Monstrous
Monstrous Books => New Publications & Authors => Topic started by: Anonymous on August 04, 2005, 05:09:10 PM
-
According to "The Marketing of Evil," Americans have come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation – from easy divorce and unrestricted abortion-on-demand to extreme body piercing and teaching homosexuality to grade-schoolers. Does that mean today's Americans are inherently more morally confused and depraved than previous generations? Of course not, says veteran journalist David Kupelian. But they have fallen victim to some of the most stunningly brilliant and compelling marketing campaigns in modern history.
"The Marketing of Evil" reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value. Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America’s founding regarded as grossly self-destructive – in a word, evil.
In this groundbreaking and meticulously researched book, Kupelian peels back the veil of marketing-induced deception to reveal exactly when, where, how, and especially why Americans bought into the lies that now threaten the future of the country.
For example, few of us realize that the widely revered father of the "sexual revolution" has been irrefutably exposed as a full-fledged sexual psychopath who encouraged pedophilia. Or that giant corporations voraciously competing for America's $150 billion teen market routinely infiltrate young people's social groups to find out how better to lead children into ever more debauched forms of "authentic self-expression."
Likewise, most of us mistakenly believe the "abortion rights" and "gay rights" movements were spontaneous, grassroots uprisings of neglected or persecuted minorities wanting to breathe free. Few people realize America was actually "sold" on abortion thanks to an audacious public relations campaign that relied on fantastic lies and fabrications. Or that the "gay rights" movement – which transformed America's former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes – faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.
No quarter is given in this riveting, insightful exploration of how lies, both subtle and outrageous, are packaged as truth. From the federal government to the public school system to the news media to the hidden creators of "youth culture," nothing is exempt from the thousand-watt spotlight of Kupelian's journalistic inquiry.
In the end, "The Marketing of Evil" is an up-close, modern-day look at what is traditionally known as "temptation" – the art and science of making evil look good.
-
That book should be burned. Invading a harmless country and recklessly causing the deaths of so many of it's people,now that's true evil. Iraq anyone?
-
That book should be burned. Invading a harmless country and recklessly causing the deaths of so many of it's people,now that's true evil. Iraq anyone?
You have GOT to be kidding me. :roll:
Iraq, namely Saddam Hussein, was just some innocent poor little schmo who never meant anyone no harm. and big bad america with their big bad guns take him away from his home and burn down his fields, laughing maniacly the whole time! Amerika! Amerika!
give me a break. your moral relativism is stunning. Hussein would have been the next Hitler had he the means. He would have commited genocide on the Kurds as well as the Shiites if it were possible for him to do so. And he would have given weapons of mass destruction to those who meant America harm, had he had them (and it is neither proven if he did or did not to this day).
Whether we should have invaded Iraq or just kept up with the policy of containment is a very complex and involving debate only the unjaded and the informed should take part in. Your inference about America being evil and Iraq being some "harmless" little community being picked on is very offensive to me because it is completely unfounded and based solely on passion and bias. No way to come to any conclusion about any subject at any time.
As far as the book is concerned, it sounds interesting. However it was once said by an ancient greek philosopher whose name I forget, that each subsequent generation is more wicked than the previous. If this were true however, we would have been in Armaggedon a long time ago and the Romans would have all been saints. :-o
Also, there are certain things the younger generations are in fact more "conservative" on than the older generations. Abortion on demand is one of them. Polls and studies show that Abortion is frowned upon more by young people today than the Baby Boomers of yesterday. However Gay Rights is smiled upon more. So there is a bit of a shift on certain issues that you see with every generation.
I do feel there is a problem with mass corporate marketing these days though. It easy to market a product or an idea or an image these days because "they" have full ability to penetrate our homes and bedrooms. What sells is whats marketed and glorified. MTV, owned by Viacom, makes a living selling sexual and drug related images to 13 year olds. todays Hip Hop like Heavy Metal before it glorifies the darker elements of life to teenagers and those even younger. We are in fact becoming more wicked of a society because there are more temptations at our access. The only way to combat this however is to try and maintain a strong familial and religious unit in society.
I mean sheesh, just look at all the porn ads in my spam box. it's hard not to look at least some of them... :oops:
-
give me a break. your moral relativism is stunning. Hussein would have been the next Hitler had he the means. He would have commited genocide on the Kurds as well as the Shiites if it were possible for him to do so. And he would have given weapons of mass destruction to those who meant America harm, had he had them (and it is neither proven if he did or did not to this day).
My,my, it seems that someone is certainly adept in the art of self-deception. You speak of moral of relativism? Be aware then, of the fact that Saddam's relentless campaigns of persucation against the s**taketes were done with the full compliance of your leaders who were terrified by the possibility of that unfortunate majority ever embracing the intoxicating freedom of s**tte revolution, similiar to that which occured in neighbouring Iran following the Revolution there. To them, Saddam was always the lesser of the two evils. It was only after he begun to seriously endanger entrenched American interests in the region, that their vast P.R machine did a complete 180 degree turn in public policy, and immediately begun work on transforming America's former best friend into the most maligned tyrant of the Middle east. Even now, America continues to frown on any attempt by Iraq's s**ttes to reach out to their breathren in Tehran. And more importantly, why on earth couldn't you God fearing crusaders have put an end to Saddam's evil while he was at the height of his reign of terror, instead of waiting passively until he had exhausted all the resocurces that had allowed him to sow mayhem across the entire region? Don't feed me that Bush b.s about wanting to restore peace and prosperity to Iraq, when your bombs put an abrupt and violent end to the only period of prolonged peace the Iraqis had ever enjoyed under him. For shame, do not endeavour to mar the truth simply because it runs contrary to your dictates of aggresive domination
With that said, please spare me your immature hyperbole in the future.
-
Very well done MM. Couldnt have said it any better myself.
-
Thanks,Tom. I know that getting all worked up like this probably isn't good for my health in the long run, but man, is it satisfying.
-
Its alright so long as you do it once in awhile. Just dont cry over spilled milk :wink:
-
Better than keeping it bottled up.
Avoiding that, however, I'll speak on the topic of marketing and what not.
I do feel there is a problem with mass corporate marketing these days though. It easy to market a product or an idea or an image these days because "they" have full ability to penetrate our homes and bedrooms. What sells is whats marketed and glorified. MTV, owned by Viacom, makes a living selling sexual and drug related images to 13 year olds. todays Hip Hop like Heavy Metal before it glorifies the darker elements of life to teenagers and those even younger. We are in fact becoming more wicked of a society because there are more temptations at our access. The only way to combat this however is to try and maintain a strong familial and religious unit in society.
I mean sheesh, just look at all the porn ads in my spam box. it's hard not to look at least some of them...
The "ability to penetrate our homes and bedrooms" is something we have willingly given "them" all in exchange for mass communication such as radio, television, and (dramatic pause) the internet! That's just the price we pay which we pay voluntarily. If you truly wanted to cut off their penetration you would have to cut yourself off from all forms of mass media.
Of course what sells is marketed and glorified. Would you buy something that told you is terrible in all aspects? Of course not, you would avoid it like the plague. This is the classic example. Say you were at a market and saw two pieces of meat for sale, one saying it's 75% lean meat and the other saying it's 25% fat. Which would you most likely buy?
And have you watched MTV lately? It's full of infomercials talking about the dangers of drugs like tobacco and alcohol and infomercials talking about the responsibility of sex. Furthermore, there is more to modern music than simple dark imagery. Tons upon tons of modern music is about love. And isn't it possible that those who listen to dark music do so because they were more inclined to it in the first place and not because of exposure. My parents were always listening to country and the like but I am in no way inclined to it (in fact most of it is just down right annoying).
I find it highly unlikely that our society is more wicked than past ones. If we were to take the Bible as literal truths (and that is another discussion), we could use the example of Sodom and Gamora. Two cities destroyed because of their sinfulness. It's simply a matter of our modern day comunications that we know of every little thing bad that happens in the world.
As for the book, of course some of the things we do today would've appalled past generations. Other races equal to white people!? Women being allowed to think and act for themselves!? Being allowed to express one self!? OMG, he's shaking his waist in public!! As time changes so do our values and our mindsets. It's as simple as that.
-
My,my, it seems that someone is certainly adept in the art of self-deception. You speak of moral of relativism? Be aware then, of the fact that Saddam's relentless campaigns of persucation against the s**takeakeakeakeaketes were done with the full compliance of your leaders who were terrified by the possibility of that unfortunate majority ever embracing the intoxicating freedom of s**takeakeakeakete revolution, similiar to that which occured in neighbouring Iran following the Revolution there. To them, Saddam was always the lesser of the two evils.
I am assuming you speak of the Iran-Iraq war which followed the revolution in Iran. Reagan supported what he perceived to be the lesser of two evils in the war, Iraq. However, Considering the recent abduction of american diplomats by Iranian nationalists (whom Jimmy Carter, a borderline pacifist and moralist, tried to free and was subsequently laughed at by the Iranians) and the constant anti-semitic threats leveled at Israel by Iran at the time (and to this day), not to mention Iran being favorable to the Soviet Union, I can see why Reagan supported the then little known and fresh on the scene dictator known as Saddam Hussein. Was this the wrong decision to make? ofcourse it was. So was supporting Bin Laden in the Afghan war against the Soviets, the real enemy at the time. America also supported the racist Apartheid in S. Africa in their desperate attempt to seek out key allies against the Soviets. Hindsight is always easy and 100% accurate.
America may have supported Iraq against Iran, but that all changed after Hussein murdered millions of Kurds and Shiites with chemical weapons in the late 80s. You however seem to suggest that america in some way approved, indeed assisted, in these atrocities against these innocent people because of their dislike for Iran. A vulgar accusation I must say.
And what "intoxicating freedom" do you sepak of? Islamist Fundamentalists took advantage of a nationalistic movement (as the Nazis did in Germany) and ruled the Iranian with fear, terror and censorship. The Mullahs to this day have a stranglehold on the personal freedom of all Iranians and would have had the same with the Iraqi shiites had they absorbed them into their "reich".
It was only after he begun to seriously endanger entrenched American interests in the region, that their vast P.R machine did a complete 180 degree turn in public policy, and immediately begun work on transforming America's former best friend into the most maligned tyrant of the Middle east.
America was certainly not Hussein's "best friend" after the mass murders of the kurds and shiites in the late 1980s. I am sure we all remember the vivid and horrific images printed in magazines around the world. But yes, not much was done in response to these atrocities, not by America and not by the United Nations "Peacekeepers" either. Then again, I don't recall Iran attempting to avenge their "brethren" either. America was too busy conducting peace efforts with the Soviet Union and talking of tearing down the Berlin Wall and finally speaking out against the racist Apartheid around this time. It is an unfair and unbalanced world indeed, but this hardly classifies America as evil.
Once the Soviet Union fell, then America breathed a bit easier and took a closer look around the world. It was around this time when Iraq invaded their neighbor Kuwait. now by "endanger entrenched american interests in the region" I can only assume you are talking about Oil. Saddam's plan was to take over Kuwait's oil fields, set up a base of operations and then move on into Saudi Arabia as well. Saddam Hussein would then control an overwhelming majority of the world's oil supply and would have the entrie world, including America, at his mercy. Ofcourse, if Hussein was still America's "best friend" as you say, why on earth would they have minded their buddy obtaining that sort of power? Wouldn't it be beneficial in the long run for America's "entrenched interests"? Would you have preferred America, as well as the United Nations Security Council simply let Saddam go ahead with his conquest the same way the League of Nations allowed Hitler to go on his? Would have been happier if this happened? Yes America was concerned with their own interests, but the world's interests were also at stake here. America can be very inconsistent but WE are an inheritantly good nation and I strongly believe this and am not lying to myself.
Even now, America continues to frown on any attempt by Iraq's s**takeakeakeaketes to reach out to their breathren in Tehran.
Wrong. America continues to frown on the Iranian Government for attempting to infiltrate the fledgling Iraqi Democratic process. They frown upon the Mullah's of Iran seeking to extend their influence and along with it their Islamo-Fascism.
And more importantly, why on earth couldn't you God fearing crusaders have put an end to Saddam's evil while he was at the height of his reign of terror, instead of waiting passively until he had exhausted all the resocurces that had allowed him to sow mayhem across the entire region? Don't feed me that Bush b.s about wanting to restore peace and prosperity to Iraq, when your bombs put an abrupt and violent end to the only period of prolonged peace the Iraqis had ever enjoyed under him. For shame, do not endeavour to mar the truth simply because it runs contrary to your dictates of aggresive domination
God Fearing Crusaders? interesting words to use, is there any particular reason why you chose that phrase?
And when exactly was the "height of his reign of terror"? was it while he was gasing the Kurds and Shiites in the late eighties? Because at that time America was dealing with Soviet threats in South America, the Caribbean, Asia and Eastern Europe. Was it when he invaded Kuwait? Because America did indeed, as you know, along with a vast world coalition, crush his advancing forces. Or was the height of his reign of terror after the first Gulf War while he was murdering political reformists and non-Sunnis? If this is the time you are speaking of then the answer is simple, the UN did not want to invade Iraq, they instead preferred a policy of "containment" alongside the Oil for Food program to help the more neglected citizens of Iraq. As we know now, that oil for food program was a sham and a front used to funnel money to Husseins Palace constructions and weapons research.
so murder of political reformists, constant civilian spying by government KGB like agents, the complete and utter oppression of womens Civil and human Rights and the suppression of religious and artistic expression in a world of constant fear is your idea of a desirable "prolonged period of peace" the Iraqi's "enjoyed"? and how dare "we" (whats with this us vs them [me, America, Crusader] mentality) break that up?
Unless they were an Upper Class Sunni-Arab, the Iraqi people never enjoyed anything under Saddam Hussein. The same is true right now in Iran where the Islamo-Fascist Mullah's are doing everything they can extinguish the already burning desire for democracy and freedom among the Iranian youth...the majority of their population. This government is predictably using anti-semitism as a means of reeling in their dissenters. Yet America is the evil and the stain on human society in your eyes?
And most of the bombs going off these days (aimed at civilians nonetheless) are by Foreign Terrorists and Insurgents loyal to Saddam.
For shame, do not endeavour to mar the truth simply because it runs contrary to your dictates of aggresive domination
I am not distorting any truth. I hate war and I hate death. I hate corruption and I hate initimidation. I hate Incompetence and I hate hypocricy. I do not like currently the way this war is being waged and dislike how America has at many times used questionable methods for the achievement of their own interests. I am not a big fan of Bush right now but I strongly feel that America is a force for good in the world and often are the only ones, when faced with a world threat...natural or human, who will do anything about it. America can be quite aggressive at times but your accusation of domination is unfounded. America is not colonizing Iraq and judging by the oil prices these days Americans certainly are not getting a break in that department because of the war as was originally suggested by critics. America wishes to dominate no one but she is highly influential because of her size, power, wealth and appeal to those in the world desperate for an opportunity to shine.
With that said, please spare me your immature hyperbole in the future.
I could say likewise. But I think your statements are less related to hyperbole and more the result of something deeper. there is a hatred you have for America and there are deeper reasons for this that i am unable to unravel.
having said all this, I do wish to apologize for the tone in my original post and for the what you may perceive to be of a hostile nature in this current post. simple fact is, you believe America is evil and I find that highly offensive.
-
I am assuming you speak of the Iran-Iraq war which followed the revolution in Iran. Reagan supported what he perceived to be the lesser of two evils in the war, Iraq. However, Considering the recent abduction of american diplomats by Iranian nationalists (whom Jimmy Carter, a borderline pacifist and moralist, tried to free and was subsequently laughed at by the Iranians) and the constant anti-semitic threats leveled at Israel by Iran at the time (and to this day), not to mention Iran being favorable to the Soviet Union, I can see why Reagan supported the then little known and fresh on the scene dictator known as Saddam Hussein.
Yes, the overwhelming majority of Iranians bore a vast amount of hatred towards the Americans for the undeniable and incontrovirtable efforts of the latter in propping up the erstwhile dicatator of Iran, a decadent and ruthless Shah quick to alientate his people by both offending their strict moral sensitivites with his denigrate ways, and ruthlessly surpressing the efforts of native patroits to firmly wean their nation away from the orbit of rapacious Western oil firms and nations. And don't be so quick to discount the fact that that numbering among some of those American diplomats and officials taken hostage in the embassy, were a small cabal of C.I.A officers and military officials whose employers had conspired with the puppet Shah in an insidious plot to stifle democracy in Iran, a that ultimately culminated in the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and his popular government in a brutal and unlawful coup. I can understand their reactions. Hell, I'd do the same to foreign thugs that would ever be calculating and audacious enough to destroy the seeds of democracy and freedom in my nation, with their colonialist machinations. I can sympathise with those young students. Touching now on another ludricous accusation that you have hurled at Iran, I find the anti-Semitism angle that you have presented me with, nothing short of sheer hillarious in the deep bias that colours it. Given Israel's appaling treatment of the Arabs that it has annexed in many of its violent border wars and incursions, I can well understand Iran's fury with the flagrant double standards that the West, and most prominently, the ''good'' U.S has meted out to a nation openly contemptous of the numerous international accords that have been passed in a hitherto vain and ineffectual struggle to protect the increasingly doomed futures of indigenous Arabs subjected to the unjust humilation of occupation. Such is the tragedy of a people whom Israel despises as ethnic scum. Contrast this with Iran's very humane treatment of its prosperous and staunchly loyal Jewish community, and the charges of anti-Semitsm levelled at Iran collapse like a fragile house of cards. Indeed, President Ahmenijad's fiery speeches are directed against a nation with a powerful penchant for trampling on the rights of and dignity of its own subjugated minority racial elements, and not at an entire race of people. Please try to seperate the reality of the situation from Republican manufactured fabrications. As if Iran with its military severly crippled by U.S sanctions, could have seriously done anything to endanger the security of Israel.
America was certainly not Hussein's "best friend" after the mass murders of the kurds and shiites in the late 1980s. I am sure we all remember the vivid and horrific images printed in magazines around the world. But yes, not much was done in response to these atrocities, not by America and not by the United Nations "Peacekeepers" either. Then again, I don't recall Iran attempting to avenge their "brethren" either.
Yes, all that copious bloodshed associated with Saddam, wasn't good for their image. They'd never predicted that he would be that extreme. So they begun to distance themselves from him. Too bad that the massacres didn't touch them enough to prevent them from defaulting on their promise to aid the s**taketes in the disastrous revolt that followed on thr heels of the Gulf War. Still paranoid about Iran and s**takete power, I guess. It would have suited their interests to ensure that the s**taketes were unable to capitalize on Saddam's temporary moment of confusion by cynically emboldening them to participate in a struggle that would leave them devastated. If so, good for them that Iran was too battered from its war with Iraq to risk another direct confrontation. Not everyone has a mighty army like America. Something for which it must be very grateful.
And most of the bombs going off these days (aimed at civilians nonetheless) are by Foreign Terrorists and Insurgents loyal to Saddam.
Saddam would never have tolerated the presence of a destabilising orgnanization like Al-Queda in Iraq, had he a choice. But, thanks to American intervention, he happily has no say in that now. Extremist Wahibist groups now have the ''freedom'' to engage in terrorism. But hey, didn't Rummy say anarchy and chaos was a strong indicator of liberty?
Once the Soviet Union fell, then America breathed a bit easier and took a closer look around the world. It was around this time when Iraq invaded their neighbor Kuwait. now by "endanger entrenched american interests in the region" I can only assume you are talking about Oil. Saddam's plan was to take over Kuwait's oil fields, set up a base of operations and then move on into Saudi Arabia as well. Saddam Hussein would then control an overwhelming majority of the world's oil supply and would have the entrie world, including America, at his mercy. Ofcourse, if Hussein was still America's "best friend" as you say, why on earth would they have minded their buddy obtaining that sort of power?
America was never that deluded. Helping him try to crush sworn enemy Iran was a very different matter from idly standing by as he took on their compliant vassals in the Middle-East. A man as strong and willfull as Saddam, someone powerful enough to actually pose a credible challenge to Israel's military dominance of the region, would in the long run, have not hesitated in declaring his independence from all Western inteference and in taking to the field against Israel's armies. Better to ensure that regimes heavily dependent on American largesse for their survival, remain in power. Saddam's ride with America ended when people in Washington understood that a man with ideas and notions so strongly his own, could not be trusted to be a reliable lap-dog, the way effete and cringing Saudi princes are. Some toadies are less likely to become an indepedent force than others, you know. And thus is your question answered. I guess you could say that Saddam was given false expectations of just how far America's ''friendship'' would stretch. As for Kuwait, I did support the general agenda behind the Coalition's campaign to evict Saddam's forces from it, an effort that included wide international participation, but it did dissapoint me that no one did anything to prevent the subsequent bloody purge of the mostly improvished and defenceless Palestinian residents in Kuwait City that were unfairly suspected of being ''Saddam collabarators'' by Kuwaiti murder bands upon the truimphant return of the latter to the capital. Even the most modest estimates admit that hundreds of Palestinians were executed by the Kuwaiti government. And of course, the war might have been prevented in the first place had Kuwait not been greedy enough to provoke a war with Saddam by illicatly tapping into his oil fields. Funny how that part got left out in the official account,eh?
As we know now, that oil for food program was a sham and a front used to funnel money to Husseins Palace constructions and weapons research.
Yes. And American senators must have reaped such rich dividends when they gave loyal ally Turkey, their acquisence in its oil smuggling ventures with Saddam's regime, a widely ignored secret that Kofi Anan was brave enough to disclose. How could America aid in undermining the very sanctions aimed at ending for good, Saddam's quest to remilitarize? Were they in truth, engineering an excuse to invade Iraq?
Wrong. America continues to frown on the Iranian Government for attempting to infiltrate the fledgling Iraqi Democratic process. They frown upon the Mullah's of Iran seeking to extend their influence and along with it their Islamo-Fascism.
''Islamo-Fascism'' which represents deeply orthodox Muslim values that a vast majority of Iran's s**taketes openly embrace. If the s**taketes believe in adopting Iran's religious system of government , and turn to Tehran to offer them some protection against Al-Queada's crazed killers in Iraq, let them do so. It's better than imposing a C.I.A pawn like Iyad Allawi on them, or allowing helpless civilians to die needlessly as a result of the incompetence that the American military has displayed in its bungled attempts to restore security to this devastated nation. The rights of the s**taketes to determine their future should never take a back-seat to the petty geo-political concerns of America.
God Fearing Crusaders? interesting words to use, is there any particular reason why you chose that phrase?
Bush claims God gave him divine authority to wage a war against Iraq. Sounds like a crusade to me.
Unless they were an Upper Class Sunni-Arab, the Iraqi people never enjoyed anything under Saddam Hussein. The same is true right now in Iran where the Islamo-Fascist Mullah's are doing everything they can extinguish the already burning desire for democracy and freedom among the Iranian youth...the majority of their population. This government is predictably using anti-semitism as a means of reeling in their dissenters. Yet America is the evil and the stain on human society in your eyes?
To quote you, ''Wrong''. Do you know that many Iraqi women intellectuals now lament the loss of the personal rights they enjoyed under Saddam? Too bad for them that the democratic majority of Iraqis scorn Western liberties as immoral artifices, and thus consider them incompatible with traditional Iraqi values. For its part, extra-judical killing and spying continue to thrive, a staggering testament to the refusal of Iraq's various secterian groups to work with one another in a democracy. Already the Kurds begin to expel minority Arabs and Assyrians from Kurdistan, knowing they can count on America to countenance their dream of establishing an ethnically pure Iraqi north. America true to form, has been very cooperative in this area. And s**takete tolerance for the minorities that Saddam protected, will not be long in dissipatiating. Old scores scream out to be settled. Without their leader around, these people will suffer the same fate as the Arabs in Kurdistan, compelled to abandon their homes and belongings to a hostile and vengeful majority. (Can't say I blame them,though.) Face it. Saddam's reign of terror was beneficial to some groups in Iraqi society, not just the Sunnis. Tariq Aziz was a Christian.
The bottom-line? America is hardly a force for good. Like all empires, it is driven by the expansionist need to consolidate its global power. I hope you see that some day.
-
Yes, the overwhelming majority of Iranians bore a vast amount of hatred towards the Americans for the undeniable and incontrovirtable efforts of the latter in propping up the erstwhile dicatator of Iran, a decadent and ruthless Shah quick to alientate his people by both offending their strict moral sensitivites with his denigrate ways, and ruthlessly surpressing the efforts of native patroits to firmly wean their nation away from the orbit of rapacious Western oil firms and nations. And don't be so quick to discount the fact that that numbering among some of those American diplomats and officials taken hostage in the embassy, were a small cabal of C.I.A officers and military officials whose employers had conspired with the puppet Shah in an insidious plot to stifle democracy in Iran, a that ultimately culminated in the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and his popular government in a brutal and unlawful coup. I can understand their reactions. Hell, I'd do the same to foreign thugs that would ever be calculating and audacious enough to destroy the seeds of democracy and freedom in my nation, with their colonialist machinations. I can sympathise with those young students. Touching now on another ludricous accusation that you have hurled at Iran, I find the anti-Semitism angle that you have presented me with, nothing short of sheer hillarious in the deep bias that colours it. Given Israel's appaling treatment of the Arabs that it has annexed in many of its violent border wars and incursions, I can well understand Iran's fury with the flagrant double standards that the West, and most prominently, the ''good'' U.S has meted out to a nation openly contemptous of the numerous international accords that have been passed in a hitherto vain and ineffectual struggle to protect the increasingly doomed futures of indigenous Arabs subjected to the unjust humilation of occupation. Such is the tragedy of a people whom Israel despises as ethnic scum. Contrast this with Iran's very humane treatment of its prosperous and staunchly loyal Jewish community, and the charges of anti-Semitsm levelled at Iran collapse like a fragile house of cards. Indeed, President Ahmenijad's fiery speeches are directed against a nation with a powerful penchant for trampling on the rights of and dignity of its own subjugated minority racial elements, and not at an entire race of people. Please try to seperate the reality of the situation from Republican manufactured fabrications. As if Iran with its military severly crippled by U.S sanctions, could have seriously done anything to endanger the security of Israel.
In the Iranian hostage crisis radical students seized the American embassy in Tehran. Shah Pahlevi had been overthrown by an Islamic revolutionary government earlier in the year, which had led to the deteriorated relations between Iran and the U.S. In response to the Shah's admittance to the US to seek medical treatment for his failing health, the group of radicals in a crowd around 500 seized the embassy. 90 people were held hostage.
President Carter, a near pacifist as I mentioned earlier tried to deal with the problem through economic means by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. He began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which were ignored or shrugged off. He attempted a rescue mission that failed.
In 1980, the death of the shah in Egypt and the invasion of Iran by Iraq suddenly made the Iranians want to negotiate. Ronald Reagan, never mistaken for a pacifist was then elected to office. After his election with help of Allgerian mediators, the issue was finally resolved.
Now lets get back to the Iraq-Iran war fiasco. You have this obsession with wanting to blame america and paint them as the cause for all evil. You take an extreme position. I believe that at it's heart, America is a force for good in the world and far from evil, but far from perfect as well. During the Iraq-Iran war, both countries were supplied by Western European nations, arabic nations, the United States, North Korea and China as well as the Soviet Union. America was not the only one pulling the strings here. The whole war in the first place was a land dispute which progressed into a struggle over an oil field. America did not get involved, at least officialy, until Iran began to bomb Kuwaiti oil liners. Ofcourse America was looking out for its own interests, as does every country, every society, and most individuals!
Yes, all that copious bloodshed associated with Saddam, wasn't good for their image. They'd never predicted that he would be that extreme. So they begun to distance themselves from him. Too bad that the massacres didn't touch them enough to prevent them from defaulting on their promise to aid the s**takeakeaketes in the disastrous revolt that followed on thr heels of the Gulf War. Still paranoid about Iran and s**takeakeakete power, I guess. It would have suited their interests to ensure that the s**takeakeaketes were unable to capitalize on Saddam's temporary moment of confusion by cynically emboldening them to participate in a struggle that would leave them devastated. If so, good for them that Iran was too battered from its war with Iraq to risk another direct confrontation. Not everyone has a mighty army like America. Something for which it must be very grateful.
I was disgusted while America stood by and allowed the shiite freedom fighters who thought they had American support, to be slaughtered by Husseins death squads. At the same time, this is not entirely America's fault even though you love to put the full blame on them at all times. President Bush wished to go into Iraq and finish off Saddam Hussein's armies and assist the shiites in their quest for freedom, but the United Nations forbade it. As did Colin Powell who advised Bush against it. Going into Iraq (remember, the army was nowhere near as techologically advanced in it's infantry as it is now) would have cost more human lives than anyone could stomach. And Saddam still had chemical weapons at that time and surely would have used them. This current war in iraq would have been a walk in the park compared to what the first would have been had we invaded. With the unconditional support of the United Nations, things would have been different, but America could not go at it alone. A dark day indeed.
Saddam would never have tolerated the presence of a destabilising orgnanization like Al-Queda in Iraq, had he a choice. But, thanks to American intervention, he happily has no say in that now. Extremist Wahibist groups now have the ''freedom'' to engage in terrorism. But hey, didn't Rummy say anarchy and chaos was a strong indicator of liberty?
Yes because Saddam is a peace loving man. And God be damned if anyone besides him is murdering his own civilians!
oh and I believe it was Aristotle who said Democracy is one step away from chaos.
America was never that deluded. Helping him try to crush sworn enemy Iran was a very different matter from idly standing by as he took on their compliant vassals in the Middle-East. A man as strong and willfull as Saddam, someone powerful enough to actually pose a credible challenge to Israel's military dominance of the region, would in the long run, have not hesitated in declaring his independence from all Western inteference and in taking to the field against Israel's armies. Better to ensure that regimes heavily dependent on American largesse for their survival, remain in power. Saddam's ride with America ended when people in Washington understood that a man with ideas and notions so strongly his own, could not be trusted to be a reliable lap-dog, the way effete and cringing Saudi princes are. Some toadies are less likely to become an indepedent force than others, you know. And thus is your question answered. I guess you could say that Saddam was given false expectations of just how far America's ''friendship'' would stretch. As for Kuwait, I did support the general agenda behind the Coalition's campaign to evict Saddam's forces from it, an effort that included wide international participation, but it did dissapoint me that no one did anything to prevent the subsequent bloody purge of the mostly improvished and defenceless Palestinian residents in Kuwait City that were unfairly suspected of being ''Saddam collabarators'' by Kuwaiti murder bands upon the truimphant return of the latter to the capital. Even the most modest estimates admit that hundreds of Palestinians were executed by the Kuwaiti government. And of course, the war might have been prevented in the first place had Kuwait not been greedy enough to provoke a war with Saddam by illicatly tapping into his oil fields. Funny how that part got left out in the official account,eh?
Americas Friendship...you make it sound like making a deal with the devil. Then again, America is the devil to you. Who are America's "friends" or "Allies" really? Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Poland, Ukraine, Liberia, Spain and a number of Carribiean and some Eastern European Nations. Notice a pattern here? None of these countries are America's "lap dog", they are America's true allies because they are non-aggressor nations who genuinely value democracy and peace and diplomacy. Sure many times these countries bicker with one another and even call for boycotts of the other's products, but thats as far as they go.
Who are the countries America has "relations" with? These countries are not necessarily allies but they do have a "tactical" relationship with the united states. Mexico, Chili, Columbia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Russia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, to name several. The pattern here is that only some are democracies and a lesser number are stable democracies. America needs to reach out to these countries, but they certainly, at least not yet anyway, view them as true friends or allies. at times relationships go tense, but diplomacy normally wins out. Dare label one of these nations as a "lapdog" and they will surely drop a bomb right down your chimney.
Then there are countries such as China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia which America is forced to have a working relationship with out of necessity, even though things may get tense quite often. America has different types of relationships all around the world, but they are hardly the "empire" you make them out to be.
As for the palestinians being butchered by Kuwaitis, there are always occasions in times of war or strife where angry mad mobs do this sort of thing. It is grotesque and primitive, but it happens. I am not trying to justify this in any way but, there have been plenty of rabid palestinian mobs and arab mobs in other parts of the middle east looking for jews, christians and moderate arabs or foreign nationals to tear apart and butcher as well. It happens in every society in every culture under many circumstances. Then again, after 911, there were no death mobs here in "evil" America. And Saddam began systematically executing Kuwaitis since the beginning of his invasion; your accusation that Kuwait was the aggressor is alarming. Can you back this up with any sort of proof what so ever? Or is it a creation of rumor and conspiracy theory?
Yes. And American senators must have reaped such rich dividends when they gave loyal ally Turkey, their acquisence in its oil smuggling ventures with Saddam's regime, a widely ignored secret that Kofi Anan was brave enough to disclose. How could America aid in undermining the very sanctions aimed at ending for good, Saddam's quest to remilitarize? Were they in truth, engineering an excuse to invade Iraq?
In the official investigation, it was mostly foreign European and Russian firms as well as some American which were indicated as profiting from this scandal. I have not heard anything about American senators being linked to any crime, all I have heard about was Kofi Annan's son benefiting from one of the firms implicated in the scandal.
''Islamo-Fascism'' which represents deeply orthodox Muslim values that a vast majority of Iran's s**takeakeaketes openly embrace. If the s**takeakeaketes believe in adopting Iran's religious system of government , and turn to Tehran to offer them some protection against Al-Queada's crazed killers in Iraq, let them do so. It's better than imposing a C.I.A pawn like Iyad Allawi on them, or allowing helpless civilians to die needlessly as a result of the incompetence that the American military has displayed in its bungled attempts to restore security to this devastated nation. The rights of the s**takeakeaketes to determine their future should never take a back-seat to the petty geo-political concerns of America.
Islamo Fascism IS Al-Qaeda! Islamo Fascism is Nazism! Islamo Fascism is NOT what the majority of the people in Iran want, especially the youth. Islamo-Fascism censors free speech, cuts the hands off of cartoonists who draw the prophet muhammed in a positive or negative light, decapitate women for not covering every inch of their body or daring to drive a car or vote! Islamo Fascism is full of "crusaders" who wish to bring death and destruction to people of different faiths (Infidels) with every chance they get! What are you smoking. I am trying to keep this civil but it is hard to do so when you seeth with every word and then make such outrageous insinuations that the tyranny that is islamo fascism is somehow a good thing...simply because it, like yourself, does not like America. my god.
Bush claims God gave him divine authority to wage a war against Iraq. Sounds like a crusade to me.
A Crusader is a disputant who advocates reform. Believe it or not, Iran is full of its own crusaders, just as Iraq before them and North Korea and Cuba of today.
To quote you, ''Wrong''. Do you know that many Iraqi women intellectuals now lament the loss of the personal rights they enjoyed under Saddam? Too bad for them that the democratic majority of Iraqis scorn Western liberties as immoral artifices, and thus consider them incompatible with traditional Iraqi values. For its part, extra-judical killing and spying continue to thrive, a staggering testament to the refusal of Iraq's various secterian groups to work with one another in a democracy. Already the Kurds begin to expel minority Arabs and Assyrians from Kurdistan, knowing they can count on America to countenance their dream of establishing an ethnically pure Iraqi north. America true to form, has been very cooperative in this area. And s**takeakeakete tolerance for the minorities that Saddam protected, will not be long in dissipatiating. Old scores scream out to be settled. Without their leader around, these people will suffer the same fate as the Arabs in Kurdistan, compelled to abandon their homes and belongings to a hostile and vengeful majority. (Can't say I blame them,though.) Face it. Saddam's reign of terror was beneficial to some groups in Iraqi society, not just the Sunnis. Tariq Aziz was a Christian.
Iraq treated Sunni Arabs, Assyrian Christians and consenting kurds and shiites well. So long as you bend to his will, follow his way and let his sons rape your wife or daughter if they fancy her, then you will be treated well. Tariq Aziz was a christian in name only.
The bottom-line? America is hardly a force for good. Like all empires, it is driven by the expansionist need to consolidate its global power. I hope you see that some day.
America an expansionist empire? What is an Empire by definition...hmm...
1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
2. a government under an emperor or empress.
3. (often cap.) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.
6. a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates: The family's shipping empire was founded 50 years ago.
7. (cap.) a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh. :wink:
America is an influential superstate which is both admired and envied, loved and hated; but hardly an "empire".
-
In the Iranian hostage crisis radical students seized the American embassy in Tehran. Shah Pahlevi had been overthrown by an Islamic revolutionary government earlier in the year, which had led to the deteriorated relations between Iran and the U.S. In response to the Shah's admittance to the US to seek medical treatment for his failing health, the group of radicals in a crowd around 500 seized the embassy. 90 people were held hostage.
Yes, further insult the Iranians by granting a man wanted for the most horrendous crimes an autocrat is capable of perpetuating, a comfortable asylum in your nation, an opulent retreat where he can enjoy immunity from justice . Let me bring to your mind an interesting incident that most of your countrymen would have resigned to the dusty archives of their short-lived collective memory by now. When the Taliban declined to submit to Bush's demands and surrender Bin Laden, didn't America respond by bombing Afghanistan? Try to be grateful for the fact that Iran didn't endeavour to assasinate your president in response to the blatant act of bonhomie you showered upon the murderous butcher that had tormented them for so long. After all, I do recall the frantic efforts of your special-forces boys to slay Mullah Omar, Afghanistan's head of state. Keep the hypocrisy and double standards to a minimum, will you?
America did not get involved, at least officialy, until Iran began to bomb Kuwaiti oil liners
That was a natural response to Kuwait's role in bankrolling the invasion of Iran, a way for the former to vent their fury at Teheran's precieved support for repressed s**takeakeakeaketes minorities living in Kuwait. A most natural counter-measure I must add, and yes, America was indeed looking out for its own interests. It's called the Great Game, friend. One played by all ambitious powers that obtain power from the knowledge that lip service is the only thing that binds them to the values they purpot to uphold. Safeguarding your interests at the expense of the well-fare of another, is known as selfishness and greed. I trust you are familiar with those descriptions? Or are they absent from the list of government approved vocabulary that a U.S citizen is strongly encouraged to use when speaking of his country?
President Bush wished to go into Iraq and finish off Saddam Hussein's armies and assist the shiites in their quest for freedom, but the United Nations forbade it. As did Colin Powell who advised Bush against it. Going into Iraq (remember, the army was nowhere near as techologically advanced in it's infantry as it is now) would have cost more human lives than anyone could stomach. And Saddam still had chemical weapons at that time and surely would have used them. This current war in iraq would have been a walk in the park compared to what the first would have been had we invaded. With the unconditional support of the United Nations, things would have been different, but America could not at it alone. A dark day indeed.
America certainly did not allows itself to be dettered by any pesky U.N prohibitions in the course of its second foray into Iraq. Did they suddenly decide that international law could easily be disregarded when convineance assured them that it was so? And unless I am very mistaken, until recently, wasn't Iraq in continued posssession of those same dreadful weapons that had served as such a potent discouragement for further American adventures in Iraq following the end of the Gulf War, according to the story that your senators were so quick to distribute to the press? Was't the disarming of this mortal peril the all important premise behind invading Iraq in the first place? Hell, you people were so fearful of Saddam's continued ability to devastate his neighbours that your grunts rushed in before the inspectors had even completed their mission to ascertain the sate of Iraq's unconvenetional arsenal. Your logic certainly has some gaping holes in it. Try to remedy them as soon as possible for the continued ease of this disscussion[ /quote]
Yes because Saddam is a peace loving man. And God be damned if anyone besides him is murdering his own civilians!
Hooray to America for letting in the one group of people who could murder Iraqis at a vicious rate that makes Saddam's own terror look puny and half-hearted in comparision. You must be very proud of your nation's accomplishments. By the way, was Aristole ever an admirer of sucide bombings? You certainly seem to imply so.
mericas Friendship...you make it sound like making a deal with the devil. Then again, America is the devil to you. Who are America's "friends" or "Allies" really? Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Poland, Ukraine, Liberia, Spain and a number of Carribiean and some Eastern European Nations. Notice a pattern here? None of these countries are America's "lap dog", they are America's true allies because they are non-aggressor nations who genuinely value democracy and peace and diplomacy. Sure many times these countries bicker with one another and even call for boycotts of the other's products, but thats as far as they go.
Who are the countries America has "relations" with? These countries are not necessarily allies but they do have a "tactical" relationship with the united states. Mexico, Chili, Columbia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Russia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, to name several. The pattern here is that only some are democracies and a lesser number are stable democracies. America needs to reach out to these countries, but they certainly, at least not yet anyway, view them as true friends or allies. at times relationships go tense, but diplomacy normally wins out. Dare label one of these nations as a "lapdog" and they will surely drop a bomb right down your chimney.
Saudi Arabia in the past couple of years, has moved to rein in expressions of anti-Western sentiment among its preachers and other influential figures of society, succumbing to the pressure to appease American demands. Any nations that infringes the rights of its own citizens in order to please a foreign over-lord, can rightfully be derided as a lap-dog.
Then again, after 911, there were no death mobs here in "evil" America
Tell that to the ethnic victims of hate-crime in post 9-11 America. They would respectfully dispute your assertion, I am sure. The shootings of South Asian and Arab migrants did not escape the attention of the world.
your accusation that Kuwait was the aggressor is alarming. Can you back this up with any sort of proof what so ever? Or is it a creation of rumor and conspiracy theory?
Kuwait's well documented methods of aggresive oil drilling aimed at siphoning of a sizable portion of its neighbour's oil reserves, is a universally acknowledged fact, not a figment of my imagination, explaining why previously friendly ties between the former allies rapidly eroded to the point of open war-fare . Please do not seek to ignore the importance of a valid point that contradicts your neat little theory and world-view. That is cowardly and dishonest.
In the official investigation, it was mostly foreign European and Russian firms as well as some American which were indicated as profiting from this scandal. I have not heard anything about American senators being linked to any crime, all I have heard about was Kofi Annan's son benefiting from one of the firms implicated in the scandal.
Anan's son was promptly cleared of all charges, since he ws no longer an employee of that firm when those crimes allegedly took place. But the U.S was not. Its efforts to enable Turkey to violate oil sanctions did not go unnoticed.
Islamo Fascism IS Al-Qaeda! Islamo Fascism is Nazism! Islamo Fascism is NOT what the majority of the people in Iran want, especially the youth
My mistake. I meant to refer to the s**takeakeakeaketes in Iraq. Young people in Iran have become dissillussioned with Islamic law and government, but their kindred in Iraq do not share that gloomy and despondent sense of betrayal with Islamic ideals. Islamic revolution is something that persists in inspiring their hopes and passion, very much in contrast to their perceptions of your American values which they abbhor. Respect their choice, even if it earns your strident dissaproval. I'm no fan of theocracies myself, but I have no right to question the desire of a people long surpressed.
Iraq treated Sunni Arabs, Assyrian Christians and consenting kurds and shiites well. So long as you bend to his will, follow his way and let his sons rape your wife or daughter if they fancy her, then you will be treated well. Tariq Aziz was a christian in name only.
Saddam was not a zealous man, and as such, respected the values and beliefs of Iraq's minorities. Iraq's democratically elected leaders will not exhibit that same sense of tolerance, I fear.
And finally, one can establish an empire through the aid of compliant proxies. New concepts of empire for a new age. Leave your old pre-concieved notions behind.
-
Yes, further insult the Iranians by granting a man wanted for the most horrendous crimes an autocrat is capable of perpetuating, a comy my myortable asylum in your nation, an opulnet retreat where he can enjoy immunity from justice . Let me bring to your mind an interesting incident that most of your countrymen would have resigned to the dusty archives of their short-lived collective memory by now. When the Taliban declined to submit to Bush's demands and surrender Bin Laden, didn't America respond by bombing Afghanistan? Try to be grateful for the fact that Iran didn't endeavour to assasinate your president in response to the blatant act of bonhomie you showered upon the murderous butcher that had tormented them for so long. After all, I do recall the frantic efforts of your special-forces boys to slay Mullah Omar, Afghanistan's head of state. Keep the hypocrisy and double standards to a minimum, will you?
America treats the very terrorists who seek to destroy them in Iraq and in Afghanistan with medical attention and care. America treats those who speak out against them with medical attention and care. Saddam Hussein has received some of the best medical attention and care since his capture. This is not an uncommon American practice to treat those in medical need.
That was a natural response to Kuwait's role in bankrolling the invasion of Iran, a way for the former to vent their fury at Teheran's precieved support for repressed s**takeakeakeaketes minorities living in Kuwait. A most natural counter-measure I must add, and yes, America was indeed looking out for its own interests. It's called the Great Game, friend. One played by all ambitious powers that obtain power from the knowledge that lip service is the only thing that binds them to the values they purpot to uphold. Safeguarding your interests at the expense of the well-fare of another, is known as selfishness and greed. I trust you are familiar with those descriptions? Or are they absent from the list of government approved vocabulary that a U.S citizen is strongly encouraged to use when speaking of his country?
Yes, the great game, one played by all ambitious powers. Yet you single out The United States of America. Where are you from? What is your nationality? I believe this would be relevant to our conversation.
America certainly did not allows itself to be dettered by any pesky U.N prohibitions in the course of its second foray into Iraq. Did they suddenly decide that international law could easily be disregarded when convineance assured them that it was so?
Different administration, different decisions. This current administration felt the job should have been finished the first time around. This current administration felt that members of the security council such as France, Russia and China were more concerned about their own economic interests in Iraq than with American Security. This administration, a conservative one was also upset with the constant personal insults leveled at them by the more liberal governments of western europe at the time, feeling that ideology should not be playing a role in such decisions. This administration had also just witnessed the first attack on American soil since WWII and wanted to rid themselves of any potential threats for a repeat of 911. The Taliban had been toppled. Rumors were going around (faulty intelligence or not) that Saddam had or was seeking weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had professed his hatred for America many times, Saddam has proven to be a rather unstable individual (have you watched his behavior at the trials?) and Saddam had planned a failed assassination attempt of the first president Bush as well had a standing order for anti-aircraft missiles to be fired at American Jets patrolling the no fly zone. This "menace" could not have nor seek WMDs because of the very real possibility he could give them to the terrorists to attack America. It was a risk this administration did not want to take.
It was not that this administration usurped the UN simply because it was "convenient", it was because they had lost faith in the UN as an effective organization (Rwanda anyone?) and did not want to put America's security in their hands. Also, the Security Council did in fact pass a resolution which included the words "serious consequences". well...what the heck are serious consequences? a slap on the toosh?
And unless I am very mistaken, until recently, wasn't Iraq in continued posssession of those same dreadful weapons that had served as such a potent discouragement for further American adventures in Iraq following the end of the Gulf War, according to the story that your senators were so quick to distribute to the press? Was't the disarming of this mortal peril the all important premise behind invading Iraq in the first place? Hell, you people were so fearful of Saddam's continued ability to devastate his neighbours that your grunts rushed in before the inspectors had even completed their mission to ascertain the sate of Iraq's unconvenetional arsenal. Your logic certainly has some gaping holes in it. Try to remedy them as soon as possible for the continued ease of this disscussion
The inspectors in an idiotic agreement had to "inform" (warn) Saddam of the sites they were going to investigate days in advance of the actual investigation. I personally feel the WMDs do exist and I feel they are in Syria. If you can have your conspiracy theories, I can have mine. :wink:
Hooray to America for letting in the one group of people who could murder Iraqis at a vicious rate that makes Saddam's own terror look puny and half-hearted in comparision. You must be very proud of your nation's accomplishments. By the way, was Aristole ever an admirer of sucide bombings? You certainly seem to imply so.
This terror is mostly confined to certain parts of the Sunni Triangle. The rest of Iraq is quite peaceful with only a few disturbances. And the presence of the terrorists in the first place is the unveiling of a serious problem in a big chunk of the middle east that needs to be addressed all around. The beast would have awoken sooner or later, in this case it was sooner.
Aristotle did not support suidcide bombings. He did recognize that Democracy, especially in it's infancy, can be quite unstable at times.
Democracy is delicate and as along as it is nurtured correctly, the people will thrive.
Saudi Arabia in the past couple of years, has moved to rein in expressions of anti-Western sentiment among its preachers and other influential figures of society, succumbing to the pressure to appease American demands. Any nations that infringes the rights of its own citizens in order to please a foreign over-lord, can rightfully be derided as a lap-dog.
Saudi Arabia thanks to long overdue pressure from America is finally cracking down, somewhat, on radical Wahhabism which has had a perverse effect on young minds all over Saudi Arabia. Similar to how Germany forbids anyone to publicy preach and teach Nazism. the moral equivalant to radical Wahhabism. The Saudi's are actually doing a good thing here, whether you label them as lap dog or not. Oh and America is relatively popular among the Saudi population, considering their support for Israel and all.
Or would you prefer the fringe radical Islamists take control of the country? Do you honestly believe that is what the people want? It is funny how you see Saudi Arabia as an American lap dog, when I am quite suspicious of their "friendship" and their actions.
Tell that to the ethnic victims of hate-crime in post 9-11 America. They would respectfully dispute your assertion, I am sure. The shootings of South Asian and Arab migrants did not escape the attention of the world.
there were no death mobs in America after 911. there were some isolated incidents of some nut job seeking to harm innocent, but there was NO organized effort of any kind. but believe what you want. The media was scouring the landscape looking for stories such as these so they could sell papers...but they found nothing.
Kuwait's well documented methods of aggresive oil drilling aimed at siphoning of a sizable portion of its neighbour's oil reserves, is a universally acknowledged fact, not a figment of my imagination, explaining why previously friendly ties between the former allies rapidly eroded to the point of open war-fare . Please do not seek to ignore the importance of a valid point that contradicts your neat little theory and world-view. That is cowardly and dishonest.
Kuwait is not an angel. They are not a democracy and they are part of the oil cartel that is OPEC. These oil countries are constantly trying to one up each other in the persian gulf. However, if this is such a universally known fact about this specific incident, than I am sure you would have no problem proving it. so i ask again, can you back this up?
Anan's son was promptly cleared of all charges, since he ws no longer an employee of that firm when those crimes allegedly took place. But the U.S was not. Its efforts to enable Turkey to violate oil sanctions did not go unnoticed.
Well there alot of people in the UN and in the foreign media who would love to latch on to a scandal such as this. but yet, this story does not have any legs. Another thought, if the US was so willing to help Turkey violate oil sanctions (which they may or may not have, this issue i have not heard of, and I read quite a bit) then why were they so quick to place American troops in Northern Iraq ready to face turkish troops if needed had Turkey any plans to seize some Kurdish oil fields? Oil fields now fully operated by the Kurds...NOT Americans.
My mistake. I meant to refer to the s**takeakeakeaketes in Iraq. Young people in Iran have become dissillussioned with Islamic law and government, but their kindred in Iraq do not share that gloomy and despondent sense of betrayal with Islamic ideals. Islamic revolution is something that persists in inspiring their hopes and passion, very much in contrast to their perceptions of your American values which they abbhor. Respect their choice, even if it earns your strident dissaproval. I'm no fan of theocracies myself, but I have no right to question the desire of a people long surpressed.
If that is their choice through a true and fair democratic election, then I will accept it. However, if that government were to ever start harboring terrorists who wish to do harm to America, America has every right to look out for its security. And from what I have read, it seems shiites in Iraq want a government which is based off the principles of Islam (which are noble and peaceful principles) but not necessarily a theocratic dictatorship as seen in Iran.
Saddam was not a zealous man, and as such, respected the values and beliefs of Iraq's minorities. Iraq's democratically elected leaders will not exhibit that same sense of tolerance, I fear.
so long as you succumbed to his will, i guess Saddam was not such a bad guy. Also, Iraq's minorities were his people, the Sunnis. It was the majority he despised. And please give a chance to the fledgling democratic leaders in Iraq. You are so quick to canonize Saddam, yet so quick to demonise the others.
And finally, one can establish an empire through the aid of compliant proxies. New concepts of empire for a new age. Leave your old pre-concieved notions behind.
More like fresh fabrications of the concept of empire for a revisionist age.
Edit:
Oh and Maggot Man, on a completely unrelated note...who is the artist of your avator? I like the style and mood of the art and would be interested in seeing more of his/her gallery.
-
America treats the very terrorists who seek to destroy them in Iraq and in Afghanistan with medical attention and care. America treats those who speak out against them with medical attention and care. Saddam Hussein has received some of the best medical attention and care since his capture. This is not an uncommon American practice to treat those in medical need.
Yes, providing a high standard of medical attention to even those glaringly unworthy of it , is a noble and laudotary aim, an act of generosity most worthy of my respect. However, that does not excuse the leniency bestowed on the Shah by his American hosts. Upon the completion of his treatment, he should have immediately been deported to Iran to face trial there for his crimes against Iran's people. Had your nation done that, the hearts of the Iranian people would have been assuaged, knowing that America respected their quest to see justice done. Instead, your nation chose to humilate them by feting a tyrant hated and despised by them for reasons whose veracity no one would have cause to deny. And on the subject of humilation, was it really neccessary to put Saddam on public display after his capture? I think a medical examination would have been possible without the outrageous public scrutiny inflicted on him by his captors.
Yes, the great game, one played by all ambitious powers. Yet you single out The United States of America. Where are you from? What is your nationality? I believe this would be relevant to our conversation.
I understand America's need to play the Game. But I will not tolerate in silence, the nasueating spectacle of witnessing it portray itself a a force dedicated to ridding the world of poverty and oppression, when its very actions speak differently. A little honesty from you is all I ask for. As for where I hail from, just let me mention that I have the good fortune of living in a certain region where the profoundly two-faced nature of American have held far-reaching, and at times, often anguishing consequences for the people that call this particular place home.
Different administration, different decisions. This current administration felt the job should have been finished the first time around. This current administration felt that members of the security council such as France, Russia and China were more concerned about their own economic interests in Iraq than with American Security. This administration, a conservative one was also upset with the constant personal insults leveled at them by the more liberal governments of western europe at the time, feeling that ideology should not be playing a role in such decisions. This administration had also just witnessed the first attack on American soil since WWII and wanted to rid themselves of any potential threats for a repeat of 911. The Taliban had been toppled. Rumors were going around (faulty intelligence or not) that Saddam had or was seeking weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had professed his hatred for America many times, Saddam has proven to be a rather unstable individual (have you watched his behavior at the trials?) and Saddam had planned a failed assassination attempt of the first president Bush as well had a standing order for anti-aircraft missiles to be fired at American Jets patrolling the no fly zone. This "menace" could not have nor seek WMDs because of the very real possibility he could give them to the terrorists to attack America. It was a risk this administration did not want to take.
It was not that this administration usurped the UN simply because it was "convenient", it was because they had lost faith in the UN as an effective organization (Rwanda anyone?) and did not want to put America's security in their hands. Also, the Security Council did in fact pass a resolution which included the words "serious consequences". well...what the heck are serious consequences? a slap on the toosh?
You cannot invade another nation based on rumours of suspicious provenance alone, regardless of how menacing the world outside America might suddenly appear. Yes, Saddam did indulge in a spot of sabre-rattling, as befeits a leader with a good reason to be aggrieved with Ameirca. But at no point did he ever say or do anything that would have constituted an urgent threat. You cannot endager the security of the citizens of another nation simply because your own are in non-existant danger of some phantom threat concoted by liars. There was no concrete evidence unearthed, that ever linked Sadaam with extremist terrorist groups, many of which expressed a deep loathing for him. It would have been no exaggeration to say that they hated him as much as they did America. hence, any weapon that he might have given them, would have been just as liable to be employed against his regime. And now, you people find yourselves paying the much deserved price for consorting with confidence tricksters like Ahmaed Chalabi. Remeber that serious consequences are only for people that have been found guilty of commiting a major trangression or breach of law. There was insufficient evidence to convict Saddam on the count of harboring weapons of mass destruction.
And the U.N's ineffectualness is inevitably caused by the refusal of major players like the U.S to cooperate with the more ambitious of its undertakings. Hell,Collin Powell practically had to be prodded into using the word'' genocide'' when it came to describing the atrocities that still continue to rage in Darfur. America was that wary of the ever so inconveniant possibility of having to honor its moral obligations to put an end to the great tragedy unfolding there. Darfur would have been a major distraction away from the Iraq issue,eh?
It tickes me to think that someone would actually be naive enough to suggest the possibility that Saddam would have secreted his weapons away in Syria where he could not reach them, rather then keep them in Iraq just when the very survival of his regime might have depended on their availability for use. :-D But as you rightly said, everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of how foolish and groundless it might seem..
This terror is mostly confined to certain parts of the Sunni Triangle. The rest of Iraq is quite peaceful with only a few disturbances
Really? The last time I hear, the entire nation (with the exception of Kurdistan) had descended into the bowels of full-fledged civil-war, despite the desperate refusal of the Bush Administration to call it that. With regard to the beast waking up, you have done more than simply rouse it. You have given it a new source of nourishment that will allow it to grow even bigger than it already is. Thank to the invasion, young potential jihadis will have one more new cause to turn their hearts and minds towards death and destruction.
Democracy is delicate and as along as it is nurtured correctly, the people will thrive.
Democracy is not always a force for good. Israel and Yougoslavia are strong evidence of that truth. Both nations embraced a policy of ethnic cleansing against minorities with the full consent of their respective peoples.
Saudi Arabia thanks to long overdue pressure from America is finally cracking down, somewhat, on radical Wahhabism which has had a perverse effect on young minds all over Saudi Arabia. Similar to how Germany forbids anyone to publicy preach and teach Nazism. the moral equivalant to radical Wahhabism. The Saudi's are actually doing a good thing here, whether you label them as lap dog or not. Oh and America is relatively popular among the Saudi population, considering their support for Israel and all.
Or would you prefer the fringe radical Islamists take control of the country? Do you honestly believe that is what the people want? It is funny how you see Saudi Arabia as an American lap dog, when I am quite suspicious of their "friendship" and their actions.
And what of extremist religious fanatics in America that preach unrelenting hatred against ''enemies of the state'' like Muslims and homosexuals? I see no action being taken to impugn on their right to free speech by the very same government that has forced Saudi Arabia to muzzle its own religious leaders. You seem content with allowing Nazist rethoric to be peddled freely in your own nation even as you decry other countries for permitting that. I would dearly love to see Pat Robertson behind bars. And contray to what you think, the majority of Saudis profess a great hared for America. It galls them that America continues to prop up a regime so corrupt that they, the common people languish in poverty and filth, while their venal leaders lounge in luxurious palaces. The only friends you have in that nation are among the morally deprived ruling elite. Sadly for your illusions, the ''Islamist fringe'' there enjoys wide-spread support. These are the leaders you will have to deal with, should that benighted land ever become a democracy.
there were no death mobs in America after 911. there were some isolated incidents of some nut job seeking to harm innocent, but there was NO organized effort of any kind. but believe what you want. The media was scouring the landscape looking for stories such as these so they could sell papers...but they found nothing.
You take an alarmingly dim view of the press in your own nation. Do you not trust it discernment?
However, if this is such a universally known fact about this specific incident, than I am sure you would have no problem proving it. so i ask again, can you back this up?
I can give you some links, if you wish to examine them. I take great confidence from the fact that soild evidence will reinforce my position.
Another thought, if the US was so willing to help Turkey violate oil sanctions (which they may or may not have, this issue i have not heard of, and I read quite a bit) then why were they so quick to place American troops in Northern Iraq ready to face turkish troops if needed had Turkey any plans to seize some Kurdish oil fields? Oil fields now fully operated by the Kurds...NOT Americans.
Turkey briefly fell out of favour with the U.S when it refused to sanction the invasion, fearing that the deposement of Saddam would result in Kurdistan formally declaring its independence as a nascent state, prompting its own restive population of restive Kurdish insurrectionists to place their trust in the hope of a similiar achievement. Furious that Turkey would not allow the U.S Army to use its northern region as a spring-board to over-run Iraq, the U.S decided to tie its own fortunes closely to those of the Kurds, and took steps to thwart any possible Turkish intervention aimed at halting the emergence of a Kurdish state. No surprise then, that the Kurds sent their own warriors to march alongside the Americans against the enemy. Yes, the Americans have done well to court the good-will of this ferociously anti-Sadam population that now finds itself in strategic command of large tracts of oil reserves. Why spend limited troop strength on controlling the oil fields when trustworthy allies can step in to fill that role? It is good to have Northen Iraq in the hands of a grateful Kurdish population, which explains why the U.S military has been so eager to offer its assistance to the Kurds in displacing minority Arabs and Assyrians from Kurdistan. No bothersome pro-Saddam minority communities for them to fret over anymore.
[If that is their choice through a true and fair democratic election, then I will accept it. However, if that government were to ever start harboring terrorists who wish to do harm to America, America has every right to look out for its security.
/quote]
As does Cuba and the other Latin American sates in which the U.S has often been found guilty as a sponsor of terrorism. But I don't see your government hastening to repatriate those wanted terrorists that have sought and found sanctuary in the U.S. As I have said before, I will not condone double standards of the most inhumane nature.
And from what I have read, it seems shiites in Iraq want a government which is based off the principles of Islam (which are noble and peaceful principles) but not necessarily a theocratic dictatorship as seen in Iran.
That is probably the case, but regardless, any s**tte dominated government will choose to establish close ties with Iran in the face of the overwhelming hostility that the mostly Sunni Arabs states will greet the new republic with. And that is an alliance that America cannot hope to prevent, no matter how much it aggravates them that Baghdad will choose to reside in Teheran's sphere of influence.
so long as you succumbed to his will, i guess Saddam was not such a bad guy. Also, Iraq's minorities were his people, the Sunnis. It was the majority he despised. And please give a chance to the fledgling democratic leaders in Iraq. You are so quick to canonize Saddam, yet so quick to demonise the others.
That is how government functions in a land where the various ethnic and religious groups have been bitter foes since living memory. Unfortunate, but that's reality for you. And is Sunni a blanket term for all the disparate minorities that did not fall into the either Kurd or s**tte category? You must not be so careless the next time you make a sweeping statement like that.
More like fresh fabrications of the concept of empire for a revisionist age
Isn't that how most new trends recorded in the history of mankind are greeted initially? With denial?
Oh and Maggot Man, on a completely unrelated note...who is the artist of your avator? I like the style and mood of the art and would be interested in seeing more of his/her gallery
The avatar is a gift from one our moderators who goes by the name of Devious Viper. He would be more knowledgable than me on this matter.