administration is now “Patriotism.” Fuck that . A real patriot is one who will question the workings of the government, and strive for its improvement. Indifference is the real anti-patriotism.”
Thankyou Hurin for that remark, it was much needed. I will respond soon enough.
P.SS
I live in Britian, not America but you’d be pleased to know that i am equally ‘unpatriotic’ about the dealings of my own country!
Belka95
“Wars are what create, build, and define societies.”
So it is ok to wage war on another society if it benefits (or creates) yours? I have to say that is what you are implying.
Wars do not create, they destroy. The modern day stategy for waging war relies on, firstly, bombing the country’s basic infastructure, which includes water systems, hospitals, transport routes and so on. Secondly, annhilating any form of stategic point (and if they cant destroy them completely – as was the case in Baghdad, Kirkuit etc, they control them). Thirdly, sending in ground troops with the help of satellite tracking, ariel bombardment, tanks, helicopters etc, in order to control the entire country with the smallest effort.
With the case of the Coalition versus Iraq, the opposition had little more than tanks. And because Britian and America had been bombing Iraq for the past ten years, in whats known as the ‘no fly zone’, the infastructure of Iraq was practically demolished. As the Secretary-General of the U.N, Martti Ahtisaari, put it “Iraq has for some time been relegated to a pre-industrial age but with all the disabilities of post-indusrial dependancy on an intensive use of energy and technology”. That was quoted off The New York Times, June 3, 1991 if you want to check it out.
Surely, this country was no match for the Coalition? I’m not saying countries who wage war on each other should be of equal military strength, but there are other ways to solving matters such as Iraq, not all of them resulting in war. Now I know I’ll probably attract a stream of criticisms from what I have just said but the weapons inspectors should not have been the final straw for Iraq. Ultimately, this would have benefitted the people – innocent men, women and children – who have had no say in this conflict and yet are the ones most affected. (The common man is the one most affected byt wars, not the rich man.)
Furthermore, increasingly I see the argument arise that “if we [The Coalition] hadn’t attacked Iraq, Saddam Hussien would still be at large and that Iraq is also a better place now than it was beforehand”.
There are numerous problems with this argument. First and foremost, this completely undermines the initial premise of the war – and that was weapons of mass destruction.
I’ll try and explain it with an anology:
A police raid has gone wrong, and raided the wrong house but only to find this house has more drugs than the original house had. The police then justify the ILLEGAL raid by claiming we’ve found drugs, disregarding the fundamenatal principle of the law itself.
Although the analogy is vaguely representative of the case for the Iraq war, this is how the governments seem to be behaving now they found there where no WMD.
Even so, there remain other fundamental flaws to this argument that are rarely mentioned. The pople who usually bring this up fail to mention:
1) Saddam was supported by the West – as I have mentioned before.
2) The West has had the chance to remove him at any given time in his presedency. Primarily they had the chance to remove him during the second Gulf war but didn’t because they realised that stability, in the area that produces the worlds highest grade oil, may result in disregard for Western interests. To be more specific, a democratically elected government by the Iraqi people would almost certainly result in the oil being sold to countries other than America.
This is partly why Bush Senior bailed out and partly why Bush junior has secured the contracts for Halliburton so the Iraqi people have no choice in where their oil goes. By doing this, it seems Iraq has a ‘democratically’ elected government while at the same time, America gets the oil. In addition, there are all sorts of flaws with the preposed Iraqi government. None of these I want to go into because I haven’t got the tenacity.
3) At the present, all evidence points to the fact that Iraq is now a worse off place to live (with 80% of the country without elecrticity and running water, it seems this situation doesn’t match the brutality of Saddam’s regime). And because there is also no way of sending in the construction teams (because of the daily barrage of bombs) in order to repair the cities, the American Army is in a pickle! On one hand, ‘terrorists’ are trying to get rid of the Coalition because the country is, and has been, in turmoil and on the other, the government cant get rid of the ‘turmoil’ until the country is safe! It really beats me how they’ll get out of this one… catch 22 comes to mind!
To end this huge response I would like to say my computer is going mad so don’t critisize me on the numerous spelling, puncuation and grammar errors. Moreover, I would rather like to raise other issues in your last post but, as you can see, it takes time. (This response was all over one sentence!) Luckily for me I have spare time as I’m on half term at the moment, so i shall endevour to respond some time in the near future…
I respectfully await your response.
Bill, I have to say I do respect your points of view, but I beg to differ on some issues. First, with the patriotism issue. You are right that a true patriot questions his government and strives for it to be better, but I also believe that one who goes on the streets and protests against something the country is doing is wrong. Burning the glag for example is wrong, because it is of the country you live in, and that flag also represents what will be flown when you are still protected. I believe that government needs to be checked, but I also find it horrible when troops are deployed to take to the streets and protest what they are doing. How do you think they feel? Especially when most soldiers believe highly in their mission. Now I dont think you are like this, but the people who really piss me off are some of the Hollywood movie stars who will even venture to call our soldiers murderers. They dont realize those young men who are out there putting their life on the line are fighting for American, British, and freedom for all the other countries in the world. That is why I can be sensitive on the patriot issue. Also, just so you may better understand my issue on patriotism, my family has had a long military history. We have lost several lives to conflicts of the past, and they gave their life to help make America a better place. That is why I strongly support my government and almost always find myself on the conservative side. But being on the conservative side does not mean I am a racist, because I am not. I hate the KKK with a passion and I hate any type of discrimination. But basically I will sum myself up as a conservative patriot who would put his life on the line to defend this great nation. Now to the point that wars are what create and build societies. I probably should have made it more clear and said that not all wars create societies, ex. WW2. However, I also find myself looking especially to the American Revolution. That was a war that launched the creation of one of the greatest nations on Earth. It took hard battles to win, but the brave thirteen colonies won independence from Great Britain with the help of the French. Also I think of the civil war. Before that war, America was in many ways, seperated. The slavery issue was hindering progress of uniting the country, and it eventually led to war. The outcome is something that any American with a right mind is happy about. We no longer have slaves and I dont quite dare to say we dont have discrimination because some rednecks as I would put it, have to be bigots and racists. Winston Churchill himself said that the American Civil War is what defined America as a nation and gave us our charachter. But the current issue is a war in Iraq. I try to be an optimist and although no WMDs were found, I see this as a great oppurtunity for the Iraqi people as well as the world. I still believe there were WMDs and he successfully sent them to Syria, but the problem is we will never know the truth. But right now, Iraq is a mess. It is a mess because building a new and better country means tearing down the old andthat creates a mess. Maybe it will be a few years before the attacks stop and the insurgents finally realize they will lose, but when that day comes and we are able to move forward and set up a progressive and stable government, the future for all Iraqi children just got alot sunnier. Just as the French helped America gain independence, in the future, America will be talked about in Iraqi classrooms as the nation that helped Iraq become a better country. I criticize myself right now for focusing too much on America though, yes, we did alot, but so did Great Britain (Our truest ally) and Spain and all the other countries of the coalition. Although at this moment the future looks a little bleak, if we all just unite behind our governments and say “I supported the war (Or I didnt support the war) but lets go ahead and get the job done right. Lets set up the new Iraqi government and make the world a better place”. It may be hard to see, but this is why I feel wars create and define societies.
I totally agree with most of what you have said. I feel the troops should never be criticized as it is their job to kill, if they don’t they can go to military prison – not exactly your ideal place! Anyone who criticizes the troops is either totally misguided or uninformed. Ground soldiers are ordered by their superiors to attack certain places and carry out certain missions. The soldiers who command them then get told by someone else what to do. The bureaucratic system is so large that criticizing anyone but those in high positions is rather stupid.
What I do feel, however, is that the politicians and elite military generals, who affectively command the troops, should be trialed for crimes against humanity if they are proven to commit war crimes against humanity. These men, namely Dick Cheney, are seldom criticized but yet they are the ones who put the lives of the majority of the troops at risk. I think that the army is often used as a scapegoat for wars but people who mention this fail to mention the fact that the majority of all wars are started by politicians. It is also convenient that these politicians tend to have diplomatic immunity, affectively, enabling them to get away with murder!
Moving on, I was reading an extract from a man who describes the hypocrisy of the Coalitions efforts to dismantle the ‘Axis of Evil’. By all means, the “Axis of Evil” is a farce. On one hand, the world’s rich nations want to eliminate terrorism but on the other, there are terrorists living legally in all the world’s richest nations. George Monibiot said:
Given that all the evidence linking the school [Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc (the school I mentioned the other day)] to continuing atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence linking al-Qa’ida training camps to the attack on New York what should we do about the ‘evil-doers’ in Fort Benning, Georgia?
Surely, it makes sense to root out the evil-doers at home before going and finding them elsewhere; these are the terrorists that are most likely to attack Western countries as they are, literally, under our noses. Of course, the evil-doers in this case, are pro American, unlike the evil-doers in Iraq. Another example of hypocrisy in the ‘Axis of Evil’ is Saudi Arabia and Egypt – home to all of the September 11 hijackers – we do not see an invasion there. Why? I think I’ve explained enough.
Without doubt, all these misrepresentations have to be down to something, because if the majority of the American public knew there were terrorists living on their doorstep, they would certainly extradite them. This brings me onto the media. The media plays a huge role in silencing all sorts of things during wars. For example, representations of the first Gulf war: the mass graves were paraded throughout the western media during the invasion of Iraq, documented as “the results of Saddam’s brutality”. This is entirely true. But, at the same time, the reports fail to mention that American armored bulldozers were deployed to bury dead and alive Iraqi soldiers in trenches (or mass graves) two days before the ceasefire. Nothing was mentioned in the media until 6 months later when New York Newsday on September 12, 1991, disclosed that three brigades of the US First Mechanized Infantry Division were deployed to bury thousands of Iraqi soldiers – some still alive – in over 70 miles of trenches. A brigade commander, Colonel Anthony Moreno, said “For all I know, we could have killed thousands”. This is never, or rarely, mentioned in the mainstream media.
I respect your view that protesting during, or in the run up to, wars must do excessive harm to the troop’s morale. But at the same time I feel that it should be someone’s right to voice their opinion as long as they are not harming anyone in the process. Definitely, this is a fine line of whether or not protesting is harming the troops as there may be an affect on soldiers if they feel they have no support at home as well as having to deal with conflict while abroad.
I feel that we are getting on well now but I have to bring up one thing you said in your previous argument. I’m doing this not for the sake of argument but more that I would like to rectify certain matters revolving around American conflicts. I feel that I may also be coming across as one-sided with all these statistics that are critical of the American Government and none of my own government. This is not in my intentions, as I am equally critical of my own government. I will now try to include an equal amount of anti-British statistics in the future! But having said that, it is very hard to incorporate British involvement, when most of the matters raised are predominantly American orientated.
Anyway, you said:
Fortunately America has had extremely good success in our armed conflicts and that is what makes us the best country on Earth. We also take care for the innocent and we kill as very few as possible civilians.
As you have done with me, I beg to differ on this matter. For example, in the first Gulf War, 7% of the weapons used in Desert Storm were ‘smart’ (I am refering to the famed smart bombs). 77% of the bombs dropped on Kuwait and Iraq – the equivalent of seven Hiroshimas – missed their targets completely and many landed on populated areas. The launch sites of the Iraq’s Scud missiles were said to be ‘knocked out’, not one was destroyed. This information comes from the ‘International Herald Tribune’, February 23-24, as well as my new favorite newspaper ‘The New York Times’, January 15, 1992.
What this is meant to show is the supposed ‘accuracy’ of military bombing in the first Gulf War – and the civilian casualties as a result of the bombing. In fact, The Medical Education Trust in London published a comprehensive report on the casualties of the Iraq war. They concluded that up to a quarter of a million Iraqi men, woman and children were killed as a result of the war. General Schwarzkopf said 100,000 of them were soldiers.
I expect to hear more from you in the future…
Just some food for thought, the following quote appeared in a Liberal webzine known as Counterpunch.org in the last week or so:
The President, whose “bring ’em on” invitation to Al Qaeda summoned Bin Laden’s evil network to Iraq, has been eminently successful in promoting the “terror” facet of the War on T, and is, of course, endorsed for re-election by that noble aggregation–in a recent communique published by a Dubai daily, the Abu Hafs Masri brigades, said to be tight with Osama, called for four more years because “Bush’s stupidity and religious fanaticism” will benefit Islamic interests. (http://www.counterpunch.org/ross03272004.html, Written by John Ross)
This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. It is well known that hardline responses only contribute to the radical agenda. In Spain recently Joseph Aznar suffered a suprise loss in the wake of a terrorist attack, and many U.S. journalists accused the Spanish people of “appeasing” terrorists. I actually think Al-Queda may have gotten the opposite result that they were hoping for, because really what is better for a terrorist than prolonged war and misery? These things cause the populace to become desperate and bitter and what sort of people would you say are more likely to loin up with Al Queda, those who are prosperous and have lives that they can value, or those whose dismal lives are in tatters and can see no better way out than one that can provide them revenge along with the death that they seek? The war on Iraq is a boon to Terrorists, who now have a new front to fight the U.S., more war ravaged civilians to draw on for membership and all they have to do to win Iraq over is to continue creating disorder. This is not to say that I beleive we cannot leave Iraq better than it was under saddam, but it is far from a trivial matter, especially considering the way support from our allies is waning. Furthermore Bush is has shown himself to be unimaginative in his policies at the very best, we can see it in the way he takes undelicate and absolutist stances in foriegn policies. Possible threats to a more intelligent man are “axis of evil” to Bush. I myself am highly skeptical that such a man can be trusted with such a difficult and high stakes task as this. Whether or not our wars define us is a point both moot and philisophical .
If we dont stop letting our leaders engage in Irrational wars with faulty backing, these campeigns threaten to define us as a once great nation reduced to rubble by the discontents of our arrogant and self-interested foreign policy.
P.S. I forget wheter it was read the facts or Belka, but someone questioned my assertion about U.S. involvement during the Iraq-Iran war. For validation of this point please see Bill’s post of Feb.20 which provides a short history of U.S. involvment in that Region, and which is both thorough and heavily sited (he provides 24 sources). You may find some things that supprise you.
Thankyou Hurin for another succinct argument. I am in the proccess of surfing the site you mentioned though i have been on there before. As promised I found some ‘anti-British’ information on the net. It describes Prime Minister Blair’s relationship with arms dealers. As we all know, Britain is now the largest weapons seller to Africa as well as being the 2nd largest manufacturer in the world. Britain sells weapons to countries with some of the most appalling human rights records in the world. It seems governments are there to serve big business and not help people as I was brought up to believe. (This article was written a couple of years ago; though it is dated, the information remains correct)
“With nuclear powers India and Pakistan on the edge of war, the role of the Blair government in fuelling the conflict has been critical.
In the year 2000, the Government approved nearly 700 export licenses for weapons and military equipment to both countries. These had a total value of £64million. India, which gets the great majority of British weapons, is building under license Jaguar bombers that are capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
In January, as the two countries prepared for war, Tony Blair arrived in the subcontinent on what was called a “peace mission.” In fact, as the Indian press revealed, he discussed the opposite of peace – a £1billion deal to sell India 60 Hawk fighter-bombers made by British Aerospace. “The issue of India acquiring the Hawks,” reported the periodical Outlook India, “was raised by Prime Minister Blair with Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee, defence minister George Fernandes said today.”
Three weeks later, the British High Commission in New Delhi threw a party for a group of British arms salesmen in town for a major weapons fair called Defexpo, whose organizers made no secret of their aim to exploit the “recent developments taking place in the south-east Asia region” – in other words, the conflicts in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
So keen has the Blair government been to exploit this opportunity of war that a British official has the full-time assignment, in New Delhi, of “defense supply”. He works with the Defense Export Sales Organization (DESO) in London, an arm of the Ministry of Defense, whose sole aim is to sell weapons to foreign armies. A secret list of 22 “highly valuable priority markets” targeted for British arms sales has India and Pakistan near the top. British missiles, tanks, artillery, howitzers, anti-aircraft guns, small arms and ammunition are all available on buy-now-pay-later terms.”
But the prize is the 60 Hawk fighter-bombers, coyly described as “trainers”. Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt was yesterday reported to have “banned” this deal. It has not been banned; the delivery date has been simply put back – which was the tactic the Blair government used in delaying the shipment of Hawks to Indonesia when the dictatorship in that country was attempting to annihilate East Timor.
INDIA and Pakistan have millions of impoverished people without basic services. According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, the price of one Hawk bomber is roughly the amount needed to provide 1.5million people with fresh water for life.
Arming both sides is, of course, as British as pith helmets. In the horrendous war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, Britain did just that in company with other Western countries. At least a million people were killed.
The usual hypocrisy and double standards are even more spectacular under this government. Soon after New Labour came to power in 1997, the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook announced an “ethical dimension” to foreign policy. He said that the Government “will not issue an (arms) export licence if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country” or if there was a threat to “regional stability”.
He might have been talking about India and Pakistan, whose long-running dispute over Kashmir is, according to Cook’s successor Jack Straw, “potentially more dangerous than the crisis in the Middle East”.”
And there you have: an example of big business having an increasingly worrying amount of influence on governments. Alas, I do not understand the political gene! Though this isn’t nearly enough information as I have supplied on America, there should be more to come in the future. There are more than enough atrocities to go round!
Moving on, when I said in a previous post about links between America and Saudi business, I forgot to mention there is a book out in the states – which, unfortunately, has been banned over here – that describes the links between the Bush family and one Saudi millionaire. Obviously, I cannot read it, but if someone does happen to read the book, tell me what it is like, I would like to know!
Its called “House of Bush House of Saud” and its author is Craig Unger.
I hate George w. i’m an idiot hillbilly A$$ Bush. he is a low educated fool. Vote Kerry!!!
We need to get rid of this fool, I hope he is not re-elected. Thanks for your time. I like your site.
love
peace
TC
To anyone who is interested in hearing more about Guantanimo bay than the Mainstream media is willing to cover, here is a story Published on Counterpunch.org on April 1, 2004 Which I am a posting under to protection of the fair usage doctrine.
Inside America’s Concentration Camp
Tortured at Guantanamo Bay
By NICOLE COLSON
Jamal al-Harith made the mistake of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And for that, the last two years of his life have been one long nightmare. The 37-year-old British Web site designer went to Pakistan in October 2001 to study Muslim culture.
Jamal says that on his way to Turkey, he mistakenly entered Afghanistan. Once there, he was arrested as a suspected spy and turned over to U.S. authorities. Then the real horror began. Jamal was transported to Camp X-Ray–and later Camp Delta–the notorious U.S. prisons located at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay.
But after two years of detention and virtually no contact with the outside world, the U.S. finally admitted that Jamal wasn’t one of the “most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth,” as U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once labeled the prisoners at Camp X-Ray.
Last month, Jamal and four other British nationals were released. Jamal’s recounting of life inside the camp became further proof that Washington’s brand of “justice” is anything but. In an interview with the Britain’s Mirror newspaper, Jamal described the horrific conditions and physical and mental torture that inmates were forced to endure on a daily basis.
Rice and beans were the usual diet, and the water was “filthy,” he said. “In Camp X-Ray, it was yellow and in Delta, it was black–the color of Coca-Cola. We had it piped through with a tap in each ‘cage,’ but they would often turn the water off as punishment…
“The food was terrible as well, up to 10 years out of date. They would open a hatch and shove it through a section at a time. Recreation meant your legs were untied, and you walked up and down a strip of gravel. In Camp X-Ray, you only got five minutes, but in Delta you walked for around 15 minutes.”
During lengthy interrogation, inmates would be attached–like animals–to a metal ring on the floor. “Sometimes,” Jamal said, “you would be chained up on the floor with your hands and feet actually bound together. One of my friends told me he was kept like that for 15 hours once.”
Inmates who resisted–in whatever form–found themselves subject to worse torture, according to Jamal and others. “You would be punished for anything–for having six packets of salt in your cell rather than five, for hanging your towel through the cage if it wasn’t wet, even for having your spoon and things lined up in the wrong order,” Jamal said in his Mirror interview.
As punishment, he says, a group of guards dressed in full riot gear known as the “Extreme Reaction Force” would beat uncooperative inmates–who were then paraded in front of other prisoners’ cells as a warning. “The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you psychologically,” Jamal commented. “The beatings were not as nearly as bad as the psychological torture. Bruises heal after a week, but the other stuff stays with you. They would play tricks on people by denying them things–you might be the only person on your block who didn’t get any bread.”
Prisoners, according to Jamal, were told they had no rights. “They actually said that–‘you have no rights here.’ After a while, we stopped asking for human rights–we wanted animal rights.
“In Camp X-Ray, my cage was right next to a kennel housing an Alsatian dog. He had a wooden house with air conditioning and green grass to exercise on. I said to the guards, ‘I want his rights,’ and they replied, ‘That dog is member of the U.S. army.'”
Following Jamal and other prisoner’s allegations of abuse, the U.S. embassy in London took the disgusting step of releasing detailed allegations about them to the British press. Washington claimed that Jamal and the other four released British detainees had received weapons training and been caught with Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
If that was really the case, the U.S. wouldn’t have released them. And British authorities–despite their kowtowing to Washington–have concluded that the men did nothing wrong.
Following the allegations from Jamal and other prisoners, Secretary of State Colin Powell scoffed: “We do not abuse people in our care. Guantanamo Bay is not a resort, but at the same time, we do not abuse individuals.” Maybe Powell can explain, then, why at the same time that Jamal and the other British prisoners were telling their stories to the press, a group of 23 newly released Afghan and Pakistani prisoners were recounting similar stories of torture at the hands of the U.S.
Aziz Khan, a 45-year-old father of 10, said he was taken from Paktia Province more than two years ago because he had four Kalashnikov rifles in his home. At Guantanamo, he was sometimes kept in chains and sometimes “put in a place like a cage for a bird.” “They had very bad treatment toward us,” he told the New York Times. “Americans are very cruel. They want to govern the world.”
“The American inspectors behaved very badly–they were mentally torturing us,” Mohammed, a 27-year-old who was among those released, told Agence France Presse. As for the more than 600 prisoners left in cages in the U.S. gulag? “They are all innocent people just like me,” Mohammed said. “If I was a Taliban and al-Qaeda why did they release me? The others still in jail are just like me.”
But if the Bush administration has its way, that’s exactly where many of them will stay. That’s because Washington still refuses to grant the inmates status as prisoners of war, which would entitle them to basic rights under the Geneva Convention.
Instead, “All detainees are treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in accordance with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949,” Lt. Cmdr. Barbara Burfeind, a Pentagon spokeswoman, told the New York Times. In other words: Washington gets to decide which prisoners have rights–and if and when they get to exercise them.
Ultimately, it took an international outcry from human rights groups before the U.S. finally agreed in late January to release the youngest of its Guantanamo. prisoners–three children between the ages of 13 and 15. They were kept at the prison camp for more than a year. The U.S. still has an undisclosed number of children between the ages of 16 and 18 at the camps.
The Bush administration says it is waging a “war on terror.” But the degrading treatment of prisoners at its Guantanamo gulag show that this is a war of terror. We need to organize to put an end to this outrage.
“Drive-by act of legal violence”
SEVENTY-SIX days in a military brig and a name and career dragged through the mud. But the best “apology” that the U.S. government can offer to Capt. James (Yousef) Yee is “never mind.” Yee is the Muslim chaplain who ministered to prisoners at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay and who was arrested last September on allegations of spying, mutiny, sedition, aiding the enemy and mishandling classified information.
For more than two months, Yee was jailed in a maximum-security Navy lockup in Jacksonville, Fla., where he was only let outside his cell in shackles for just one hour each day. Yet last week, the government dropped all of the criminal charges against Yee.
They won’t, of course, admit that it’s because Yee is innocent. Instead, the Army said it could not proceed because of “national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence” against him. What garbage! If Yee was a “spy” aiding al-Qaeda terrorists, as the government initially claimed, they would have raked him over the coals for years to come.
Instead, as an additional slap in the face, a military hearing found him guilty of committing adultery and storing pornographic images on a government computer. “This officer is the victim of an incredible drive-by act of legal violence,” Eugene Fidell, Yee’s lawyer, told Reuters.
(end of article)
The real question that needs asking, is why in the hell I have to go to a leftist, internet news source to hear any sort of disscussion on Guantanimo bay or the prisoners therein. If the Mainstream media was really unbiased and even handed, they would covering such things , and the outrage they could fuel would end such dispicable practices. I am forced to assume that this is a well researched article, however that does not need to be the case either, Iff CNN wanted to the could round up a bunch of people who were at these camps and interview them before the camera. By the way, Josef Padilla who I mentioned earlier was in one of these installations IS an american citizen and has been there around 2 years. This can happen to anyone, so the argument I have heard from conservatives that only americans should be given the protections granted americans by the constitution is null and void (not that an argument that bigoted would really hold water anyway) but the point is this could happen to YOU, and we have Mr. Bush and his thugs to blame for it.
P.S. Bill in response to your gratitude for my last argument, it is my pleasure, and I always enjoy reading your posts as well.
The article you have posted is interesting; here’s something I found on Blair from the same source. You may have already read it but I’ll post a section of it anyway to try and expose Blair for the liar he is. If you want the full article go to:
http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman05192003.html
“Blair knows perfectly well that these recently-discovered dead go back many years to uprisings in Iraq after the first Gulf war. The graves can be no surprise since virtually every detail of the uprisings was known to British and American governments. The CIA had many informers, both inside Iraq and as refugees, it had genuine information from spy satellites and high-flying aircraft, it had telephone and Internet interceptions, and it had information from Mossad, people who keep a very close watch on that neighborhood. This information would have kept the two governments about as well informed as Hussein himself.
For some reason, I don’t recall any great outrage expressed at the time. I don’t recall the British or American governments doing anything, or even threatening to do anything, at the time. Could that possibly be because the uprisings in Iraq were actively encouraged from outside? The United States did this knowing full well that it had no intention of helping those it incited to revolt, and it did this knowing the dreadful price that would be exacted by Hussein for the rebels’ almost-certain failure.
In other words, just to keep unrest and turmoil going for Hussein, the United States, and its loyal ally, Britain, deliberately helped send those thousands to certain death. Now, years later, Blair and Bush want to use their poor broken remains as evidence for different claims. Hypocrisy and immorality simply do not come on uglier terms.
Yet again, another example of hypocrisy. The list goes on and on and on and on…
Just a reminder to Belka, Read the Facts, or whoever If you have any factual arguments to try to rebuke these attacks I would love to hear them, And though I cant speak for him myself, I have the suspicion that Bill would too.
I am only 14 years old, and already I have found it quite obvious why the United States is doomed under the rule of Bush. Although I do not mock religion, I find it pathetic that any sort of “noble” president has chosen to dangle the future of the United States from his trust in Christianity. Personally, I think he is a selfish piece of crap who needs to understand the needs of middle-class citizens in this country -people who have been sent to war in Iraq or denied the right to marry because of their sexuality- and to recognize that not everyone is a Christian, heterosexual, white who has has been given everything they desire due to having been born the son of another president.
RGlennaW I respect you. You are a brave 14 year old girl to be involved in politics. Most teens dont care. Email me and we can talk.
RGlennaW
Stay away from Chewy, you don’t know where he’s been!
If you do meet up with him, tell your parents! (The word peadophile springs to mind)
Hurin
You’re damn straight I would like to hear an argument that rebuts yours or mine; you see, then we can knock it down!
I’ve been away at a wedding; hence I haven’t posted anything for a few days. I’ve just arrived back, expecting a thousand posts all criticizing me but I haven’t had one :-(
It’s such a shame because I’ve been specially preparing some info on the first Gulf war ready to jump on any Republican claiming that American wars are ‘virtually casualty free’. Since no one has blessed me with such an opportunity, I have been reduced to the level of this:
“Calling all republicans, calling ALL republicans. I would like to hear all your arguments, all at once, including every reason why GWB should stay and why the occupation of Iraq is just. You can also include factual reasons – and not purely emotional driven accusations – why my position is wrong and thus why yours is right.”
Well there you have it, I’ve done it. (Unfortunately this won’t result in you or me writing much as the anti-war arguments are all posted above and all of them seem to have affectively ‘destroyed’ the opposition.) Ah well life does go on…
This is an article illustrating how Australia are following the trend of most other Western Governments by demolishing the rights of asylum seekers and ignoring Human Rights, Geneva Convention etc.
Lombrum Detention Centre on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, 2004: Predestined to refugee status by the political circumstances of his birth in Kuwait to a Palestinian father and an Egyptian mother, 25 year old Aladdin Sisalem (Weblog) now sits in solitary confinement on an island that costs the Australian Government almost as much in bad public relations as it does in money (Keeping the centre open for him is costing Australian taxpayers Aus$23,000 a day). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) granted Sisalem refugee status. But Australian Minister for Immigration, Amanda Vanstone, has ‘justified’ the Government’s action by stating that Sisalem did not ask for the proper form by name although he repeatedly asked for protection and asylum in Australia, when in the Australian Migration Zone. Mandatory, indefinite Detention by the Australian Government has been called a Crime Against Humanity by respected barrister Julian Burnside (full speech & legal argument).
If you want the article with all the links go to
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml
“Reverend Lovejoy” —
While Chewey’s invitation for RGlennaW to e-mail him might raise some eyebrows, I will not stand for comments such as yours on my website. I don’t mind at all if all of you continue your political discussions here — in fact, I’ve been rather enjoying watching all of it go back and forth. However, unwarranted personal attacks such as that are not wanted, not appreciated, and will result in your being banned from commenting here in the future.
Consider this your first and only warning. The commenting system on this site records both your e-mail address and the IP address of the computer you post from (as it does for anyone else who posts here), so it is very easy for me to track who is saying what, even when they use different screen names for their posts. No further comments such as yours will be tolerated.
So far, the majority of this discussion has proceeded remarkably well, given the often wildly disparate views of the people involved. I hope that from this point on, that level of maturity can be maintained.
About this whole “pedophile” buisness, while personally my eye brows were raised by that comment, it was not for the same reason. I figured chewy was probably a neo-con seeking to “correct” the informed opinion of an impressionable mind with a lot of propaganda. My question to Chewy is this: what exactly is it that you have to say to RglennaW that you cant tell her on this site where all of us can partake in the discussion? One final note on this subject, though I do not intend to speculate on Reverend Lovejoys accusations (an invitation to become an e-penpal or whatever just doesnt seem that sinister to me, and there is no indication whatsoever as to chewys intent) I did want to indicate that I echo his advice to RglennaW to either take a friend or tell parents if you actually meet up with chewy in the near future. I say this not because I seek to assasinate chewy’s character, but because I have had friends who have been snared by people who seemed harmless, but were in fact pedophiles. I would like to see this kind of scenario avoided, as those friends of mine were left emotionally devestated at a young age and live with scars that might seem unimaginable to many of us. That having been said I intend to move on with this discussion and make no further comments on this subject. I would like to welcome chewy to the debate however if he has a viewpoint he would like to share with the group at large.
Speaking of the Occupation in Iraq, I find the recent news that theer is now an Active faction of Shiite muslims engaging coalition troops very troubling. The shiites are the majority groupe in Iraq, and I might add, the same people who were supposed to be liberated by the U.S. and its deposition of Hussein. Who’s interests can the U.S. government claiming to be represent now? With more and more of the native population turning against us and Al-Queda to boot, the recent conservative claim that we are doing this for “Iraqi Freedom” is steadily becoming more rediculous. And the question of the day is, if Iraqis and muslim extremists decide to partner up to get rid of us will we really be safer after we are driven out?
(even with saddam gone)
I have enjoyed reading the ALL the posts – pro and anti-Bush. I am neither a democrat nor republican and have found our government to be wildly out of touch with reality. However, I have found that the opposing sides of shrill political rancor is just more than I can bare for the next six months. This in not to say that we should throw our hands in the air and give up. I suggest a different tact.
Yes, our country seems to be extremely polarized – on a scale not seen since the 1850’s when abolition of slavery was being debated around the country. Case is point, is that last week I called one of my brothers on the east coast (i’m in the Rocky Mtn region) and we ended up in a political arguement. He’s on the right, and I lean left. The only point on which we could agree was that that the US media is just as much too blame for the divisiveness as the politicans themselves. Sensationalism, fear-mongering and outright lies are so common that any arguement can be substantiated by simply watching the types of shows that support one’s position. Collectively, we have lost any degree of respect, and tolerance, for those who have a differing opinion. We need to remember that those on the left, and those on the right, are no less patriotic than the other. In this time of division, we all need to step back, take a deep breathe and try to focus on the common goals we share. I put forth that most people in our country would probably agree with the following …
It’s a short list which could/should be longer so I’d be happy for any additions to round it out (but I digress). If we look at this list as the starting point for any political discussion, we may just stop the unending bickering and get to work on the topics that are REALLY important. Like getting money/Christianity out of politics, helping people find jobs (here and abroad), treating all people with respect, etc.
Just my two cents.
I don’t think Bush got over his drinking problem. How else could someone make such stupid decisions and be sober.
I still remember after 9/11 when El Presidente got on the tube and started thanking everyone for their help after all was said and done. Now, (i wasn’t before) I’m a huge fan of Canada and you want to know why? Where do you think all the Americans stayed when their planes were grounded in Canada? Some stayed in Hotels, some in the airports, I’ll tell you where I stayed, in the home of an extremely kind and generous Canadian family. They fed me, they let me use their phone, computer, etc. etc. so I could get in touch with my family, and thanks to them I did.
That idiot Bush had the nerve to leave out Canada when he was thanking all the countries that helped out. I think some were, Libya, Turkey, Iran, France, China, Australia, just to name a few.
Bush just doesn’t think. He ignores Canada at every turn. He should be more carefull. They supply us with 60% of the wood we use to build our homes with, 2% of our electricity, and 70% of our hockey players (hahahaha).
In closing I would like to say “Thanks Dubbya for alienating us from the rest of the world”
Robulous-
Indeed that is a thought that has been echoing in my mind – however partisan I may appear to be. Though my posts have been highly critical of any government that is included in them, I feel that there can be no way of solving the problems raised unless the two sides, presuming there are two, find some common ground upon which to base arguments (this is exactly what you pointed out, and I agree with the 6 premises you included in your post) In fact I have thought of another:
7) We should attempt to fight terrorism, but not in the conventional form (fighting violence with violence) but fighting the poverty and famine that occurs in countries that house terrorists.
It seems useless to fight the terrorists unless we stop what is driving them to such mad ends. The attempt to annihilate groups such as Al Qaieda may be successful – after a considerable amount of innocent lives are lost – but new groups will spawn and new terror will emerge if we don’t stop the terrible living conditions that spawn terror, religious fanaticism, and the like.
The only reasonable premise to destroy global terror, for me, seems to be destroying poverty. Unfortunately most Western governments don’t feel the same way as I do, probably because their economic systems are built around the exploitation of poorer countries, which in turn results in mass poverty. Ah well…
I heard recently that each day 32,000 lives are lost due to diseases that are PREVENTABLE! This is terrible. That is 10 9/11’s every day! Do we see a war on poverty? Do we see Tony Blair and GB getting billions from parliament/congress to tackle this? Unfortunately not. (Fortunately) Blair is coming under fire because he has actually decreased funding in the water sanitation programmes for Africa, despite all his rhetoric.
Moving on, it is not often someone makes a remark like yours on a political website such as this (unfortunately, I’m used to conflict) and it is usually regarded with the ‘silent treatment’ (which is evident here, as no one has replied). After all, I don’t argue ‘to toss’ any time I’m engaged in an argument with someone of opposing political views in order for me to have the satisfaction of winning while they can loose. I would rather like to think that my arguments, though sometimes presented aggressively, are more a tool to persuade people to change their views on certain matters. (Not that I am trying to impose my views on anyone even though I have implied this) For instance, Hurin and me argued to be wary of supporting your government just because you feel you have to be patriotic – as if it’s an obligatory requirement of all citizens. On the contrary, the real patriot is one who questions the system thereby paving the way for continual improvement (this was first pointed out by Hurin) in the political system. If you truly love your country, then you should look to improve it in any way possible.
Furthermore, while there can be no ‘right’ answer in such matters, I like to feel that if one is objective, that is presenting the facts as they are without ideological comments, then one can be truly persuasive. This is a skill I have yet to acquire but until then I shall try and keep my ‘bias’ to a minimum. (After this post :-) I hope everyone else can do the same…
George W Bush has protected our country from terriosm and did what was right to make sure we are safe even though weapons of mass descrution have not been found “yet” Saddam was a threat. Our soldiers have been fighting for a country so they can avoid another 9/11. He has protected the foundations of marriage which is between a man and a women. He is doing what is right for our country.
John S-
(Though i said in a previous post that i would try to be objective i cannot on this issue as it is very, very subjective)
It’s a common argument from the new right that by ‘preserving’ the traditional marriage model, it will somehow protect the existing bond between heterosexual men and women in society. This argument is absolutely ridiculous, and actually based on two things:
1) By maintaining the traditional family model, it keeps a patriarchal society: governed and controlled by men.
2) Preserving traditional religious views. (Of course religion and patriarchy is a thing that is inseparable)
To somehow claim that a heterosexual relationship will be damaged if a few homosexual people marry is a deliberate lie. Do you think that just because homosexuals can marry, heterosexuals will suddenly convert to homosexuality?
By saying ‘this will protect the foundations of marrige’, you are implying that once homosexuals can marry, they will, affectively, destroy the sacred bond between meran and women in heterosexual couples. Do you understand that people’s sexual orientation is something that they can’t help, and something they can’t change?
Another popular argument from the new right is that people in working class areas should not be given sex education as “it encourages them to have unprotected sex”. The premise is, that if they don’t learn how to do it in school, they won’t learn how to have sex at all! HA HA HA!
Read into sociological studies and see how many people have criticized the new right, you might learn something new…
[…]
As for the other issues you raised, I encourage you to read all the articles above. I think they have addressed GB’s ‘competence’. If you feel you actually have a grounded argument to why gay people should be regarded as ‘second citizens’ because of their sexual orientation I would like to hear it. I’ll repeat “Religion and politics are a very dangerous mix, look at the middle eastern countries”
I respectfully await your response…
i find it amusing that so many induviduals back bush to the death on all issues or at least a majority of them. foreign affairs withstanding (we wont even go there considering the fact that no one will even consider the fact that much of the world’s terrorism is predicated on events that happened long ago and cannot be blamed on bush,) I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people can possibly favor Bush domestic policies. How can one be pro life, and yet execute more people than any governer in the history of the United States. How does killing people who commit crimes make us any better than they are? Because it’s righteous or something? Killing people is wrong. Bush himself would agree with this statement, yet his actions belie his words. He hides behind his “christian background,” and is stupid enough to believe that what he is doing is right, yet I believe one of the ten commandments is “thou shalt not kill.” It makes no mention of being able to void that rule if that person has killed someone else, or may someday do so. The fact that I am a christian makes this even worse as I have to listen to his dumb ass try to force his beliefs on the rest of the world. Since when is “freedom” considered to be oppression of gay induviduals, or pro choicers, or even people who want to have pre marital sex. Thats right folks, Bush has cut federal aid to condom companies because they may or may not support abortion. This seems odd, seeing as condoms prevent pregnancies. If Bush and all you other bible thumping hypocrites out there dont want to have sex before marriage, thats your perrogative, but dont sit there and tell others that they can’t, and then dont bitch if abortions occur when you are making it harder to afford protection. And dont even get started on the whole, but abortion is killing bullshit. If you want to sit here and tell me that a collection of cells that cant think, move, feel, or interact with the world is a human being, than apparantly a block of wood is too, and if you start with the whole, but its potential for life, than abstinance is abortion too, cuz all of that sperm has a potential for life, and i suppose we should go after the menstrual cycle too, it kills once a month.
Fuckin aye! Exposing the hypocrisy of some individuals. Thats very well put…
I’ve noticed that a lot websites have used Bush as a scapegoat for the war on terror and a lot of other domestic issues. After all, he is ‘the commander in chief’; but, I think, the blame should be placed on other individuals, such as Dick Cheney or Richard Pearle.
The neo-cons, for example, have far more influence, it seems, than Bush has on congress and as we all know they are referred to as “the crazies” in certain Washington circles. These individuals are prophesizing American global dominance, which is not far off from what GB is preaching, but their approach, appears to be more extreme. What’s more is that they have the money, the power and the influence, which makes them a little scarier than a ‘normal’ group of extremists.
I’m not saying GB should get less of the hate that is currently being directed at him from all corners of the world but I think people should realize that it is more than just Bush who has to pay for the various crimes against humanity that have been committed.
The crimes include, for example, the atrocities in Falluja, which unfortunately, have been rarely reported here (and it’s probably even rarer to see the facts over there in the U.S.). There has been a vast amount of evidence, coming from journalists, aid workers and hospitals, that most of the reported 600 people, who were killed by the 82nd U.S First Airborne Division and the Marine Expeditionary Unit, were predominantly children, women and the elderly.
As expected, the Marine commander, unfortunately his name slips my mind, has denied such claims and has said that 95% of all the dead were men of military age, adding that “the marines are trained to kill with precision and efficiency”. Well one of the directors of the many local hospitals seems to have disagreed with that, stating “Of all the 350 people I have seen: the majority are women, children and the elderly.
The MPs over here, our equivalent of congressmen/women, have not mentioned this in parliament at all. It seems that now the majority of the politicians who have supported this war, have subsequently lost their individual voices. Of what would normally be a matter they would raise, or speak out against has become taboo. A lot of ‘left-leaning’ (I use this term loosely) politicians have said nothing. Yet by definition, the killing of innocent women, children and the elderly, is terrorism. Alas, yet another example of extreme hypocrisy in the political playing field.
Going back to the point I raised in a previous point: the unintelligent approach of fighting terror with, basically, more terror. I read an article recently in my daily newspaper, The Guardian, by a man interviewing what the general consensus in mathematical circles perceives to be ‘an absolutely brilliant mathematician’. The recent N Abel prize winner, Sir Michael Atiyah, put it, “the war on terror, as presently run, is a self perpetuating engine turning out as many or more terrorists than it destroys or arrests.” This, I believe, in essence, is what the war on terror is doing, and just by observing the posts on this and other websites, is not an opinion that is held by me alone.
I would like to state that though I mentioned in a previous post that my opinions should be minimized, I acknowledge that this post, and the issues that have been raised in it, are again, very much a subjective matter (apart from the sources I included i.e. hospital director, Michael Atiyah etc.) It is therefore my obligation to say that this article is my opinion and that I do not feel that anyone should have to believe what is printed in it. I do, however, encourage anyone with an alternative viewpoint to post what they feel and I encourage everyone, regardless of age, class, gender, political, views, etc., to research into the recent atrocities in the city of Falluja.
Hey, for all of you out there who still think that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible, I have decided to list a few other passages that appear in the bible.
Leviticus 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Deuteronomy 7:10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you
23:1
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
I could continue to do this all day, but I have better things to do with my time. The point here is that the Bible says lots of wacky things but it shouldnt take exemplary intellegence to tell what is genuine and what is wacky in the Bible. While Jesus said many worth things and condoned love among enemies, and forgiveness. You can find a passage in the stone-age
writ of law that is the old testament to condone just about anything. So stop making it about the Bible or the “Sanctity of marraige” and fess up to your own fucking prejudice. The Devil can quote scripture to his purpose.
Ok for all you people who back up Bush I think you are just as evil as he is. I don’t give a fuck about your big stupid words, I don’t care who you label liberal and who you label “consevative”. YOu all talk about how Saddam is a murderer well guess what, so is Bush. He became a murderer when he sent all those troops to a stupid war that wasn’t even necessary. He’s a piece of shit and he doesn’t give a fuck who likes him and who dislikes him – he doesn’t care about the working middle class which makes up more than half of this country. Bill Clinton dealt w/ important issues he didn’t make enemies all around the world like that faggot george w. Bush sent this economy to shit and there is no recovery for another hundred years he’s created problems that won’t be solved for another 50 years. You all talk about Sept 11 like some strange people orchastred it. Well guess what your piece of shit hero George w. probably did all that to give himself a reason to go start a fucking meaningless war – swear to god if a dog, literally a fucking dog w/ 4 legs ran for president I’ll give that dog my vote. and all you people that are “proud conservatives” I read this quote somewhere “jesus was the ultimate liberal and was murdered by conservatives” dunno where but I remembered it. republicans need to get their heads out of their fucking ass!