American History that most Americans don't know

[Man of 1951]

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?

I've also been accused of making up the gun homicide counts in the United States and various countries around the world. That is, like all the rest of this stuff, a bald-face lie. Every statistic in the film is true. They all come directly from the government. Here are the facts, right from the sources:

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Finally, I've even been asked about whether the two killers were at bowling class on the morning of the shootings. Well, that's what their teacher told the investigators, and that's what was corroborated by several eyewitness reports of students to the police, the FBI, and the District Attorney's office. I'll tell you who wasn't there -- me! That's why in the film I pose it as a question:

"So did Dylan and Eric show up that morning and bowl two games before moving on to shoot up the school? And did they just chuck the balls down the lane? Did this mean something?"
Of course, it's a silly discussion, and it misses the whole, larger point: that blaming bowling for their killing spree would be as dumb as blaming Marilyn Manson.

But the gun nuts don't want to discuss either specific points or larger issues because when that debate is held, they lose. Most Americans want stronger gun laws (among others, see the 2001 National Gun Policy Survey from the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center) – and the gun lobbies know it. That is why it's critical to distract and alter the debate – and go after anyone who questions why we have so many gun deaths in America (especially if he does it in best selling books and popular films).

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).

Well, there you have it. I suppose the people who tell their make-believe stories about me and my work will continue to do so. Maybe they should be sued for knowingly libeling me. Or maybe I'll just keep laughing – laughing all the way to the end of the Bush Administration -- scheduled, I believe, for sometime in November of next year.

Yours,

Michael Moore
Director, "Bowling for Columbine"

PS. From now on, I will deal with all wacko attackos on this page. If you hear something about me that doesn't sound quite right, check in here.

also, while we're on the issue of sources, i deeply question your sources. Not only are some of the claims just plain retarded. Not only are some of the links which apparently prove Michael Moore decieved the viewers not working (such as http://www.hardylaw.net/www.nrahq.org/administration/publications/tag/article2.shtml ), but some of the links where the author quotes what ppl say are from geocities sites. Quite reliable indeed eh? No doubt it poses some interesting things, interesting enough for me to want to rent michael moores movie again and try to check up on these things.

 

[Man of 1951]

First off: good research.

Secondly:

Posted by Night Train
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one wanted either one of those two nut jobs doubling their influence and power, so we provided assistance to Iraq in the form of intelligence - pictures of the front, locations of troops, convoys, helpful tips on where to hit Iran to hurt them, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Man of 1951:
You just contradicted youself.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I'm glad you posted that link, Bry - I stand corrected in my previous post on this issue. We sold them some helos and 4 small jets. Thanks!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again, Speedy. I corrected myself and acknowledged Bry's article. Do your own debunking, if you are capable.

i hate to tell you this, but I quoted you from the same posting. So with this reasoning, you acknowledged your mistake, then made the same mistake a few more lines down?? Good way to acknowledge some elses post.

Alright you want reputable sources?

http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/chembio.html

and the actual report: http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/2NDINDEX.HTM
or
http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/hearings.html

http://www.dallaspeacecenter.org/dpt0210/howiraq.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igintro.htm

http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm

Some more sources of the things i said previously:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.html#documents

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd02.pdf
interestingly, the above link shows how so much of the reports are censored, especially where they start talking about Iraq with chemical and nuclear abilities. hmmmmm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq03.pdf

...now how about you provide good sources, for I believe the above sources are incredible

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq26.pdf
interesting how Iraq has second largest oil reserves, and how the oil played an important role in decide to support Iraq over Iran.......hmmm........

in fact http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/ gives very good sources for information. Check it out.

Also, I said AMERICA not AMERICANS........in the end its not americans making the decisions that result in so many deaths worldwide, but America as a country, with a government. Perhaps using America was misleading......from now on, know that if i refer to america by AMERICA i mean American government. If i intend to mean the Americans, ill make that clear.

Some more good links to further prove my points
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/ie/index.html

Guatemala:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/guatemala.html

Honduras:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/honduras/

Chile:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/chile.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000817/index.html#docs
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19991008/index.html

Iran:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/iran/iran.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.html


Again, ill have to research more to make a good counter arguement against what was said agains michael moore. But the source you provided wasn't too good of a source. Let me know if you find a better one.

And again, which event do you refute happened, out of my original post?

 

[Man of 1951]

Michael Moore explanation for the Taliban money thing he claimed:

Michael Moore
In May 2001, US narcotics experts visited Taliban-controlled Afghanistan for the first time. They found the Taliban had followed through on Mullah Omar’s edict outlawing opium-poppy cultivation. In 2000, Afghanistan produced 75% of the world’s opium crop. The Taliban, which since coming to power had used the money from the opium to purchase weapons, had apparently stopped the poppy crop-all in less than a year and with the help of their harsh punishments for farmers found in violation of the ban. The Bush administration found this so satisfying that they immediately pledged an additional $43 million worth of aid to Afghanistan.

As the State Department reported on October 15, 2001:

"The United States has been the single largest donor of humanitarian aid for Afghans for the past several years. In 2000, the United States contributed a total of $113 million in humanitarian aid to Afghans, both inside Afghanistan and in refugee camps in neighboring countries. In 2001, the aid level has already exceeded $184, accounting for some 300,000 tons of American food sent to Afghanistan this year."

That’s almost $300 million in two years with the stated aim of feeding the starving Afghani people.

To put this in perspective, Bangladesh-population 133 million (compared to Afghanistan’s 28 million people)-an equally impoverished country facing similar catastrophic famines, received $100 million from the US in 2001. And that’s humanitarian and economic aid combined, whereas the significantly higher amount of aid given to Afghanistan ($6.57 per capita in Afghanistan, compared to $.75 for each Bangladeshi) is only humanitarian. Both these countries fall under the same watchful eye of the State Department’s Bureau of South Asian Affairs.

Of course, Bangladesh has a government that is already fairly open for foreign investment, and, until the United States replaced the Taliban with a government led by an oil industry insider, Afghanistan was led by a repressive regime totally isolated from the rest of the world. Perhaps that isolation is the reason the United States takes such pride in the help they’ve provided to Afghanistan. By helping them, we were isolated, too!

"- - In 1999 the United States contributed over $70 million in assistance to the Afghan people. This year's total of over $100 million covers food, housing, health and education programs, de-mining and refugee assistance. Of every two dollars of global assistance to Afghans, half is food aid; and of every ten dollars, nine dollars is a United States contribution."

That’s right! No other country could even come close to our generosity. And no other country was so eager to do business with the Taliban. All this from the United States and its leaders who have spent the last ten years blocking humanitarian aid to Iraq because of fears that Saddam Hussein might be redirecting the aid to feed his family and elite guard. So why did we trust the repressive Taliban not to redirect their humanitarian aid, while we continually tried to keep the Iraqi people from receiving aid? Because we’ve been waiting for years to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and India. That’s why the Taliban visited Texas in 1997 when George Bush was governor, and that’s why US oil companies continued to meet with the Taliban to negotiate this pipeline deal through the late ‘90s.

Then, on February 5, 2001, there was a headline in the London Times: "Taleban offers US deal to deport bin Laden." The article began:

The Taleban authorities will consider exiling Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born terrorist believed to be behind the World Trade Centre bombing, to a third country if they receive assurances that the West will recognise them as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

Senior Taleban leaders said their main fear was that the US and other Western countries would continue to ostracise their administration even if bin Laden left Afghanistan. "We hope the new American Administration will be more flexible and engage with us," Abdul Wakil Muttawakil, the Foreign Minister, told The Times. He has written to President Bush. The rigid Islamic rulers are being squeezed hard by United Nations sanctions.

The announcement came six days after the Bush Administration announced the formation of the energy task force headed by Dick Cheney to determine the administration’s energy policy. Three months later, the United States pledges $43 million in humanitarian aid. Almost two years later, we still have no idea what Cheney and Ken Lay and their oil industry buddies discussed in their task force meetings.

Meanwhile, the opium has never really stopped. Yes, the Taliban stopped poppy cultivation, but that didn’t affect them because they maintained huge stockpiles which they continued to sell until the US chased them out of the country-or really, out of power. Now, under Hamid Karzai, the poppy production is booming again, and hundreds of kilos are being produced each week.

But there is a bright side to all this: There’s a deal to build a pipeline through Afghanistan!

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/afghanistan.php
you may not believe what he says, so check some of the links he provides to support his arguement.

 

[Man of 1951]

Thanks for the support Bry!!
I too was pro-american (remember by american i mean american government), and I'm Canadian!! jk being canadian doesn't affect anything.

Then over the summer i did an essay on the causes and effects of september 11. I did massive research, and developed the opinion you see here today. It was a big change, but i think i've learned the truth. and am yet to be proven wrong.
thanks for the reply

 

[Isaac Brock]

Hmmm... I must say I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine as movie. It was indeed thoroughly entertaining. However, though Moore's facts were probably true in many of his points the facts were merely superficial and dare I say, contextual.

I really didn't like how he depicted Canadians for one thing. That rubbish about being able to open any door of anyone's house, waltz in and be greated is absurd. Sure that may be the truth in a small town, but If you did that in my home city, i would think 911 would be contacted fairly quickly. He made it seem like Canada was a paradise, which although I think it's great, is not without its problems.

I also found some of his interviews to be more like entrapments than interviews and I find that if i were in a similar situation i would not react as warmly as I would if I were prepared. Ambushing anyone regardless of implication is without tact.

That said, he made some great points. I personally agreed wholeheartedly with his analysis on fear in the USA and how it led to violence. Having taken my share of anthropology courses, his argument did sit well in a historical context, although no doubt some parts were sensationalized, especially with respect to political endeavours.

In conclusion Michael Moore is a great entertainer, a barely passable scholar, but certainly an important instigator of debate on american indentity for whatever side you may believe in and I believe that is his greatest strenght.

 

[Man of 1951]

NT what do you think of the sources?

 

[NightTrain]

I'll respond when I have the time to post a full rebuttal.. I'm very busy right now, and I really regret it. Bear with me.

If anyone else wants to jump in, in the meantime, feel free.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Man of 1951
NT what do you think of the sources?

If you ask me, I think they're worth about as much as the last roll of toilet paper I went through.

They are either personal users websites or die hard liberal websites.

First off, you contend that the US sent "Chemical and Bio weapons to Iraq". None of these articles show any of these as "weapons" at all. What it shows is chemicals and the likes being sent to the higher education system. Unfortunately these had a dual use and could have been converted to weapon use. I suppose we should be held accountable for every nation we ever sent fertilizer to as well. The hardware store that sold Timothy McVeigh his fertilizer should be brought up on charges of selling WMD.

Secondly, if we sent them any clear cut illegal weapons, why hasn't this been reported in the mainstream media? Until you can find definitive proof from a reputable source that we gave them chemical or bio weapons, well, you're just pissing into your Canadian liberal wind.

 

[Man of 1951]

ill respond in full later but for now:

You say those sources were useless? what about the ones that showed the actual CIA documents. Oh yeah, forget that, bad sources.

"The Americans knew Saddam possessed anthrax, because the U.S. government approved the export of anthrax to Iraq. They and others including Italy profited from the dollars generated by Iraq's oil wealth and turned a blind eye to the dictator's determination to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. Nor did world leaders take much notice when he used such weapons on the Kurdish people of northern Iraq in 1988."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/correspondents_reed030402.html

I'm also trying to get my hands on the 1994 Senate Report. Once i do, i'll be able to further prove my point.

And to be honest, thats a really really bad analogy you made between biological agents like anthrax and fertilizers. Anthrax is an infectious disease. I don't see how that can be compared to fertilizers. Some of the chemicals yes do have dual use. But when iraq uses them against Iranian troops, i think they should know what the real use of the chemical/biological agents were gonna be used for.

 

[Bry]

Of course the US knew that Iraq was using WMDs against Iran, as the US revised and improved battleplans for Iraq that included the use of such weapons. If the US was selling dual use chemicals to Iraq, it is certain they knew what those chemicals would be used to produce.

-Bry

 

[jimnyc]

You say those sources were useless? what about the ones that showed the actual CIA documents. Oh yeah, forget that, bad sources.

Useless to the discussion as to whether or not the US supplied "chemical or biological weapons" to Iraq. All I've seen so far is the interpretation from anti-war/bush sites and liberals.

"The Americans knew Saddam possessed anthrax, because the U.S. government approved the export of anthrax to Iraq. They and others including Italy profited from the dollars generated by Iraq's oil wealth and turned a blind eye to the dictator's determination to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. Nor did world leaders take much notice when he used such weapons on the Kurdish people of northern Iraq in 1988."

How much of anthrax, botulism, sarin... do you think the US currently has? And do you think we are making biological weapons with them? Again, I see nothing that shows us giving them the weapons you spoke of.

I'm also trying to get my hands on the 1994 Senate Report. Once i do, i'll be able to further prove my point.

Further? You haven't convinced me of anything at all yet! Nothing, zip, nada. All I'm seeing is determination to bash the US from a man who hasn't the facts to back up what he types. Why don't I see you in the Canada section defending YOUR country? Oh, thats right, you haven't much experience in arguing against FACTS!

And to be honest, thats a really really bad analogy you made between biological agents like anthrax and fertilizers. Anthrax is an infectious disease. I don't see how that can be compared to fertilizers. Some of the chemicals yes do have dual use. But when iraq uses them against Iranian troops, i think they should know what the real use of the chemical/biological agents were gonna be used for.

So we should refrain from ever importing/exporting materials that can possibly have an alternative use? How about the receiving countries use them in a more responsible manner?

And I noticed you said "we should know", as in its your opinion, as in YOU HAVE NO FACTS WHATSOEVER to back up your accusations.

I'll see you in the Canada section, backing up your country from FACTS, as you are obviously reaching too hard in here to come back to reality.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Man of 1951
Well, thats some point you got there. By any chance did you read what I said above? The Death Squads trained by the CIA? Just search for death squads, and you'll see what US did while 'saving the world'. And no i have to admit, Americans haven't done those things. Instead, they save themselves and hull thousands of bombs and missles to cities, where INNOCENTS DIE. It doesn't matter if they try to 'minimize' the death counts. They die because of these bombs. As an anology, if i was to see someone robbing a bank, and I fortunately had a machine gun with me. If i start shooting the robbers/murders and accidently kill 3 other ppl in the room, does that make me 'saving the world'?? Tell that to the families of those who died. Secondly, what about those good ol' cluster bombs? How good are they for creating land mines?? Read some stuff, learn something, these cluster bombs have resulted in hundreds and hundreds of deaths and people losing their limbs. Tell them 'sorry we were saving the world'? What about the wedding that was bombed in afghanistan? huh? tell them sorry for bombing the shit out of them.

I guess I missed out on this portion when I replied earlier, as I was away from home when I replied about the supposed bombing at an Afghan wedding (which I notice Mr. 1951 has no longer replied to).

Well, I typed in "cia death squads" at yahoo and the only references that came up were AGAIN only from liberal and anti-war sites with zero credibility. Oh, wait, there is one article there from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/sprj.irq.cia.report/

But lo and behold, those are IRAQI death squads!

Man of 1951, you are a fucking idiot. You are now going to sit there and type to this board that "Americans too are terrorists"? You compare the loss of civilian life during a war to some fucking idiot crashing planes into a building or another numb skull blowing himself up and taking anyone within 50 yards with him?

You've been a bit zealous in your attempt to disgrace the USA, which you have failed miserably at. All you've accomplished by this bullshit was lowering your credibility to a level that even a dead rat would look respectable against.

I must agree with NT, I now feel dirty for giving you the benefit of the doubt and gracing you with a rebuttal.

And please, for the love of God, learn how to spell!

 

[Moi]

Americans as terrorists is nothing new. In the 18th century a group of people living in America decided to break the chains "which have connected them with another". For all you illiterates out there, that's a quote from a very important document. They were considered terrorists as they bore arms against their "countrymen". If you want an apology for that, you have a long way to go!

Terrorism, by its definition is the use of force to get a government to conform to your ideals. Of course we use force and for that I'll not apologize. However, there's a difference between using force for what's right and what will enable the most people to experience a free life. No one is naive enough to think otherwise. To all the people who say that the United States is hypocritical for killing people to secure what's right for others I say this:

STOP TAKING OUR MONEY, HELP AND RESOURCES. THERE IS NO COUNTRY ON EARTH OR PERSON WHO LIVES ON U.S. SOIL WHO HAS NOT BENEFITED FROM THE UNITED STATES. Talk about hypocrites.

 

[janeeng]

Excellent, excellent post Moi!!!!! thank you!!!!

 

[NightTrain]

Excellent post, Moi!

 

[NightTrain]

I disagree with Americans as terrorists. When we fought the Revolutionary War, we fought it fair and square - we did not avoid military battles and we proved ourselves. Yes, the French were there, but what confounded the Brits was American tactics. We fought guerilla style, but we were NOT terrorists!

We've helped countless countries in their time of need honorably. We are the most generous nation on the planet.

Calling Americans 'terrorist' is absolutely out of line - do not confuse Guerilla Warfare with Terroristic activities.

When you see young Americans strapping bombs around themselves to indiscriminately blow up women and children and hijacking airliners then I'll agree with you.

We give billions upon billions away for humanitarian reasons, and instead of gratitude we are loathed. What gives??

 

[janeeng]

To all the people who say that the United States is hypocritical for killing people to secure what's right for others I say this:

STOP TAKING OUR MONEY, HELP AND RESOURCES. THERE IS NO COUNTRY ON EARTH OR PERSON WHO LIVES ON U.S. SOIL WHO HAS NOT BENEFITED FROM THE UNITED STATES. Talk about hypocrites.

NT - I don't think Americans are terrorists, maybe McVeigh and company, and we do have some - but I was more happy to see the quote above - I am tired too of all the losers coming into this Country and whining and bitching about everything - this includes all Actors/Actress and singers too! You rip this Country apart, trash the President, whine about things, then get OUT! and really, stop taking OUR money then.

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I guess I missed out on this portion when I replied earlier, as I was away from home when I replied about the supposed bombing at an Afghan wedding (which I notice Mr. 1951 has no longer replied to).

Well, I typed in "cia death squads" at yahoo and the only references that came up were AGAIN only from liberal and anti-war sites with zero credibility. Oh, wait, there is one article there from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/sprj.irq.cia.report/

But lo and behold, those are IRAQI death squads!

1983 - Honduras becomes instrumental in the US-sponsored war on Nicaragua, providing air and naval bases and allowing US-trained Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries, or Contras, to operate from its territory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1225471.stm

"The Sandinistas began redistributing property and made huge progress in the spheres of health and education. They won a decisive victory in 1984 elections, but their leftist orientation also attracted US hostility and drove them to turn to the USSR and Cuba.

This set the scene for a US-sponsored counter-revolution, which saw Washington arm and finance thousands of rebels, or Contras, in order to carry out attacks on Nicaragua from bases in Honduras. The US also imposed trade sanctions and mined Nicaraguan harbours."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1225218.stm

1982 - US-sponsored attacks by Contra rebels based in Honduras begin; state of emergency declared.

1984 - Daniel Ortega elected president; US mines Nicaraguan harbours and is condemned by the World Court for doing so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1225283.stm

"1970 - Salvador Allende becomes world's first democratically elected Marxist president and embarks on an extensive programme of nationalisation and radical social reform.

1973 - Gen Augusto Pinochet ousts Allende in CIA-sponsored coup and proceeds to establish a brutal dictatorship."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1222905.stm

1944 - Juan Jose Arevalo becomes president following the overthrow of Ubico and introduces social-democratic reforms, including setting up a social security system and redistributing land to landless peasants.

1951 - Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzman becomes president, continuing Arevalo's reforms.


Family values: Mayans on a meal break
1954 - Land reform stops with the accession to power of Colonel Carlos Castillo in a coup backed by the US and prompted by Arbenz's nationalisation of plantations of the United Fruit Company.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1215811.stm

""For the United States, it is important that I state clearly that the support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression ... was wrong," Clinton said as he began a round-table discussion on Guatemala's search for peace.

"The United States must not repeat that mistake. We must and we will instead continue to support the peace and reconciliation process in Guatemala," he said on the third day of a Central American tour.

As Clinton spoke, several hundred demonstrators outside Guatemala City's National Palace could be heard accusing the United States of complicity in the war, in which 200,000 people died, mainly Mayan civilian peasants.

A Guatemalan truth commission last month told of state-sponsored genocide and massacres in one of the harshest rebukes of the horrors of the conflict between the army and leftist insurgents, which ended in 1996.

The commission also said U.S. military aid and Central Intelligence Agency advisers played a pivotal role in the bloodshed. "
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9903/10/clinton.latam.02/index.html

"Human rights' groups estimate that CIA-backed death squads were responsible for the disappearance of at least 184 presumed left-wing activists and the murder of dozens more during the 1980s. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/924279.stm

You seem to be incapable of real research.

And please prove me wrong, dont just say I'm an idiot. Tell me your definition of a terrorist (not an damn example, a real definition. Maybe you should look up the word definition to know what i'm talking about) and then explain how the American government have not commited State supported terrorism.

And please tell me how the actual CIA documents were useless? And this is not a thread solely for Iraq, thus "American History Most Americans dont know".

Now i dont know why you put a quote of what was said previously without talking about it. What do you have to say about "The Americans knew Saddam possessed anthrax, because the U.S. government approved the export of anthrax to Iraq." Tell what you think, and don't say this is not a credible news source because its more credible than CNN....by far.

Oh, thats right, you haven't much experience in arguing against FACTS!

You know, you have an interesting way of saying things that are completely stupid. Too bad for you I'm the one posting the facts, and posting the sources. You are the one who seems to just ask for more sources. So therefore you are the one arguing against the facts that I'm posting. and now you're gonna say "you have the burden of proving your statement" So to save you the trouble ill respond to it. I HAVE AND AM PROVING MY STATEMENT. YOU SIMPLY ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF SAYING MY SOURCES ARE NO GOOD. AND AGAIN I'VE BEEN POSTING MORE ARTICLES WITH WHAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER GOOD SOURCES. SO PLEASE COME UP WITH A BETTER ARGUEMENT.

So we should refrain from ever importing/exporting materials that can possibly have an alternative use? How about the receiving countries use them in a more responsible manner?

Now, tell me what other uses of anthrax there is?

When you see young Americans strapping bombs around themselves to indiscriminately blow up women and children and hijacking airliners then I'll agree with you.

Your definition of a terrorist seems only to be through examples. Now again, i ask you to find a definition of a terrorist or terrorism in general. NO MORE WITH THE EXAMPLES. I want a defintion.

I am tired too of all the losers coming into this Country and whining and bitching about everything - this includes all Actors/Actress and singers too! You rip this Country apart, trash the President, whine about things, then get OUT! and really, stop taking OUR money then.

I agree with you with the people coming into this country part. Because they choose to give tax to the government which aid their activities which can sometimes oppress nations.

Now, people complaining against their government is a good thing. Because Saddam believed the same thing with his people. He was tired enough of their whining to kill them when they whined. Would you use the same arguement to keep peoples opinions silent as Saddam Hussein?

 

[jimnyc]

95% links and 5% typing! Do YOU have anything to offer other than other peoples work? I don't have much time this morning, so I can only reply to a few things, I'll start with what YOU wrote.

Now i dont know why you put a quote of what was said previously without talking about it. What do you have to say about "The Americans knew Saddam possessed anthrax, because the U.S. government approved the export of anthrax to Iraq." Tell what you think, and don't say this is not a credible news source because its more credible than CNN....by far.

Now, tell me what other uses of anthrax there is?

Ummm, how about to develop a vaccine? Given the fact that Saddam had used these types of weapons against his own people in the past, it was safe to assume he would do it again. Every major country in the world uses these deadly weapons in labs to develop vaccines.

You know, you have an interesting way of saying things that are completely stupid. Too bad for you I'm the one posting the facts, and posting the sources. You are the one who seems to just ask for more sources. So therefore you are the one arguing against the facts that I'm posting. and now you're gonna say "you have the burden of proving your statement" So to save you the trouble ill respond to it. I HAVE AND AM PROVING MY STATEMENT. YOU SIMPLY ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF SAYING MY SOURCES ARE NO GOOD. AND AGAIN I'VE BEEN POSTING MORE ARTICLES WITH WHAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER GOOD SOURCES. SO PLEASE COME UP WITH A BETTER ARGUEMENT.

I don't need your sources on American history, my neighborhood paid plenty in taxes for my good education.

I feel like I'm reading a page from google.com when I read your posts, all links and barely any content.

All you've proved with your long winded repeat of propaganda is your hatred for America. Tell me ANYTHING in the world you believe in and I'll find a propaganda site speaking out against it.

Criticize America for the way it operates all you want, we still have one of the richest nations in the world and perhaps the strongest military. More people transplant themselves to America than anywhere else in the world. Why does your great nation support & time and time again stand by America? Why aren't your leaders speaking out against this treachery? Because they are much smarter than you (and probably embarrassed).

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Ummm, how about to develop a vaccine? Given the fact that Saddam had used these types of weapons against his own people in the past, it was safe to assume he would do it again. Every major country in the world uses these deadly weapons in labs to develop vaccines.

Oh ok ok, now I'm gonna use your tactics. GIVE ME SOURCES before you make such claims.

95% links and 5% typing! Do YOU have anything to offer other than other peoples work?.

Well maybe if you acknowledged the sources that I did post and how they prove what I've been saying since the first post in this thread. Maybe then I could start talking instead have to prove you wrong by doing what you ask and give sources. Now please if you have nothing to say against what I said in my first post in the thread, acknowledge that the education you get in your neighorhood never told you about this history that I've been showing you. Acknowledge that this is indeed 'American History that most americas done know'. Is that too hard? Because you haven't proved me wrong about the history of America, and i have time and time again given you sources, with your only response being bad sources, and now with the only response as "i feel like im reading a page off google.com". Why don't you just acknowledge that what i showed at the first post is fact. Otherwise show me real posts and not posts based on assumptions or posts that have no meaning.

All you've proved with your long winded repeat of propaganda is your hatred for America. Tell me ANYTHING in the world you believe in and I'll find a propaganda site speaking out against it.

Criticize America for the way it operates all you want, we still have one of the richest nations in the world and perhaps the strongest military. More people transplant themselves to America than anywhere else in the world. Why does your great nation support & time and time again stand by America? Why aren't your leaders speaking out against this treachery? Because they are much smarter than you (and probably embarrassed).

I dont see how thats all I've proved. I've proved why america is hated. And why there are organizations like Al Qeada out there. They hate America because of they've done to ruin countries, and you haven't proved me wrong on that. And yeah i will still criticize america, as long as that means that I show people like you the real history of America, and show why america is hated. And america being the richest nation in the world, i can't stop those things i can't affect those things, all i could do is explain to you why america is hated, before you call everyone who hates america terrorists.

Also, Canada hasn't supported america time and time again, i think the war in Iraq proves that. Yeah they are smarter than me, smarter in the sense of knowing whats best for the economy in the country. But me on the other hand, i care about the truth, and would share the truth to the rest of the world.

So please if you have nothing to say against what I've said, please then acknowledge it as fact.