Hi Phily that was an interesting post and raised some equally intersting points.
America's motivation is clear it's of course preserving the current power balance, which favours America. Between the years 1945-1990 The power of the soviet block was an effective counter balance to that, and the fact that Russia was a credible rival,initially industrially, but certainly military with it's huge stock of nuclear weaponry and it's space programme, meant American foreign policy had to be entirely concerned and centred around maintining that balance, which is why America was very happy to finance dictatorship providing they were usueful as pawns in cold war politics. Post 1990 the fall of the communist bloc has led to a situation where that counter balance has been removed and that check on Americas world dominance is gone, and now America is at undisputed top of the tree, and wishes to stay there, with the privilage and power that it brings. It's hardly anything sinister, this is human nature and their been great world powers, the roman empire, etc before. Of course America realises it's strength relies on it's underlying twin philosophies, freedom of the individual and capatalism. The soviet union after all wernt crushed by American military might it disintegrated from within because of the inherent weakness of the communist philosophy, it's own opposite, 'ultra idealist' political theory, unlike capitalism hopelessly incapatable with realities of human nature.
Now ,the main threat to America on the surface appears to be Islam and Islamic terrorism especially given the spectacular destruction of 9/11. But in reality it's not, it's china an area of the world, with a population five times that of U.S.A, massive nuclear power and an authoritarian communist government, which is rapidly growing economically, and stands to dwarf America in a way Russia almost but never quite did. Again America cannot get into a military fight with China, so it realises it's best interest lay in securing its economic interests, especially in the middle east.
So as for Americans true motivation...thats what I think to maintain american power, economically, militarily and geographically, and protect it from outside threats...selfish sure? at odds with the caring world policeman image it strives to put over? of course. But it is pretty much natural normal, what every powerful country in history ever has done,and every country in their position would also do. Until we get a one world government, which depends on a world where evreybody feels equal affinity and kinship with everyone else, zombies devoid of differences, then thats how the world works and always worked, groups of people with something in common bond together for protection, some do better than others, some groups sink to the bottom, some swim to the top, and those at the top make damn sure they stay there.
London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset
-
philylad13
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset
Hi Richas, firstly thank-you for your thought-provoking post, there are a couple of notes/ clarifications I would like to ask/ make:
"Between the years 1945-1990 The power of the soviet block was an effective counter balance to that, and the fact that Russia was a credible rival ... which is why America was very happy to finance dictatorship providing they were usueful as pawns in cold war politics".
Regarding the previous statement, do you believe that the US were justified in their policies towards Latin America in particular? I don't think you do, but I would just like to have some clarification. Also, as far as I know, US foreign policy has been largely the same since its creation, Genocide of the Native Americans, Slavery, etc. The Soviet Union was never a real or credible threat to the world that the US invisioned, you need an enemy, if you know what I mean, lol. After World War II, the US was the only Country that was still in one piece, and at that stage the richest, The Soviet Union and most of Europe was decimated, as I don't need to describe, all I am saying is that the threat of communism was the pretext, from when Lenin got into power, and continuing through to Stalin, the last thing that the Soviet Union was, was what Marx & Engels had described.
"It's hardly anything sinister, this is human nature and their been great world powers, the roman empire, etc before, Of course America realises it's strength relies on it's underlying twin philosophies, freedom of the individual and capatalism".
Another query, I personally don't think that being competitive is a natural human trait, it is an institutional factor, that world powers want to extend that power, but I personally don't believe that this is inherant in each person. Also in regard to the Freedom of the Individual, does that include the freedom to exploit one another? Just a question, I am not a Communist by any means, the part of Communism that US administrations has a problem with is that of collective ownership (i.e. when you want to have a share of their pie, they call you Commie, lol), it is worth having a look at the US policy towards Venezuela. Ideally, doing a comparative study between Nigeria & Zimbabwe, both violent and brutal dictatorships, the only differences being, one consolidates power to himself, the other consolidates power, kills unarmed protestors (on oil rigs), and gives ownership of the countries oil to multi-national corporations.
I am completely with you inregards to the threat of US hegemony being China, another violent & brutal dictatorship, but they have excellent economics policies, the only ones that have ever worked (in short, protectionist borders), here a couple of quotes from gregpalast.com to look at:
"If China is now a capitalist free-market state, then I'm Mariah Carey. China's economy has soared because it stubbornly refused the Free ? and Friedman-Market mumbo-jumbo that government should stop controlling, owning and regulating industry".
" China's announcement that it would raise the cost of the yuan covered over a more important notice that China would bar foreign control of its steel sector. China's leaders have built a powerhouse steel industry larger than ours by directing the funding, output, location and ownership of all factories. And rather than "freeing" the industry through opening their borders to foreign competition, the Chinese, for steel and every other product, have shut their borders tight to foreigners except as it suits China?s own needs".
" In an interview just before he won the Nobel Prize in economics, Joe Stiglitz explained to me that China's huge financial surge -- a stunning 9.5% jump in GDP this year -- began with the government's funding and nurturing rural cooperatives, fledgling industry protected behind high, high trade barriers".
" It is that China's government, by rejecting free-market fundamentalism, can easily conquer American markets where protection is now deemed pass?".
"Am I praising China? Forget about it. This is one evil dictatorship which jails union organizers and beats, shackles and tortures those who don't kowtow to the wishes of Chairman Rob -- Wal-Mart chief Robson Walton. (Funny how Mr. Bush never mentions the D-word, Democracy, to our Chinese suppliers)".
Thank you for your final comment, I am largely on your wavelength apart from the call for a one world Government, I think the concerntration and centralisation of power and wealth is the problem, a world Government could work and the best theorising I have read was made in the George Monbiot book: 'The Age of Consent', well worth a look. I think the UN is largely alright, apart from the Veto power (if Iraq had veto power, how many resolutions would they be in breach of, lol).
Finally, the world should (and probable would), be a world of peace, freedom, fraternity, etc, but the media institutions, give people a world-view of hate, misunderstanding and fear, and too much pointless distractions, celebrity-culture, etc.
Thats it for the rant today, if anybody has any response, they will be welcomely received, I have got a few links about Venezuela for people to check-out, both pro & con Chavez, let me know and I will post the addresses.
Thanks again.
Philylad13.
"Between the years 1945-1990 The power of the soviet block was an effective counter balance to that, and the fact that Russia was a credible rival ... which is why America was very happy to finance dictatorship providing they were usueful as pawns in cold war politics".
Regarding the previous statement, do you believe that the US were justified in their policies towards Latin America in particular? I don't think you do, but I would just like to have some clarification. Also, as far as I know, US foreign policy has been largely the same since its creation, Genocide of the Native Americans, Slavery, etc. The Soviet Union was never a real or credible threat to the world that the US invisioned, you need an enemy, if you know what I mean, lol. After World War II, the US was the only Country that was still in one piece, and at that stage the richest, The Soviet Union and most of Europe was decimated, as I don't need to describe, all I am saying is that the threat of communism was the pretext, from when Lenin got into power, and continuing through to Stalin, the last thing that the Soviet Union was, was what Marx & Engels had described.
"It's hardly anything sinister, this is human nature and their been great world powers, the roman empire, etc before, Of course America realises it's strength relies on it's underlying twin philosophies, freedom of the individual and capatalism".
Another query, I personally don't think that being competitive is a natural human trait, it is an institutional factor, that world powers want to extend that power, but I personally don't believe that this is inherant in each person. Also in regard to the Freedom of the Individual, does that include the freedom to exploit one another? Just a question, I am not a Communist by any means, the part of Communism that US administrations has a problem with is that of collective ownership (i.e. when you want to have a share of their pie, they call you Commie, lol), it is worth having a look at the US policy towards Venezuela. Ideally, doing a comparative study between Nigeria & Zimbabwe, both violent and brutal dictatorships, the only differences being, one consolidates power to himself, the other consolidates power, kills unarmed protestors (on oil rigs), and gives ownership of the countries oil to multi-national corporations.
I am completely with you inregards to the threat of US hegemony being China, another violent & brutal dictatorship, but they have excellent economics policies, the only ones that have ever worked (in short, protectionist borders), here a couple of quotes from gregpalast.com to look at:
"If China is now a capitalist free-market state, then I'm Mariah Carey. China's economy has soared because it stubbornly refused the Free ? and Friedman-Market mumbo-jumbo that government should stop controlling, owning and regulating industry".
" China's announcement that it would raise the cost of the yuan covered over a more important notice that China would bar foreign control of its steel sector. China's leaders have built a powerhouse steel industry larger than ours by directing the funding, output, location and ownership of all factories. And rather than "freeing" the industry through opening their borders to foreign competition, the Chinese, for steel and every other product, have shut their borders tight to foreigners except as it suits China?s own needs".
" In an interview just before he won the Nobel Prize in economics, Joe Stiglitz explained to me that China's huge financial surge -- a stunning 9.5% jump in GDP this year -- began with the government's funding and nurturing rural cooperatives, fledgling industry protected behind high, high trade barriers".
" It is that China's government, by rejecting free-market fundamentalism, can easily conquer American markets where protection is now deemed pass?".
"Am I praising China? Forget about it. This is one evil dictatorship which jails union organizers and beats, shackles and tortures those who don't kowtow to the wishes of Chairman Rob -- Wal-Mart chief Robson Walton. (Funny how Mr. Bush never mentions the D-word, Democracy, to our Chinese suppliers)".
Thank you for your final comment, I am largely on your wavelength apart from the call for a one world Government, I think the concerntration and centralisation of power and wealth is the problem, a world Government could work and the best theorising I have read was made in the George Monbiot book: 'The Age of Consent', well worth a look. I think the UN is largely alright, apart from the Veto power (if Iraq had veto power, how many resolutions would they be in breach of, lol).
Finally, the world should (and probable would), be a world of peace, freedom, fraternity, etc, but the media institutions, give people a world-view of hate, misunderstanding and fear, and too much pointless distractions, celebrity-culture, etc.
Thats it for the rant today, if anybody has any response, they will be welcomely received, I have got a few links about Venezuela for people to check-out, both pro & con Chavez, let me know and I will post the addresses.
Thanks again.
Philylad13.
Re: London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset
"I personally don't think that being competitive is a natural human trait"
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly all acheivement is the product of struggle, and enviromental influence is therefore the greatest factor to that. The more comfortable a person or group of people the less inclined are they to achieve anything or progress, ie why add new skills if you don't need them? Consequently I also think this is why as someone else quoted on this, 'white anglo saxon'people are currently and have been for some time in a position of world hegemony. All human beings evolved from the same source around 200,000 years ago in East Africa, and its only relatively recently in the last 80,000 years that the non african people of the world have left the cradle of evolution and branched out to the four corners of the globe. In short I feel those who left Africa, have not only been blessed with the skills genetically learnt as a species in Africa, but have also been blessed by being exposed to a variety of different enviroments since leaving, those in the north temperatures to the extreme opposite of those in Africa. Theres also the theory that man only evolved past the ape due to a natural disaster which decimated the vegative food supply in East Africa, leading the earliest precursors to homo sapiens to develop apposable thumbs to catch fish by hand from fresh water lakes...something which not only in itself improved us as a species due to the nature of fish oils, but also led to the development of hand held weapons, and eventually the use of animals as primary food source. So all in all yes I'd say we are primarily motivated by the demands of the enviroment, rathe then any in built competitiveness.
That said surely competitiveness would have been a massive advantage especially as larger amounts of people started competing for the same supplies, or the 'best supplies' for themselves and there families? Maybe this is therefore in our nature. I can certainly remeber being competitive as a a child and I know my young uns, girls not boys, are very competive always wanting what the others got not wanting to be outdone. I honestly don't think you can entirely say that's all false and socaillay conditioned into us. If anything it's the opposite thats drilled into us, the love thy neighbour doctrines of religion, or even the equality driven doctrines of communism and to a lesser extent democracy? All very noble, but at the end of the day hopefull idealist, and have they ever really worked anywhere yet? Has 'Utopia' ever really existed outside fiction? Which is my basic point people need to be very careful in making out America is acting in a way any different than any other nation ever has. In many ways they act better than alot, people seemed shocked America doesn't act 100% selflessy and morally at all times, but at the end of the day doesn't this say something in itself about the essential nobleness and goodness of America, that anyone even expects such unrealistic ideals in the first place, and we are so all so dissapointed when they fall short? Surely they are simply just victims of the high ideals they have set themselves? At the end of the day yes they do fall short of them, but the fact they strive so much harder than most towards them, despite a checkered history, a sometimes savage past, and an imperfect present, they still remain the embodiement of freedom, and thats why so many people flock there in hundreds from the East, and other opressive world governments.
Maybe, maybe not. Certainly all acheivement is the product of struggle, and enviromental influence is therefore the greatest factor to that. The more comfortable a person or group of people the less inclined are they to achieve anything or progress, ie why add new skills if you don't need them? Consequently I also think this is why as someone else quoted on this, 'white anglo saxon'people are currently and have been for some time in a position of world hegemony. All human beings evolved from the same source around 200,000 years ago in East Africa, and its only relatively recently in the last 80,000 years that the non african people of the world have left the cradle of evolution and branched out to the four corners of the globe. In short I feel those who left Africa, have not only been blessed with the skills genetically learnt as a species in Africa, but have also been blessed by being exposed to a variety of different enviroments since leaving, those in the north temperatures to the extreme opposite of those in Africa. Theres also the theory that man only evolved past the ape due to a natural disaster which decimated the vegative food supply in East Africa, leading the earliest precursors to homo sapiens to develop apposable thumbs to catch fish by hand from fresh water lakes...something which not only in itself improved us as a species due to the nature of fish oils, but also led to the development of hand held weapons, and eventually the use of animals as primary food source. So all in all yes I'd say we are primarily motivated by the demands of the enviroment, rathe then any in built competitiveness.
That said surely competitiveness would have been a massive advantage especially as larger amounts of people started competing for the same supplies, or the 'best supplies' for themselves and there families? Maybe this is therefore in our nature. I can certainly remeber being competitive as a a child and I know my young uns, girls not boys, are very competive always wanting what the others got not wanting to be outdone. I honestly don't think you can entirely say that's all false and socaillay conditioned into us. If anything it's the opposite thats drilled into us, the love thy neighbour doctrines of religion, or even the equality driven doctrines of communism and to a lesser extent democracy? All very noble, but at the end of the day hopefull idealist, and have they ever really worked anywhere yet? Has 'Utopia' ever really existed outside fiction? Which is my basic point people need to be very careful in making out America is acting in a way any different than any other nation ever has. In many ways they act better than alot, people seemed shocked America doesn't act 100% selflessy and morally at all times, but at the end of the day doesn't this say something in itself about the essential nobleness and goodness of America, that anyone even expects such unrealistic ideals in the first place, and we are so all so dissapointed when they fall short? Surely they are simply just victims of the high ideals they have set themselves? At the end of the day yes they do fall short of them, but the fact they strive so much harder than most towards them, despite a checkered history, a sometimes savage past, and an imperfect present, they still remain the embodiement of freedom, and thats why so many people flock there in hundreds from the East, and other opressive world governments.
-
philylad13
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset
Hi, thank you again for your comments, granted most achievement is the product of struggle, but surely people working together would be a major part of this, wandering off into the unknown, won't provide much reward, lol. If people get to the stage where they are all content, I cannot wait, and why add new skills if you don't need them, probably something new to sell, or to make technology so easy to use, you can have an unskilled workforce so you can fire them willy-nilly, lol. I personally don't know enough to comment on the evolution from ape, but your argument sounds the most plausible. Finally, possibly the reason people started moving from East Africa was due to lack of resources, and instead of competing they went after new places and working together, just a thought.
In terms of soceity today, all that is presented via the Media & culture in general is that of consuming, buying and competitiveness, the last thing they want to advertise is contentment and conserving, there is no money-making in people not buying stuff, lol. I do believe that a lot is determined by genetics, height, hair colour stuff like that, but in terms of the perception put in childrens' heads that is largely a blank slate in my opinion (from my studies, there is not a lot you can do with people's genetic makeup, so what else is there to try to mould, from social & environmental stimuli), it just depends upon which perceptions they see to choose from, here might be a useful quote, I think either from the Quran of somewhere in Iran, that said, 'the world was handed to us as a mirror, by God, which smashed and gives a 1000 different reflections', it's probably not an exact quote but you get the gist of it.
The last thing religion is about is the Love thy Neighbour stuff, in my opinion, it is, 'do as I say or you will go to Hell, etc'. The Love thy Neighbour and the equality driven doctrines are idealistic and they only exist in fiction, but I refuse to accept, that at the current time, this is the best that the world can be, I believe the quote in Voltaire's Candide is about right, 'a man told me, who has since been hanged, that the world is otherwise perfect, except for some dark shadows' these shadows I believe are the concerntration and centralisation of power and wealth, and the shouts of freedom, democracy, etc, are just said to get people on the bandwagon, 'we are fighting for the Iraqis freedom, what can be wrong with that?' a brief look into foreign policy will show that freeing people is the least of their concerns.
Finally, I know that the US administrations (past & present) are doing the same as any of the previous imperialistic/ empire nations, and if I was around in the times of the British, French or Dutch empires I would condemn them as much as I condemn the ones happening currently. Also, can you give me some examples where the US administration has acted selflessly or morally (if they have any beliefs they would act the same way in each instance, as I believe they do, just not in the pursuit of freedom, by a long shot)?
The last thing that I am going to do is accept that the current imperialist power the US + UK is anything but the tyranny that they (collectively) are. Just because people move from one country to America, doesn't mean a thing to me, just going from one country where you are silenced by violence, to one where you are silenced by fear, or are distracted by the spectacle doesn't make America anything special, the only time there were advances were during the Labor and civil rights movements, which the Government crushed whenever & whereever it could.
Thank you for your time, any exchange of ideas are well received.
Phil.
In terms of soceity today, all that is presented via the Media & culture in general is that of consuming, buying and competitiveness, the last thing they want to advertise is contentment and conserving, there is no money-making in people not buying stuff, lol. I do believe that a lot is determined by genetics, height, hair colour stuff like that, but in terms of the perception put in childrens' heads that is largely a blank slate in my opinion (from my studies, there is not a lot you can do with people's genetic makeup, so what else is there to try to mould, from social & environmental stimuli), it just depends upon which perceptions they see to choose from, here might be a useful quote, I think either from the Quran of somewhere in Iran, that said, 'the world was handed to us as a mirror, by God, which smashed and gives a 1000 different reflections', it's probably not an exact quote but you get the gist of it.
The last thing religion is about is the Love thy Neighbour stuff, in my opinion, it is, 'do as I say or you will go to Hell, etc'. The Love thy Neighbour and the equality driven doctrines are idealistic and they only exist in fiction, but I refuse to accept, that at the current time, this is the best that the world can be, I believe the quote in Voltaire's Candide is about right, 'a man told me, who has since been hanged, that the world is otherwise perfect, except for some dark shadows' these shadows I believe are the concerntration and centralisation of power and wealth, and the shouts of freedom, democracy, etc, are just said to get people on the bandwagon, 'we are fighting for the Iraqis freedom, what can be wrong with that?' a brief look into foreign policy will show that freeing people is the least of their concerns.
Finally, I know that the US administrations (past & present) are doing the same as any of the previous imperialistic/ empire nations, and if I was around in the times of the British, French or Dutch empires I would condemn them as much as I condemn the ones happening currently. Also, can you give me some examples where the US administration has acted selflessly or morally (if they have any beliefs they would act the same way in each instance, as I believe they do, just not in the pursuit of freedom, by a long shot)?
The last thing that I am going to do is accept that the current imperialist power the US + UK is anything but the tyranny that they (collectively) are. Just because people move from one country to America, doesn't mean a thing to me, just going from one country where you are silenced by violence, to one where you are silenced by fear, or are distracted by the spectacle doesn't make America anything special, the only time there were advances were during the Labor and civil rights movements, which the Government crushed whenever & whereever it could.
Thank you for your time, any exchange of ideas are well received.
Phil.
Re: London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset
Well most countries that have had expansionist policies in the past, including our own, have not primarily been concerned with high ideals and freedom of democracy, but purely tyranny and dominance. Not criticising you and I'm sure it wasn't deliberate, but I also find it somewhat misleading your list only included recent expansionists and European nations. The first empires were Middle Eastern or North African, and were much more tyranical than current western ones. You mention the slave trade, well of course slavery was also something that did not originate with Europeans but in the Middle East and far east. The Africans themselves built the slave trade centuries before Europeans came anywhere near Africa, mostly conducted by Arabs and North AFricans, and most of the slaves taken to America were sold into slavery quite willing by Africans themselves, and many African Americans have been shocked to find this so great is the 'demonisation' of America and the deliberate rewriting of history for a political agenda aimed against the dominant white western European society.
Now fair enough America is a nation conceived in liberty and built on slavery, a contradiction from the start. But it must be remembered the West didn't invent slavery, and were by no means the sole, or even primary participent in it. The west however IS the power that has done the best to stamp it out, Britian the first nation to ban it on humantirian grounds, many brave American giving their lives alongside African american comrades in the civil war to end it in the name of human liberty. Does that not count as morailtiy and high ideals? In contrast look to the East, those who invented slavery? What did they do. Go to India and see how black African 'Siddis' are treated there still in ways at least as vile as any attrocities practised in North America in the 16th or 17th centuries. Go to Japan where politicans speak openly of Africans as 'monkeys' and inferior beings, who are not allowed to even settle there, and face discrimination if they visit. Talking of Japan, this is a country which acted with a savagery appaling to it's prisoners of war, which invaded it's neighbours slautering tens of millions, which has also decimated and marginalised it's own aboriginal population to a far greater degree than either America or Australia. Given they are one of the worlds top econimic powers, and a country built around blatant ethnocentricism and highly intolerent to any foreing or multi cultaral presecence in their land, shouldn't we be far more worried about them then America?
America is as I said at best a victim of it's own high ideals. Promoting yourself as a sanctuary of freedom and fairness, when your nation slaughtered it's original inhabitants, built its economic wealth on participation in the African slave trade, and like all other nations primaraily defends its own position and interests over all else, is bound to lead to critisism. But at same time I'd much rather a world run by America than say Japan, china, India, the Islamic states, whos own attitudes to freedom fairness and equality are virtually non existant and often stuck in backward medieivil doctrines of nationalisytic, race based brutality. Contrast that America which often does act morally, Clinton saved thousands of muslims in Bosnia, and act idealistically rather tan selfleslly, or at least strives to do so, I know which banner I'd prefer to live under, and to be fair most people agree, that as I said is why people flock to the states from opressive regimes, instead of flocking to say Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, Japan, China..many countries so self centred and moralles they woudn't let them in in the first place.
Now fair enough America is a nation conceived in liberty and built on slavery, a contradiction from the start. But it must be remembered the West didn't invent slavery, and were by no means the sole, or even primary participent in it. The west however IS the power that has done the best to stamp it out, Britian the first nation to ban it on humantirian grounds, many brave American giving their lives alongside African american comrades in the civil war to end it in the name of human liberty. Does that not count as morailtiy and high ideals? In contrast look to the East, those who invented slavery? What did they do. Go to India and see how black African 'Siddis' are treated there still in ways at least as vile as any attrocities practised in North America in the 16th or 17th centuries. Go to Japan where politicans speak openly of Africans as 'monkeys' and inferior beings, who are not allowed to even settle there, and face discrimination if they visit. Talking of Japan, this is a country which acted with a savagery appaling to it's prisoners of war, which invaded it's neighbours slautering tens of millions, which has also decimated and marginalised it's own aboriginal population to a far greater degree than either America or Australia. Given they are one of the worlds top econimic powers, and a country built around blatant ethnocentricism and highly intolerent to any foreing or multi cultaral presecence in their land, shouldn't we be far more worried about them then America?
America is as I said at best a victim of it's own high ideals. Promoting yourself as a sanctuary of freedom and fairness, when your nation slaughtered it's original inhabitants, built its economic wealth on participation in the African slave trade, and like all other nations primaraily defends its own position and interests over all else, is bound to lead to critisism. But at same time I'd much rather a world run by America than say Japan, china, India, the Islamic states, whos own attitudes to freedom fairness and equality are virtually non existant and often stuck in backward medieivil doctrines of nationalisytic, race based brutality. Contrast that America which often does act morally, Clinton saved thousands of muslims in Bosnia, and act idealistically rather tan selfleslly, or at least strives to do so, I know which banner I'd prefer to live under, and to be fair most people agree, that as I said is why people flock to the states from opressive regimes, instead of flocking to say Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, Japan, China..many countries so self centred and moralles they woudn't let them in in the first place.
-
philylad13
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset
Thank you again, I know there have been tyrannies before and ones that have been far worse than how the US is behaving at present, and the US is behaving like any other imperialist power, but the last thing I am going to do, is cheer them on and say that Freedom is really the agenda. There was a very important leak of a Department of Defence annual report (or something like that) when Bush version 1 was in charge saying (essentially), 'we can only go to War against defenseless countries, which have been build-up to the level that our security is threatened, and have to win deciseivly and quickly, otherwise any support we have builtup will quickly vanish'. This is not any act of caring by the administration, it is now a fact that they can only go after small countries, because support will quickly dwindle, and it is because of the popular movements, and not from any sense of spreading Freedom, ideals are not what the US is interested in, it is just mindless rhetoric/ propaganda, for people that have never looked into what US foreign policy previously has done.
Also, what is your opinion regarding the Iraq war, from looking at the US & UKs histories of creating & putting the Ba'ist party in charge in the mid-fifties. There was King Faesal (another violent & brutal dictator), the countries oil, 95% of the profit went to BP, there was a revolution and the guys that taken charge wanted to nationalist the Oil industry, then the US got involved, and helping Saddam to assassinate the new leader (Saddam screwed up and shot himself in the leg). This continued until the Iranian revolution in 1979 (a little note the US also overthrew their parliamentary democracy and reinstalled the Shah after the last guy wanted to renationalise the oil industry, notice a pattern), where the US & UK sold Saddam billions of dollars of weapons, and notice when Saddam stands on trial soon, the US & UK were supporting him throughout the crimes against humanity, maybe Reagan, Bush & Thatcher should stand trial as well (if Reagan was still alive). Then of course there was the sanctions policy, which killed upto 1/2 million Iraqi children, where the head of the UN part quit in discust, especially when the reason for the sanctions was to stop Saddam from getting WMDs, when the US, UK & France sold them in the first place. Then there were the lies about Saddam having WMDs, even when Colin Powell & Condeleza Rice, both said in about March-April 2001, that he had nothing, as did the weapons inspectors.
Finally in terms of saying that you would prefer a world ran by America, I take that you admit that the US is in charge and we must do as it says, and that we are not free. Also, in terms of saying that having America in charge is better than Japan or China, I do agree with you, but it kind of like saying, 'I know that Labour are bunch of wankers, but they at least better than the Tories, so I will join the Labour party', things have improved since the Tories were chucked out, and that is exactly the point, politicians try to push people as far as they can before they say, 'no more', the only time that the politicians will give us anything is if there power is threatened, just sitting by accepting that everything won't be perfect and we shouldn't try, will guarantee their power, and the misery of the majority of the population.
A reply regarding your views on the Iraq war would be most welcome, from Richas or anyone on this forum, I would hate to thing that it is just the two of us rabbiting on, lol.
Phil.
Also, what is your opinion regarding the Iraq war, from looking at the US & UKs histories of creating & putting the Ba'ist party in charge in the mid-fifties. There was King Faesal (another violent & brutal dictator), the countries oil, 95% of the profit went to BP, there was a revolution and the guys that taken charge wanted to nationalist the Oil industry, then the US got involved, and helping Saddam to assassinate the new leader (Saddam screwed up and shot himself in the leg). This continued until the Iranian revolution in 1979 (a little note the US also overthrew their parliamentary democracy and reinstalled the Shah after the last guy wanted to renationalise the oil industry, notice a pattern), where the US & UK sold Saddam billions of dollars of weapons, and notice when Saddam stands on trial soon, the US & UK were supporting him throughout the crimes against humanity, maybe Reagan, Bush & Thatcher should stand trial as well (if Reagan was still alive). Then of course there was the sanctions policy, which killed upto 1/2 million Iraqi children, where the head of the UN part quit in discust, especially when the reason for the sanctions was to stop Saddam from getting WMDs, when the US, UK & France sold them in the first place. Then there were the lies about Saddam having WMDs, even when Colin Powell & Condeleza Rice, both said in about March-April 2001, that he had nothing, as did the weapons inspectors.
Finally in terms of saying that you would prefer a world ran by America, I take that you admit that the US is in charge and we must do as it says, and that we are not free. Also, in terms of saying that having America in charge is better than Japan or China, I do agree with you, but it kind of like saying, 'I know that Labour are bunch of wankers, but they at least better than the Tories, so I will join the Labour party', things have improved since the Tories were chucked out, and that is exactly the point, politicians try to push people as far as they can before they say, 'no more', the only time that the politicians will give us anything is if there power is threatened, just sitting by accepting that everything won't be perfect and we shouldn't try, will guarantee their power, and the misery of the majority of the population.
A reply regarding your views on the Iraq war would be most welcome, from Richas or anyone on this forum, I would hate to thing that it is just the two of us rabbiting on, lol.
Phil.
Re: London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset
"Finally in terms of saying that you would prefer a world ran by America, I take that you admit that the US is in charge and we must do as it says, and that we are not free"
I'd say America is in a position of world hegemony, though not neccesarily 'in charge'..as of yet. I don't think America really has ever been an imperialist state with ambitions to expand outside it's own borders, in fact quite the opposite, it;s always been notably isolationist. America has until very recent times been happy to be left on it's own if the rest of the world is willing to leave it. All it's military action in the cold war period etc, vietnam was not part of any desire to dominate and colonise the world, much as the British and Europeans had done in the centuries before, but more from the very real fear of the communist threat. Communism WAS expansionist, especially trotskyite style post war communism, as it recognises no borders and is not bound in nationalism, as Stalinist communism was pre 1953. The sheer amount of countries that became communist between 1945-1980 shows this, and considering China and U.S.S.R togther have a nuclear strength land mass and population which far outstripped the U.S.A, that threat must have been terrorfying for U.S.A, and it was a real threat that could have wiped out life alotogther see the Cuban Missle crisis. Also the American philosophy may not be expansionist and imperialistic but it's economy does depend on contact links with the outside supplies, (and markets to sell it goods), especially of course for oil and petrolium, most situated in countries directly bordering the communist block and therefore at risk of coming under it's influence. Were that to happen, the communist block could have effectively blockaded American exports and crippled American economy bringing the countries to it's knees. It's that bleak situation that lead to virtually all American military involvememnt outside it's own borders before the end of the Cold War. The good thing about the Cold War I guess though was the certainy of it, American opinion was pretty unanimous isolationism, Americas long prefered way of existing, was not an option whatsoever. The real problem has come post the Cold war. With the threat of agreesive expansionist communism removed (assuming China of course remains as ardently isolationist as it has always done for millenia) many felt America could now revert to it's pre world war II attitude and retire from the world scene and leave it to it's own affairs, while an opposing camp felt America should retain it's pro active approach to world affairs, and reitring would leave an open door policy to the next threat to it's well being. To put it bluntly, a sleeping giant is a vulnerable one, and America could not be seen to be sleeping....Ironically though both George Bush snr and Bill Clinton were of this view, George Bush junior, who has proved controversially the most proactive and aggressive in foreign policy of all was not. He was actually an isolationist, and made it clear especially in the middle east he wanted nothing to do with their affairs as they were none of the business of the Untied states (unbelievable I know..but on record look it up!). The total turn around of course came purely because of Septmeber 11th. There's very strong evidence that this attack was down to Bush's move away from a proactive role in foreign affairs back to isolationism. This was very unpopular in the Islamic world purely because Palestine is no match for the State of Israel, and the prescence of America, much like in Bosnia, did at least act as a counter balance reigning in the worse excesses of Israel. In the 9 months preceeding 9/11 with George Bush in power unintersted in the middle East, Israel quadrupled it's actions against palestinians, and increased it;s ferocity, and America was seen as having allowed this to happen by abandoning the middle east and the Palestinainas, giving Israel a free reign. I firmly believe 9/11 was intended to pull America back into world politics, especially in middle east, and has been totally succesful in that respect, perhaps more so than the terrorist ever imagined.
As for Iraq well, Hussein was a monster there's no dispute about that. I would have supported removing him the moment he gassed thousands of civilians in Kurdistan in 88, but I guess at that point it was still cold war time so western powers needed him as an ally. He was certainly in dispute of enough U.N resolutions post 1990 to support removing him at any time with military action. Which is the real point not whether America was right to do it, but why didn't the U.N? What good is an organistion such as the U.N if it fails to act to enforce it's own resolutions, a bit like a policeman who wont arrest suspects. It's in effect proved itself totally defunct in doing so in the same way the League of Nations did before when it failed to act against Japan, Italy and Germany pre 1939. It's finished, every rogue country now knows it's a tootheless tiger and can be safely ignored as a total irrlevence. On the other hand America has proved it will at leasr act and has 'teeth' of course this is sad for the world as a whole because the U.N represents and is answerable to the entire world, is balanced, where the U,S isn't it's a nation state primarily answerable and responsible to itself and it's citizens.
So I do therefore think that removal of Saddam Hussein was justified. I think anyone with a brain to be fair does, and the Iraqi people themselves are gladest to see him go. But lets be honest it's not the morality of the exrecise thats in question its the motives of America in acting, and acting at that particular time. Most people think it was about oil, it may well have been, but I doubt it because the immediate effect has been far less oil coming out of iraq not more...and if it was oil the invasion could have been done at any time post 1991 and would have been.. why wait till 2003? The truth is America looked vulnerable post 9/11, and that scared them, as it would any stae, in fact it scared the entire western world. Though the attack on Afghanistan removed the Taliban it did not remove bin laden, making America still appear weak and vulnerable. Iraq on the other hand the enemy was not hiding in caves, he was siting in a palace, a palace from which on 9/11 when the civilised world was in shock and mourining 3,500 dethas, when even in the arab world tributes and conolences poured in, including from the palestinaina leader Arafat, Hussein was going on T.V publiclly praisin the bombers and alligning himself with the terrorists and the jihad, warning of the imminent end of America. This from man whod been defying America for years and was widely hailed as a hero in the arab world and amonst islamic extremists as proof muslims were superior to Americans, braver, and could defy them nd remain in power. He was also a man who'd been caught in the past trying to make nuclear weapons, and certainly did have some horrific chemical weapons, as stated above weapons hed willingly used against women and children. Given he was muslim, hated America, supported terrorist publically, had trained terrorist on his soil and had a track record like that...is it any wonder he was target no.2, after bin laden....and is it really suprising America chose to remove him?
As for your final point, do I admit we are not free? Well what is freedom, if its freedom from state control then thats not been a reality for any society for 7000 years. If you mean do I feel Britian has effectively been colonised by America and is under her control, no I don't feel that. I do feel we were as free to be involved or uninvolved in Iraq as France, Germany and every other European power. I just feel we recognise we are as much at threat from outside expansionists as America, and our future does depend on American strength, because the days of Britian as the major world power have been eclipsed and ended. All sides in British party politics recognise that. I personally don't think we can be part of a united 'Europe' as Europe has never been united, it's one of the most ethnically, religiously and politically diverse regions on Earth. Many different languages, and many strong nations, with long histories, and long rivalries which wont dissapear overnight if ever. America on the other hand is a country we share history with, common laguage, culture, and have always stood side by side when it counts. Do youth in Britian watch American films and programmes every day, listen to American music, eat Americna foods...or French ones? Our links are with America., of course we could remain independant but we are bot strongest when we stand toegther, and since we face the same threats, isn;t it only right we should and do...I think so.
I'd say America is in a position of world hegemony, though not neccesarily 'in charge'..as of yet. I don't think America really has ever been an imperialist state with ambitions to expand outside it's own borders, in fact quite the opposite, it;s always been notably isolationist. America has until very recent times been happy to be left on it's own if the rest of the world is willing to leave it. All it's military action in the cold war period etc, vietnam was not part of any desire to dominate and colonise the world, much as the British and Europeans had done in the centuries before, but more from the very real fear of the communist threat. Communism WAS expansionist, especially trotskyite style post war communism, as it recognises no borders and is not bound in nationalism, as Stalinist communism was pre 1953. The sheer amount of countries that became communist between 1945-1980 shows this, and considering China and U.S.S.R togther have a nuclear strength land mass and population which far outstripped the U.S.A, that threat must have been terrorfying for U.S.A, and it was a real threat that could have wiped out life alotogther see the Cuban Missle crisis. Also the American philosophy may not be expansionist and imperialistic but it's economy does depend on contact links with the outside supplies, (and markets to sell it goods), especially of course for oil and petrolium, most situated in countries directly bordering the communist block and therefore at risk of coming under it's influence. Were that to happen, the communist block could have effectively blockaded American exports and crippled American economy bringing the countries to it's knees. It's that bleak situation that lead to virtually all American military involvememnt outside it's own borders before the end of the Cold War. The good thing about the Cold War I guess though was the certainy of it, American opinion was pretty unanimous isolationism, Americas long prefered way of existing, was not an option whatsoever. The real problem has come post the Cold war. With the threat of agreesive expansionist communism removed (assuming China of course remains as ardently isolationist as it has always done for millenia) many felt America could now revert to it's pre world war II attitude and retire from the world scene and leave it to it's own affairs, while an opposing camp felt America should retain it's pro active approach to world affairs, and reitring would leave an open door policy to the next threat to it's well being. To put it bluntly, a sleeping giant is a vulnerable one, and America could not be seen to be sleeping....Ironically though both George Bush snr and Bill Clinton were of this view, George Bush junior, who has proved controversially the most proactive and aggressive in foreign policy of all was not. He was actually an isolationist, and made it clear especially in the middle east he wanted nothing to do with their affairs as they were none of the business of the Untied states (unbelievable I know..but on record look it up!). The total turn around of course came purely because of Septmeber 11th. There's very strong evidence that this attack was down to Bush's move away from a proactive role in foreign affairs back to isolationism. This was very unpopular in the Islamic world purely because Palestine is no match for the State of Israel, and the prescence of America, much like in Bosnia, did at least act as a counter balance reigning in the worse excesses of Israel. In the 9 months preceeding 9/11 with George Bush in power unintersted in the middle East, Israel quadrupled it's actions against palestinians, and increased it;s ferocity, and America was seen as having allowed this to happen by abandoning the middle east and the Palestinainas, giving Israel a free reign. I firmly believe 9/11 was intended to pull America back into world politics, especially in middle east, and has been totally succesful in that respect, perhaps more so than the terrorist ever imagined.
As for Iraq well, Hussein was a monster there's no dispute about that. I would have supported removing him the moment he gassed thousands of civilians in Kurdistan in 88, but I guess at that point it was still cold war time so western powers needed him as an ally. He was certainly in dispute of enough U.N resolutions post 1990 to support removing him at any time with military action. Which is the real point not whether America was right to do it, but why didn't the U.N? What good is an organistion such as the U.N if it fails to act to enforce it's own resolutions, a bit like a policeman who wont arrest suspects. It's in effect proved itself totally defunct in doing so in the same way the League of Nations did before when it failed to act against Japan, Italy and Germany pre 1939. It's finished, every rogue country now knows it's a tootheless tiger and can be safely ignored as a total irrlevence. On the other hand America has proved it will at leasr act and has 'teeth' of course this is sad for the world as a whole because the U.N represents and is answerable to the entire world, is balanced, where the U,S isn't it's a nation state primarily answerable and responsible to itself and it's citizens.
So I do therefore think that removal of Saddam Hussein was justified. I think anyone with a brain to be fair does, and the Iraqi people themselves are gladest to see him go. But lets be honest it's not the morality of the exrecise thats in question its the motives of America in acting, and acting at that particular time. Most people think it was about oil, it may well have been, but I doubt it because the immediate effect has been far less oil coming out of iraq not more...and if it was oil the invasion could have been done at any time post 1991 and would have been.. why wait till 2003? The truth is America looked vulnerable post 9/11, and that scared them, as it would any stae, in fact it scared the entire western world. Though the attack on Afghanistan removed the Taliban it did not remove bin laden, making America still appear weak and vulnerable. Iraq on the other hand the enemy was not hiding in caves, he was siting in a palace, a palace from which on 9/11 when the civilised world was in shock and mourining 3,500 dethas, when even in the arab world tributes and conolences poured in, including from the palestinaina leader Arafat, Hussein was going on T.V publiclly praisin the bombers and alligning himself with the terrorists and the jihad, warning of the imminent end of America. This from man whod been defying America for years and was widely hailed as a hero in the arab world and amonst islamic extremists as proof muslims were superior to Americans, braver, and could defy them nd remain in power. He was also a man who'd been caught in the past trying to make nuclear weapons, and certainly did have some horrific chemical weapons, as stated above weapons hed willingly used against women and children. Given he was muslim, hated America, supported terrorist publically, had trained terrorist on his soil and had a track record like that...is it any wonder he was target no.2, after bin laden....and is it really suprising America chose to remove him?
As for your final point, do I admit we are not free? Well what is freedom, if its freedom from state control then thats not been a reality for any society for 7000 years. If you mean do I feel Britian has effectively been colonised by America and is under her control, no I don't feel that. I do feel we were as free to be involved or uninvolved in Iraq as France, Germany and every other European power. I just feel we recognise we are as much at threat from outside expansionists as America, and our future does depend on American strength, because the days of Britian as the major world power have been eclipsed and ended. All sides in British party politics recognise that. I personally don't think we can be part of a united 'Europe' as Europe has never been united, it's one of the most ethnically, religiously and politically diverse regions on Earth. Many different languages, and many strong nations, with long histories, and long rivalries which wont dissapear overnight if ever. America on the other hand is a country we share history with, common laguage, culture, and have always stood side by side when it counts. Do youth in Britian watch American films and programmes every day, listen to American music, eat Americna foods...or French ones? Our links are with America., of course we could remain independant but we are bot strongest when we stand toegther, and since we face the same threats, isn;t it only right we should and do...I think so.
Re: London Bombings Mastermind is MI6 Asset
Also re the oil issue, I'm interested are you opposed to us getting involved in wars over this? Our security, high standard of living and life expectency are all purely down to our econmic strength. Shouldn't this be our no 1 priority? Or is it just the dishonesty about this you dislike... the fact the U.S lies about it and dresses it up as morality? sugar coats the bitter pill of reality for it's good 'christian' inhabitants, rather than be blunt and honest and tell them they arnt blessed by god..but that life is survival of the fittest...and that they have all they have because they took it by force at and protect it with the same means? Interesting one that...