Alternatives to US global policy (continuation of "lying idiots" thread)

[oxbow3]

My mistake. They were actually called "mandates", not occupied territories.

Under the mandate system, Syria and Lebanon went to the French. The British took over Palestine and three Ottoman provinces of Mesopotamia and created modern-day Iraq.

"Everyone understood at the time that this was a thinly disguised new form of colonialism...," says Zachary Lockman, professor of Middle East history at New York University. "The British and French had no thought of going anywhere anytime soon, and fully intended to remain in control of these territories for the indefinite future."

But almost immediately after the war, Arab resistance movements emerged to challenge European dominance.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3860950

If it's called "antiwar.com," chances are it's more than a little biased. Find a more credible source and I might listen.

Wrong again. Jews were the majority in that region from the fall of Canaan until the Muslim invasions that spurned the Crusades and still remained a large portion of the population until the formation of Israel.

If you insist:

This book recreates British rule in Palestine from the winter of 1917 to the spring of 1948. Between these dates, the Jewish minority turned political weakness into strength, and the palestine Arabs headed for disaster. How this happened under British administration is the subject of this richly documented account, based on public and private papers, memoirs, and interviews---many never previously published

http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/acatalog/__Ploughing_Sand_238.html
another source says this:

At the time the mandate came into effect (1922), the population of Palestine (west of the Jordan River) consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews and 71,500 Christians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

The article I originally cited concurs:

When the British in 1917 arrived in Palestine there were about 650,00 Arabs and some 56,000 Jews. On their arrival both Jews and Arabs hailed them as liberators, and they did establish mostly clean colonial governments and relatively independent courts. On their departure in 1948, both Jews and Arabs accused them of treachery and betrayal, and the British were more than happy to leave – especially since India had become independent, which made England-to-India transportation less important, so control of the Suez was no longer worth the headache.

You should read it. Its really quite good, and I'll give you $20 if you find one significant factual error. It may simply be that an informed individual is more likely to be against the war in Palestine.

They were not forced from their homes. Arabs are free to live in Israel, and though they are not treated as well as Jews, they are still being treated better than Arabs living in Arab countries. At least they were until they started blowing up Jewish school busses.

See this article:

The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14 1948, but the Arab states rejected the partition of Palestine and the existence of Israel. The armies of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt attacked but were defeated by the Israeli army.

While the Jewish people were successful in creating their homeland, there was no Palestine and no internationalization of Jerusalem, either. In 1948 for example, Palestinians were driven out of the new Israel into refugee camps in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and other regions. At least 750,000 people are said to have been driven out (or ethnically cleansed, as some have described it). However, this aspect is not usually mentioned by mainstream media when recounting various historical events

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Palestine/Background.asp


Im curious as to where you got your (mis)information from? Is there a specific site that is saying these things, or is it just stuff you've picked up?

 

[oxbow3]

I would like to return to the subject of the Project for the New American Century if I may. You'll remember this is the neo-conservative think tank which Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and several other prominent members of the Bush Admin. belong to.

One thing I forgot to mention about the PNAC:

The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox News

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_New_American_Century

It is thus clear that there is a relationship between Fox News and the PNAC and by extension the Bush Admin., many of whose members are part of the PNAC. I will leave that discussion for another day. Suffice it to say that Fox News acts as the media's cheerleader for the war, lifting American morale in support of the occupation. They also are responsible for some of the disinformation concerning the alleged WMD's and Iraq's links to terrorism that we were led to believe. However, with the large numbers of PNAC members in the White house, it is to be expected that our administration acted as the main source of disinformation.

Now, a careful look at a few key documents put out by the PNAC may help us get a better feel for what global policy may be like in the next few decades.

The first one is called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century. It was written in 2000. Now that its writers are the most powerful men in the world though, they can begin moving forward on the strategy outlined in this 90 page blueprint for America's future. I will be quoting sections from this link first, as there is alot of ground to cover and this offers a good structure to navigate by:
http://www.mecgrassroots.org/NEWSL/ISS45/45.10global.html

(For those who are wary of bias, you can also follow along on the following link, or look at the original document on the PNAC website. It is my opinion that the above is the best short analysis on the web though. http://www.renesch.com/PNAC_KeyFindings_with_links.htm)

The PNAC document says that the "American grand strategy must be advanced as far into the future as possible." It calls for the US to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." It describes American armed forces abroad as "the cavalry on the new American frontier," and states that the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

So this "cavalry on the new American frontier" are the permanent bases in other countries? And where exactly does this frontier stretch to? Is the entire world America's for the taking then?

The report states there is a need for more American forces for "constabulary" duties. It suggests that using our forces to maintain peace after missions was "running an unacceptable risk in event of war elsewhere and facing the realities of multiple constabulary missions will require a permanent allocation of US armed forces."
According to the report, "The increasing number of constabulary missions for US troops must be considered an integral element in Pentagon force planning," and they expect these operations will remain high over the next 15 to 20 years. "Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations." The US "cannot assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to political outcomes."

It sounds like we are entering a period of high conflict, whether Iraq turns out like we hope or not. 15 to 20 years, according to Rumsfeld et al.’s estimates, of constant warfare in one shape or another. And this was before 9/11!

Now, all this stuff about "constabulary duties" deserves a second look.
Sometimes, language is chosen by its ability to avoid the plain meaning of what its writers are talking about. This is also called “doublespeak,” where you say one thing but mean another. A good example of this is in Orwell’s 1984, where the government organization responsible for waging war is called the Ministry of Peace. (incidentally, our own Dept. of Defense was called the Dept. of War until the 1940's.) Now, this kind of wordplay affects our attitudes, even when we know it is occurring. A good example is when stores mark a product as $12.99 because it looks like less. We know that this deception is occurring, yet we still often say, "it was only $12!" when someone asks.

By the same token, when the report says that the United States needs to “perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions,” we have to take a moment and decipher exactly what this means. “Constabulary duties” makes military action and occupation sound like just a part of the day’s work; of course its soldiers’ jobs to occupy foreign lands! “Shaping the security environment” is doublespeak for controlling other people through threats and force. “Critical regions” are countries we want to control, in polite terms, of course.

Think about it. No one speaks like this unless they’re trying to hide something. In this case, it’s the imperialist ambitions of the PNAC.

The document states that should "Saddam pass from the scene" bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently, despite the opposition of other Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops. It says, "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has." It suggests that it's time to increase the presence of American forces in Southeast Asia which, it says, may lead to "American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratization in China."

So if Saddam wasn’t there, we still need troops in the Mid-East because of Iran, and if Iran wasn’t there, because of China. Sounds like we are going to be at war for quite a long time. After all, our new American frontier stretches around the world in "the New Century."

The report calls for the creation of "US Space Forces" to dominate space: "Space control is not an avoidable issue, it is not an optional extra." US space command "must have the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium and an ability to deny others the use of space; this must be an essential element of our military strategy."

The report calls for total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" from using the Internet against the US. It says, "New methods of attack, electronic, non-lethal, biological, will be more widely available and combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes." It identifies North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a "world-wide command-and-control system."

The report makes it clear that we must control outer space and cyberspace. To the PNAC these are not global resources but rather, the property of the USA to own and use to maintain military superiority.

The PNAC wants America, as the world's sole superpower, to take advantage of its position. The document states, "America's strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals." The military's job has changed since the Cold War, the document says: "Today its task is to secure and expand the zones of democratic peace; to deter the rise of a new greatpower competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies."

All in all, the picture of the USA that the PNAC has in mind seems to be an imperialist power like Ancient Rome, or Britain during the Revolutionary days. Both these countries were in an almost permanent state of war, in order to gain control of more and more resources from other people through force or threat of force. We will have to do the same if we are to stay the sole superpower.

These goals, of course, greatly increase the need for more defense spending. "Use of the post Cold War 'peace dividend' to balance the federal budget has created a 'defense deficit' totaling tens of billions of dollars annually." The authors go on to state, "The program we advocateÑone that would provide America with forces to meet the strategic demands of the world's sole superpowerÑrequires budget levels to be increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. A sensible plan would add $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually."
The effects will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what weapons dominate and which nations enjoy military preeminence. To preserve American military preeminence, "the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.

So in a way, 9/11 played right into the PNAC’s hands.

Im sorry, but Iraq is in no way the end of America’s plans for US troops in the Mid-East. Its only the beginning if we are to believe the most powerful men in the world today. No matter how well things turn out, there is a real need for permament military presence in the area in order to defend "the new frontier."

 

[oxbow3]

I have also found a copy of the open etter the PNAC sent to Pres. Bush nine days after 9/11. This portion is relevant to our present situation:

…." It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html

Has anyone read the novel "Chronicle of a War Foretold?"

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There's only a conspiracy as much as Dan Rather is a liberal. What're you worried about?

 

[dilloduck]

I would like to return to the subject of the Project for the New American Century if I may. You'll remember this is the neo-conservative think tank which Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and several other prominent members of the Bush Admin. belong to.

One thing I forgot to mention about the PNAC:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_New_American_Century

It is thus clear that there is a relationship between Fox News and the PNAC and by extension the Bush Admin., many of whose members are part of the PNAC. I will leave that discussion for another day. Suffice it to say that Fox News acts as the media's cheerleader for the war, lifting American morale in support of the occupation. They also are responsible for some of the disinformation concerning the alleged WMD's and Iraq's links to terrorism that we were led to believe. However, with the large numbers of PNAC members in the White house, it is to be expected that our administration acted as the main source of disinformation.

Now, a careful look at a few key documents put out by the PNAC may help us get a better feel for what global policy may be like in the next few decades.

The first one is called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century. It was written in 2000. Now that its writers are the most powerful men in the world though, they can begin moving forward on the strategy outlined in this 90 page blueprint for America's future. I will be quoting sections from this link first, as there is alot of ground to cover and this offers a good structure to navigate by:
http://www.mecgrassroots.org/NEWSL/ISS45/45.10global.html

(For those who are wary of bias, you can also follow along on the following link, or look at the original document on the PNAC website. It is my opinion that the above is the best short analysis on the web though. http://www.renesch.com/PNAC_KeyFindings_with_links.htm)



So this "cavalry on the new American frontier" are the permanent bases in other countries? And where exactly does this frontier stretch to? Is the entire world America's for the taking then?





It sounds like we are entering a period of high conflict, whether Iraq turns out like we hope or not. 15 to 20 years, according to Rumsfeld et al.’s estimates, of constant warfare in one shape or another. And this was before 9/11!

Now, all this stuff about "constabulary duties" deserves a second look.
Sometimes, language is chosen by its ability to avoid the plain meaning of what its writers are talking about. This is also called “doublespeak,” where you say one thing but mean another. A good example of this is in Orwell’s 1984, where the government organization responsible for waging war is called the Ministry of Peace. (incidentally, our own Dept. of Defense was called the Dept. of War until the 1940's.) Now, this kind of wordplay affects our attitudes, even when we know it is occurring. A good example is when stores mark a product as $12.99 because it looks like less. We know that this deception is occurring, yet we still often say, "it was only $12!" when someone asks.

By the same token, when the report says that the United States needs to “perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions,” we have to take a moment and decipher exactly what this means. “Constabulary duties” makes military action and occupation sound like just a part of the day’s work; of course its soldiers’ jobs to occupy foreign lands! “Shaping the security environment” is doublespeak for controlling other people through threats and force. “Critical regions” are countries we want to control, in polite terms, of course.

Think about it. No one speaks like this unless they’re trying to hide something. In this case, it’s the imperialist ambitions of the PNAC.




So if Saddam wasn’t there, we still need troops in the Mid-East because of Iran, and if Iran wasn’t there, because of China. Sounds like we are going to be at war for quite a long time. After all, our new American frontier stretches around the world in "the New Century."



The report makes it clear that we must control outer space and cyberspace. To the PNAC these are not global resources but rather, the property of the USA to own and use to maintain military superiority.



All in all, the picture of the USA that the PNAC has in mind seems to be an imperialist power like Ancient Rome, or Britain during the Revolutionary days. Both these countries were in an almost permanent state of war, in order to gain control of more and more resources from other people through force or threat of force. We will have to do the same if we are to stay the sole superpower.



American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.

So in a way, 9/11 played right into the PNAC’s hands.

Im sorry, but Iraq is in no way the end of America’s plans for US troops in the Mid-East. Its only the beginning if we are to believe the most powerful men in the world today. No matter how well things turn out, there is a real need for permament military presence in the area in order to defend "the new frontier."

As long as Islamic militants desire to harm America do you not think it a wise policy to do whatever is neccessary to upset any stablilty they may achieve, where ever it is?

 

[oxbow3]

but Dilloduck, my point is that the only reason they want to harm America is because America won't leave them alone. Permanent military bases in holy land, Military support of Israel and decades of propping up anti-democratic regimes in the area have left a bad impression with many in the region. The alternative that I am offering is that we not maintain a military presence and not interfere with the politics of the region. If we never did this in the first place, Iran would still be a democracy and Saddam would have been deposed decades ago without our military aid to keep him strong. It is because of our actions that both of those countries are the mess they are today.

We also provide support to keep the antidemocratic Saudi monarchy in power right now, among others. How is this spreading liberty?
These are just a few examples of hypocritical US policy.

Instead of leaving the region alone though, the PNAC wants to make our military presence there permanent. They want to use any means necessary to influence the policy of those countries in our favor. If anybody else was trying to do this to our government, we would be calling for their heads on a pike! Is it really any surprise that the people there hate us so much right now?

rtwngavngr- Just calling what I've said a conspiracy theory is a weak argument indeed. Show me how anything written here is wrong and I'll be more than willing to listen.

 

[Comrade]

but Dilloduck, my point is that the only reason they want to harm America is because America won't leave them alone.

To do what, exactly?

Permanent military bases in holy land,

That being any U.S. base in the Middle Eastern desert.

Military support of Israel

Disregarding equal foreign aid to Egypt and Palestine combined, let alone dollars directly deposited to other M.E. nations for oil sales.

and decades of propping up anti-democratic regimes in the area

Which are naturally somehow America's fault for existing in the first place, rather than being the only form of government possible to date among the barbarity of Islamic culture.

have left a bad impression with many in the region.

As if the United States 'failed' the entire region in the first place. I mean, c'mon, give us a break!

The alternative that I am offering is that we not maintain a military presence and not interfere with the politics of the region.

Classic appeasement strategy, ala 1938.

If we never did this in the first place,

Yes, again, all this is the fault of U.S. meddling where we shouldn't have...

Iran would still be a democracy

Still hung up on that socialist propaganda, aren't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

and Saddam would have been deposed decades ago without our military aid to keep him strong.

How do you propose he was deposed in your historical revision? Perhaps you'd have him lose the war with Iran, which you might recall is still a historically hostile regime with America. So given you have the 20/20 hindsight even our top minds lacked in the 1970's, what is your brilliant solution to the middle east sideshow problem which existed in the midst of the Cold War? Do you have one?

It is because of our actions that both of those countries are the mess they are today.

Ugh. How shallow.

We also provide support to keep the antidemocratic Saudi monarchy in power right now, among others. How is this spreading liberty?

Do we now? Why is it that whenever we oppose a tyrannical state (such as Iraq), the left is abhorred at the thought if we also don't enter into a state of war with all the other countries in the world which are also tyrannical states, even if those cannot be realistically affected in our real world.

And even if our attempt in Iraq has always been a step in right direction according to the left, you'd coax us back into isolationism based upon how our past behavior has always suspect in the first place. You ever notice that such a reaction illustrates the worthlessness of the leftist promises?

These are just a few examples of hypocritical US policy.

And there is some kind of point you wish to make, in opposition to aggressive U.S. policy. Should we care?

 

[oxbow3]

To do what, exactly?

To live without foreign intervention.

That being any U.S. base in the Middle Eastern desert.

No, just Saudi Arabia with the approval of its monarchy and the wrath of its populace.

Would you like foreign military bases in the US? If not, why should they?

Disregarding equal foreign aid to Egypt and Palestine combined, let alone dollars directly deposited to other M.E. nations for oil sales

I said military aid. Call me when Palestine gets its own fleet of apache helicopters or bunker busting missiles.

Even ignoring the above, comparing our foreign aid to Palestine with that given to Israel is laughable

Which are naturally somehow America's fault for existing in the first place, rahter than being the only form of government possible to date among the barabarity of Islamic culture.

You have jumped in in the middle and ignored points made earlier in this thread. We consistently have supported dictators and monarchs because they are easier to deal with and less likely to act in the countries best favors rather than their own. see the CIA backed coup against democratically elected Iranian president Mossadegh, for instance, which resulted in the shah coming to power. The Muslim world introduced the West to democracy hundreds of years ago, not the other way around.

As if the United States 'failed' the entire region in the first place. I mean, c'mon, give us a break!

Exactly. Us acting only in our own best interests has resulted or contributed to many of the major conflicts playing out there today. You have a very biased view of Modern Mid-eastern history. Where did you get it from?

Classic appeasement strategy, ala 1938.

It would be if it wasn't us giving them the weapons first (see lying idiots thread pp5-9). Also, if the UN didn't exist precisely to deal with that kind of world threat.

Still hung up on that socialist propaganda, aren't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

So a democratic government was overthrown and replaced by a dictator, all because the US was suspicious that said government was becoming friendly with the soviets? And you support this? A part of being a free nation is that you get to decide who you play with, you know.

Also, its too bad that our government already apologized for its shameful actions.
http://www.socialconscience.com/articles/iran.htm

How do you propose he was deposed in your historical revision? Perhaps you'd have him lose the war with Iran, which you might recall is still a historically hostile regime with America. So given you have the 20/20 hindsight even our top minds had in the 70's, what is your brilliant solution to the middle east sideshow problem which existed in the midst of the Cold War? Huh?

Iran would have never been hostile to us if we didn't meddle, remember? Not bad enough to take hostages in 1979, anyway. Our own actions biting us in the ass again. You're just proving the point Im trying to make.

The war lasted for 8 years and killed millions because of foreign aid in weapons and intelligence to Iraq. It would have been little more than a skirmish between Hussein the dictator and the democratic nation of Iran if we stayed out of it.

Do we now? Why is it that whenever we oppose a tyrannical state (such as Iraq), the left is abhorred at the thought if we also don't enter into a state of war with country XXX which is also a tyrannical state. And even if its a step in right direction and accorded to our capability, the left is still not satisfied with that direction and instead would coax us back into isolationism based upon how our past behavior has always suspect. You ever notice that?

Im not the left, Im an independent. And pre-emptive wars are the prerogative of the international community, not 2 rogue nations. If we listened to any of them, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are right now.

 

[oxbow3]

By the way, if it wasn't for their "barbaric culture," the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and modern democracies like ours would never have come around.
http://www.twf.org/Library/Renaissance.html

Please refrain from expressing such bigoted thoughts in the future. It shows your ignorance of history and societies other than your own.

 

[Comrade]

To live without foreign intervention.

Every tyranny wishes to continue its oppression without foreign intervention. The problem is no tyranny exists which does not also intervene in foreign policy itself, in its own favor, a fact which we cannot ignore.

No, just Saudi Arabia with the approval of its monarchy and the wrath of its populace.

Does our support for the 'lesser evil', that is, the Saud regime over the Islamic theocracy, undermine our own attempt to bring democracy through otherwise less confrontational means, in a key country in the region?

Would you like foreign military bases in the US?

If our country was ran by a tyranny, yes. Absolutely. I'd trust the U.S.A. to do more for my country to advance Democracy and ensure security than any other power on the Earth. I'd personally feel gratefull.

I said military aid. Call me when Palestine gets its own fleet of apache helicopters or bunker busting missiles.

Why should the U.S.A. be expected to arm those who celebrated on 9/11?

Apparently you have in mind some sort of leader who can bring the state of Palestine to fruition by strength of arms... a concept which confounds all common sense.

You have jumped in in the middle and ignored points made earlier in this thread. We consistently have supported dictators and monarchs because they are easier to deal with and less likely to act in the countries best favors rather than their own.

No we have not. The U.S.A. has consistently provided security for world Democracy and has sacrificed more than any nation on Earth to protect and liberate humanity from tyrannny. And I challenge you to illustrate otherwise.

see the CIA backed coup against democratically elected Iranian president Mossadegh, for instance, which resulted in the shah coming to power.

See Communism and references to the Cold War following WWII. Again, you presume to second guess the successful policy which catapulted America to the singular power of today.

Exactly. Us acting in our own best interests has resulted or contributed to many of the major conflicts playing out there today.

Again, you blame the U.S. for meddling where it shouldn't belong... (realpolitic demands as a nation-state notwithstanding.

You have a very biased view of Modern Mid-eastern history. Where did you get it from?

Common sense?

It would be if it wasn't us giving them the weapons first (see lying idiots thread pp5-9). Also, if the UN didn't exist precisely to deal with that kind of world threat.

You're erasing the USSR from the historical record then, right?

So a democratic government was overthrown and replaced by a dictator, all because the US was suspicious that said government was becoming friendly with the soviets? And you support this? A part of being a free nation is that you get to decide who you play with, you know.

Yes, it doesn't matter which regime you might want to prop up as the 'People's Choice'. I'm prepared to debate the merits of U.S. involvement on any country you find suspect.

Also, its too bad that our government already apologized for its shameful actions.
http://www.socialconscience.com/articles/iran.htm

Referencing your link:

March 17, 2000

According to the Washington Post (3/17/2000), Secretary of State Madeleine Albright plans to announcing a major overture toward Iran.

Granted 'our government' which you reference was a pre-9-11, Clintonian relict, the idea that we as a nation apologize for the Islamification of Iran is still suspect beyond disbelief. And there is no such sentiment expressed from this ex-Secretary of State to reinforce your assertation.

Iran would have never been hostile to us if we didn't meddle, remember?

Wishfull thinking.

Not bad enough to take hostages in 1979, anyway. Our own actions biting us in the ass again. You're just proving the point Im trying to make.

What was the point, exactly? It still sounds to me like you blame centuries old Islamic extremism and the timeless continuation of tyranny in the Arab world on the mere existance of America. As if everything we touched turned from Democracy to Tyranny, despite the vast evidence to the contrary. I find it disgusting you won't credit our role in liberating the greater part of humanity over the last century through the sacrifice of sweat and blood of Americans.

The war lasted for 8 years and killed millions because of foreign aid in weapons and intelligence to Iraq. It would have been little more than a skirmish between Hussein the dictator and the democratic nation of Iran if we stayed out of it.

Bull. Iran was and is NOT a Democracy. And how does this apply to our actions to ensure Democracy in Iraq today?

Im not the left, Im an independent. And pre-emptive wars are the prerogative of the international community, not 2 rogue nations. If we listened to any of them, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are right now.

I find your attitude typical of the far left, who percieve fault in the world as a product of our ancestors, and impune their integrity by second guessing and playing the blame game instead of standing behind the principles they fought and died for.

Maybe you should revisit your core values.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

but Dilloduck, my point is that the only reason they want to harm America is because America won't leave them alone. Permanent military bases in holy land, Military support of Israel and decades of propping up anti-democratic regimes in the area have left a bad impression with many in the region. The alternative that I am offering is that we not maintain a military presence and not interfere with the politics of the region. If we never did this in the first place, Iran would still be a democracy and Saddam would have been deposed decades ago without our military aid to keep him strong. It is because of our actions that both of those countries are the mess they are today.

We also provide support to keep the antidemocratic Saudi monarchy in power right now, among others. How is this spreading liberty?
These are just a few examples of hypocritical US policy.

Instead of leaving the region alone though, the PNAC wants to make our military presence there permanent. They want to use any means necessary to influence the policy of those countries in our favor. If anybody else was trying to do this to our government, we would be calling for their heads on a pike! Is it really any surprise that the people there hate us so much right now?

rtwngavngr- Just calling what I've said a conspiracy theory is a weak argument indeed. Show me how anything written here is wrong and I'll be more than willing to listen.

There's a group of men who are concerned about the future of America and the world, and the values americans believe in. This is called statesmanship. Only in your warped lib mind is it a criminal conspiracy of some kind. I always tell people about PNAC http://newamericancentury.org. WIll you tell people that the ACLU and National Lawyers Association are both run by communists? Do you think academic libs will ever admit that they're just bitter, envy-ridden, irrelevancies with world views to match?

 

[j07950]

Very interesting things again...just a shame you guys can't learn anything from each other. It is the same old stuff: "You're left wing so I'm not listening, eventhough some of the things you are saying make a lot of sence". No diologue.

 

[dilloduck]

Very interesting things again...just a shame you guys can't learn anything from each other. It is the same old stuff: "You're left wing so I'm not listening, eventhough some of the things you are saying make a lot of sence". No diologue.

No dialogue???? are you not reading Dude? Comrade has engaged Oxbows assertions in a PRECISE dialogue fashion. Stop the false allegations and read!

 

[freeandfun1]

No dialogue???? are you not reading Dude? Comrade has engaged Oxbows assertions in a PRECISE dialogue fashion. Stop the false allegations and read!

I've noticed in several threads now how he is making claims that oxbow is beating us, yet when we offer concise evidence to refute ox, he ignores it and posts his same diatribe again and that is considered "having the upper hand". Only on the left! lol

 

[j07950]

I've noticed in several threads now how he is making claims that oxbow is beating us, yet when we offer concise evidence to refute ox, he ignores it and posts his same diatribe again and that is considered "having the upper hand". Only on the left! lol

Never said Ox isn't challenged, I just think you're arguments as a whole aren't very solid, but than again from your perspective they are probably enough.

 

[sitarro]

I've noticed in several threads now how he is making claims that oxbow is beating us, yet when we offer concise evidence to refute ox, he ignores it and posts his same diatribe again and that is considered "having the upper hand". Only on the left! lol[/QUOTE



Free,
These kids read a few things about the past and think they are experts . They don't seem to realize that a lot of us were alive back then and actually lived it rather than read about it . I remember the bomb shelters , the real nuclear threat from their beloved communist , Krushev pounding his shoe on the podium at the UN saying "we will bury you" , the Middle East being mostly irrelevant until we made them rich by discovering , drilling for and then buying their oil .
Hey Ox . . . this planet is a very complex place , the President and his administration has to make decisions that effect the world in numerous ways , he does this 24/7 and most of those decisions are never even known about by the public .All of this is done while being watched and analyzed by their political enemies in the press , the opposing party and leaders of the world(all with their own agendas) .The wealth of information from around the world that he and his advisors have to study every day is no doubt astounding .Do you really want them to waste their time listening to the repetitive horseshit of some asswipe college student . . . please . . . I know I don't.

 

[oxbow3]

But I and many of my friends knew in 2002 that Iraq had no WMD's. I read the IAEA reports and was aware that the WMD's we gave him had become inactive by then. If the President has so much good information, then why did he use the ruse of WMD's to make the case for war? Why didn't he listen to his own state dept. report that showed that there was no relationship between Iraq and international terrorism? The answer is that because regime change in Iraq was this administrations goal from the first NSC meeting onwards. Paul O'Neill recounts that Cheney had a list of contractors and other org.'s interested in setting up shop in Iraq ready less than a month after Bush's 2001 inauguration. We went to war because we were led to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to our national security. I know that the entire conservative base does not suffer from amnesia, yet you still tout the "we went for democracy" line as if that was the original reasoning by which this war was sold to us.
Why do you continue to support people who deceived you? Is it selective amnesia, cognitive dissonance, what? Loyalty needs to be earned. Trust needs to earned. Yet you give it to the administration without question, when you should be asking yourself what we're really fighting for.

They hid the identities of witnesses because their credibility was questionable. They used non-existent or forged documents to make their point. They used fear of another 9-11 to make the public go along.

I come here with only credible sources and authentic documents, I prove to you that Iraq was never about WMD's or terrorism. I show you the information the administration itself had showing this. Yet nobody blinks an eyelid. How do I get the kind of credibility the Bush admin has with you, The kind I can lie and use fake documents with, and you still believe me afterwards? The boy has cried wolf more than once, yet you still come running.

 

[dilloduck]

But I and many of my friends knew in 2002 that Iraq had no WMD's. I read the IAEA reports and was aware that the WMD's we gave him had become inactive by then. If the President has so much good information, then why did he use the ruse of WMD's to make the case for war? Why didn't he listen to his own state dept. report that showed that there was no relationship between Iraq and international terrorism? The answer is that because regime change in Iraq was this administrations goal from the first NSC meeting onwards. Paul O'Neill recounts that Cheney had a list of contractors and other org.'s interested in setting up shop in Iraq ready less than a month after Bush's 2001 inauguration. We went to war because we were led to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to our national security. I know that the entire conservative base does not suffer from amnesia, yet you still tout the "we went for democracy" line as if that was the original reasoning by which this war was sold to us.
Why do you continue to support people who deceived you? Is it selective amnesia, cognitive dissonance, what? Loyalty needs to be earned. Trust needs to earned. Yet you give it to the administration without question, when you should be asking yourself what we're really fighting for.

They hid the identities of witnesses because their credibility was questionable. They used non-existent or forged documents to make their point. They used fear of another 9-11 to make the public go along.

I come here with only credible sources and authentic documents, I prove to you that Iraq was never about WMD's or terrorism. I show you the information the administration itself had showing this. Yet nobody blinks an eyelid. How do I get the kind of credibility the Bush admin has with you, The kind I can lie and use fake documents with, and you still believe me afterwards? The boy has cried wolf more than once, yet you still come running.

How about 'cause I think invading Iraq was a good thing and Bush had to resort to other methods to convince other people ?

 

[oxbow3]

J07950-I think the reason that I cannot agree with Comrade and the others is because we have profoundly different ideas of what the role of the US should be in the world. They feel that we are justified in doing whatever needs be done to maintain our position as the sole superpower, including deceiving the public, coups of democratic regimes and pre-emptive military action without international approval. I feel that "with great power comes great responsibility," and that as the great nation that we are, we have a moral obligation to act better than those others who deceive and use violence for their own best interest. There is something known as the "win-win" situation. It is the goal of all diplomacy, and the basis of resolving conflict through civilized means. It is harder than the path of acting only in our own best interest, because we are powerful enough to do what we want. However, it is the only truly moral course.

If you look at what me and Comrade are saying, for instance, it can all be broken down to "We are neither better nor worst than the rest of them." The United States gives an intense amount of international aid to other countries, and I am very proud of that. Yet they also do many things that make me ashamed. He excuses these actions because our enemies are just as or even more immoral than we are. I say that we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than those evil empires. He feels that this is a pipe dream, while I am certain that holding to these morals is the only way to prevent the ultimate destruction of the human race. That is where communication begins to break down, though.

rgtwngavngr feels that the PNAC is justified in knocking down other countries in order to build ourselves up, that US dominance is a worthy enough goal that immoral behavior is justified to reach it. The ends justify the means for him. Yet he himself could just as easily have been born in Iran instead of the United States. He could have been raised a muslim, and been on the reciving end of our military rather than reaping its benefits right now. It is all a matter of chance that he was so blessed as to be born in this great nation. I believe that our role as a part of this great experiment is to act as the consciense, to hold our elected leaders to the promises they make, to not let them deceive and scheme away the American dream behind closed doors. rtwngavngr may support the actions of the PNAC, yet I am willing to bet that the majority of Americans would be disgusted were they to know the true goals and influence of this secretive group on our foreign policy.

The question I ask myself is: do our actions move the world closer to global unity or farther away from it? Are we striving towards the day when we are one civilization acting together, or are our actions driving a wedge between the different great nations? Our environment is already interconnected, and our economies are also. This is the whole idea of the global marketplace. I am simply striving for the day when our people will be as well. I believe that the US doing immoral things to maintain its position as the only superpower is antithetical to this goal. That is why I say the things I do. Like I said before, the "spiderman doctrine" is the only moral way to act. Anything else is beneath the ideals and the dream that so many have died for.

 

[oxbow3]

How about 'cause I think invading Iraq was a good thing and Bush had to resort to other methods to convince other people ?

Why was it a good thing, though? If something is the right thing to do, then why do you have to resort to lies and deception to convince other people. Why do you have to sink to fear mongering? You must have a very pessimistic view of humanity if you truly think that the only wayto get people to do the right thing is to manipulate them, DD.

One more thing: Do you approve of your own self being deceived too? You don't feel even a little bit taken advantage of? This is another thing I have some trouble understanding.