Global Vote

I believe Kerry has pledged to withdraw US troops from Iraq within four years. Which should give him enough time to sort it out, and would also happily coincide with the next Presidential election. There's nothing like thinking long term.

FWIW, I think he's actually going to win. The momentum seems to be with him. Whether that means he'll become President is another matter entirely.
 
7_V said:
Are you saying that world terrorism will stop if Kerry is elected?
Click to expand...
That is unlikely. Best we can hope for is some sort of change in oppressive and manupulative foreign policies of US. That is the reason why 'terrorists' went to a far distant nation, across the oceans, on 9/11 and attacked World Trade Centre, a tool of US to exploit the world.

Fundamental cause however is the ever increasing greed of the american corporates for finite resources of the planet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueMax said:
That is unlikely. Best we can hope for is some sort of change in oppressive and manupulative foreign policies of US. That is the reason why 'terrorists' went to a far distant nation, across the oceans, on 9/11 and attacked World Trade Centre, a tool of US to exploit the world.

Fundamental cause however is the ever increasing greed of the american corporates for finite resources of the planet.
Click to expand...
Say what?

Firstly, any planning of the 9/11 attack was made in the days of the Democrats and Bill Clinton. Their foreign policies might be described as 'oppressive and manipulative' but were considerably less so than the equivalent policies of other countries which have found themselves in the position of being the most powerful nation on the planet. The British and Roman empires and, no doubt, the Chinese empire to come are all examples of countries which were far more oppressive and manipulative than the US either today or in Clinton's time.

Secondly, while I personally agree about the greed of the American corporates, I seriously doubt whether Bin Laden, Al Qa'eda or any terrorists give a tuppenny f**k about the resources of the planet. Fundamental cause? Hardly.
 
sorry,
but the seeds of 9/11 were sown when the usa and russia were using afghanistan as a proxy for their own idealogical tiff. they both gave the afghani people military training and the promise of a golden future and then fcuked of out of it once their aims were met.
then you've got the strong US backing israel and their 'strong' tactics against palestine. which is bound to rub fundie muslems up the wrong way.
at the end of the day though the reason for the war and continued occupation is oil and bush's mates corporations, pure and simple. 9/11 and the rest is just smoke and mirrors used to justify it to the american public (not that i'm trying to diminish the tradgedy, i'll leave that to bush)- and they, being the idiots they are, took it hook line and sinker. THAT is 100% bush's fault and it would be a good message to send that that kind of blatant self interest and chicanery isn;t acceptable by voting bush out of office however this being america we're talking about i wouldn't be surprised if a talking chimp was elected for a 2nd term.
cheers


julian
 
From your Cincinnati correspondent. Very soggy polling day. Someone put out a notice to say that Republicans were to vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday! My coworkers in Cincinnati, of both political persuasions, are heartily sick of the whole business and are looking forward to getting back to normal advertising on TV!
 
7_V said:
Say what?

Firstly, any planning of the 9/11 attack was made in the days of the Democrats and Bill Clinton. Their foreign policies might be described as 'oppressive and manipulative' but were considerably less so than the equivalent policies of other countries which have found themselves in the position of being the most powerful nation on the planet. The British and Roman empires and, no doubt, the Chinese empire to come are all examples of countries which were far more oppressive and manipulative than the US either today or in Clinton's time.

Secondly, while I personally agree about the greed of the American corporates, I seriously doubt whether Bin Laden, Al Qa'eda or any terrorists give a tuppenny f**k about the resources of the planet. Fundamental cause? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Good point - kinda reminds me about a line from an album I listened to today - "Give any species enough rope and they'll **** it up" a la Roger Waters, Amused to death - if ever there was album that was relevant today!!! plus iit was released almost 13 years ago.
 
7_V,
US foreign policies have been 'oppressive and manipulative for a many decades. Claiming that other empires have done so in the past is not an excuse or the way forward. We have to learn from the mistakes of the past so that there is better a future for all. There have been many wars and the world survived, despite deaths of millions, destruction and misery. Nazi Germany once seemed invincible as US does now. But they also lost and Germany was reduced to rubble. Difference now is that now we live in a nuclear age. It is in the human nature to fight back when threatened. But unlike before, the devastation will be so enormous that there is a very good chance of us becoming extinct? Far fetched? Many people don't think so.

Whether or not "Bin Laden, Al Qa'eda or any 'terrorists' give a tuppenny f**k about the resources of the planet" does not come into it at all. His objective as Bin Laden clearly stated in the recent tape (and on those rare occasions when we are allowed to hear his views) is that he want freedom for his country, Saudi Arabia, whose rulers are feudalistic and puppets of the US.
US give lip service to freedom and democracy but it continue to support SA. US nurture and support many such regimes. Kuwait and Pakistan are two other examples. Sadam Hussain was a creation of US. But as things turned out he was not happy being a puppet of the US.

US will support anyone or anything as long as its interests are satisfied. If a weak country goes against them they get punished. If a country fights for US but then has no further use for US, its people are left to fend for themselves. As we have seen with the people of south Vietnam.

Relying on that delusion 'special realtionship' and siding with this evil force might seem advantageous in the short term but it is catastrophic in the medium/long term.
 
BlueMax said:
7_V,
US foreign policies have been 'oppressive and manipulative for a many decades. Claiming that other empires have done so in the past is not an excuse or the way forward. We have to learn from the mistakes of the past so that there is better a future for all.
Click to expand...
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the situation in world politics is moral, ethical or right. I'm just saying that's how it is.

After the October 1973 Arab invasion of Israel there was an Arab oil embargo. The US fleet, which was needed for the USA to continue (rightly or wrongly) its war in Vietnam, was disabled because their oil supplies had been cut. The USA made it clear to the Saudi royal family that if the supplies weren't re-established, the US would safeguard them for itself. The Saudis relented and, behind the backs of the Arab world, broke the embargo and supplied the US fleet.

I don't mention this because it's right or wrong, just to emphasize the dependence of the world's superpower on Arab oil. Incidentally, it should go without saying that the economies of the oil states are also totally dependent on the sale of oil so the relationship is mutual.

What about the UK? What would happen to our economy if the oil supply was cut off or if oil prices increased dramatically? What level of unemployment could we sustain before we could no longer support the benefits system and our economy and way of life collapsed? 15%, 20%, 25%? Would we let that happen?

World politics are not and have never been about morals or ethics, only expediency. Is this right? No, of course not, but it's how it is and how it's always been. It's also disgraceful, in my view, that we have done so little to develop other forms of sustainable energy or are doing so little to prevent global warming. Nevertheless, we're not and sadly those of us who should know better, do precious little to sway our own or the USA government either.

... Whether or not "Bin Laden, Al Qa'eda or any 'terrorists' give a tuppenny f**k about the resources of the planet" does not come into it at all. His objective as Bin Laden clearly stated in the recent tape (and on those rare occasions when we are allowed to hear his views) is that he want freedom for his country, Saudi Arabia, whose rulers are feudalistic and puppets of the US.
Click to expand...
If freedom for the people of Saudi Arabia is what Bin Laden wants, he's going the wrong way about it. Terrorism has not and will not succeed.

Incidentally, BlueMax, I've noticed that you put the word 'terrorist' in quotes. That's up to you. My opinion is that it demonstrates a level of naivity bordering on foolhardiness. That's just my opinion. However, when you're quoting my posts I would appreciate it if you didn't alter my text or meaning by inserting the quotes. I like to call a terrorist a terrorist. Your quotes imply a justification. There is no justification.
 
ââ'¬Å"Incidentally, it should go without saying that the economies of the oil states are also totally dependent on the sale of oil so the relationship is mutual.ââ'¬Â
May be but it is up to them to decide how much of oil they sell and to whom.
If the cutting of oil by SA had gone unsuppressed, impetus for R&D into conservation and alternative energy would have been much greater and we won't be in the ever worsening situation that we are in now.

Need of the US fleet or greed of US itself for oil is hardly a justification for bullying and manipulating SA, setting up puppet regimes, supporting feudalistic states, military dictatorships, illegally invading Iraq, etc. It only goes to show that US will go to any length to get what it wants.

ââ'¬Å"What about the UK? What would happen to our economy if the oil supply was cut off or if oil prices increased dramatically? What level of unemployment could we sustain before we could no longer support the benefits system and our economy and way of life collapsed? 15%, 20%, 25%? Would we let that happen?ââ'¬Â
Ever increasing consumption of oil mean that from being a net exporter, US has become a net importer of oil. The Middle East has 65% of the world's oil reserves. The US, just 4% of world population, consumes 30% of the world's oil. Oil is a finite resource and the supplies will dwindle further. It won't be long before the US alone will need whatever oil is available. Bush has openly declared that he will put the needs of US first. So it is logical to assume that sooner or later we will also be deprived of oil by them; 'allies' or not.

ââ'¬Å"ââ'¬Â¦we have done so little to develop other forms of sustainable energy or are doing so little to prevent global warming. Nevertheless, we're not and sadly those of us who should know better, do precious little to sway our own or the USA government either.ââ'¬Â
Agreed to a point. But UK and many other countries have done much more than US to conserve energy and reduce pollution. Now Russia is signing up to Kyoto. Much much more to be done. But the effects and benefits are gobbled up by the US.

If the rest of the world is too freaked out by the power of US and its disastrous policy is allowed to continue it is only a matter of time before they try to oppress everyone else. Fundamentals are such that, right now, US need rest of the world than rest of the world needs US. EC and other countries still have the economic muscle to bring US into line. Time to act is now. Clip the wings of this evil and hungry eagle. Putting effective pressure on US to ratifying the Kyoto protocol will be a good starting point.

US misuse the word 'terrorist' to demonise peoples without armies who fight for their freedom and justice.
They use it repeatedly and many people have become brain washed and accept that notion.
Terrorism is NOT the use of force against US or its allies. It is the use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing. US has killed and maimed millions of innocent people around the globe with its weapons of mass destruction. They are the biggest and worst terrorists by far. Check out the legacy of Henry Kissinger. He is the world's greatest living war criminal & TERRORIST.

People like Bin Laden and organisations such as PLA don't have armies in uniforms or even a nation. But if one is prepared to look at the situation in a detached manner they could very well be called Freedom Fighters. 7_V say, ââ'¬Å"he's going the wrong way about itââ'¬Â. Are US and its allies on the right way? And what else can people do when they are faced with greedy, immoral and oppressive forces such as the US. The 'terrorists' are even denied freedom of speech. What they say is rarely allowed to be published or broadcast in the west. When Al Jazeera try to do that US oppress them and kill their reporters.

However poor and oppressed some peoples are, no one has yet succeeded in killing the human spirit and its fight for freedom and justice. History is the witness and the British Empire a prime example. Come to think of it we will still be under some feudal dictatorship and won't be enjoying democracy if it weren't for 'terrorists'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Terrorism has not and will not succeed.
Click to expand...

People often say this, but I can think of many former colonies where terrorism has indeed succeeded in aiding the ejection of foreign control. (This is not meant as a justification for terrorism, btw.)

-- Ian
 
"However poor and oppressed some peoples are, no one has yet succeeded in killing the human spirit and its fight for freedom and justice. History is the witness and the British Empire a prime example. Come to think of it we will still be under some feudal dictatorship and won't be enjoying democracy if it weren't for 'terrorists'. "

Soz BMax I cannae agree here it is rarely the people that fight for freedom and justice, they fight for the govnmt and/or religion that they subscribe to. Didnt the USA overthrow Sadam to benefit the people? Who is fighting back? It isnt the people, its the fanatical supporters that think they can rid the USA and regain the Status Quo (no singing pls).
 
lAmBoY said:
"However poor and oppressed some peoples are, no one has yet succeeded in killing the human spirit and its fight for freedom and justice. History is the witness and the British Empire a prime example. Come to think of it we will still be under some feudal dictatorship and won't be enjoying democracy if it weren't for 'terrorists'. "

Soz BMax I cannae agree here it is rarely the people that fight for freedom and justice, they fight for the govnmt and/or religion that they subscribe to. Didnt the USA overthrow Sadam to benefit the people? Who is fighting back? It isnt the people, its the fanatical supporters that think they can rid the USA and regain the Status Quo (no singing pls).
Click to expand...
US invaded Iraq was to control oil suppiles. All this talk about 'freedom and democracy' is eye wash. I have explained that in previous posts.

If they had any consideration for Iraqi people do you think they would have resorted to such force to overcome the weak, out of date and fleeing Iraqi army?
And why the use of 'precision bombing' that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people?
And why was Iraq used to test new US weapons that use nuclear waste?
Effect of that will affect the people for deacdes to come.

With no plan to maintain law and order after the illegal invasion of Iraq, is it surprising that Iraq is now infested with fanatics such as that you describe?
Bush want Iraq to be a battle ground, in the hope that 'terrorists' will stay away from US.

And don't forget that Sadam the dictator got into power with the help of US.
Judging by other such regimes that US continue to support, Sadam would still have been power, had he gone along being a puppet of the US.
 
"With no plan to maintain law and order after the illegal invasion of Iraq, is it surprising that Iraq is now infested with fanatics such as that you describe?
Bush want Iraq to be a battle ground, in the hope that 'terrorists' will stay away from US."

What! Come on you dont think that by creating fanatics Bush was trying to save America from terroist attack?

When you are in a war (rightly or wrongly) deadly force is used - and the USA has the biggest guns.
 
lAmBoY said:
"With no plan to maintain law and order after the illegal invasion of Iraq, is it surprising that Iraq is now infested with fanatics such as that you describe?
Bush want Iraq to be a battle ground, in the hope that 'terrorists' will stay away from US."

What! Come on you dont think that by creating fanatics Bush was trying to save America from terroist attack?

When you are in a war (rightly or wrongly) deadly force is used - and the USA has the biggest guns.
Click to expand...
I think what Bush meant was that if he can keep the 'terrorists' busy in Iraq then attempts at US will be less.

However, unnecessarily heavy handed and indiscriminate way US troops are conducting themselves has turned many friends of US in Iraq and world-wide into 'fanatics' and 'terrorists'.

If US was genuinely fighting a war to free a country and its people, excessive force and kind of actions I stated earlier, causing the kind of damage and genocide of innocent people would not have taken place.

Some estimates put death toll at 100,000. Most of it after the war officially ended.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top