Clark speaks out on Iraq propaganda

[lurkette]

From fair.org - Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments:
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

June 20, 2003

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.

If you'd like to encourage media outlets to investigate this story, please see FAIR's Media Contact list: http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html


------

What's up with this? Why aren't people jumping all over this? People in the US are saying it doesn't matter what the motivations or evidence or justifications were for attacking Iraq, but it sure as hell does!!! These actions are being taken in our names and that the American public is willfully allowing itself to be manipulated and misled is just disturbing! 2/3 of people think that we have found WMD in Iraq. Why? Because GWB said so on TV! (see today's, 6/23's The Connection on NPR). A lot of people believe that Saddam Hussein was to blame for 9/11, or that the hijackers were mostly Iraqis (NONE of them were!). WTF is going on here?!? To quote Bob Dole, "where is the outrage?"

[The_Dude]

one word. wolfowitz.

i'll add more to this once i return from class

[Kadath]

"More liberal propaganda."
How does a Bush supporter respond to this, after all, except to deny its validity?

[JumpinJesus]

Whether you believe the media is too left or too right, one thing I believe: the media never fails to be mediocre at best.

Indeed, why was this exchange barely reported? A number of reasons.

May I suggest picking up a book titled "You Are Being Lied To" which contains many well-researched essays into media manipulations of news. You may be surprised by what you read.

For me, the lack of any news of essence on any of the big 5 (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox) is no longer surprising.

[geep]

So one man arrives at an opinion and we're supposed to believe him and not anyone else? Why should we choose to believe Gen. Clark? Or any media for that matter, left or right leaning. If 70% of America says "Who cares if we find WMDs" who exactly are we justifying what to? Are we just witch-hunting here, or just trying to win the next election? I personally don't rely on media outlets to make up my mind about an issue for me. Just put your shit out there and let me make up my own mind. I doubt the media is covering for GWB, however. The bigger sale would be in sensationalizing this to the max. Fairness and accuracy in reporting. Kind of like military intelligence isn't it?

[lurkette]

Originally posted by geep
If 70% of America says "Who cares if we find WMDs" who exactly are we justifying what to?

/me splutters in disbelief

Apologies if I'm taking you out of context, but this is why I try to stay out of the TP boards.

When you're talking about waging war on a sovereign country WITHOUT PROVOCATION I do believe that we have a higher authority to justify our actions to than the fucking uninformed American people (see my thread about 66% of people being unable to name ONE! ONE! supreme court justice)!!! We are part of a larger entity than our own nation, and should be held accountable for our actions - indeed, we WILL be held accountable for our actions by a bunch of fucking fanatics who see this as one more step towards American hegemony.

And it is a big fat deal if we find that our leaders lied to us in order to justify such a military action that puts OUR SOLDIERS in harm's way, that puts Americans in danger of further terrorist action, and that puts Iraqi citizens in danger. I think we have a duty to question the motivations of a government that blatantly lies to its citizens and then hands out favors to its fnancial backers.

This just makes me so sad - we no longer expect honesty from our government, we no longer even demand accountability. As long as it doesn't affect us, then who cares? Are we so jaded and so nationalistic and egocentric that we really don't care what our government does in our names, as long as we have enough weapons to bully everyone else into letting us have our way?!?

[Kadath]

Originally posted by geep
So one man arrives at an opinion and we're supposed to believe him and not anyone else? Why should we choose to believe Gen. Clark? Or any media for that matter, left or right leaning. If 70% of America says "Who cares if we find WMDs" who exactly are we justifying what to? Are we just witch-hunting here, or just trying to win the next election? I personally don't rely on media outlets to make up my mind about an issue for me. Just put your shit out there and let me make up my own mind. I doubt the media is covering for GWB, however. The bigger sale would be in sensationalizing this to the max. Fairness and accuracy in reporting. Kind of like military intelligence isn't it?

So pretty much just believe what we want to believe, then find media that supports that. Gotcha.
If 70% of America says "Who cares if we find WMDs" then we are in sad shape. If that's what we're going to do as a country, make up a reason to go to war and then dismiss the reason after the war is nominally over, I wish we could just stop all the bullshit and say we're going to war for whatever reason, like oil, or to help the Iraqi people, or revenge, or to help stabilize the region, or petty power struggles, or just the general will of the people. Hell, that's not a bad idea. Why not have a poll of the nation and decide if we want to go war and if so, on whom?

[The_Dude]

you ask why should we believe gen clark?

what has he to gain from lying?? he probably has more to lose by coming out.

look @ gwb. what does he have to gain by lying?? popularity, maybe even the next election (sure hope not)

[KillerYoda]

Brought to you from the brilliant minds behind Freedom fries and Liberty cabbage.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by lurkette
/me splutters in disbelief

When you're talking about waging war on a sovereign country WITHOUT PROVOCATION I do believe that we have a higher authority to justify our actions to than the fucking uninformed American people (see my thread about 66% of people being unable to name ONE! ONE! supreme court justice)!!! We are part of a larger entity than our own nation, and should be held accountable for our actions - indeed, we WILL be held accountable for our actions by a bunch of fucking fanatics who see this as one more step towards American hegemony.

as if 12 years of ignoring UN resolutions isn't provocation enough. Or the months of deception after 1441 was issued with a final warning... Everyone knew that Iraq was a problem, and everyone could have told you that Bush wanted the problem gone.

He was right to do it too:
- with Saddam gone, the sanctions could be lifted. This would remove another anti-US argument in the Muslim world.
- US troops could be withdraw from Saudi-Arabia, another anti-US argument gone.
- the US sends a clear signal to other would-be aggressors and supporters of terrorism: stop your actions, or face the consequences.
- one might get a stable democracy in the area, which might spread out.
- Saddam no longer sends large piles of cash to the families of suicide-bombers in Israel, potentially stopping quite a few of them.
- Saddam and his threat of using or developing WMDs is gone, and so is a lot of the instability associated with that.
- The US is no longer dependent on the Saudi-Arabian oil, and can tell those extremist bastards to stuff it.
- If the Iraqi people were to finally have a good government with respect for it's people, the fanatics won't have anything to hold the US accountable *for*. But they'll hate the US anyway, no matter what you do, so it's not much of an argument.
- And finally, with Iraq under US "control", one could also attack Iran, Syria, and potentially Saudi-Arabia. This ability in itself is probably enough to persuade their leaders to change their ways. If not... war is always an option.

Reasons enough.

(Oh, and who cares if the US people cannot name ONE!, ONE! supreme court justice. It's not like they have a need for such knowledge in their day-to-day lives. I don't know the names of most of the members of the Dutch administration, nor the names of any of the equivalent judges. That hardly matters to my daily life. If I need to know, I'll find out.)

[CrotchrocketSlm]

This whole Iraq debacle is either going to make or break Bush's chances for reelection. Whether either happens has a lot to do with if the Democrats can get their act together, and if Bush alienates voters like his father ended up doing with his reelection campaigne (family values my ass!!!!)

Dragon: what do you say about the growing contingent of Iraqis that see the US occupation as yet another government thrust upon them without their say? Doesn't this defeat the secondary stated intention of "Iraqi Freedom "? Also, wouldn't it just be smarter to get off our oil dependancy, rather than that be a secondary influence driving our foriegn policy? Also, doesn't it bother you that we basically made a case to bring war to another country under false pretenses?

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
as if 12 years of ignoring UN resolutions isn't provocation enough. Or the months of deception after 1441 was issued with a final warning... Everyone knew that Iraq was a problem, and everyone could have told you that Bush wanted the problem gone.

He was right to do it too:
- with Saddam gone, the sanctions could be lifted. This would remove another anti-US argument in the Muslim world.
- US troops could be withdraw from Saudi-Arabia, another anti-US argument gone.
- the US sends a clear signal to other would-be aggressors and supporters of terrorism: stop your actions, or face the consequences.
- one might get a stable democracy in the area, which might spread out.
- Saddam no longer sends large piles of cash to the families of suicide-bombers in Israel, potentially stopping quite a few of them.
- Saddam and his threat of using or developing WMDs is gone, and so is a lot of the instability associated with that.
- The US is no longer dependent on the Saudi-Arabian oil, and can tell those extremist bastards to stuff it.
- If the Iraqi people were to finally have a good government with respect for it's people, the fanatics won't have anything to hold the US accountable *for*. But they'll hate the US anyway, no matter what you do, so it's not much of an argument.
- And finally, with Iraq under US "control", one could also attack Iran, Syria, and potentially Saudi-Arabia. This ability in itself is probably enough to persuade their leaders to change their ways. If not... war is always an option.

Reasons enough.

(Oh, and who cares if the US people cannot name ONE!, ONE! supreme court justice. It's not like they have a need for such knowledge in their day-to-day lives. I don't know the names of most of the members of the Dutch administration, nor the names of any of the equivalent judges. That hardly matters to my daily life. If I need to know, I'll find out.)

The ends do not justify the means. Sorry you feel that way.

[lurkette]

Originally posted by Dragonlich

Reasons enough.

Not for me - not to justify essentially lying to the American people and behaving as though we are the only country who has any say in what goes on on this planet. This is a dangerous game we are playing, one in which every move is rife with the possibility for unintended consequences, and dangerous precedents.

(Oh, and who cares if the US people cannot name ONE!, ONE! supreme court justice. It's not like they have a need for such knowledge in their day-to-day lives.

But that's exactly the problem - people think that if it doesn't matter to their day-to-day lives, what's the point in knowing it? The point is that the SC is an integral part of our government and people ought to at least have some idea who is shaping the course of American law, who has the ability to rule on election laws, who has the ability to set precedents that *will* affect our day-to-day lives: think about this affirmative action case, or if RvW ever does make it to the SC level again, or the sodomy case from Texas. Those rulings will have consequences!

That two thirds of the populace can't name even one of them, and don't care, bespeaks a complete abdication of any sense of responsibility for our own government. It's not that they can't name them that bugs me exactly, it's just that it's a symptom of the underlying apathy and short-sightedness that seems to have taken over our country. At that point people are, IMO, no longer citizens and are simply sheep, grazing on whatever is fed to them as long as it doesn't disrupt their "day-to-day lives." We all have a duty to be informed.

[geep]

You know it's kind of sad the way people lean which ever way the wind blows. For years I have listened to people criticize the United States for propping up evil dictators in foreign countries. Finally the U.S. does something about one of them and the very same people that were criticizing The U.S. supporting them say "Why the hell did you do that?" IMO you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[XenuHubbard]

Originally posted by geep
You know it's kind of sad the way people lean which ever way the wind blows. For years I have listened to people criticize the United States for propping up evil dictators in foreign countries. Finally the U.S. does something about one of them and the very same people that were criticizing The U.S. supporting them say "Why the hell did you do that?" IMO you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The main issue is not about Saddam Hussein. The issue is that the current US government can invade whoever they like and make up the reasons afterwards. The data collected before the war didn't amount to anything of substance, and still the US government help on to it and used it as a reason to go in.
All this adds up to that the US doesn't need support, facts OR valid reasons to invade sovereign countries.

Some people react to this in a negative fashion.

[CrotchrocketSlm]

I've always thought people complained about the US's foreign policy simply because it is constantly using military solutions when diplomatic ones would do. This covers both the invasion of Iraq, and supporting military dictators such as Saddam and the Shah.

[The_Dude]

this attack has set the precedent for a "pre-emptive strike"

bush used those words too.


i can see a lot of countries that could follow an example such as this. we're forgetting the fact that the rest of the world looks up to the US

[geep]

It just seems to me that Bush said he was going into Iraq to remove Saddam from power. He believed that it was prudent to do this because of his proximity to WMD's and terrorist organizations. I never heard Bush or Powell or anyone else say that the purpose of going into Iraq was to find WMD's. Maybe it was a pre-emptive strike- don't we have the right to defend ourselves?

Dude,

If there are dictatorships in this world where people have no voice in their government, where the citizens of a country are tortured indescriminately and brutally, where death at the hands of their government reaches genocidal proportions, shuoldn't we help save these people? Don't you have any compassion for the children who die in labor camps? Who will stop this if we don't-France or Germany? What IS the answer to their salvation?
I've asked you this before and have not gotten a reply- should we go after these ruthless dictators and remove them from their evil thrones? Should we use our military might to right the atrocities that these despots commit on their own people?
If not then what is the answer? Do we stand idle and do nothing but watch MILLIONS of others die too?

[The_Dude]

er.... does that we're going to attack n.korea, saudi arabia, kuwait, UAE, iran....i can go on......

[geep]

Do they qualify under the description outlined in my previous post?

[CrotchrocketSlm]

They do geep, as does much of Africa, a good chunk of Asia, damn near everyone we've helped out in South America, damn near everyone we haven't helped out in South America, some of Eastern Europe...

Face it, it'll take a lot more than preemptive invasions to solve the world's problems. Hell, those invasions might do a lot to add to those problems (look at the mess Afghanistan is, the parts of Israel which were originally Palestinian, and the mess that Iraq is turning into).

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by geep
Maybe it was a pre-emptive strike- don't we have the right to defend ourselves?

Defend by attacking? Like germany has done with Poland or Russia? cool idea...

Originally posted by geep
If there are dictatorships in this world where people have no voice in their government, where the citizens of a country are tortured indescriminately and brutally, where death at the hands of their government reaches genocidal proportions, shuoldn't we help save these people?

When do you attack Congo? North Korea? etc.
BTW: are you able to install a democratic goverment in Iraq? If yes, please start soon.

Originally posted by geep
What IS the answer to their salvation?

the question if we should attack or not can not be answered alone by a single nation. never!

BTW: Go here and read the guidlines for a justified attack i pointed out there:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=12075

Originally posted by geep
Do we stand idle and do nothing but watch MILLIONS of others die too?

you/we have done it for years, and we still doing it.
Belive it or not, the attack on the Iraq had nothing to do with "liberating people" or save them from sure death. We are not that noble.

[geep]

Originally posted by Pacifier
Defend by attacking? Like germany has done with Poland or Russia? cool idea...

Germany did not attack Poland in a preemptive strike, but merely for pure conquest. Hitler wanted to rule all of Europe- to succeed where Napoleon had failed. The US did not attack Iraq to make it the 51st state. I still fail to see why the link between Saddam and terrorists is not being acknowledged. If Saddam was not a direct party to 9/11 so what? In our own criminal code we aknowledge that asstisting a criminal to commit a crime even passively is a crime in itself. Why is it so hard to make that same case against Saddam Hussein? Clearly he assisted terrorists and encouraged their plans for crimes against humanity. If 9/11 wasn't an attack-what was it? Terrorism is a crime against humanity and must be stopped. It has no geographical characteristics so we must fight it wherever we find it IN OUR OWN DEFENSE. The United States has never taken a country by force to increase its own size or to gain territory although it has had many opportunities to do so. The comparison of the two acts is like comparing apples and oranges.

Originally posted by Pacifier
When do you attack Congo? North Korea? etc.
BTW: are you able to install a democratic goverment in Iraq? If yes, please start soon.

I suppose the same was said about Japan after WWII. BTW:When did we become you? The question I asked of The_Dude was what do WE do about these dictatorships.

Originally posted by Pacifier
the question if we should attack or not can not be answered alone by a single nation. never!

Apparently it cannot be answered by multiple nations, either.

Originally posted by Pacifier
you/we have done it for years, and we still doing it.
Belive it or not, the attack on the Iraq had nothing to do with "liberating people" or save them from sure death. We are not that noble.

Apparently not. Neither is anyone else for that matter. Yet, many people are passionate about the situations in the world when it comes to backing their political philosophy. The US is bad for supporting dictators. The US is bad for deposing dicatators. It's all just people stroking themselves politically. I'm not into political or philosophical mesmerization on the subject. What I would like to see is everyone finally own up to the fact that they do not have a viable solution either and then just shut the hell up until they can contribute to the solution. It's easy to criticize a figure in power for what he does when you can't have done the same thing yourself. George Bush is given a lot of attention for what happened in Iraq by people who cannot answer a simple question- What would you have done that could have been any better? I've been listening for sometime and I still don't have the answer. How could you have gotten better results? Further diplomacy-perhaps another 13 years of hardship to the Iraqi people? Ignoring the situation until an Islamic Fundamentalist detonates a nuclear device in downtown Tel Aviv? Forget the politcal prisoners dying and destined for mass graves in the middle of the desert? What's the deal- I haven't heard a good plan yet, especially one that involves NO FURTHER BLOODSHED.

[Nad Adam]

Originally posted by geep
Germany did not attack Poland in a preemptive strike, but merely for pure conquest. Hitler wanted to rule all of Europe- to succeed where Napoleon had failed. The US did not attack Iraq to make it the 51st state. I still fail to see why the link between Saddam and terrorists is not being acknowledged. If Saddam was not a direct party to 9/11 so what? In our own criminal code we aknowledge that asstisting a criminal to commit a crime even passively is a crime in itself. Why is it so hard to make that same case against Saddam Hussein? Clearly he assisted terrorists and encouraged their plans for crimes against humanity. If 9/11 wasn't an attack-what was it? Terrorism is a crime against humanity and must be stopped. It has no geographical characteristics so we must fight it wherever we find it IN OUR OWN DEFENSE. The United States has never taken a country by force to increase its own size or to gain territory although it has had many opportunities to do so. The comparison of the two acts is like comparing apples and oranges.

As far as I see it Poland, weak as it was at the time, was a much more potent threat to Germany than Iraq was to the US.

I suppose the same was said about Japan after WWII. BTW:When did we become you? The question I asked of The_Dude was what do WE do about these dictatorships.

You suppose?

Anyway, I think Pacifier is from Germany so from his point of viewyou is correct. The Internet exists outside of the US for your information.

Apparently it cannot be answered by multiple nations, either.

It can be answerd, the answer was "No".

Apparently not. Neither is anyone else for that matter. Yet, many people are passionate about the situations in the world when it comes to backing their political philosophy. The US is bad for supporting dictators. The US is bad for deposing dicatators. It's all just people stroking themselves politically. I'm not into political or philosophical mesmerization on the subject. What I would like to see is everyone finally own up to the fact that they do not have a viable solution either and then just shut the hell up until they can contribute to the solution. It's easy to criticize a figure in power for what he does when you can't have done the same thing yourself. George Bush is given a lot of attention for what happened in Iraq by people who cannot answer a simple question- What would you have done that could have been any better? I've been listening for sometime and I still don't have the answer. How could you have gotten better results? Further diplomacy-perhaps another 13 years of hardship to the Iraqi people? Ignoring the situation until an Islamic Fundamentalist detonates a nuclear device in downtown Tel Aviv? Forget the politcal prisoners dying and destined for mass graves in the middle of the desert? What's the deal- I haven't heard a good plan yet, especially one that involves NO FURTHER BLOODSHED.

If there where any WMD they are more likly to be in the hands of terrorists and used now since they haven't been found by the coalition. But I don't think you need to worry about this since there probably were none and you've been lied to.

You are saying that the people of Iraq is in a better situation today than they where before and I think you are right. But would the US public accept a war of this scale if there where no threat to themselves?

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by geep
Germany did not attack Poland in a preemptive strike, but merely for pure conquest.

Yes, but we made it look like we were attacked.
So the Third Reich could label the invasion as "defence"

Originally posted by geep
If Saddam was not a direct party to 9/11 so what? In our own criminal code we aknowledge that asstisting a criminal to commit a crime even passively is a crime in itself.

Erm, Saddam has no connetions to the al kaida how can he be responsible for their crimes?
I guess you have no conections to the Mafia, but with your logic you are guilty for their crimes.

Originally posted by geep
It has no geographical characteristics so we must fight it wherever we find it IN OUR OWN DEFENSE.

full scale war is not a way to act against terrorism.
4000+ dead afghan civillians are not a way to defend terrorism, the root of terror is hate. Do you think by killing civilians you will make this hate disappear? do you think the people will now love you? you bombed them to shreds, where unable to install a goverment, helped the old warlords back into power and you really belive that the people down there will thank you?

Like I said in an other thread, if you go to war think about how you would like to end before you start it! I do not see how the USA has done that, they still seem to think that a shitload of bombs will solve everything.

Originally posted by geep
Forget the politcal prisoners dying and destined for mass graves in the middle of the desert?

we have forgotten so many graves in some odd deserts, do you want a war against all those nations? should I list you a few?

A good step to begin with would have been to be honest, to say
"hey, we want to stop saddam from killing his own people, we have a plan to remove him AND a plan to install a democratic goverment"
but you used faked, or 12 year old reports. you send you soldiers to war for a lie. you whole nation was tricked into this. Like someone said: 30% of the americans belive that you have found WMDs, they believe a lie.

[The_Dude]

geep, US did in a way colonize the phillipines. but that's too old and irrelevant today.

there are a lot of countries in conflict today, they can all use the "pre-emptive strike" excuse to escalate the conflict into full scale war (india and pakistan is an ex)

[geep]

Originally posted by Pacifier
full scale war is not a way to act against terrorism.
4000+ dead afghan civillians are not a way to defend terrorism, the root of terror is hate. Do you think by killing civilians you will make this hate disappear? do you think the people will now love you? you bombed them to shreds, where unable to install a goverment, helped the old warlords back into power and you really belive that the people down there will thank you?

Let's start by saying I'm not a warmonger. I have spent many days of my life protesting war and violence. I do not advocate going into countries with an army to kill civilians. I think 3,000+ dead civilians on 9/11 had nothing to do with an army, but it did have a lot to do with hate. This hate was like a fire and people like Saddam Hussein fanned the flames. Europeans hate Americans, Muslims hate Americans, Africans hate Americans- it just seems the world in general hates Americans. And who do the Americans hate? Themselves it would seem, if you read the newspapers and watch the nightly news. With all this hate in the world it just seems to me, that your argument is moot, in the sense that it really doesn't matter what we as Americans do or don't do because we will be hated anyway. The argument to not invade other countries goes something to the effect that if we don't use our armies, then the world will hate us less. But that didn't stop the hate before, America became a target before it sent any armies anywhere, and it will not stop it in the future. If people everywhere are to live together in peace, then why do they kill? Maybe peace is not the goal. If it is not, then fooling ourselves into believing in peace becomes the lie. If a mans only goal is my death and my only goal is to live, then I cannot appease him, there is no compromise. If the goal becomes kill or be killed, will I die voluntarily? Would you? The basic fact is that people must choose to hate. Once you make that choice, to blame the one you hate for the consequences of that hatred is a fools paradise. I don't want anyone to thank me, and I personally don't care if they hate me or not. I will not fall into that trap, the supreme lie, I choose not to hate.

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by geep
Europeans hate Americans, Muslims hate Americans, Africans hate Americans- it just seems the world in general hates Americans.

Please, stop this "everyone hates us" whining, that is simply not true.

Originally posted by geep
The argument to not invade other countries goes something to the effect that if we don't use our armies, then the world will hate us less. But that didn't stop the hate before, America became a target before it sent any armies anywhere, and it will not stop it in the future.

Yeah right the armies are not the only reason people look towards america with distrust. It is the arrogance and the "american way"(to be correct is has to be the western way) to life on the cost of others. This arrogance towards the 3rd world contries is nothing new, america showed before that they are not the masters of "careful foreign policy". Now they are like a raging bull that does what it wants to do, without listening to their allies (they listening as long as we say what they want to hear), without thinking about consequences.
America has, and most americans here in this forum amplify this feeling in me, a problem to see the numerous grey shades in the world. it is my way or the highway, no compromise. Hate me or love me, nothing in between, just black and white

[geep]

Originally posted by Pacifier
Please, stop this "everyone hates us" whining, that is simply not true.

It is what Americans believe. Lead us to believe something different. Truth, many times has a lot more to do with perspective than actuality. Truth is relative.

Originally posted by Pacifier
Yeah right the armies are not the only reason people look towards america with distrust. It is the arrogance and the "american way"(to be correct is has to be the western way) to life on the cost of others. This arrogance towards the 3rd world contries is nothing new, america showed before that they are not the masters of "careful foreign policy". Now they are like a raging bull that does what it wants to do, without listening to their allies (they listening as long as we say what they want to hear), without thinking about consequences.
America has, and most americans here in this forum amplify this feeling in me, a problem to see the numerous grey shades in the world. it is my way or the highway, no compromise. Hate me or love me, nothing in between, just black and white

Not all americans are arrogant. Please do not hold me responsible for your opinions. Presumption is part of arrogance, too. I am sorry you feel that way towards Americans, perhaps, if you'll let me, I can change your mind. I certainly do not feel superior to anyone here, let alone abroad. I did not understand you're shades of grey concept with regards to my statement about terrorists only wanting my death. How can I compromise with that? Could I be dead on Monday, Wednesday and Friday but alive on the off days? Sometimes the decisions are simply "nothing in between". BTW: I didn't ask you to love me nor did I demand that you see things my way.

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by geep
Not all americans are arrogant. Please do not hold me responsible for your opinions.

I not menat a single american, what I menat was the arrogance of the american foreign policy

[smooth]

Pacifier,

I don't know why you try to debate with people like this. US citizens are myopic--one of the disadvantages of being a baby culture in world affairs.

Look, why else would geep claim that we were "a target before [we] sent any armies anywhere?" We have military personnel around the world; and have had them there for decades.

We use economic structures to impose our ideology on foreign cultures and follow them up with military force, if needed.

We have devastated traditional modes of production and living in accordance with our standards of "progress."

Then, people sit back in their chairs and exclaim how shocked they are that other people "hate" us--as if the entire world is irrational.

Look how much good we have done; yet, look how people irrationally hate us. What does your culture know about the world anyway, Pacifier, it's only been around, what, a few thousand years?

edit:
"MUGER ADDIB, Iraq, June 24 — On a desolate panorama of hardtack desert along the Syrian border here, the United States military has cordoned off part of this village, evicted five families whose houses were bombed six days ago and refused to say what is going on.

Two villagers were killed, a young woman, Hakima Khalil, and her infant daughter, Maha, in an aerial assault that began just after 1 a.m. Thursday.

At dusk today, a convoy of more than 20 military transports arrived with earth-moving equipment and pulled into the circle of Bradley fighting vehicles that guard every approach to this sandy knoll littered with broken masonry and bomb-damaged homes.

"Stop right there," said Specialist Arthur Myers of New Jersey. "If you take a picture, I will break your camera."

--Veil of Secrecy Around Village Hit in U.S. Raid

[geep]

Originally posted by Pacifier
I not menat a single american, what I menat was the arrogance of the american foreign policy

That's a statement that I DO agree with. I can only give you my opinon on it. While it is sometimes NOT the way I would do things were I in their shoes, I can understand that they have been charged to do what Government was MEANT to do- that is provide for the common defense of it's citizens. Like people everywhere else in this world, I want my family and myself to be safe from harm. I believe that is what they are trying to accomplish, however crude they are at doing so, and will continue to believe that until I BELIEVE it is no longer the case. I will make up my own mind on this matter, regardless of what anyone elses opinions would lead me to believe. Do I think my government lies to me? No, I don't. Do I think they tell the truth? Again, NO I don't. But for that matter I do not believe anybody else with an opinion is telling me the truth, either. That includes maybe your Government, too. Truth is an elusive creature and comes in many shades. The data we have to make up our minds with is somewhere in between the truth and a lie. I do the best that I can.

[geep]

Originally posted by smooth
I don't know why you try to debate with people like this. US citizens are myopic--one of the disadvantages of being a baby culture in world affairs.

So my opinion should be better then, since I can just about gaurantee I'm older than you.

Originally posted by smooth
Look, why else would geep claim that we were "a target before [we] sent any armies anywhere?" We have military personnel around the world; and have had them there for decades..

Hardly an occupying army.

Originally posted by smooth
We use economic structures to impose our ideology on foreign cultures and follow them up with military force, if needed...

Japan and Europe are excellent examples of this.

Originally posted by smooth
We have devastated traditional modes of production and living in accordance with our standards of "progress."

Didn't the Industrial Revolution, Capitalism and Socialism all start somewhere else? (along with many other "isms")

Originally posted by smooth
Then, people sit back in their chairs and exclaim how shocked they are that other people "hate" us--as if the entire world is irrational.

Look how much good we have done; yet, look how people irrationally hate us. What does your culture know about the world anyway, Pacifier, it's only been around, what, a few thousand years?

Time does not make something better, just older. Realistically doesn't "getting along" take two?

[The_Dude]

yes, 3k+ innocent civilians died in the 911 attack, but we going out and killing 4k innocent civilians is not the solution. this eye for an eye crap never worked an never will (look @ isreal and palestine).

first we go after the taliban, then iraq, is the whole world on our hitlist?