Haw to wipeout America.

[zheer]

     I have a dream, or a vision if you like , of a world free from the terror and force and threat that America has forced on us. A world that is not dominated by America and its concept of one race one religion one super power, but a new and transformed and re-built America . An America that is more open to new possibility , this possibility realized through the removal of the white House. Does anyone have the same vision on this forum?

[le_poete_mourant]

Be careful not to confuse America and the administration currently controlling it. 

[prometheus]

Let's go back in history. Let's go back to the idea of European people, sick of monarchy and war, starting a new country on the other side of the ocean. The potential seems unlimited. But they started out with genocide and it never got really better. Of course the genocide happened before the US itself existed. But it was a wasted oppertunity.

And if you say 'whipe out america' people may think you want the same as, lets say Bobby Fischer.

As for a revolution in the US. I don't really see it happening on the short term.

[thalbergmad]

     I have a dream, or a vision if you like , of a world free from the terror and force and threat that America has forced on us. A world that is not dominated by America and its concept of one race one religion one super power, but a new and transformed and re-built America . An America that is more open to new possibility , this possibility realized through the removal of the white House. Does anyone have the same vision on this forum?

I have a dream where warfare goes back 600 years.

Two opposing sides on a battlefield who can rip each other to shreds, without involving innocent civilians.

[zheer]

I have a dream where warfare goes back 600 years.

  Ahhh the good old days, seriously though aside from obvious military tactics ( like Iran and China) and not so advanced terror tactics . what other roots or system could actualize a new world order, obviously America can not and should not keep its dominant position as it has done so since the begining of the 20th century. For those who are well educated in geography and history , please share your thoughts.

[BoliverAllmon]

why not be dominant?

[zheer]

why not be dominant?

 

  Dont take this personally but many people including myself feel un-easy with that thought in mind. Am thinking of those in the middle-east and the EU.

[le_poete_mourant]

You will probably find, due to history, that the dominant position of America has actually benefited the world greatly.  I won't even start to debate the effects of its entry into WWI.  Let's start with WWII.  I notice you are from London, zheer.  The London you know today, albeit plagued by fears of transit bombings, would not be the same if it had not been for American involvement in WWII.  You probably were not around for the air raids, nor was I.  But the entry of America turned the tide for England, France, and the entire war.  And although I would not attribute it entirely to America, the world was brought out of a great recession because of the war.  (Wars occur when economics require it, simply.) 

The Korean War was not nearly as significant on a global scale.  But I wonder what the lives of all the South Koreans would be like if they too bowed down to Kim Jong-Il. 

[American entry into] The Vietnam War is commonly viewed as a mistake [by its citizens].  Also, it may have marked the solid beginning of [modern-era] terrorist warfare.  Conventional warfare still existed, at least in Western warfare, until the first Gulf War, which the U.S. became involved in to protect its oil interests.  I would note that after this, the U.S. withdrew its troops from the area [as an occupying force]. 

Now, of course, we have entered into civilian warfare, as addressed by thalbergmad.  It is not just the "enemies of America" who fight with this strategy.  Hezbollah and Hamas are just two examples.  Islamic militants in the Congo and other areas of Africa fight this way too.  It is seen by many as cowardly [to fight while hidden behind civilians], but I would also argue that it existed 600 years ago (see: Vikings). 

The fact that only about one-third of all Americans approve of what the government is doing, particularly overseas [in Iraq], means that two-thirds of all Americans do NOT approve of what is going on. 

Needless to say, that doesn't particularly matter, since the country is in the hands of the wealthiest 5% of the population.  Note that congressional representatives have about a 90% incumbency rate.  Essentially, it could be an aristocracy. 

Also, get rid of the presumption that anybody can be president.  Even though this is a capitalist nation, or perhaps because of this, only those who have enough money to fund campaigns can think of running for election.  Theoretically, there is a happy median between socialism and capitalism that would erase this.  But it does mean that we do get somebody who is college-educated, even if these persons didn't process and retain as much of their college education as could be wished. 

If I may be so bold, the "terror and force and threat that America has forced" upon zheer's oppressed personage is a far lesser evil than that of the terror and threat that would be imposed upon other nations by, say, North Korea, Iran, or China; and towards the less radical but still potently communist and militaristic side of the spectrum, Russia or Venezuala. 

Instead, perhaps we should be grateful that America is not afraid to get involved, although we have erred in our reactions.  However, think of what could happen if America did not get involved.  You can see what is going on in Lebanon and Israel right now.  I believe part of that policy is a reluctance to appear to be trying to occupy or get involved in another Middle East fight, since the Iraq war has turned into quite a nightmare for the administration.   [But look what happens when nobody gets involved:] What about Rwanda? Where was the terror and force of America then?  What about the Congo?  What about Cambodia? 

Frankly, I believe the government acts in ways that you see as condusive to terror and force because they are trying to protect their best interests.  What, after all, was the invasion of Afghanistan but a byproduct of 9/11?   Iraq was also a direct result of this, not because Iraq harbored al Qaeda (although quite possibly they may have) or possessed WMDs (which they also may have), but because of the fear instilled in America by the Arab connection.  The same applies to the issue with Saudi Arabia controlling port security. 

****In fact, I am shocked that you would even suggest rebuilding and transforming America, seeing how the attempt to rebuild and transform Iraq has turned out.  Change is never immediate, and what may seem like a good thing at the time may turn out to have negative effects in the future.  "Be careful what you ask for, because you just may get it" is not a phrase that should be taken lightly. 

[le_poete_mourant]

Furthermore, it would have been difficult to rebuild Europe without American investment and money.

Berlin airlift anyone?  "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." 

And American investors put millions, literally millions, into other nation's economies, including the developing nations, such as Afghanistan. 

Don't panic.  I think this will prove to be a natural stage of history.  It may end abruptly in 2008.  It may take longer.  We cannot see outside of the present and determine what only can be decided in the future. 

[bella musica]

     I have a dream, or a vision if you like , of a world free from the terror and force and threat that America has forced on us. A world that is not dominated by America and its concept of one race one religion one super power, but a new and transformed and re-built America . An America that is more open to new possibility , this possibility realized through the removal of the white House. Does anyone have the same vision on this forum?

In other words, what you would like is anarchy?  If you want to remove one government, you'd better know what is going to take its place.  Look at the French and Russian Revolutions to see what I mean:

In France during the late 1700's, the aristocracy was crushing the peasants and the bourgoisie.  King Louis XIV and King Louis XV systematically wrung every last coin from them in order to buy jewels and palaces for themselves and their mistresses.  Not surprisingly, the people revolted, but they did not have any plan for replacing the current government with something else.  Instead, they just left a vacant hole, which was quickly filled by Marat, Robespierre, and their cronies.  Thus began the Reign of Terror.  Anybody could denounce anybody as being sympathetic towards the aristocracy, and the person would be hauled off to jail (no habeas corpus here) and then to Madame Guillotine, with or without a so-called 'trial'.  Thousands of people were killed as a result of one government being torn down with nothing to replace it.

The Russian Revolution was slightly different - the Tsar, his wife, and their children were slaughtered (just as King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were in France) and a Communist government was set up.  Supposedly this government was only to last as long as it took for the people (the proletariat) to get the hang of living life the Communist way.  But predictably, the 'temporary' government decided it liked being in power and started killing anybody who spoke up against it.  Lenin and Stalin are the key names here.  Not only did they wipe out millions of their own Russian compatriots, they were also responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews.  People from all religions were persecuted because the government believed that everyone should be atheist, since belief in a god could lead to people thinking that the government was not the supreme power in their lives.  And of course Russia eventually started building nuclear missiles as well, in the hopes of becoming a superpower.

So much for tearing down the government to create a world free from terror and the 'one people, one religion, one superpower' idea.  Until you have a more concrete plan in place, the dream or vision of creating a better America by removing the White House remains merely a fantasy or hallucination.  

But as someone once said, 'The only thing we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history'.  We see that proved every day...

[thalbergmad]

The London you know today, albeit plagued by fears of transit bombings, would not be the same if it had not been for American involvement in WWII.  You probably were not around for the air raids, nor was I.  But the entry of America turned the tide for England, France, and the entire war.   

This is true, the Americans did turn the tide.

I was talking to my mum about the air raids as she was working in London during the blitz. Her train was blown up just outside Liverpool Street Station and she was an hour late for work. Her boss docked her wages.

Shortly afterwards the office where she worked suffered a direct hit, which she was not overly upset about.

Thal

[BoliverAllmon]

 

  Dont take this personally but many people including myself feel un-easy with that thought in mind. Am thinking of those in the middle-east and the EU.

China taking our place makes me more un-easy. Russia wouldn't be that great either. ARe we perfect? NO WAY!!! but I think we are better than some other options.

Zheer that sounds a whole lot like radical islamic thinking. One world and one religion society.

boliver

[da jake]

zheer is retarded.

Moving right along.

[jre58591]

Zheer that sounds a whole lot like radical islamic thinking. One world and one religion society.

if im not mistaken, zheer is middle eastern.

[BoliverAllmon]

if im not mistaken, zheer is middle eastern.

yes he is. living in London I believe. He is from Afghanistan I believe.

[gilad]

no he is from iraq and he is kurdish.
i think.
I am not going to agree or disagree, but i do see the importance of ones ethnicity, nationality, religion, polarity in relation to the question being posed.
try turning the question around as follows:

     I have a dream, or a vision if you like , of a world free from the terror and force and threat that Islam has forced on us. A world that is not dominated by Islam and its concept of one race one religion one super power

that would be the other side of the coin.

[BoliverAllmon]

no he is from iraq and he is kurdish.
i think.
I am not going to agree or disagree, but i do see the importance of ones ethnicity, nationality, religion, polarity in relation to the question being posed.
try turning the question around as follows:


that would be the other side of the coin.

I can see your side of the coin, but I can't see his. America is not about one race or religion.  In fact America does some real stupid things and bends over backwards for minorities.

boliver

[pianistimo]

babel or babylon was an ancient city that united all people's under nimrod.  many one world systems (holy roman empires) are built on the idea of a united system (whether of city-states or whatever) where all peoples answer a call to one person!  usually calling themselves a god.

now hitler wasn't much different than saddam.  whatever saddam said - went.  of course, you might say the same for the us president - but the thing is that generally in our country there is more toleration for different religions and politics.  over there - you are simply killed.

i hope saddam is hanged.  and, yet - i hope that it is a merciful hanging.  if he gets to choose his own death it is not fair.  he never let anyone else choose their fate.  the kurds.  the shiites.  these were people of his OWN country.  of course, he hates america too.  do we care?  not now.  maybe in the future when his dreams of more terrorism come true.  but -

God will decide.  that is the key.  we can't just say it is our own strength that will bring a country down or up.  God controls the entire universe - whether a man lives or dies - or nations live or die is up to God.  remember Nebuchadnezzar.  after going mental for three years - he finally gave up his 'authority' to God and spoke only good about daniel's(belteshazzar) God.  interestingly, God blessed him for it and returned the entire kingdom to him.

[prometheus]

...seriously though aside from obvious military tactics and not so advanced terror tactics. what other roots or system could actualize a new world order, obviously America can not and should not keep its dominant position as it has done so since the begining of the 20th century. For those who are well educated in geography and history , please share your thoughts.

I don't really understand what you mean.

As for the US that can't last as a superpower. First off, the 'should'-question is meaningless. It doesn't matter if something should or not. Frankly any discussion about 'should' is a hard one to have. I mean, should any country dominate the world? And if so, which one? Even if you can construct some arguments here they are totally irrelevant because no one looks at what 'should be' in the arena of international politics.

You will probably find, due to history, that the dominant position of America has actually benefited the world greatly.

I don't really think so. Imagine the new world as a second Africa with 'free resources' for European multinationals.

Let's start with WWII.  I notice you are from London, zheer.  The London you know today, albeit plagued by fears of transit bombings,

Uuuh...

...would not be the same if it had not been for American involvement in WWII.  You probably were not around for the air raids, nor was I.  But the entry of America turned the tide for England, France, and the entire war.  And although I would not attribute it entirely to America, the world was brought out of a great recession because of the war.  (Wars occur when economics require it, simply.)

You can never know what would have happened without the US. But before the US battled the USSR by funding Western Europe they also helped bomb Europe to pieces. Actually the US build up Europe so it would be the battle ground of WWIII against the USSR. I don't think how happy we should have been about that. Both parts of Europe would have been nuked to dust because both superpowers put a lot of their missiles on that territory. And then it would also be the main front for a concentional war. At least in the plans that were drawn up on the tables on both sides. And the US risked a nuclear war. They bluffed away the USSR.

Also, there were different ways in which the US tried to get power in Europe. We have the Truman doctrine, which was a military intervention and was disasterous. And we have the Marshall Plan, which was economic intervention, which is defendable. There are many people that critisize the Marshall Plan. Both from the economic perspective and from the imperialistic aspect.

So yes. They funded rebuilding Europe. But the goal was to use Europe as a pawn against the USSR, get power leaverage over Europe.
The destruction of a nuclear war would have outweightened the rebuilding the US helped accomplish. Furtermore, all this was not done out of altruism, of course. That never happens.

And even if it did profit Europe. It costed the rest of the world. When the british imperial power was the last one to withdraw the US started their own imperialism. So the rest of the world suffered 'two Europes'.

The Korean War was not nearly as significant on a global scale.  But I wonder what the lives of all the South Koreans would be like if they too bowed down to Kim Jong-Il.

Well, they didn't split the country in two. If Kim Jong-Il tried to conquer S-Korea then he would have a lot of trouble with S-Korea itself. But then also with other countries in the world. N-Korea was backed by the PRC and the USSR in 1950-1953 but if N-Korea invades S-Korea they will not get this support. The cold war is over. The USSR does no longer exist and the PRC has changed in nature as well. For one it is no longer a communist state. If you observe the six-party talks you will be able to understand the postitions China and Russia take in modern times.

So this situation is totally hypothetical. N-Korea could never occupy S-Korea.

As for defending the Korean war. It was a war of two sattelines of the two opposing superpowers, USSR and the US. And then of course the N-Korean government. They are the ones responsible for the war. Not the Korean people. The americans destroyed almost all the buildings in North Korea. And yes I mean this literally. Every building in Pyongyang was destroyed at the end of the war. North Korea, South Korea, China and the US all committed atricities and war crimes against POWs and civilians. American troops were under order to 'neuralise' any Korean civilian they encountered on the battlefield. Both Korean soldiers executed tens of thousands POWs and civilian prisoners.
Most of the Koreans that died were civilians. About 80 to 85% of the Korean casulties were civilian. And 11.1% of the N-Korean population was killed.
When the conflict ended neither side achieved any goals. They just had to stop because of the terrible destruction they had caused.

No, the americans didn't bring any good. It would have been better to have N-Korea invade S-Korea and to have them do their own fighting. Support them with weapons if they needed any if you really need to do something. And of course to try to get peace negociations. The idea that more could be done for the Korean people is an illusion.

Actually, the war was never officially ended. We have a cease fire that has lasted 53 years.

The Vietnam War is commonly viewed as a mistake.  Also, it may have marked the solid
beginning of terrorist warfare.

Uuuh? What do you mean? The beginning of terrorist warfare? If we start with the roman empire, there have been many cases of terrorism by and against the roman empire. Then we have the crusades with acts of violence with political motives at both sides. Then the French revolution, then the revolution against Tsarists Russia, often seen as the first case of 'modern day terrorism'. And then there is a long list of more modern uses of terrorism. Even if you actually mean guerullia warfare you are wrong. Most N-Vietnamese leaders got their guerilla warfare strategy out of China where it was used in the civil war. Mao Zhedong even wrote a book on the subject in 1937.
 

Conventional warfare still existed, at least in Western warfare, until the first Gulf War, which the U.S. became involved in to protect its oil interests.  I would note that after this, the U.S. withdrew its troops from the area.

Maybe you should have told this to Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 because he, like the rest of the world, were under the impression that the US had kept part of their forces in Saudi Arabia after the war.

Now, of course, we have entered into civilian warfare,

What's that?

It is not just the "enemies of America" who fight with this strategy.  Hezbollah and Hamas are just two examples.  Islamic militants in the Congo and other areas of Africa fight this way too.  It is seen by many as cowardly, but I would also argue that it existed 600 years ago.

I really don't see why the tactics that Hezbollah use at the present moment are cowardly. First off, it is totally irrelevant. But Hezbollah is waiting for Israel. But Israel just decide it is more militarily feasable to bomb 'targets' in Libanon.

The fact that only about one-third of all Americans approve of what the government is doing, particularly overseas, means that two-thirds of all Americans do NOT approve of what is going on.

Ooh yes. For example, a majority of the US population has always been opposed to supporting Israel if that means blocking peace, like it has. In other words, the majority of the US people were always opposed to the particular way the US supported Israel.
But both political parties have the same views on the subject. So the voters can think anything they want, they just can't vote on this issue.

As for both attacks on Iraq. In both cases propagandha and even lies were needed to get the population to support the wars.

Needless to say, that doesn't particularly matter, since the country is in the hands of the wealthiest 5% of the population.  Note that congressional representatives have about a 90% incumbency rate.  Essentially, it could be an aristocracy.

Thomas Jefferson's nightmare. As I said before. The US was founded to be free of the European aristocracy. They failed.

Also, get rid of the presumption that anybody can be president.  Even though this is a capitalist nation, or perhaps because of this, only those who have enough money to fund campaigns can think of running for election.

Just make a personality profile of every american president. For one they need to be male, white and christian. If you don't follow this criteria you do not have any chance. Now of course people talk about Condi running for president. And it may happen. But she doesn't really represent the average female black american, does she? So it is still kind of meaningless if it happens. But at least it will be a change.

In a democracy anyone who is average enough could become president. This doesn't happen in the US. The last two presidential elections in the US were really poor. In the last one there were two candidates who were almost clones of each other. Two white male christian rich kids that went to the same elite universitary and joined the same secret society. And then they also agreed with each other on most of the important points. and the election before that was just cheated and awared by the supreme court.

If I may be so bold, the "terror and force and threat that America has forced" upon zheer's oppressed personage is a far lesser evil than that of the terror and threat that would be imposed upon other nations by, say, North Korea, Iran, or China; and towards the less radical but still potently communist and militaristic side of the spectrum, Russia or Venezuala.

I don't agree. N-Korea and Iran have learned 'the Iraqi lesson'. You need to have WMDs so you won't get invaded.
As for China. Look at their history. They have always looked inwards. They only want to oppress their 'own people' which to them, of course, also includes Tibet, which they have been occupying since 1951, and Taiwan. They may challenge other countries in the international arena but that has nothing to do with war.

As for Russia. It's kind of the same. They don't have any imperialist intentions either. Those days are over. They enjoy their energy resources and Putin reformed Russia in a new form of Tsarism. Actually, the same goes for China. China is also governed the same way it has been for the last 2000 years. We had some communism for a short wile but now it has turned to how it was before.

And Venezuela. I think that at this point Chavez is more concerned by a US invasion then planning his own wars. And concerning his military shopping. I guess it is primarily to back his loud mouth.

Instead, perhaps we should be grateful that America is not afraid to get involved,

I think they are more afraid not to get involved.

although we have erred in our reactions.  However, think of what could happen if America did not get involved.  You can see what is going on in Lebanon and Israel right now.

Yes, the US disrupting any possible cease fire agreement because they want to lend Israel a 'free hand' to do whatever they want, for now. The US has been vetoing away all resolutions the world community has tried to pass that contains anything the Israeli's don't like.

What about Rwanda? Where was the terror and force of America then?  What about the Congo?  What about Cambodia?

The conflicts in Africa are the result of European imperialism. For US caused conflicts you have to look at Middle and South America. But don't continue to list random conflicts because the US is involved in some way in a lot of them.

Frankly, I believe the government acts in ways that you see as condusive to terror and force because they are trying to protect their best interests.

But what does it mean for the people when the state acts in its own interest?

What, after all, was the invasion of Afghanistan but a byproduct of 9/11?

In a way it was. But what happened it really strange. OBL was rumoured to be behind 9/11. So the US demanded the Taliban handed him over to them. The Taliban requisted evidence. None was given. Actually, at that point they didn't even have any. And then the US attacked Afghanistan. Isn't that kind of a strange way of going?

Iraq was also a direct result of this, not because Iraq harbored al Qaeda (although quite possibly they may have)

They do now. But do you insinuate that Saddam Hussain wasn't such a brutal and efficient killer that he left Al Quaida terrorists alive in his country? Highly unlikely. He would have tortured them to death for sure.

or possessed WMDs (which they also may have), but because of the fear instilled in America by the Arab connection.  The same applies to the issue with Saudi Arabia controlling port security.

Of course they still had WMDs, those sold to them by the US after they used WMDs against Iran and the kurds. But the UNSCOM had already found these.

Almost all countries have WMDs of some kind. Actually, it is a miracle they did not find any more of them after the war. Really amazing. Everyone expected them to find some irrelevant weapons and to make a big deal out of it.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest invester inside the US. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from SA. Why didn't anything happen? Are you saying me that US policy is based on irrational fear? Or are you saying we should be soft on the US population because they are just so easily deluded by their own government?

[BoliverAllmon]

wow that was a long post of crap.

[prometheus]

babel or babylon was an ancient city that united all people's under nimrod.  many one world systems (holy roman empires) are built on the idea of a united system (whether of city-states or whatever) where all peoples answer a call to one person!  usually calling themselves a god.

Uuh. Starting with the roman empire. The 'Holy Roman Empire' was, according to Voltaire, neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. It was located in germany and has nothing to do with the roman empire. It just alluded to the power of the roman empire. Just at the name Hitler used; 'the Third Reich'.

It was blasphemous to use the world 'king' in the early roman empire. That is before Julius Ceasar. Rome had had kings in earlier times but they had now done away with them. The empire was governed by a senate. In times of crisis the senate sometimes gave all their power to one person for a limited period of time. This person was called a 'dictator', to avoid the much harsher 'king'. A king was really a no-no in the early Roman empire.

As for people calling themselves god. That's the problem of religion. Even Jesus did it.

There is really no historical Nimrod. He is even insignificant in the bible. So he is of no importance. I can say that Hussain related a lot more with Nimrod than with Hitler. Same goes for the biblical Nebuchadnezzar, which is said to be the same as the historical Nebuchadnezzar II. The story from the bible is probably propaganda of some kind since the story originates from the time that the Jewish people were part of the persian empire.

Going back to Hussain. I once heard that Saddam Hussain thought he was the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar, probably number one, and that he was the reincarnation of Nimrod.

[maul]

of a world free from the terror and force and threat that America has forced on us

That statement is so ridiculous it's not even worth arguing. You are an idiot. Yay.





*gasp*

[prometheus]

He was talking about American terrorism. Not about islamic terrorism.

[BoliverAllmon]

He was talking about American terrorism. Not about islamic terrorism.

what terror?

[gilad]

the cartoons are obviously insensitive and counter productive. i dont know why people have to get nasty, if you feel threatened by someones statements there are other ways in which to respond, zheer has a real and legitimate position, probably 2/6 of the worlds population feels the way he says he does. if you are not in that "2/6" maybe explain why, maybe give reasons why they should not feel that way. i dont know, just a suggestion.

[BoliverAllmon]

where did you get that 1/3 ratio?

[gilad]

good point, i said probably, so it is arguable and maybe even hpyothetical. i am not saying these people are correct/incorrect in agreeing with the statement either, or how strongly they agree.
there are over a billion muslims in the world.
add them to maybe china who would im sure love to be the major world player at the moment. although im not sure how chinese people in fact feel about this.
then in my country for example a lot of peple are openly anti american, im sure there are more countries with people who share the same sentiments around the globe. so yes, i do think 1/3 of the world is a possibilty. if not 1/3 than a 1/6 at least. which is a sizable figure. i will gladly concede to being wrong in my numbers if anyone can supply another alternative.

[maul]

He was talking about American terrorism. Not about islamic terrorism.

drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[gilad]

i think what prometheus was saying is that he believes that americas foreign policy is "terror". ie invading iraq and afghanistan. the huge amount of collatoral experienced there. his definition of terrorism includes what some call state terrorism.

[penguinlover]

Wow, I can't believe I just read this entire thread! I hate politics.  I hate war.  But so does everyone.  Sure, America has made mistakes in the past, what country hasn't?  Countries are made of people, imperfect people.  Our government isn't perfect, we have much room for improvement.  But, I would choose it over any other political system in the world.   I get so tired of people bashing America, ignoring all the good it does for the world, and highlighting our mistakes.  I guess we have our wonderful media to thank for that.  Seems like people don't want to hear good things, only bad. 

  That's why music is so important.  You can get away from all this stuff through music.
   
  And as for Israel, anyone who reads the Bible knows that it is prudent to be on their side.  We realize that they are imperfect too, but still, I don't want to be on the end of those who oppose Israel.

There, I've put in my two cents worth.

[da jake]

The US and Israel

Lands of free speech, multiculturalism, gender equality, progressive cultural attitudes

Arab World + Iran etc.

Strict control of media, Gender apartheid, Tribalism, dark age cultural pathologies

-----

The US is in Iraq to foster a stable consensual democracy where none existed in the past. It is in the interests of world peace for them to succeed.

Israel is in Lebanon to seek and destroy terrorists who attacked them. It is in the interests of world peace for them to succeed.

That is all.

[lisztisforkids]

     I have a dream, or a vision if you like , of a world free from the terror and force and threat that America has forced on us. A world that is not dominated by America and its concept of one race one religion one super power, but a new and transformed and re-built America . An America that is more open to new possibility , this possibility realized through the removal of the white House. Does anyone have the same vision on this forum?

 Its easy to blame your problems on other people...

[da jake]

Whoa? Did I read this properly - Zheer's a Kurd??

the Kurdish people are immeasurably better now than under Saddam's rule. You should be grateful.

[quasimodo]

Maybe Zheer means that the world would be slightly better if each one cared of his own business...
I don't believe that Islamists' deep hatred towards Israel and their big protector came out of the blue, just because they are dumb muslims who only know the language of violence.
If the USA had had a reasonable objective position regarding middle-east matters, instead of assigning themselves a retarded messianic mission, there wouldn't have been 9/11.
Israel has no legitimity in occupying the Palestinian people's territory and that position is shared by the UN. Yet, USA blatantly chose to ignore the UN views and always blindly supported Israel in whatever they do or did. Regardless of their religion, I don't see how Arab people wouldn't be pissed against USA & Israel, the islamists took on later on and then gained some kind of legitimity in the arab world, taking advantage of an anger which wasn't there in the first place.
If there weren't this feeling of unfairness from Arabs, the Islamists wouldn't have room for their fanatism business.

[zheer]

  Thanks guys for your replys, and yes i am receiving psycological treatment . Anyway the thing about Saddam and Hitler, well the obvious difference is that Hittler wanted a germany that was his own and a Germany that ruled the world basically. Where-as Saddam had no intention of creating a new Iraq, instead his sole aim was to dominate and control his own people for his own benefit ( just for himself). The thing aboult the Kurds well the ironic thing is Saddam has been un-able to wipeout the kurds, infact more arabs have suffered than Kurds. Even though the Kurds have been fighting Saddam since 1970 ( i think ) the kurd arnt exactly peace loving nation, i know i had the dis-pleasure of living their with them for a number of years. Anyway thanks for the educated replys.

[prometheus]

what terror?

The US is the only superpower. If you have a lot of power then that means one is able to exert a lot of violence as well.

Terrorism is the use of violence for political goals rather than military ones. For example, OBL wanted to make an impact on the american people. He wanted to become relevant. This way he can get his message out. His goal was not to knock down two skycrapers neither was it to kill 3000 people. That was just the 'colleteral damage' or rather the medium of his actual attack; that on the concience of the western people.
Same goes for Israel today. They are bombing and shelling Libanon. Not to kill their military power but one of their main target was their infrastructure. And this was said by Israeli. If the Libanese government didn't meet their demands they would bomb them 50 years back in time.
So the goal was to shock the Libanese people, confront them with losing all what they had build up. Try to imagine how it feels to see your country being destroyed. And then they hoped the Libanese government would do anything Israel asked.
Another goal of the attacks is to show Iran and Syria their power.
There is a military goal as well. To destroy as many Hezbollah. But those people don't live in the center of cities and several cities are partly destroyed.
So this is terror as well, at the least. Terrorism is less of an offence than starting an actual war. If Israel invades and occupies Libanon it would be a real war. But even in this case one could argue that Hezbollah started it. But this is kind of strange because both Hezbollah and Hamas captured IDF soldiers, which is perfectly legal to do in conflicts. Capturing civilians is something else. Something Israel has been doing for a long while. Very different international laws apply there.


Because the US has so much power they are also naturally capable of so much violence. And part of that violence will be terrorism because of its nature. Now if the US did have all this power but didn't exert it in violent ways then that would be strange. It would require an explenation. Because this is what happens always. The most powerful nations in the world commit the most violence. Look at history.

It is kind of silly to argue that the US is not involved in terrorism. The US is the only state that has been found guilty of terrorism by the World Court. The US has been supporting insurgents fighting against socialist governments, both democratic and not, in South America. They structurally eliminated anything leftist. This was done by supporting violence against the population as well;  Argentine, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Panama but of course also Cuba. In some of these cases there was violence beyong terrorism. So the challenge is trying to find a case that was 'merely terrorism'. For example what happened with Granada was totally nuts. Haiti has been the receiver of the most US military interventions of all countries. And that shows, since they are also the poorest country in the whole new world and fourth in the world as a whole. So Haiti has been the favorite victim, but once it was called the 'Pearl of the Antilles'. Saint-Domingue was one of the richest country of the world.
Number two is Nicaragua, which is the second poorest country in the hemishpere. It seems that there is a casual relation between the number of US military interventions and poverty.
And that what is happening in Colombial; there are two parties fighting for influence over the coke. They both intimidate and kill civilians. But one of them is backed by the US.
Just watch closely when there is another election in South America. There will always be something about the US involvement.

Another good example is of course the mujahaddin  in Afghanistan. And it isn't in the way you may imagine. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security advisor claims, he might be bragging, that in mid-1979 he had instigated secret support for mujahideen fighting against the government of Afghanistan in an effort to draw the Russians into what he called an "Afghan trap." He seems to be very proud about the fact that they did actually fall into the Afghan trap. Of course we all know what happened next. The USSR invaded Afghanistan to help out their allied Afghan government.

The wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, they aren't terrorism. They are acts of agression which would get you hanged according to Nuremberg. Actually,


American chief prosecturer, Robert H. Jackson said this:

- "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." - Nuremberg Tribunal
- "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." - Nuremberg Tribunal

His assistant at the trails, Telford Taylor, wrote a book called 'Nuremberg and Vietnam.' in which he tries to consider wheneter the crimes in Vietnam fall under the Nuremberg principles or not.

It would be a lot easier to make a list of American war crimes. It would also be more relevant because terrorism isn't necessarily wrong from an ethical perspective nur from the perspective of international law.

[pianistimo]

i think in a war - a sad part of the picture is that there is not only governmental 'agendas' but personal 'agendas.'  a soldier sees his best friend shot.  he takes revenge on any and every enemy.  but, you have to admit, too, zheer - that in getting rid of saddam we lost a lot of soldiers for your countries freedom.

what i think is terrible -and i do mean terrible - is that civilians are hurt along with those who might have planned revolution.  basically, in war - everything is upside down.  there is no right/wrong - because noone has the same 'agenda.'

Christ may have claimed He was God - and I believe He is - but his way was to die for others.  if you and i were fighting - zheer - i would give my life for you.  that is what we are told in the bible.  if you had a gun - i'd say 'make your conscience feel better for all those that are dead in your country.'  americans do feel your pain and tears.  after all, we've lost a lot of men over here.  and, the ones that aren't lost are wounded or mentally scarred.  many did not want to return two and three times to iraq.  they saw enough the first time.

the only way the world will have peace is when there is fairness for everyone.  even the children.  seems that the smallest people are the most hurt.  parents gone.  noone to care for them.  this is a travesty.  if i could go to iraq right now - i would adopt a child if they let me.  of course, this might not be in the best interest of the child to speak american instead of iraqi and have different customs - but in terms of basic nurturing and care and love - i would give it.  you might think all americans are pig headed - but we do not enjoy seeing the finer elements of your country destroyed.  the museam gave me a heart attack.  all that history. 

interestingly, we found out - going over there, though, that saddam was rebuilding parts of ancient babylon.  not saying that's terrible - but i wondered for what purpose.  didn't it used to be one of the seven ancient wonders of the world.  but, it was on par with las vegas - right?  sort of a city of sin in terms of luxury and palatial grandeur whilst there were still iraqis that needed the money for food, clothing, and shelter. 

ps about past presidents.  try looking up the history of clinton.  he did not come from  a wealthy family.  in fact, his mother was a single mom!  clinton worked hard to become a president - and although i didn't agree with many of his views - i respected that he was not one of those 'privileged kids.'  and, yet - we want to see a president that knows how to handle difficult situations and questions and be a leader.  you have to have some training for that. 

[prometheus]

The US and Israel
Lands of free speech, multiculturalism, gender equality, progressive cultural attitudes

Beirout was famous for being the Paris of the middle east. Not Jerusalem. Frankly Israel doesn't that well in terms of multiculturalism. Israel is supposed to be a Jewish state. And those Arabs in Israel are second rank citizens.

As for free speech; Mordechai Vanunu. Just a few days ago a IDF captain claimed that the army censor all of the news. This is because of state security, of course. Israel isn't such a free country. Often it compares itself with its arab neighbours, and righly so because it is a lot similar to those than to most democratic western countries. The US is a very conservative country. It is in no way progressive.

Arab World + Iran etc.

Strict control of media, Gender apartheid, Tribalism, dark age cultural pathologies

Israel is copying what SA did under apartheid. They have nukes, they create bantustans, they have checkpoints everywhere. They even have a seperation wall meaning they even want to have an icon symbolizing what is happening. If you compare S-Africa and Israel in detail, for example by using statistics, it is very similar.

It is kind of funny you use the world 'Dark Age'. They never had one. We plunged ourselves into a dark age. But really, this is nearing racism or cultural superiority. I don't really fancy arguing against that.


On top of that you think you have the right to decide for Zheer when and if he should be grateful or not. Utter arrogance.

The US is in Iraq to foster a stable consensual democracy where none existed in the past. It is in the interests of world peace for them to succeed.

Then Why did Al Sistani have to oppose US plans for a democratic Iraq to make it more democratic? As for world peace, which war was prevented by the invasion of Iraq?

Israel is in Lebanon to seek and destroy terrorists who attacked them. It is in the interests of world peace for them to succeed.

If Israel is able to subdue the people and countries around itself then there will be more peace. But what is it worth? It's like saying that Germany should have whiped out the USSR army as quick as possible because then there would have been peace. Do you want war to pay off? And if you really do want peace maybe you want Israel whiped off the map. It would grant peace for sure. Furtermore, Israel started this war, which they don't dare to call a 'war', by not being willing to free, or even trade, their prisoners. Then when they started to bomb residential areas Hezbollah fired back. You can't really blame them for shooting back. You can blame them for being stupid enough to provoke this absurd act of violence by Israel.

[prometheus]

Maybe Zheer means that the world would be slightly better if each one cared of his own business...

It is kind of strange that people argue that the US either ignores everything that happens in the world or they act in their own interest using any means nessesary. Isn't there a middle road? Can't a government act responsible and in accordance with international law?

Israel has no legitimity in occupying the Palestinian people's territory and that position is shared by the UN. Yet, USA blatantly chose to ignore the UN views and always blindly supported Israel in whatever they do or did.

Partly correct. The US vetos all the resolutions in the UN SC so the UN can't really take a stance. Furtermore, neither Israel or Hezbollah ever cared about any UN resolution. International law has no authority whatsoever in Israel, according to themselves.

China taking our place makes me more un-easy. Russia wouldn't be that great either. ARe we perfect? NO WAY!!! but I think we are better than some other options.

Zheer that sounds a whole lot like radical islamic thinking. One world and one religion society.

boliver

Uuh, it is just a moderate opinion of about half of the people outside the US. And about the one world one religion thing. That was actually what was bad about the US, according to him. How can you say he is a radical islamist? He may even be an atheist. Or jewish or christian, like some kurds.

Yes, China taking over the role of the US would be less preferable. But that doesn't mean we should not critisize the US when it does something that is wrong.

[pianistimo]

about terrorism and the world court.  what in the world was the UN compound in lebanon doing with only four people in it who were supposed to be 'eyes' and never caught any terrorists.  i think they are as complicit in terrorism as the hezbollah.  mr kofi annan is a puppet.  they like to think they are doing the world a favor while they sit by with FOUR people.  how much of an impact is that?  did they keep one side or other from battle.  no.  they just watched.  at least we participate in some kind of peace process with a little power behind the name.  noone will listen to the UN until they actually participate - which they are shy to do because so many countries are united and they are probably afraid they'll start fighting among themselves.

well, it's prophecied anyway.  when all the nations come around jerusalem they WILL start fighting among themselves.  they'll decimate themselves and everything around.  that's why it's called armageddon.  the valley of decision.  the bible says blood will run as high as a horses neck or something.  why will they all fight?  because they all want something.  some want something religious (control) others want oil control.  but, will they get it?

the bible says that jerusalem (in a day) will give birth suddenly. Christ will suddenly return to his 'temple' and in that day jerusalem will be the capital of the world.  no longer will she be ravaged but she will be like a beautiful virgin on her wedding day.  those that fought for her will be joyful and those that fought against her will be no more.  that is because God will fight the battle.  there will be no more death and no more tears after that because sin goes with death.  wheverever we do not put others first and serve others is where sin and death enters.  can you imagine (as with the kurds) them being ressurrected while others are put to death as they were?  it's like God's 'bujahhh'  - he has control over death.

[prometheus]

about terrorism and the world court.  what in the world was the UN compound in lebanon doing with only four people in it who were supposed to be 'eyes' and never caught any terrorists.

Because the world community told them to go there.

I think they are as complicit in terrorism as the hezbollah.

What!?! What did they do? This is utterly absurd. Those people were told to go there by the world consensus, they did nothing but observe because the world counldn't agree on a stronger mandate and now you call them terrorists? Why? Who did they terrorise using what violence for what political goal?

mr kofi annan is a puppet.

Actually Kofi Annan is less a puppet as one would imagine from the UN Secretary-General. He used undiplomatic language on several occasions, condemnig the US and Israel. Who's puppet is he?

they like to think they are doing the world a favor while they sit by with FOUR people.

Uuh? Do you really understand what is happening? And did you read Israel intentionally killed them? And that the US vetoed the condemning of this action in the UN SC with a veto, once again.

how much of an impact is that?  did they keep one side or other from battle.  no.  they just watched.

They have been there for a long time. At least since 2000, when Israel pulled back after a terrible invasion, with the current mandate and UN people have been there since the civil war.
No, they neither have the power or the mandate to shoot down Israeli planes or to destroy Hezbollah missile launchers. Can you imagine that the US would allow a UN military force with a mandate to shoot down Israeli planes? No, Israel and the US want NATO to finish the dirty work. To occupy Lebanon with the excuse of being the world consensus.

...at least we participate in some kind of peace process with a little power behind the name.

UUh. You mean the US? Every political analist has explained the US position as 'disruptive' so that no temporary cease fire can be made. Haven't you seen Condi on tv claiming she wants a 'permanent peace'? This means Israel can do anything they want and when they are finished we can talk about peace. Untill then the US will block peace. Just like they have been doing by vetoing resolutions concerning the Palestinian occupied territories.

  noone will listen to the UN until they actually participate - which they are shy to do because so many countries are united and they are probably afraid they'll start fighting among themselves.

The UN isn't a world dictator. The UN is a medium for channeling world consensus. If there isn't any then the UN can't do anything.

Also, revelations is about the roman empire. And that has been gone for some 1500 years already. In the mean time there have been countless battles for and around Jerusalem already.

Furtermore, the World Court case concerning Nicaragua has nothing to do with all of this. Let me also add that the US never accepted the ruling. Actually, they increased the violence. And then when the UN ambassador of Nicaragua appealed all member states to condemn 'unlawful use of force' and to 'respect international law' it was vetoed away 11 to 1 with 3 abstentions. Then in the general assembly 94 to 3. Two US client states, Israel and El Salvador, joined the United States in opposition.

Thanks guys for your replys, and yes i am receiving psycological treatment . Anyway the thing about Saddam and Hitler, well the obvious difference is that Hittler wanted a germany that was his own and a Germany that ruled the world basically.

The only resemblence will be in character. While the US senate authorised Bush to start a war on the idea that Iraq was able to destroy the US, in reality Iraq wasn't even able to attack their tiny little neighbour, Kuwait, which they utterly crushed 13 years before.

But comparing Hussain to Stalin would probably be more accurate since this is what he did himself. Hussain modeled his rule after Stalin, using a secret service instead of his army. Stalin hated his army. Hussain is said to have done the same. I guess even Mao Zedong is more relevant. Hussain even warned that he would 'invoke the spirit of Mao Zedong' in his letter to the american people just before the war started.

[pianistimo]

there are different types of warfare.  those that fight for jerusalem in truth do it peacefully.  they pray for God's protection and for Christ to return soon.  many israelis want peace.  even the other side said 'the reason we'll win this war is that the israelis love life, and we love death.'  a very revealing statement.

the fact that babylon existed as an ancient city proves all the parts of the bible that are written about it.  many cities including accad and ur are written of as existing as part of the land of shinar (the plain that babel was built in).  even the location is correct in terms of biblical placement.

https://architecture.about.com/library/bl-babylon.htm

there are lots of pictures on the right.  one speaks about saddams palace.
https://architecture.about.com/library/bl-babylon01.htm   he was facinated with the ancient city.

[prometheus]

the fact that babylon existed as an ancient city proves all the parts of the bible that are written about it.

Absurd!

I typed something to prove the lack of logic behind this. But I deleted it because to argue agains this is almost to suggest that it takes an argument to show that it is false.

[zheer]

'invoke the spirit of Mao Zedong' in his letter

  Please explain.

[prometheus]

Hussein wrote an open letter to the american people in which he 'promised' a new Vietnam in Iraq. I already explained that the guerilla tactics used in Vietnam originated from China's civil war. The one Mao won and what resulted in him writing a book on guerilla warfare.


He invokes the specter of the Vietnam War and the spirit of Mao, saying the Chinese revolutionary is “laughing in his grave because his prediction has been fulfilled and America is a paper tiger.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/world/middleeast/21saddam.html


Also note that Hussein, like Josehp Stalin and Mao Zedong wrote literature. Unlike Hitler, who was a painter. But I guess Hussein and Hitler are alike in that they both produced very poor 'art'.


[edit]

Wait, this letter is brand new. I thought he also wrote a letter just before the war. But I think that one was for Bush. I don't know if I got confused because that letter also has similar comments about Mao and/or Vietnam.

[zheer]

       Sheesh, a very frightning letter indeed.

[prometheus]

The actual letter is here:

https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14079.htm


Too bad they didn't include his 'poetry dealing with the homeland, invasion and the struggle for liberation' that was added with the letter 

[da jake]

Beirout was famous for being the Paris of the middle east. Not Jerusalem. Frankly Israel doesn't that well in terms of multiculturalism. Israel is supposed to be a Jewish state. And those Arabs in Israel are second rank citizens.

Would you rather live in Tel-Aviv or Damascus?

Is a Jew freer to open a synagogue in Riyadh, or a Muslim to open a Mosque in Netanya?

Thank you.

As for free speech; Mordechai Vanunu. Just a few days ago a IDF captain claimed that the army censor all of the news. This is because of state security, of course. Israel isn't such a free country. Often it compares itself with its arab neighbours, and righly so because it is a lot similar to those than to most democratic western countries. The US is a very conservative country. It is in no way progressive.

Does Israel control the flow of information in it's country? Does it publish textbooks calling Palestinians the sons of pigs and monkeys. Claim that Palestine doesn't exist? Encourage a culture of death - i.e., elevation of suicide bombers?

Hmm. Are gays just being allowed to marry in Massachusettes? Or in Syria?

Thanks again. 

Israel is copying what SA did under apartheid. They have nukes, they create bantustans, they have checkpoints everywhere. They even have a seperation wall meaning they even want to have an icon symbolizing what is happening. If you compare S-Africa and Israel in detail, for example by using statistics, it is very similar.

Ironically, Palestinians are treated better by Israelis than their Arab neighbors. Last time  I checked, it was the Kuwaitis and not the Israelis who ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from their country after their support of Saddam Hussein.

Your comparison to Apartheid is ridiculous. Thousands of Muslims have full Israeli citizenship and all the rights associated with it. Palestinians can acquire it too. 

It is kind of funny you use the world 'Dark Age'. They never had one. We plunged ourselves into a dark age. But really, this is nearing racism or cultural superiority. I don't really fancy arguing against that.

I consider the decapitation of defenseless women (like aid worker Hassan) pretty disgusting. I think the culture that encourages such barbarism is most CERTAINLY inferior than ours. If you don't, then you can keep on striking moral equivalences between the civilized west and barbaric Islamic fundamentalists.

On top of that you think you have the right to decide for Zheer when and if he should be grateful or not. Utter arrogance.

I don't have the "right" to decide. But realistically, thousands of young American soldiers  fought and died - and continue to fight and die - to secure a democratic government in Iraq that will not threaten it's neighbors or it's own citizens ever again. Regardless of whether you agree with the justifications of the war, this is an undeniably worthy cause, that should be supported by all educated people. 

If Israel is able to subdue the people and countries around itself then there will be more peace. But what is it worth? It's like saying that Germany should have whiped out the USSR army as quick as possible because then there would have been peace. Do you want war to pay off? And if you really do want peace maybe you want Israel whiped off the map. It would grant peace for sure. Furtermore, Israel started this war, which they don't dare to call a 'war', by not being willing to free, or even trade, their prisoners. Then when they started to bomb residential areas Hezbollah fired back. You can't really blame them for shooting back. You can blame them for being stupid enough to provoke this absurd act of violence by Israel.

Well, in a string of puerile and nonsenical arguments I guess this one is no different from you. Israel was attacked by Hezbollah. Nasrallah said they were ready for all out war. 

Israel doesn't like having it's soldiers captured and it's citizens bombed by terrorists. Israel has the right to seek and destroy Hezbollah.

[johnny-boy]

     I have a dream, or a vision if you like , of a world free from the terror and force and threat that America has forced on us. A world that is not dominated by America and its concept of one race one religion one super power, but a new and transformed and re-built America . An America that is more open to new possibility , this possibility realized through the removal of the white House. Does anyone have the same vision on this forum?

There would be many more starving and uneducated souls in the World if it weren't for the USA. The American people are some of the most generous people in the World.

As far as governments go, they're all wicked. Very limited government is probably the best way to go. Although I'm not sure anymore. I'm afraid Wal-Mart may become our new government if our present one backs off.

Best, John

[da jake]

Anti-Americanism is a disease.