# Imperial Washinton



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

After the excellent thread on Kissinger and the boys...


So, the U.S. has said that it wants to dispose of Saddam and replace him with a democratic government - but only after a 6-8 year occupation with a US military governor.

Does anyone else doubt that the U.S. is really interested in promoting democracy, and is more interested in oil?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Oil be damned. Invading Iraq will send oil prices up and the world economy down. Invading Iraq is about focussing attention on something that the mighty US military can do and distracting people from what it can't (protect them from terrorists). The invasion will have a minimal impact on the incidence of world terrorism but Dubya will be able to tell Americans (with a straight face at that) that he's doing something.

The Washington sniper is disproportionately causing terror simply because there's nothing anyone can do to stop him. More Americans die from guns in one day than the sniper has killed in 10 days. It's the thought that its that easy for someone to snuff out a life and continue doing so and all the police and military and intelligence structures in the US are helpless to stop it.

Maybe invading Iraq will make the US (and Alberta) a de facto Kyoto signatory by the reduction in emissions caused by elevated oil prices.....


----------



## sniper (Mar 9, 2002)

i agree the invasion of iraq is an attempt to make the republicans look like they're doing a good job by making their job to do what they're good at.

this is more to distract the americans from their slumping economy than from terrrorists.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I imagine the impending attack on Iraq is being promoted by various factors, including the ones that have already been listed above.

Bush wants to distract from a war on terrorism that is beginning to look like a failure; he'd like to get control of Iraqi oil; he wants to accomplish what his father couldn't; and he probably would like a valid excuse to withdraw troops from Afganistan to avoid the embarassment of leaving peace keeping troops there indefinitely. 

Those are my thoughts. There's probably other reasons that I haven't even considered. They're all a part of the messy stew that makes up Dubya.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I must admit I'm generally in agreement with the skeptics on this but Tony Blair is not Dubya thank goodness and he sees a serious threat as well.
Also Colin Powell has a very level head. My suspicions are that Blair and Bush are being coached to really tighten the screws down on Saddam to allow unhindered inspections and force Saddam into a corner.
IF he falters or squirms they will attack but I suspect the outcome will be a continual backing Saddam into more of the placating behaviour which he has exhibited n the last few weeks.

As for finishing his father's job - that's not so - Desert Storm could easily have moved on Bagdad but the coalition would not accept the level of casualties on both sides that would result. It's that fact that hasn't changed that makes me think it's a hard nosed bluff.

I'm more concerned that the US seems to be avoiding the fairly obvious conclusion that the sniper attack is Al Qaeda action.

As far as the economic impact the underlying strength in both Canada and the US is there...people get on with their lives and small business and hard working citizens get things done despite the corruption and wealth shuffling in the high profile arenas.

I'd be far more concerned for the economy if the stagnation that has plagued Japan for the past decade now was at play in North America. That's a very scary situation despite the vibrancy of Tokyo.

The larger "Imperial Question" here is like Russia and other established governments have found, extreme Islam represents a huge challenge to the West.
This is an organizing force of belief rooted in values antithetical to those accepted in the West and vectored through poverty, hatred and a lack of counter to the ideas being force fed to impoverished youth by tiny radical schools all over the third world.
Guerrilla action by "fanatics" is always the hardest to counter, Rome with the Germans http://www.sawneybean.com/roman.htm 

The Brits with the Americans

The Americans with the Vietnamese

The Russians and the Brits and perhaps now the Yanks with the Afghani's.

All of these conflicts have been fueled by a hatred of the perceived oppressor despite the Empires often being described as generally peaceful; - Pax Romana for a thousand years, Pax Brittanica in the 19th century . Yet despite relatively benign policies - especially the tolerance of Rome and the "civilizing influence of British bureaucracy" hatred of the dominate culture was and is rife.
All it needs is an organizing structure, radical Islam is providing that structure and perhaps Bin Laden is the Arminius of the twenty first century. Here's a guy with lots of wealth and education turning his back on the Western influence in Saudi Arabia......exactly as Arminius did..and turning his wealth and skills and organizational ability against the power that trained him.....and with devastating consequences.
Driven by what...fanaticism...very hard to counteract . Grim times when massive human cultural structures start to grind against each other like continents.
New landscapes are sure to follow......

Few safe harbours in this shrunken world.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Wow! Now _that_ was a truly impressive post!  

I share your views on virtually all of the above, Macdoc, and I have to admit that I am reconsidering my feelings on some of the issues because of the obviious validity of several of your observations.

I also think that the sniper activity that is happening right now in Washington seems a bit fishy and could quite easily be part of an Al Qaeda plan to destabilise the western world. As I am writing this the news is reporting that the sniper was seen by several witnesses and didn't seem concerned about it. A suicide sniper? Witnesses also report that he looks a little like someone of "middle eastern" decent.

Might be nothing....might be everything. No way to tell at this early date.

The explosion in Bali was almost certainly part of the wave of Islamic terrorism and, as such, is almost certainly financed at least in part by middle eastern oil wealth. Possibly Saddam's.

Which brings us to one of the biggest misconceptions that the general public has about this upcoming action that the States is planning against Iraq.

It is NOT about oil.

The oil business is a complex trade that must stay in equilibrium. Too much oil and the price goes down. Too little and it goes up. I know this because my livelyhood was subject to the whims of worldwide oil supply for two and a half decades. Ask anyone who works in the oilpatch and they'll tell you that it's either feast or famine. Everybody's working flat out or everybody's sitting at home waiting for a call to go back to work.

For most of the last two years, everyone has been sitting at home. That's because there is more oil available right now than we are consuming. There could be a small temporary spike in prices during an actual invasion of Iraq because of real fears about an interruption of oil supplies from some of Iraq's close neighbors. This happened during the Gulf War, but prices subsided fairly quickly.

Most observers believe that any action in Iraq will be sudden and swift. It will probably be over quickly and Saddam will be either dead, captured or on the run. 

At that point, the sanctions that have choked off the oil supplies from Iraq will be lifted and that country will, no doubt, begin to sell lots of oil on the open market in order to finance a rebuilding effort.

A sudden influx of vast quantities of high-quality oil on the market will be an unmitigated disaster for all of the big oil companies. Prices will drop because of the increased supply and many of the very expensive wells we have been drilling evreywhere outside of Iraq will be shut in.

Texas and Alberta will be particularly hard hit and, remember this, George Bush Jr.s family has extensive interests in Texas oil. His own family will take quite a financial wallop from this, no question at all.

If this were truly "all about oil" then the big oil companies would be lobbying everyone in Washington to leave Saddam just where he is for another decade or two until supplies get tight and we really _need_ the vast reserves of Iraqi crude.

Perhaps the big oil companies are doing this right now, the fact that Bush is going ahead full steam anyway should tell everyone out there that this is really, truly about terrorism.

Is sure as heck isn't about oil!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacNutt - got myself with shivers for that last couple of paragraphs but I'm afraid it's too true <;-O

I think you are right this is certainly NOT about oil, politics maybe, Junior being a cowboy maybe, Colin Powell actually BEING president maybe, but not about oil.

I cannot see how it ever could be quick..this is not a small Carribean or Central American state.
•••••
BTW there is an excellent book out called "What If" that provides alternate history scenarios by someof the top historians.
Several scenarios are amazing to think what could have been different but for tiny turns of luck.
The Arminius battle to that stopped Roman expansion that could have unified Europe
If the Huns hadn't been called back from the doors of Venice ( a truly mind bending insight into the military power of the Huns - " It was as if a modern mobile division was dropped into mediaeval Europe"
These guys would come up to your city and you had a choice...surrender and be sacked and pillaged but be allowed to live or fight and here were the consequences.
Every single person in your city would be put to death..full stop.

And in case you think these were small towns - two Asian/Russian cities of over 1 million per entirely massacred. On the second city when they heard a few had escaped they CUT OFF EVERY HEAD" just to make sure.
The Huns reduced the the population of Greater China by 30% and were all set to do it in Europe!!!!!

Now that was a continent level clash of cultures easily equivalent to WWII.

The book makes a good read and is very though provoking.....now "What If".... Gore had become President


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

What if indeed? I shudder to think of what Al Gore would be doing were he the US President right about now. No question in my mind at all that he would have been as wrong for the job today as Jimmy Carter was for his era. Both good men with high ideals but totally unsuited to deal with cataclysmic history-changing world events.

Apparently, according to all of the polls, the majority of the American people share my feelings on this.

Now....on to why I (and many others) believe that the removal of Saddam and the destruction of his weapons-building facilities will be a fairly swift undertaking.

1) Both the Gulf War and the recent action in Afghanistan were supposed to take a very long time and cause a lot of casualties.....according to the critics. Both of these actions took a surprisingly short amount of time and casualties (on our side,at least) were surprisingly few.

2)The Iraqi military was a force that was second to none in the region when George Sr. moved on Iraq the last time. And yet, when confronted by the new high tech weaponry of the US, they surrendered in droves and most of their equipment was destroyed. Most of it has never been replaced. Further to this, the average Iraqi soldier is a rather demoralised soul right about now. He is probably planning on HOW best to surrender, not IF he should. They all remember what happened last time.

3)As I pointed out in a previous thread (Gordon Campbell in the kitchen) I used to work with a few US National Guardsmen while in Wyoming and Texas. Both of them seperately told me that "...the stuff we used in the Gulf War was some of the older gear. We had to get rid of it before the 'best before' date was up. We have some REALLY cool stuff now"

I have no idea what it is exactly but they were pretty confident that they could hit a single building, or even a single room in a building, from a very great distance with pinpoint accuracy nine times out of ten.

This sort of technology means that massed armies and pitched tank battles are far less effective, and less likely to even happen, in a modern military action.

It also means that the whole nasty business will be over as soon as possible because the leaders of the conflict can be removed from play right at the beginning. Without Saddam or his top Generals the fight will go out of this demoralised army very quickly, I'd expect.

The "wild card" that everyone should be worrying about is this...

What if Saddam has some sort of a useable stock of biological agents or nuclear material for a "dirty bomb" and a means to deliver it?

If he has something like this will he use it? On whom will he use it? Will he launch something horrible at Israel, as he did during the Gulf War...even though they weren't even involved? Will whoever is tasked with launching or firing these weapons actually do it, or will they refuse?

And this is a big question...IF he has something and If he sucessfully launches it at Israel...then what will they do in response? Israel has both nuclear wepons and a means to deliver them. 

The current government of Israel is led by an ex war hero who has taken a very hard line with all Arab incursions into his country. He has said openly that any attack by Saddam will be subject to instant retaliation.

Consider all of this for a moment....

We are definitely dancing on the edge of the razor here. Things could go very wrong in a hurry. And, if Saddam actually gets ahold of a working nuclear device before the US deals with him, he will almost certainly use it at the earliest possible opportunity. On somebody.

Better hope that the Coalition Forces act soon and act decisively. And better hope that the whole thing is over as quickly as most of us seem to think it will be.

If not...then we won't be asking "What If" in the historical sense.

We'll be asking ..."What Happened"!!?!

.


----------



## Alesh (Dec 10, 2001)

Interesting comments by everyone. However I do not agree completely. Personally I think Bush is either a complete idiot or he is a scheming bastard, either way, he's a crappy president.

I tend to go with idiot, just by that blank look on his face he has half the time. Like at that press conference where someone asked him to point out where Afghanistan was on a map and he couldn't do it.

Anyway there is only one thing I would seriously like to comment on and that is the hypocrisy of the West.

There was an article in the Post I believe listing all the different kinds of weapons Saddam has. The conclusion was that he is obviously insane.

Well, first of all the U.S. (among other countries) probably manufactured those weapons, biological or not, and secondly the U.S. has WAY more weapons than Saddam.

Who inspects the United States' weapons? I doubt the U.N. does. Oh wait... the U.S. IS the U.N.









Bush's biggest argument for attacking Iraq is to stop Saddam from attacking someone (the U.S.)

So what if Saddam decides to attack the U.S. to stop them from attacking him?

Then the U.S. decides to attack Iraq to stop them from attacking the U.S. to stop the U.S. from attacking Iraq. And so on...

Bush's argument holds no merit. All these guys are just a bunch of silly whiney babies with big toys (That happen to cause massive destruction).

It depends on your perspective, Bush might say that he is acting in defence, but to Iraq, its offence. The point is, who really is the bad guy here?

I kinda get the chills that harken back to the days when I was reading 1984.

Oh I just remembered another point. Why does the U.S. force democracy on everyone? If Iraq doesn't want to be democratic, so what? If Iraq doesn't want to be part of the U.N. so what? They don't have the responsibilities that come with that, but they also do not have the rewards.

Anyway, hope some of this made sense, I am rambling though... I think I had some other stuff I wanted to say.. but I can't remember, Oh well.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

New high-tech toys or not, the U.S. has been highly inefficient at eliminating Saddam to date. He's a sneaky and paranoid lil' bastard and I am doubtful that the U.S. will get him this time unless they mobilize for full-out war. And I'm not sure if the U.S. is willing to go from a War on Terrorism to official war on a country. Can anyone offer any insights?

Does anyone know what Australia's position on the pre-emptive counterstrike on Iraq is - especially after around 100 Australian citizens died in that Bali bombing?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Australia is, to the best of my knowledge, the second country after Britain to declare that they will fight alongside the US in the upcoming action to remove Saddam.

Even if they weren't into it before...they most certainly are now...after Bali.

I believe there are more than eight and possibly as many as ten countries that are ready to go along with the US at this point. Canada will be there as well.

It will be a coalition action for certain. First, we will send in UN weapons inspectors, as per UN regulations. The big question in everyone's mind is...will Saddam allow unlimited access to his "Presidential Areas" so that we can be sure he isn't cooking up something diabolical there. He would NOT let UN weapons inspectors into those areas the last time around. Why not....unless he has something to hide?

Saddam and Iraq were defeated in a war, The conditions that he agreed to in order to stay in power and have the allies (us) pull out and leave Iraq alone was the admitting of UN weapons inpectors, in order to make sure he didn't use his oil wealth to make war on his neighbors again. He broke all of these conditions and is now in violation of every single UN directive concerning Iraq and weapons manufacturing.

Who checks the US weapons? The US and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have a number of treaties which regularly allow inspections by each other's experts. This is done under the supervision of the UN Security council. The fact that open war never broke out between these two historic adversaries would seem to indicate that this system works quite well. Both sides have been regularly reducing the numbers of weapons of mass destruction that they currently have in their arsenals. 

The fact that the United States still regularly does this, even ten years after the collapse of the Soviet Union speaks volumes about the true intentions of the Americans. The Americans are the only true "Superpower" left at the present time. They could easily dominate the world by military force if they wanted to. They could move into each country in the world one at a time or in groups and take them by sheer force...or by the simple threat of that force. 

They have shown no signs of doing this at all. 

Saddam, on the other hand, has made war on four of his neighboring countries without being attacked by any of them first. One of them...Kuwait...didn't even have a real army. He has launched chemical weapons (mustard gas and the like) against both neighboring Iran and his own people! He used it to snuff out thousands of Kurds who are Iraqi citizens. He has used these weapons on his own people inside his own country! 

Chemical weapons are so terrible that they weren't used by either side in the second world war (they've been around since WW1)

Even when the French and British were losing badly at the beginning of WW2 and even when Germany was in it's death throes near the end, nobody used them. Not even once.

Saddam HAS used them....and quite recently.

Yes, the United States has weapons of terrible destruction. When was the last time you heard of them using those weapons? They could have gassed us and taken over all of our resources in a few days...free and clear. They could have nuked Mexico, solved the problem they have with illegals crossing into the US and had all of Mexico's vast oil reserves for free, instead of paying for them. They could have taken out Colombia and rendered the coca fields useless from a great distance with no loss of American lives at all. That would have solved one of their most pressing domestic problems in a heartbeat.

But they didn't do it.

Does this tell you something?

Saddam has shown no such restraint with his use of weapons of mass destruction. Even on his own people.

Which brings me to my second comment .

You said "...if Iraq doesn't want to be democratic, then so what?.."

Well, we have no way of knowing exactly _what_ the Iraqi people actually want, since they don't have a chance to say for themselves. It's a dictatorship and they have no say at all in what Saddam does. Nada. 

Or do you actually believe that the election they just had...where Saddam got 100% of the vote and was, coincidentally, the only name on the ballot...was actually a valid represntation of the will of the Iraqi people? Get real.

Saddam seized power in that country during a bloody coup and maintains his hold on Iraq through fear and murder. It is, most definitely, NOT like anything we have here in the "hypocritical" west. Every single person who lives in Iraq...except Saddam...is subject to arrest, torture or death if they don't go along with what he has in mind. He has even personally killed several members of his own close family just to keep everyone in line. This man is a twisted animal who will stop at nothing to gain and retain power and have his own way with everyone involved.

He has a huge amount of oil wealth...and he has been financing terrorism for several decades. This is not a new revelation. It's well documented.

He must go....preferably sooner, rather than later. I suspect that a great many Iraqi citizens feel exactly the same way.

Let's let the people of Iraq decide what they really want to do. Let's at least hear from them...and let them tell us. Instead of listening to what Saddam SAYS they want.

I bet they just want to live a decent life without making war and raining destruction on all and sundry. Life is a lot better when you're NOT making war on everybody.

But...let's hear from the Iraqi people. just to find out what they actually think.

That won't happen as long as Saddam is in power. He HAS to go!

There is something else I'd like to say here....and I hope you take it the right way. I don't mean to insult anyone, but...

There seem to be quite a few people here in Canada who say "Bush is just as bad as Saddam... or... Bush is WORSE than Saddam" I hear this often enough that I just have to comment about it.

The ability to tell friend from foe....to tell the "good guys from the bad guys" is part of the basic human survival instict, It was crucial to helping us survive all those thousands of years before we attained true civilisation. It is still crucial today. It is possible that some of it has been bred out of us during the last hundred years or so, but I like to think that it's still there...just under the surface.

Use that instinct when someone tells you that "this is the good guy" or "this is the bad guy" Look closely at all of the facts...and I truly mean ALL of them! The choices we make using this basic human instinct can save our lives or end them in a heartbeat. Just ask anyone who lives in the seedier sections of a very big city, or in a dog-eat-dog jungle environment. One animal can help you survive...one is food...and one wants to make YOU it's food. 

You have to be able to tell the difference between them, in order to stay alive.

And you have to be able to tell the difference between who is your friend and who is truly the enemy in these desperate times.

Ask yourself if YOU can tell the difference between friend and foe. You need to be able to make this distinction before you can make a real assesment of a situation.

We all do.


----------



## Alesh (Dec 10, 2001)

Yeah, I agree except the problem is these days you can't tell whats FACT and what is just propoganda/bull****


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow the propaganda machine is in high gear, I've never seen so many war related documentaries and movies on satellite as just now. Even a hoary old BBC classic about the effects of nuclear war on Britain has been trotted out. It won an academy award at the time.
Endless pieces about Saddam and Iraq. It is feeling a bit 1984ish. I guess the item last year that gave me the most gloomy feeling was the "Homeland Defence" move. That Bush would use a phrase that smacked both of early Nazi AND 1984 just shows how illiterate and out of touch he actually is. Gary Trudeau nails Bush perfectly in his daily cartoons which I love.
Scary times.......;-(


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmm just read an interesting piece in the Star about JWs fixation with Iraq. I didn't know that his father and family were the target of a serious assassination attempt by Iraq back in the 90s. Certainly sheds some light on his actions and Iraq's referral to "old issues".
As if the CIA hasn't lots of skeletons as well.
Better smileys needed to express this....sqeeeeek


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(Love this kitchen, man...)

MacNutt said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Who checks the US weapons? The US and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have a number of treaties which regularly allow inspections by each other's experts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And of course, Russia has complete access to *all* American army bases and weapons-research facilities, right? Complete disclosure. Suuuuuuuuuurrrrrrreeeeee.....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Yes, the United States has weapons of terrible destruction. When was the last time you heard of them using those weapons? They could have (Edit-done a bunch of nasty things-)

But they didn't do it.

Does this tell you something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The U.S. has done lots of nasty things without using weapons of mass destruction, from the devastating invasion of Panama, where hundreds (some say thousands) of innocent people were murdered and their bodies dumped in mass graves during the invasion to get Noriega (another CIA asset). See "The Panama Deception", available at many leftie video stores, university libraries, etc. Then there are the flagrant violations of international law, such as the mining of Nicaragua's port (the World Court deemed it illegal, but Washington said "we don't recognize your authority"), CIA drug running, arms to Iran for hostages, ad infinitum.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Saddam seized power in that country during a bloody coup and maintains his hold on Iraq through fear and murder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and, until Kuwait, through the express and enthusiastic support from the U.S....

As for other points made above...too many to address them all without getting into an encyclopaedic-length treatise here...









But one thing: The thought that the Iraq war will be "quick". Only if the U.S. is indiscriminate in its attacks (i.e. _really_ "bomb them back to the stone age" (which is a terrible thing, considering the Iraq region is the cradle of humanity for us non-creationists)), and if Saddam just rolls over without much response.

As for post-war Iraq... the West has been pitifully slow and inadequate in fulfilling its promises for reconstruction aid and support to Afghanistan, despite many great pronouncements that once the Taliban were gone, all would be right with the world. 

Following the U.S.-supported election defeat of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Chamorro and successive governments destroyed the social gains made, while opening up markets to U.S. business. Rural health and education programmes were eliminated (the rural areas were seen as very pro-Sandinista, which is why the Contra criminals targetted rural clinics and schools in their terrorist campaign, again, with the support of the U.S. and Ronnie Ray-Gun).

Let me just lay it out plain and simple: The whole Bush-Cheney-Rice administration is only slightly less evil than Saddam... and I say "slightly" only because I'm fairly sure they don't plan to bomb Canada (in the near future, anyway... we'll see after we relax our Marijuana laws...). Of course, neither do I fear an attack by Saddam on my blueberry-laden fields, so I guess we can consider them equally evil.

Amerika (the government) is as much a "rogue state" as any of 'em, and is more dangerous than all due to its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and it's history of (a) using 'em and (b) ignoring international law when it has objectives it wants to meet.

[And since my comments are now a matter for the public record, I can kiss any hope of a civil service job goodbye... anybody see the West Wing last week? Lily Tomlin's character's old letter to the president? Hilarious! Martin Sheen for President!]

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My goodness Mark...you do have it _bad_ don't you? What did they use for the indoctrination? Cattle prods? Drugs? Both?

Trust me, recovery is possible....but it takes years of open-minded observation of world events before the light begins to shine and the old tarnished ideas fall away.

I know this because I started out very much on the leftish side of things. Been there, man. I grew up in the sixties and, believe me, Nixon was the enemy and we _all_ read Mao's little red book. It had some serious validity, and the established norms did not! We constantly heard about CIA plots and how the Soviet Union was being maligned by the government influenced media. We were all pretty sure ,in our own minds, that they had a better way. Most people I knew were of a single mind on this....and we were all determined to make things right when we finally came of age as a generation and controlled the destiny of the world.

Interestingly...most everyone in my generation has changed their tune as the years went by. Each one of us came to our current understanding of how the world really worked by a different means. Some had families and found out that dealing with the world on a day to day basis required decisions based in fact, rather than on lofty ideals that have no basis in fact. Others started their own businesses and quickly learned to tell truth from fiction. Most of us watched the world unfold before us and came to some similar conclusions...

Me? I went to work in South America.

That was a wake up call like a bucket of cold water in the face. 

I was in Venezuela during one of their chaotic elections, and worked near Tikal in Guatemala while guerillas shot at our camp. It gets your attention, believe me. That's when you start to ask them..."why are you doing this?" The answers were quite illuminating. They had more to do with who was paying the bills than any real hatred of the US.

I spent time in Nicaragua during Ortega's reign of terror and was there when he was defeated (you have never _seen_ so many happy people cheering in the streets!) I guess the CIA could have paid all of those people to spontaneously express their delight when there wasn't a TV camera in sight....but I doubt it.

I have spent time in Panama both before and after Noriega. I was in Grenada just before the US moved in and I remember Geary telling the world that "The people have told me that I do not need to call any elections for the next twenty years. Just get on with the job at hand" I _saw_ the huge military airbase that was being constructed on this strategically placed island by Russians using Russian equipment. This was a small Caribbean Island that already had a large International airport, by the way. The people of Grenada also seemed quite relieved when the US marched in and got rid of that particular despot. 

I recall coming across Cuban soldiers, dressed in various different military uniforms, in the bush while I was working in Guatemala and Nicaragua back in the late seventies and early eighties. As you know, their accent is rather distinctive. Sometimes they were even dressed as Contras. Think about that one for a moment or two.....

I have watched Russian vessels unloading huge amounts of artillery and other weapons in Guatemala while the American press fretted about Reagan "arming" the Contras. Oddly enough....none of the combatants on either side of that particular struggle ever seemed to be armed with anything other than Kalishnikovs. Not an American weapon in sight. Interesting, no?

As you already know, I have spent considerable time working and living in Cuba...and I share your obvious affection for both that magic island and all of the people who live there. I have seen the good things that Fidel has done and I have also seen the anguish and hoplessness in the eyes of the people of Cuba. They have a love/hate relationship with the old guerilla. Mostly, they think that he has their best interests in mind and they all agree that he did great things while the country was being supported by huge subsidies from the Soviet Union...but eveyone I ever met there wishes he would just go away now and let them get on with it. Without him, the state contol and central planning that prevents these most worthy people from attaining their place on the world stage would also go away. There would be some serious concerns, but there would also be cheering in the streets. They all need a change. The staus quo in Cuba would be rejected, just as it has been in every other former communist/socialist state, if the people were given a free vote and allowed to express their opinion. This will happen, soon enough. 

I could go on and on Mark, but I won't. I have too much respect for you to do anything other than to suggest, humbly, that you keep a very open mind...and watch as world events unfold. The truth will become apparent to you...if you keep your eyes, and your mind, open. 

The ideology that you currently follow is very unforgiving and tends to twist and demonize anything that is not seen to be "on their side". This may be, in part, due to the fact that much of the world has tried this ideology and rejected it...it is a defence and denial mechanism. Socialism didn't work... and the whole world is moving away from it. So the United States (the percieved center of capitalist thinking) must have used devious means to defeat world socialism.

So goes the paranoia. And it's pretty easy to use some of the goofball things that the CIA has done in the past to work up a believeable conspiracy theory that supports this. In my travels I've bumped up against some pretty interesting folk. Some of them worked for the Company....and I'm here to tell ya that the CIA and all it's minions are generally underfunded and more likely to trip over their own feet than to sucessfully carry out any great shift in worldwide thinking. Like...for instance... the collapse of Communism or the general rapid retreat we have seen from socialism, both here in Canada and everywhere else in the world. It's hanging on by it's teeth in a few small corners of the globe (like Cuba) but the writing's on the wall.

This is where we get back to my earlier post on this thread regarding the basic human survival instinct that helps us determine who is a friend and who is a true enemy. We live in "interesting times" and this human ability to figure out who will help you and who will hurt you is becoming far more important to our basic survival. Identifying a friend as a foe, or a foe as a friend, could mean the difference between surviving or not, in the coming months. Judge these things very carefully....it's not just an intellectual excersize any more. 

Keep an open mind. Don't look at each situation with _any_ preconcieved ideas or predudices. Read all manner of literature and watch lots of different newscasts from lots of different countries. Go and work (and _live_) in lots of different countries and then I suspect that some of your ideas may change, just a little, over time.

The truth is out there....

vaya con dios, mi amigo


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh, MacNutt, have you considered that perhaps it's not me who hasn't learned, but you who have become an old fogey?









For the record, I've never read Mao's little red book. Have read a few of Che's, though...

The "CIA plots" have proven out to be real, and not simply in the minds of conspiracy kooks. Heck, it was the U.S. Senate which, in the 1970s, released the (Church report, I believe?) which documented the many attempts by the CIA to assassinate Castro. The CIA's involvement in the death of Allende (1973) is very well documented, and a recent PBS documentary provided a chilling examination (with interviews of the 'spooks' involved) of the CIA's overthrow of the democratic government of Guatemala in 1954. That is what we call a "track record", which enables us to not dismiss current allegations about U.S. subterfuge so easily.

What is surprising is the ease with which people forget their own governments evil doings. But then, I guess that's like all families, eh? If dad beats mom after boozing it up, no-one talks about it the next day and life goes on. Until dad kills mom, at which point the neighbours gather around the yellow tape and say, "Gee, he was always such a nice, quiet person."

Regarding media manipulation, there was a widely-reported press item in the past six months which quoted the CIA as being "proud" of their ability to seed false news stories in the north american media. The Guatemala case is textbook.

"Ortega's reign of terror"? Where on earth did that come from? Even the post-Sandinista Nicaraguan media had no cause to describe Ortega's government in those terms. The only "terror" came from U.S.-financed and trained contra terrorists. As for the "delight" of people when Chamorro was elected, I'm sure that after so many years of warfare, the realization that since the U.S.-backed candidate won led many to believe (correctly) that the warfare would end.

Remember a few years back when chinese campaign donations to Clinton's election bid became such a big deal? The thought that a foreign government or agent could "influence" an election was horrifying. Of course, the chanelling of buckets of cash to the Chamorro campaign in Nicaragua was just "taking care of America's backyard".

Panama: Again, refer to 'The Panama Deception'. A very good documentary.

Grenada. "Huge military airport"? Apart from Reagan, in one of his more delusional states describing it as such, I haven't heard anyone else even try to make the claim that the airport was intended for military purposes. Cuba and Grenada were close at that time, and Cuban engineers were on hand helping to upgrade Grenada's international airport. Engineers, by the way, who were killed by the invading U.S. troops. And as I recall, the invasion was to "protect U.S. medical students", not to preserve democracy yadda yadda yadda.

Cubans were indeed present in Nicaragua during the Sandinista government. That _is_ alright, isn't it? Two countries who are on good terms having troops on each other's soil for various purposes (like Canada and the U.S.), such as training? What does "dressed as Contras" mean, anyway? That they wore fatigues? Rather than alluding to something (which makes people imagine the worse), how about making a specific allegation which can then be confirmed or refuted?

As for Guatemala, since 1954 they have been either a U.S. client state, or a slightly-out-of-control dictatorship, which massacred thousands of their own citizens (mostly indigenous). Russian weapons? Maybe U.S. companies ran out of bullets to supply the government?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I have seen the good things that Fidel has done and I have also seen the anguish and hoplessness in the eyes of the people of Cuba. They have a love/hate relationship with the old guerilla. Mostly, they think that he has their best interests in mind and they all agree that he did great things 
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The CIA agrees with you, by the way, as does the INS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
was being supported by huge subsidies from the Soviet Union...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing I've always wondered. Many of Cuba's critics dump on it for the "soviet subsidies" it received in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and claim that Cuba's successes were due only to those 'huge' commie brotherly pacts. Has anyone bothered to do a comparative study of what Cuba did with that support, with the millions of dollars "loaned" to Latin American countries by the IMF, projects funded by the World Bank, money dumped there by USAID, etc.? Who do you think got the most bang for their buck?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I could go on and on Mark, but I won't. I have too much respect for you to do anything other than to suggest, humbly, that you keep a very open mind...and watch as world events unfold. The truth will become apparent to you...if you keep your eyes, and your mind, open.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>








Gee, that sounds like a recent comment made by a religious fanatic I ran into who was trying to get me to "see the light" ! 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
So goes the paranoia. And it's pretty easy to use some of the goofball things that the CIA has done in the past 
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respectfully, MacNutt, "goofball things"? My definition of 'goofball' does not involve assassination, overthrow of democratic governments, misleading the public at home and abroad, drug-running, etc. 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
...socialism, .... It's hanging on by it's teeth in a few small corners of the globe (like Cuba) but the writing's on the wall.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, insofar as Cuba goes, they've been saying that since 1959. That's a long time to be wrong....

I do try to keep an open mind. I don't think that Cuba is perfect. But I don't believe that it is right, just, legal, ethical for a foreign government like the U.S. to manipulate people and nations to meet its own ends. The hypocrisy of calling for "democracy" when one's hands are bloody from eliminating it when the people choose something the U.S. doesn't approve of is maddening.

My literary pursuits are broad and not confined to the collected works of Marx and Engels. My daily news gathering goes beyond the "socialist worker" to include that bastion of canadian political thought, the Globe & Mail, and several additional examples domestic and foreign. The internet has made this far easier than it ever has been. I spent a decade working in the media as a journalist, and I know how most of these companies manipulate what people hear (I'll never forget my first experience of censorship - being given an assignment to cover our city's Gay Pride parade by doing advance interviews with the organizers. Evidentally the assignment editor and news director weren't on the same wavelength. A few minutes before the noon newscast, the director reviews what is about to go to air, takes the stuff I'd prepared on the parade and trashes it. "Our listeners don't care about that crap". Yep, I'm sure all those country-music-lovin', gun-rack-in-the-truck yokels who tuned us in in droves were just sitting in traffic that afternoon, wondering why they hell the roads were closed. They sure wouldn't find out listening to our station.)

Although my experiences are not as vast as yours, I have lived and worked in Jamaica and Cuba for extended periods. Among my friends are people from all of Africa, Latin America and Asia. I guess we just move in different circles... that, and the years of living you have on me









With that, I'll call it a night. We do have divergent views on reality, 'tis true, but at least we have found the common ground of Mac. Hmmm... Apple for a Nobel peace prize? Send Sharon and Arafat Powerbooks now!

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good reply, Mark! You managed to dodge a few of the real zingers while casting some of my more profound points in some doubt. Not bad, compadre.

I am preparing a slightly more detailed reply to your last post, but it will have to wait till later this week because I am just about to sit down and watch "The Panama Deception" on the documentary channel.

A documentary that I would recommend that _you_ watch (if you haven't seen it already) is the PBS six-part doc called "Commanding Heights: The Battle For The World Economy"

It's _excellent_ and , if you watch it closely, you will be able to see exactly why the world has so totally rejected socialism. And it's not exactly written or produced by right wing fanatics, either.

Give it a try. Gotta go now, "the Panama Deception" is about to start.

Ciao.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okayyyy....just got finished watching "The Panama Deception". I taped it and will watch it again this weekend, but here are my first impressions....

I have to concur with the documentary producers when they state that Manuel Noriega was a thug and most probably supported by the CIA. I am also quite aware (as are we all) that, at one point, the CIA was using some of their minions and transport systems (Air America) to transport contraband. This illicit trade was used to finance "black ops" so that they didn't have to lobby funds from Washington, and therefore leave a paper trail that could be traced back to the "Company"....and the Administration that ordered these ops. This dates back to the Presidency of John F. Kennedy....and was probably justified, in his mind, by the fact that his own family arrived at their high status and wealth by running contraband from Canada to the US during the prohibition days of the thirties. Whatever works, I guess.

The fact that Manuel Noriega had co-opted large portions of the Panamanian PDF (Military Forces) in his rise to power was skipped over rather lightly, I thought. The US supplied most of the cash, for sure...but the result was that, by the time Noriega siezed power, the upper echelons of Panama's miltary were totally corrupt and desperately needed to be removed, for the good of everyone involved. Especially the Panamanians.

The documentary then moves into the death of Trujillo in the airplane crash. I can't honestly tell you if it was an accident or an assasination....but I have flown enough white-knuckle flights in those parts to tell you that it could, quite easily, have been an accident. The weather is totally wacko around there, and aircraft maintenance is spotty....at best. When I left the wellsite in Tikal, Guatemala (on a horribly overloaded deHavilland twin otter) for the last time, I thought I was gonna die for sure. The aircraft was flung about the sky in several thunderstorm cells and the pilots were freaking out. We made it down safely, but on the next trip from the rig to Guatemala City later that day, the same aircraft broke up in mid-air, killing everyone on board. The rest of my crew were on that airplane. This area is only a short distance from where Trujillo went down.


Flying in Central America back then was a real crap shoot...let me tell ya.

The documentary then moves on to the growing rift between the USA and Manuel Noriega (who, by now has siezed power in Panama). It sort of glosses over the fact that the cocaine trade had gone from a minor problem to a huge one and just states that Noriega was now being depicted as a thug and a drug runner in the US press. He had always been thus....but it had not been such a major problem in the past. The CIA had not anticipated the appetite for cocaine among the American public...and when they wanted to put the brakes on, Noriega said "no way!" He, and his corrupt buddies were making _wayyy_ too much coin to cease and desist. Plus, he was most likely using some of the product and , therefore had lost some sense of reality. It makes you think you are superman and distorts your perception of the world. 

Then the documentary proceeds on to the free elections that were forced on the leaders of that country by pressure from the whole world. 

This is when it starts to get a bit murky.

The producers of the documentary state that "the American-backed trio" who were widely expected to win the election were roughed-up by Noriegas goons (this actually happened) and that, during voting, it was obvious that these men were going to be the popular choice....so Noriega called off the election in mid-vote and started to sieze ballot boxes and wreak havoc among the people trying to cast their votes.

At this point, as I recall from actually being there, the whole _world_ was quite concerned with what would happen next. The Panama Canal was crucial to the transfer of cargo and military vessels rapidly between the two great oceans of our world, and we were just barely out of a thirty year Cold War. Tensions were high....as were the stakes in this particular game.

George Sr. was about to take unilateral action to support the free vote of the people and to make sure that this all-important transportation link remained open to all when a US soldier and his wife were roughed up by one of Noriega's goons. Did this really happen, or was it just an excuse? Don't know...but it certainly _could_ have. The people I knew in Panama were in constant fear, at that time, of the government "goon squads".

Anyway, the US moved in. And they were determined NOT to lose this one, as they had lost so badly in VietNam. They were also very cognisant of the role of television in how everything was reported back to the folks at home. All during the sixties we watched the suppertime news and saw horrible, horrible things. It was one of the reasons that the VietNam war was so terribly unpopular among the American people and why so many were in the streets protesting it at every opportunity. Consequently, the US government was pretty determined to limit the amount of coverage that the US TV networks would have available for the evening news. This was a bit of an overreaction, and gave rise to a lot of questions about a government muzzle on press coverage. Subsequent US military actions have been covered pretty openly by the American media. Remember when the press was already waiting on the beaches in Kuwait and the Marines landed to the glare of spotlights with newsmen behind them. No bullets...just soundbites. Pretty surreal.

At this point the documentary begins to take a bit of a slant. The producers quickly gloss over the rapid arrest of Noriega and they give short shrift to the restoration of the popularly elected goverment (they were, after all, "American-backed"). Instead, they concentrate on how many people were killed when the El Chimorro slums burned down during the initial attack.

Now...I've _been_ to the El Chimorro slum. It was the best place in town to buy dope and I used to smoke quite a bit of it. The whole place was a jumble of tinder-dry antique buildings with lots of tarpaper-and-stick shacks interspersed with way, WAY too many people. Electricity was almost unknown and the place existed on candles and stolen propane stoves. It was a major disaster waiting to happen.

The documentary then spends rather a long time documenting, in great detail, how many people were killed when this collection of shanties burnt down during the invasion. There were several other slums that caught fire and burned during the invasion. Oddly enough, the better built apartments adjoining these areas were mostly saved from the big fires. They were made of concrete.

The documentary then drones on about the carnage in the burning slums and begins to move into fantasyland by claiming that US soldiers were lining civilians up and shooting them in the back of the head while their hands were bound.

My bullsh*t detector started ringing faintly about that time....

Then...we are told...the American soldiers bulldozed these hundreds of bodies into mass graves so as to cover up the evidence of the mass slaughter. Yeah, right. And I guess that absoloutely none of these several hundred American soldiers has ever decided to write a tell-all book or appear on Oprah to confess this inexplicable action. They could have made a fortune by doing so. Certainly others have, by exposing this sort of thing.(bullsh*t detector is ringing a little louder at this point)

There were some mass graves found, but no one knows if the Americans actually buried these people or local authorities did, as an expeditious way of getting rid of a potential health problem in the tropical heat. Mass burials of people after a slum fire is not unknown in those parts....most people can't be easily identified after such an event and the local governments just want to get rid of the problem before disease breaks out. It's cruel...for sure...but human life is not valued in some places quite as highly as it is here. Especially the human life that lives in the slums. Just the way it is.

The producers then say that there are a lot of mass graves on US military bases in Panama...and that the US government won't admit to it or let anyone investigate because they want to cover up their mass slaughter of innocent civilians. (Bullsh*t detector is really ringing at this point)

That's when this whole "documentary" gets a little _bizarre_....

There are quite a few anonymous voiceovers descibing "lasers that melted people where they stood" and "ray guns" which, apparently, could slice a car in half. This is accompanied by numerous shots of the same three dead bodies lying outside of a wrecked car from a multitude of different angles. Some of the shots are even in black and white...but you can easily see that it is the same three dead people. No way of telling what actually killed them, but there is no evidence at all of a "ray gun" or some sort of "melting laser". 

My bullsh*t detector is turning red hot and starting to smoke by this time.

The rest of the "documentary sort of peters out while telling us that the US is now somehow controlling Panama (even though they have free elections on a regular basis) and finishes off by saying that the US is now poised to take over every free nation in Central and South America from this "newly established" zone of influence.

Yawwnnn.....

This particular bit of propaganda is now ten years old and is hardly a sterling example of the genre. It starts out fairly well and establishes itself by using known facts....which is a good way to grab the attention of the audience. Lots of anonymous "experts" that we have never seen before is an early sign of spin doctoring and, later on, most of the voiceovers are done by unnamed people who are supposed to be outraged Panamanian citizens, but they really sound like they are reading from a script.

When the credits roll and you can see who financed this particular piece of...work...then you can tell who they were preaching to. And where the real spin came from.

Nice try, but I don't think it will ever win any awards. Especially for accuracy and even-handed treatment of the subject.

Tell you what...for everyone else who might be reading this other than CubaMark and myself....

Watch it for yourself...then _you_ decide.

Keep an open mind (and fresh batteries in your bullsh*t detector) and then tell the rest of us what 
_you_ think.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Ah, nothing like a simple question to get the kitchen warmed up!

Washington seems to be more and more Imperial these days. Some American's are standing up and wondering what happened to their civil liberties, but the majority are content to sit back and claim that the government would never do anything that was not right.

Has the U.S. nuked Mexico? **** no, but the US is the only country to have used WMD since WWI. It is interesting how neither Germany nor the UK resorted to CBW when it looked as that country was losing. But the US decided to nuke Japan twice, when a simple naval blockage would have brought the Pacific war to an end. Or did the US want to keep the Soviets out of the Pacific. No desire to carve up Japan, the way Berlin was sliced.

And yes, Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own population. Guess what? The materials for those weapons were sold to him by US and UK companies, that continued to sell to him even after it became clear what he was using them for. And we seem to be forgetting that Saddam was the benefactor of the CIA generosity during the 80's. Saddam is just as much a CIA creation as the Taliban was.

And talking of the Taliban, has anyone noticed if the troops are home from Afghanistan yet? No? If the shooting is over, why are the troops still there? Is it that the US has settled into the role of Imperial Lord, or is the 101Airborne eating dust looking for more terrorists...

I feel for our neighbours south of the border. Having a sniper on the loose is a terrible thing. Mind you, more people die of accidental gunshot wounds during a week that have been killed by the sniper in a similar time frame, but that is not newsworthy.

I was an early subscriber of the sniper as a single white male lone nut theory. But it is becoming clear that s/he is not acting alone. Either that, or the planning is far above what the military gives to its people.

I doubt that it is the work of a foreign terrorist. If I was looking to make waves, I would not be shooting children as they went to school. No culture that I know of would sanction that. No, if I was leading a sleeper cell, I would pick on politicians of any level, police, fire, ambulance workers. If I went after a civilian, I would look to a corporate executive (an oil industry exec would by ideal) or a political fixer. Hell, maybe even a journalist. Nothing like killing a journalist to get the hornets nest stirred up.

But I am rambling.

Is the United States our friend? Not according to the US. The US has interests, not friends. We should keep that well in mind. 

Does the United States promote democracy? Check out Chile, Central America (remember the Banana Republics), Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan... need I go on?

The CIA have been caught influencing the democratic process in Japan, Italy, and Canada, not the sort of thing that a "friend" does, rigging the election to suit Washington.

Is the United States evil and corrupt? Well, corrupt probably. But evil...I don't think so. On an individual basis, most Americans are pretty decent God Fearing people. Very selfish as a collective, and ignorant of the impact their wants are on the rest of the world.

The US is not a huge monolith, moving to crush the world. But rather, the US is made up of various factions, that fight amongst themselves more that with foreign powers.

More ranting later, my ear is infected and the buzz is driving me nuts.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting thoughts, Britnell.

With regard to your comments on the US and weapons of mass destruction....

Yes, they used them to bring a quick end to the Pacific War in 1945. A "simple naval blockage" (you did mean "blockade", didn't you) would not necessarily have accomplished a quick end to it all and would ,most likely have starved many tens of thousands of Japanese citizens to death. The Warlords who controlled the Japanese government at the time even refused to surrender for a full ten days after the FIRST atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. It took a second one to really convince them that resistance was futile. Even then, the Emperor had to override several of the more determined generals and threaten to commit seppuku unless the war was stopped immediately. An invasion by the Allies (the USA, Canada, Britain,etc.) would have cost _millions_ of lives on both sides. Japanese housewives were issued with grenades and told to "take a few of the invaders with you when you go".It would have been a house-by-house bloodbath, for sure.

As scary as nuclear weapons were (and are) ...they probably saved a lot more lives than any of the other alternatives in that particular confrontation. Most Japanese are of a similar mind about this most unfortunate event.

About the US government having "interests" rather than "friends"....

Interesting point, and it has real some validity. But I also think that the American people have a genuine affection for us....certainly most of the ones I have known did. And, while the US government may look on this subject with a cold clinical eye, most of the American people don't. They have an opinion....and they aren't afraid to express it. Their Constitution guarantees them this right. They LIKE Canada.

And, remember, they have an _enormous_ amount of say in what their government does on a day to day basis.

People outside of the States always forget this little fact when they start referring to the USA as an "Imperialist Power".

Unlike we unfortunate Canadians, the Americans are truly in charge of their own country...even between elections. If the US government starts doing something that is enormously unpopular with the American public, then the people themselves will put a stop to it. Post haste.

There are three hundred million voices down there....and they aren't all singin the same song, believe me!

Does the US promote democracy? You bet it does! And you can feel free to check out Pakistan, Afghanistan or, especially Chile. For that matter, have a look at Panama, Grenada or even Japan and Germany. How democratic were these countries before the States stepped in? Not very. 

With regard to the comment that...."troops are still in Afghanistan, even though the shooting has stopped"

Precisely.....this is _why_ the shooting has stopped, and why it will not start up again in the near future. Afghanistan is a total basket case and Allied troops (American and others) will be there for some time....at a great cost to the countries who have sent them. Our Canadian troops had to be pulled out before the action was over because our military is so wasted after a decade of Liberal mismanagement that we can no longer support even a small force of seventeen hundred soldiers in a foreign land for more than a few months. Heck, we couldn't even _get_ them there without asking the US for help, because we have no airlift capacity. Our miltary capability is now the butt of jokes by the rest of the world, which is really sad when you consider that we live in the world's second largest country. We can not even afford to patrol our own coastline...let alone defend it, if need be. Spain has a bigger and more powerful Navy... Australia has a much better equipped Army...Poland has more soldiers than we do. What a joke.

Thanks, Jean Cretien.

Finally....does the CIA influence the democratic process in other countries?

I'm not sure that they actually could, even if they wanted to. Are you influenced by something that someone has said to you when you cast your vote on election day? Do you vote a certain way because you have been told to? If so, why? No one in any of the countries mentioned above has a gun to their head on voting day. We vote for a candidate because we want to, or because we believe in what they say they will do. End of story. 

Besides, the CIA (especially since the Clintons) has a very small budget. I doubt if the whole thing would buy very much TV time in any one of the above countries. I can't imagine any other way that the CIA could "influence democracies". 

I have two questions here:

1)Could _you_ be influenced on voting day? By the CIA?

2)There would have to be quite a few people involved in this sort of a conspiracy in order to have a real effect on the outcome of an election. Do you suppose that one or more of them would not come forward and sell their story to make a big stack of cash? It's certianly has happened before. Even former CIA Directors have written tell-all books. How come we haven't heard anything about this yet?

BTW-Most of the CIA horror stories are more than thirty years old at this point. The "Company" is not the all-powerful government organisation that it once was. Anyone out there got any fresh CIA conspiracy stories....ones that are backed up by some sort of factual evidence? Or is it all the same old recycled dreck from many decades ago? 

I agree with your assesment that the USA is not inherently evil, Britnell. Corrupt? Possibly...but certainly less so than most other governments.

Including our own Federal Liberals.

That particular batch of clowns has been treating Canada like their own private cash cow for almost ten years now. They make the Sopranos look like a church picnic. Time to give em a vacation. Think about this when the day comes when we are all supposed to vote for Paul Martin. The media has crowned him already and we are all expected to just fall in line and make our mark to finalize the coronation. Voting, in Canada, seems almost to be a formality sometimes. This is NOT a good thing. 

Anyone else have any comments on this subject? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm enjoying this discussion....let's keep it going.


----------



## Alesh (Dec 10, 2001)

OK, so right now Korea is more of a threat to the U.S. than Iraq, since they have nukes and the capability to launch them, whilst Iraq (apparently) does not. So what does Bush say about Korea? "I am sure we can come to a diplomatic solution." Yeah... because they don't have any oil! My arsenic this ain't about Iraq's oil!

Even IF Iraq could launch a nuke at the U.S. they could just easily shoot it out of the sky anyway, and then proceed to carpet bomb the sh!te out of 'em for revenge purposes. And the U.S. DOES have this ability. They even have these crazy laser equipped Boeing 747s that can take out incoming rockets.

Maybe ol' George figures while he's in town he may as well pick up some oil on the way home so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

I swear if Bush causes a WWIII I am outta here... going north-west to live in the mountains... or maybe under a mountain.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(skipping over that huge issue of the appropriate / note use of nukes to end WWII)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>most of the American people don't. They have an opinion....and they aren't afraid to express it. Their Constitution guarantees them this right. They LIKE Canada.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're referring to that percentage of Americans who know that Canada is in fact a country, and the even smaller number who can find us on a map... 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
And, remember, they have an enormous amount of say in what their government does on a day to day basis.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, now *that's* funny. How many people turned out for that last so-called election?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
People outside of the States always forget this little fact when they start referring to the USA as an "Imperialist Power".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imperialism refers to the US activities to further expand its economic / political control over other nations / regions / etc., not how democratic it may or may not be at home.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If the US government starts doing something that is enormously unpopular with the American public, then the people themselves will put a stop to it. Post haste.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This presumes that the American public have a clue. This is not meant to be disparaging, but rather a reflection of the shaping of public opinion which is done through the (so-called liberal) media. Refer to Chomsky and the classic "Manufacturing Consent."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Does the US promote democracy? You bet it does! And you can feel free to check out Pakistan, Afghanistan or, especially Chile. For that matter, have a look at Panama, Grenada or even Japan and Germany. How democratic were these countries before the States stepped in? Not very.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh MacNutt! Damn, man! Don't do that to me without warning. Darn near fell off my chair. Pakistan? Musharraf's democratic credentials would fit on the backside of a chewing gum wrapper (see his recent reforms extending his stay in power). Afghanistan? U.S.-installed former western oil company representative as president (Kharzai). Chile? Um.... it was the Americans who thwarted democracy in 1973 (the "other September 11th") by assisting in the overthrow of Salvador Allende! Oh, man.....

I also recall being in Jamaica in March of 1997. A few days before our team was set to head back to Canada, former Prime Minister Michael Manley died. For those unfamiliar with Jamaican politics, Manley was "it." He gave Jamaica back its pride in the 1970s, and tried very hard to bring some peace to this troubled caribbean nation. Anyway - Jamaica's national TV station broadcast some unedited interviews that had been done for an upcoming documentary. Each night before we left, they ran three straight hours of interviews... it would have been terribly boring TV for non-Jamaicans... no commercials, no cutaways, just a medium close-up of Manley sitting and talking to an off-camera reporter. The Jamaican youth who made up the other half of our team were glued to the TV, as Manley recounted in detail the activites of the CIA to destabilize the Jamaican economy, attack the credibility of the PNP (Manley's party), and in general, wreak havoc on the functioning of a democratically-elected state, and influence elections. Yeah, the CIA's "limited budget" and the U.S.'s pro-democracy activities have a faaaabulous track record. NOT!

It's late, I'm tired, and my thesis is suffering. Why do you guys get me going on this stuff? It's like coke to an addict....










M.


----------



## Alesh (Dec 10, 2001)

You say Iraqi oil would flood the market. I don't think so, they would obviously just ration it a little at a time, to get their money's worth. Well whatever, there really is no point to argue about this point. I don't think we have any way of knowing what Bush is ACTUALLY thinking, if anything.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hmmmm....I see that some of us haven't been reading all of the posts in this thread. Just a quick recap here...

1) North Korea, despite the fact that it is one of the three rogue states listed by George W. as the "Axis of Evil", is not showing any overt signs of major belligerence at this time. In fact, they have been moving closer to normalizing relations with South Korea as of late. Theses two countries are technically "at war" and have been so, for a half century.

The actual shooting stopped four decades ago. North Korea is starving to death and backward....except for a pretty adavanced weapons program (sounds like the old Soviet Union) and it is this weapons program that mostly concerns the US, and the rest of the world. North Korea has no oil, very little food...or anything else for that matter...but they do have some second-tier 'bombs and guns' that they are willing to trade for what they need to survive. Most of their trade is done with other rogue states like Iran, Iraq, etc. 

There is no reason to believe that they have NOT traded nuclear research or materials to Iraq. This would serve to boost Iraq forward from where we had assumed they were in their nuclear weapons program. 

2)The reason George W. is not going after North Korea with the same amount of intensity as Iraq is because they are far less likely than Saddam to unleash any horrors on their neighbors right at this moment. Plus...once a country actually HAS nuclear weapons, then you have to treat them a whole lot more delicately than if you manage to stop them just BEFORE they get them. North Korea is more of an enabler to Iraq (and Iran, et al) than a wild card that might just attack someone on a moment's notice.

Besides....I have a sneaking suspicion that North Korea has just announced their nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip in the ongoing negotiations they are currently having with their southern neighbor. It gives them an "equalizer" and portrays them as less of a charity case wanting a handout from the rich, weternized south. If North Korea were to suddenly renounce all of their weapons programs and cease all trade with the other rogue states, there would be such a collective sigh of worldwide relief that they could probably write their own ticket for some sort of a re-unification of the two Koreas. Massive aid packages would be on their way to Pyongyang in very short order and they would probably get "most favored nation" trading status with the huge US market very rapidly as well. This may well have been a shrewd chess move on Kim's part. we'll have to see.

3)There are many ways for Saddam to deliver a nuclear device to the US or his neighboring countries. The Soviets developed a small nuclear weapon which is sometimes known as a "suitcase nuke" (it is actually carried in a backpack) several of these units are currently unaccounted for and Russia is one of Iraq's biggest trading partners. Ask the people of Israel if a fanatic with a backpack can't find his way through even the tightest security in the world. Then ask yourself what would happen if just one of these things were detonated in a major US city. 

People would flee the major urban centers by the hundreds of thousands....especially if Saddam said that he was going to set the next one off in an unspecifed city. Terror would reign supreme....and he would have won. With just a single backpoack. Forget about missiles. He'll use those against Israel, not North America.

I'm not ebven going to get into the danger of biological terrorism. That's even scarier, partly because it doesn't recognise borders. Don't even get me started on that one.

4)For the final time....it is NOT about oil! Once the US takes out Saddam, they don't just seize the oil and carry it off for their own use. This is not Rome! The Iraqi oil would begin to flow through the existing pipelines and would be sold on the world market at whatever price was current. There are contracts in place which would kick in and, just the same as with every other middle eastern country, the money from the sale of oil would come back to Iraq. The resulting cash flow would be spent on reconstructing the infrastructure of Iraq....which is seriuously in need of repair. They would be building schools and roads and feeding kids....all the things that Saddam hasn't been doing while he's been pursuing weapons of mass destruction. 

The sudden influx of high quality oil on the market would cause world oil prices to plunge and that would really hurt all of the major oil companies. Including the ones that George W. and his family have shares in. All of the expensive wells that we have been drilling in Northern canada would lose their value and the Tar Sands Project would also be affected. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investments would suddnly lose their value, because of the sudden oversupply of Iraqi oil. (BTW-Iraqi crude, like that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, is of a particularly fine quality and is preferred over our Canadian sour heavy crude)

If it's about oil....then we should leave the old butcher right where he is. We do not NEED the iraqi crude on the market at this time. It would really upset the applecart, trust me.

Alesh....and everyone else who is interested...I honestly think that what George Jr. and his very capable administration are doing right now will actually _prevent_ WW3. Better hope that it does, because if Saddam or anyone else, unleashes the horrors on us then there won't be any place on the planet to hide from it all.

(Einstein was once asked the question "what weapons will be used to fight the Third World War?" He thought for a moment, and then repilied "I have no idea.... but the Fourth one will surely be fought using stone knives and crude spears"


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Mark...obviously you posted while I was still writing my reply to Alesh. Get on with your thesis....I'll leave you alone till this weekend OK? 

(Wouldn't want to distract you with any _facts_.... I know how confusing those darned things are to you leftist types) 

Ciao, Amigo


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Alesh, the oil supply is traded on open world markets, much like other commodities. When Iraq was first sanctioned, the oil that was coming from that country was cut to a small fraction of what it had been before the Gulf War. That led to a boom in exploration for new supplies that is only just now slowing....because we found those new supplies. We HAD to, because we had to replace the oil that used to come from Iraq.

OPEC keeps quite a tight control on the amount of oil that is sold on the open market. If anyone decides to sell a whole bunch of oil all of a sudden, then OPEC will threaten to turn on all of the taps and lower the value of the new oil. This prevents (mostly) any country from just flooding the market with cheap oil and screwing up all of the price structure.

Opec would have to scramble for sure, once Iraq's oil hits the market. That country needs a lot of cash in a hurry, so the cartel would most likely tell every other oil producing Nation in their group to each produce a little less and let the Iraqis take up the slack. Trouble is....most of the nations in OPEC are spending every dime they get from oil and they won't want curtail that income. Some will do what they have done before in these circumstances, which is sell oil on the spot market and that new supply will also serve to undermine the price of a barrel of crude.

On top of all that, there are now a great many large oil producing countries who_aren't_ part of OPEC. No way of knowing what they will do when they see the price falling and watch buyers flood away to buy the high-quality oil that Iraq will suddenly bring to market. Chances are, there will be some discounting going on to maintain THEIR incomes and that too, will erode oil prices.

One thing is for sure.....the new suppply coming from Iraq will spell very bad news for almost everyone...except the consumer. If the giant oil companies had any real control over the US government (as some would lead you to believe) then they would put a full stop on any action in Iraq. It will really hurt them financially.

And that's the bottom line.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
For the final time....it is NOT about oil! Once the US takes out Saddam, they don't just seize the oil and carry it off for their own use. This is not Rome! 
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... that is what has happened in Afghanistan, no? Kharzai has been installed, and now western oil companies will get on with building that pipeline that the Taliban refused to go along with. Oil certainly plays a part in this... and the U.S., for all of its idiotic blunders and unilateralism, knows better than to try and occupy a country.

There was a U.S. ambassador or something to .. I think it was the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico. He was asked whether said country might ever be brought into the union. His reply was something like "Why in God's name would we want to rule them when we can own them?"

AND FINALLY, just to give MacNutt some fun weekend reading, here is the very serious website dedicated to getting behind the many stories out there, and it's Canadian at that:

http://www.globalresearch.ca 

hasta la próxima,
M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh _come on_ Mark...surely you can come up with something more valid that that URL link!

That is such a tired old bunch of leftist fanatics, interspersed with well-planted denialists who...strangely enough...have Arab names...that I am surprised that a person with your obvious intelligence even deigns to give them any serious credence. Especially since 9/11.

I went through the website and, right away, I saw a BUNCH of familiar names. Authors like "Mumia Abu-Jamal" and "Ramzy Baroud" and "Sani Rifati"

Do you _honestly_ think that these people are truly representing the TRUTH? If so....why?

I clicked on a link that said (in BOLD headlines) "THE US ADMITS TO TESTING BIOLOGICAL AGENTS ON CIVILIAN POPULATION"

Guess what I found? 

A tired old (and totally repudiated) rehash of a late fifties test of biological agents on prisoners and volunteers. 

This is news that is OVER HALF OF A CENTURY OLD, Mark. And it has been proven to be false, as well. The actual reality of this experiment was a lot different than the leftist press has reported. And it was a different era, fer gosh sakes! My God...the USSR (which was a seriously LEFTIST group) did absoloutely horrific experiments on captive civilian populations, even as late as the 1980's. So have almost every other communist government. This is WELL DOCUMENTED. Why do your favorite authors choose to ignore these facts, and concentrate on the Americans instead?

The stuff you guys come up with about the Americans is from a very long time ago. Can't your people come up with something a little more _current_ to hate the US about?

I mean _REALLY_!

I am quite concerned that a person such as yourself, who is obviuosly very dedicated and intelligent, continues to defend unelected dictators and demonize free democracies. I'm not quite sure why you do this. 

Are you?


Anyway...I said I'd leave you alone while you worked on your thesis. I will stick by that. An education is all-important, and is your key to the future.

I will refrain from posting anything that will cause you to take time away from your studies until well into this weekend. Promise.

But until then, I've got some real zingers for you! Are you ready???.

estudiar ahora y 
respuesta despuis
mi amigo.

Ciao!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt, I have found my nemesis, and 'tis thee.... 

Now, to keep you busy while I prepare my eight-pages-long reply to your very... shall we say, "interesting".... posting on Fidel:

I provided that link to globalresearch.ca 'cause I thought you needed some far-far-left perspective to just balance you out, man.

Now, WRT your assertion that the U.S. biological agent testing on civilian populations is a falsehood, then I must assume that you have not been reading the major Canadian dailies of the past week, which all reported the latest revelations of these tests, including some which took place over Calgary. These reports are not from left-wing-loonies, but have been published in the Globe & Mail, the National Pest, Toronto Star, etc., quoting named U.S. military sources.

Now, you can go ahead and call me a left-wing loonie, but will you say the same about the mainstream Canadian media?

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Mark....I have _never_ called you a "left-wing loonie"....as a matter of fact, I don't believe I have ever called you anything but your given name, or Cubamark.

And I never will.

Despite the fact that we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum....and live on opposite ends of this country, I still have a great deal of respect for you because of your selfless dedication to helping the people of Cuba. I am serious.

I consider you a friend and a worthy opponent in these verbal jousts...and I really enjoy debating with you on subjects that are obviously very important to both of us.

I honestly hope that we can remain civil and polite while we have these debates. No harm is meant from my end....I promise you. Name calling and insults should not be a part of this forum, nor should they be present in any of our discussions here.

OK with you?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Hey my west-coast compañero, 

Hope I haven't crossed a line in there somewhere... once I get rolling on something







it's hard to stop. Stream-of-consciousness stuff, you know. And that "hypocritical b*****ds" remark was not directed at you!

Ultimately my interpretation / analysis of the world is governed by a few things:

- a desire for social justice and equality
- deep-seated rage for those who exploit others for their own gain
- an intellectual attraction to people who sincerely try to make thing better for their neighbours, community and country.

If I do step over a line, let me know. Unless I'm really on a roll , I will usually be specific if and when I decide to insult someone (happens extremely rarely).

Peace and Respect should govern all things,
M.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

and you said it was not for the oil...

Gore Vidal Claims 'Bush Junta' Complicit In 911
By Sunder Katwala
The Observer - London http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,819931,00.html 
10-27-2

America's most controversial writer Gore Vidal has launched the most scathing attack to date on George W Bush's Presidency, calling for an investigation into the events of 9/11 to discover whether the Bush administration deliberately chose not to act on warnings of Al-Qaeda's plans. 
  
Vidal's highly controversial 7000 word polemic titled 'The Enemy Within' - published in the print edition of The Observer today - argues that what he calls a 'Bush junta' used the terrorist attacks as a pretext to enact a pre-existing agenda to invade Afghanistan and crack down on civil liberties at home. 
  
Vidal writes: 'We still don't know by whom we were struck that infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to many civil libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected President with the oil and gas Bush-Cheney junta.' 
  
Vidal argues that the real motive for the Afghanistan war was to control the gateway to Eurasia and Central Asia's energy riches. He quotes extensively from a 1997 analysis of the region by Zgibniew Brzezinski, formerly national security adviser to President Carter, in support of this theory. But, Vidal argues, US administrations, both Democrat and Republican, were aware that the American public would resist any war in Afghanistan without a truly massive and widely perceived external threat. 
  
'Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the frightening logo for our long-contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan ... [because] the administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable, lone, crazed killer (this time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause he hates us because we're rich 'n free 'n he's not.' Vidal also attacks the American media's failure to discuss 11 September and its consequences: 'Apparently, "conspiracy stuff" is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.' 
  
'It is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American life. Yet, a year or so ago, who would have thought that most of corporate America had been conspiring with accountants to cook their books since - well, at least the bright dawn of the era of Reagan and deregulation.' 
  
At the heart of the essay are questions about the events of 9/11 itself and the two hours after the planes were hijacked. Vidal writes that 'astonished military experts cannot fathom why the government's "automatic standard order of procedure in the event of a hijacking" was not followed'. 
  
These procedures, says Vidal, determine that fighter planes should automatically be sent aloft as soon as a plane has deviated from its flight plan. Presidential authority is not required until a plane is to be shot down. But, on 11 September, no decision to start launching planes was taken until 9.40am, eighty minutes after air controllers first knew that Flight 11 had been hijacked and fifty minutes after the first plane had struck the North Tower. 
  
'By law, the fighters should have been up at around 8.15. If they had, all the hijacked planes might have been diverted and shot down.' 
  
Vidal asks why Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, stayed in a Florida classroom as news of the attacks broke: 'The behaviour of President Bush on 11 September certainly gives rise to not unnatural suspicions.' He also attacks the 'nonchalance' of General Richard B Myers, acting Joint Chief of Staff, in failing to respond until the planes had crashed into the twin towers. 
  
Asking whether these failures to act expeditiously were down to conspiracy, coincidence or error, Vidal notes that incompetence would usually lead to reprimands for those responsible, writing that 'It is interesting how often in our history, when disaster strikes, incompetence is considered a better alibi than .... Well, yes, there are worse things.' 
  
Vidal draws comparisons with another 'day of infamy' in American history, writing that 'The truth about Pearl Harbour is obscured to this day. But it has been much studied. 11 September, it is plain, is never going to be investigated if Bush has anything to say about it.' He quotes CNN reports that Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit Congressional investigation of the day itself, ostensibly on grounds of not diverting resources from the anti-terror campaign. 
  
Vidal calls bin Laden an 'Islamic zealot' and 'evil doer' but argues that 'war' cannot be waged on the abstraction of 'terrorism'. He says that 'Every nation knows how - if it has the means and will - to protect itself from thugs of the sort that brought us 9/11 ... You put a price on their heads and hunt them down. In recent years, Italy has been doing that with the Sicilian Mafia; and no-one has suggested bombing Palermo.' 
  
Vidal also highlights the role of American and Pakistani intelligence in creating the fundamentalist terrorist threat: 'Apparently, Pakistan did do it - or some of it' but with American support. "From 1979, the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ... the CIA covertly trained and sponsored these warriors.' 
  
Vidal also quotes the highly respected defence journal Jane's Defence Weekly on how this support for Islamic fundamentalism continued after the emergence of bin Laden: 'In 1988, with US knowledge, bin Laden created Al-Qaeda (The Base); a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across 26 or so countries. Washington turned a blind eye to Al-Qaeda.' 
  
Vidal, 77, and internationally renowned for his award-winning novels and plays, has long been a ferocious, and often isolated, critic of the Bush administration at home and abroad. He now lives in Italy. In Vidal's most recent book, The Last Empire, he argued that 'Americans have no idea of the extent of their government's mischief ... the number of military strikes we have made unprovoked, against other countries, since 1947 is more than 250.' 
  
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

In an effort to bring some levity to this thread, I offer the following link:

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm?uc_full_date=20010902&uc_comic=db&uc_daction=X 

heh heh heh heh haaaah!

M.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

...and for those interested in perhaps the best example of Yankee Imperialism in the Americas, and the best documented one by far, check out "Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala" by Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer; DoubleDay, Anchor Press: New York, 1984. ISBN: 0-385-18354-2

Links:

Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0385148615/reviews/ref%3Dpm%5Fdp%5Fln%5Fb%5F6/103-8259655-5755033 

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~drclas/publications/books/bitterfruit.html 

http://hallamericanhistory.com/americas/496.shtml 

http://www.unitedfruit.org/bitter.html


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Well....I certainly enjoyed the Doonesbury cartoon (thanks Mark!) and I did slog through Gore Vidals article when it first came out, so I have already heard what he thinks on the subject. There was quite a lot of that "Bush knew and didn't do anything about it because he had a hidden agenda" stuff floating around Europe in the days and weeks after 9-11. There is somewhat less of it these days because we keep seeing more and more of this Islamic-style terrorism happening far from US shores....

I don't know....I guess it _could_ be all a giant plot by the US administration to justify a suspension of civil rights at home while allowing US forces to invade and occupy the foreign country of their choice.....

Naaaaa.......Too complex, and way too many people would have to be involved to pull it off. Besides, _somebody_ on the inside would spill the beans, fer sure.

It is intriguing, though. And it all makes very good reading. There is even a VHS tape for rent at my local video store here on SSI that says it contains "The REAL truth about 9-11!" It was produced in the United States by an American citizen. Gore Vidal is also an American citizen. And as long as Americans are free to question ALL the things that their government is doing....at ALL levels....then I am quite confident that giant conspiracies regarding world-domination by an out of control president will all come to nought.

Heck....I'm still trying to figure out who killed the Kennedys!

It does all make interesting food for thought, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So what...does Gore Vidal's rant hit a nerve with all of you? Or do the recent Islamic terrorist attacks in Bali, Moscow, the Pillipines and Jordan justify my position that it is Al Qaeda (and possibly Saddam), and NOT the CIA (and Bush) that is behind all of this nastiness? Speak up. Disprove my theories or , by your own silence, indicate that you accept them as truth. I double dog dare ya....

(now 
_that_ oughta get a reaction...)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

For a little perspective, try:

http://www.counterpunch.org/blum1028.html 

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

What a pile of steaming, smelly _DRECK_! I can't believe you even included that link, CubaMark!

"OOHH, we bombed Afghanistan into submission, OOHHH" I guess it was just a side benefit of that indiscriminate bombing that the women of Afghanistan are no longer being beaten publicly by gangs of roving elder males for the shocking crime of wearing the wrong sort of shoes in public. There have been no public executions in the soccer stadiums for several months now....and most of those executions were of innocent women wrongfully accused of crimes they did not commit. That's not happening any more....but I guess that is just an unexpected side effect of the removal of the Taliban, eh? Women are actually allowed to attend school so they can learn to read now, as well. Plus everybody got a chance to vote recently in Afghanistan. THAT didn't happen until the US started their "indiscriminate bombing". ( I'd imagine they just wanted to try out their latest killing devices on innocent civilians, right? They are a ruly evil race after all.... those darn Americans) 

GAG!!

Yugoslavia? Don't make me laugh! We all know about the genocide and torture that was being inflicted by one group upon another there after the communist government of Marshal Tito fell apart in the late eighties. After the police state lost it's iron grip on power a lot of people started to take out some long-pent-up frustrations on each other.

THAT'S not happening anymore either. Sure it took a bit of a battle to change the situation, but it was worth it. Everybody accepts this! Especially the residents of what was once called Yugoslavia! We had several of them working for us at Continental Laboratories and they all said that the US-led coalition finally set their country free! The bombing has now ended....as has the genocide, and Milosevek is now on trial for his crimes. This is how it should be.

The genocide, "ethnic cleansing" and mass rapes are no longer happening in the former Yugoslavia. Would you have it any other way? How would you have stopped it? By asking real nice? 

Get real.

Don't even get me started on Somalia. The Americans (and the rest of the world, for that matter) never wanted any part of that conflict. They, and the UN, were shamed into stepping in after massive amounts of food aid was stolen and used as a weapon by the same warlords who had instigated the famine in the first place. Look at the thanks that they got for that. To say that this was some sort of an indiscriminate attack on the Somali people by the US military is to deny all reason and requires a studied (and well-cultivated) ignorance of all of the pertinent facts. From EVERY country involved. Including Somalia.

I could go on and on here, but what is the point? If only one side of any conflict is presented as having happened in a total vacuum or as if it had happened without any provocation...then OF COURSE it looks pretty bad! If the whole story is presented, then there is a whole new perspective and then the observer begins to see something rather amazing....

It's called REALITY.

And this reality is something that the left tends to cover up or put a big spin on because they fear it terribly. It undermines almost every argument they make for their totally flawed system and for their unfounded fear and hatred of the United States. The left has been losing ground for several decades now and these days they look like a seriously endangered species. That's because REALITY has reared it's ugly head and totally disproved all of their theories about how the world really works. It has uncovered the basic flaws in leftist theorem....and they hate and fear it....and try to cover it up.

They keep telling us about "how things should work"....but history keeps on disproving their ideas and assumptions. So they have had to start putting a serious twist on it in order to make out that they weren't wrong in the first place. 

This website (and there are MANY others like it) is just one more rather pathetic example of the last of the hard core leftists who just won't accept that their system is so basically flawed that the whole world has figured out that it doesn't work and is moving away from leftist thinking. At a furious pace. They can't accept that history has proven them completely wrong and they have taken a total denial position on the whole thing. They have also begun to percieve the US as the source of the "capitalist thinking" that is bringing about this worldwide change....and so they try to demonize the US by twisting the facts and omitting any data that doesn't fit their preconceptions. 

And quite a bit of this bad data and spin doctoring comes from within the USA itself. (See the thread about Michael Moore elsewhere on ehMac). The fact that the horrid and imperialistic American government actually allows and encourages this internal dissent should tell you something about their intentions. It sure wouldn't happen in Cuba. Or the old Soviet Union. Or any other hard line socialist nation, for that matter.

The socialist spin doctors are working very hard these days....but they seem to be fighting a losing game.
The sad thing is that, anyone who cares to check ANY of their "facts" will spot some big red flags right away....and the deeper you dig, the worse it gets. Check for yourself. You will be amazed at the sort of twist these types put onto historic events. Read everything you can get your hands on about any of the events they describe....from EVERY possible source, and you will see that they are not telling you the whole story. Not by half!

Perspective _indeed!_


----------

