Lotharr

Hey guys... Not really glad to see things change yet they stay the same. If you think that the troubles are over in Iraq your just wrong. If you think the insurgency is over youre very wrong. Indeed, Wolfowitz himself recently worried in a congressional hearing of what a build up of expectations could mean unfulfilled. Guerrilla fighters dont attack strength but still did some damage on election day. Many Kurds thought they were also voting on founding an independent state. The Shia are appointing Al-Sistani to lead them. Im no expert but a lap dog of America is something I dont think America will find. Put aside the reason for war were supposed to be defensive..total BS.and focus on the fact that now the previously oppressed are now taking a dominate political role. A democracy founded on such precarious foundations is an extremely fragile proposition. Take a look at http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...2688749,00.html You think troubles are over think again.

quote: and for you to piss off. This was only directed at you specifically if you cannot separate Zionism and Judaism (but I think you can)....it was for those who dont know the difference or dont want to. quote: Hamilton is saying that the real motivition for going to war is "that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies I would agree with that. Another reason the world should be uniting against unilateral American power. For America the world is small place indeed. quote: Hamilton is saying that commercial interests, as well as territorial or power interests have started wars, but the overriding factor has been the nearness of nations to each other. He feared that the states would fall into the same problem of warring with each other unless a constitution could be put in place that makes common interests more important than competing interests. This is an interesting point, and when the reality is that America has been capable of rapid international force projection and works through a strong global trade infrastructure the second point becomes less significant than the first. Our imperialistic streak took off after the BS war of 1812 and has since morphed from traditional colonial acquisition to that of neo colonial exploitation via TNC's....or "free trade"..not just us. So I favor the second part of the argument... quote: Americans are evil and imperialistic. Americans are complacent, jingoistic, heavily regulated and bombarded by scare tactics...in my opinion these conditions are generated by the private sector...the rich people who's feet you love groveling around. There is also a streak of Christian fundamentalism that would have made our founding fathers sick, involved in high level policy making and presents another force who would love to see this country punish the wicked bla bla bla. And yes the more you examine why wars happen you come back to the economy. Who else is to blame? Who when there is no other power of set of laws to determine why things happen the way they do....the problems of the world are too much for one nation to bear alone....as we will see. quote: Where were the rallies when Clinton bombed the hell out of Kosovo Good point....Ill be there next time. Clinton was bastard but he worked multilaterally and didnt seek to polarize western society by attempting to ostracize dissenting nations. quote: when he bombed afghanistan, where were you then? He also bombed a "chemical factory" that was only making aspirin for miserable people. Why do you always lump me in with the democrats? Their behavior is just a poor as the republican's in my opinion.....if not worse because they claim to be "for the people" when really most are a bunch of corporate whores..... quote: What about when Iraq took Kuwait That violated international law....for real...but where were you when we reestablished the Kuwaiti dictator? Where are you now that Afghanistan is the largest heroin supplier and slipping back into tribal fundamentalism? Where are you on the fact that Israel continues to colonize the west bank and Gaza strip? Where are you? We know where you aresee no evil hear no evil. quote: but if the US tries to get involved with a republican president at the helm, the SH%^ hits the fan. Yeah it had nothing to do with the fact this situation needed a great deal of finesse and all we got was a this sorry lesson on how not to conduct international affairs. quote: Interesting, very interesting, where were you then Lotharr, what were your feelings then, or was it OK, when a Democrat was in charge? Alright smart guy you show me where our founding fathers claimed waging wars of aggression were justified....I don't think you can cause I don't think they would ever support this kind of operation or global set up....your such a hypocrite when you pander to republican nonsense under "constitutional" pretense....but maybe you would like the idea of only white males being able to vote and reinstituting slavery....finding some more people of darker complexion to heroically slaughterwell we know that last part is trueget off your righteousness trip and deal with reality....or I'll send my friend lenney who is an ex-green beret, special forces, ranger, delta force sniper, and agent orange operator to find you....moo ha ha...

quote: Albany County Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser agreed to have the case adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, meaning the charge would be dropped if Ritter stayed out of trouble for six months, and the case was subsequently sealed, the newspaper said. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76196,00.html This demonstrates that the state's case was weak as crap....the mans wife went to court with him.....COIN-TEL-PRO.....If I had just spoken out against a "popular war" I wouldn't want to go before a jury either....rock and hard place. But I don't know the man so all I can do is try to reflect on a vague notion of innocence before corporate media castration...or something like that.... quote: I'm not going to look for it. You can if you want, but I think I showed you enough evidence. I doubt you'd believe it anyway, unless you heard it with your own ears. I wouldn't accept the notion of anyone from Iraq accepting Saddam as a good leader for their nation (well maybe a Sunni...but not an Americanized one).....however, that does not mean I wouldn't see the merit of an argument that tried to a deter a war where innocent people would be the vast majority of casualties and the "savior" would be the forces of Zionist oppression. And no, for the ignorant, who cannot separate Zionism from Judaism this is not an anti-Semitic statement....just putting some context on the actions of the potentially misunderstood Iraqi American....of course I always reserve the right to be wrongand for you to piss off. quote: What were you quoting FP 6....not in the exact context, but still I feel it is extremely telling....in a global and regional strategic analysis of morals and motivations.

quote: Fact is that once the inspectors left, Sadam would not let them back in. Ok hook me up....where is this documented? quote: And what is this crap about Iraq not being ready for democracy, what kind of arrogance is that? I never said that....I think the question is how can an American style democracy function in a country with three strongly nationalistic forces all striving for independence or control of the government. Also, how is democracy supposed to "flower" under American governors who are deeply resented by two out of three ethnic groups? These are the legitimate questions that were not debated and still hang unanswered. quote: He failed miserably in seminary school and BARELY got his degree, so you want to compare I didn't realize that these two had so much in common....guess that's why I feel both make for terrible leaders. quote: Oh, and if you said that about PRESIDENT Bush in front of Denney, you would be hoping that he would kill you quick. quote: Japan to turn over to a democracy in a little over 2 years Your not seriously comparing these two radically different situations are you? quote: There's more, but that should be sufficient. Please provide it. If you read the article everything is alleged and he was at worst only charged. There were no convictions, only vindication. He is an enemy of the state and subject to COINTELPRO operations. But really we cannot prove any of this. We do know that this all started with the weekly standard that is most certainly a right wing publication. So if you can do better than speculation with actual convictions or hard evidence I would agree. This was in there too: quote: What's more, Ritter's conversion apparently began before he ever met al-Khafaji. In 1999 he published Endgame, a book that railed against the Clinton administration, labeled the sanctions against Iraq "evil," and suggested that the international community could do business with Saddam. It was only after Endgame was published that Ritter says he was approached by al-Khafaji. It's possible that Ritter took money from al-Khafaji, or some other ally or agent of Saddam, before writing Endgame. But there's no evidence of that http://slate.msn.com/id/2071502/ Who knows if what he said is correct....all I know is he was there and he is an unpopular type of patriot and really the only way to deal with what he said is to smear him.....when we find the huge stock of WMD we will know he was wrong....if we don't I think Ritter will be off everyone's radar as this administration frantically atttemps damage control. It is odd that no third parties are working with US forces to search for WMD.... I would also like to see real evidence against Skakir al-Khafaji.... quote: We are sending the wrong message people, is there anyone else realizing this More and more everyday. Fun with Hamilton: quote: Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.

quote: After Hussein kicked out UNSCOM Don't rewrite history. quote: One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were "kicked out" or "expelled" (Extra! Update, 10/02). The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" (Washington Post, 12/18/98). http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html quote: Ritter was approached by Iraqi officials to make a pro-Iraqi documentary in exchange for $250,000. He did so, and has been an Iraqi supporter ever since Hook me up with some documented facts.... quote: Yes. After the first arrest, he pled out for counseling. It never made the press because "Scott" is his middle name and the records were using his first name. He got caught a second time, and then a local NY TV station reviewed its records and found the story of the first arrest. Hook me up..... quote: You go get Degree from both Yale and Harvard Then come back and open your mouth. Well with my 3.0 I couldn't....however, if I had a 2.0 and Bush at the end of my name I could..... quote: This BS about Bush being dumb is out of line, immature, FALSE, disrespectful and unwarranted Look if the guy could command the English language above an eighth grade level I wouldn't hold this opinion.....don't claim this belief is held by liberals alone.....I've talked to plenty of embarrassed conservatives who have privately reached the same conclusion.

Man I love this show....more people watch it than FOX quote: comment | Posted April 17, 2003 Daily Show Does Bush by Susan J. Douglas Print this article E-mail this article Write to the editors The TV anchor was taken aback. Unlike the other network news anchors or the New York Times, he considered the disclosure that the Bush Administration had granted a major contract to Halliburton for postwar construction of oil wells in Iraq to be a scandalous lead story. He noted that hearing the news "does make me feel like the government just took a [bleep] on my chest." He then turned to his "senior" senior correspondent, Stephen Colbert, and asked what he made of the Halliburton deal. "Keeping in mind that Halliburton was a major contributor to the Republican campaign and that Vice President Cheney is its former CEO, this move by the government is extremely..." and then Colbert paused. "Unpleasant?" offered the anchor, "nauseating?" Colbert said that nothing quite captured it; what came closest was a German word he translated to mean "to throw one's hands up in mute horror and in this state of paralyzing dread to realize that those you need to trust most have instead confirmed your darkest fears." But Colbert said even that "seems a little namby-pamby in this context." Welcome to The Daily Show on Comedy Central, the medically prescribed antidote to CNN and Fox. Hosted by Jon Stewart since 1999, this parody of the news is dedicated to expressing utter incredulity over what Team Bush tries to get away with week in and week out. As of this spring, a weekly compilation of the show airs on CNN International, which boasts 160 million viewers. The show has won kudos in Australia, Canada and Britain, where one reporter wrote, "It is difficult to believe that they have actually let him on air." Stewart's on-air persona is that of the outraged individual who, comparing official pronouncements with his own basic common sense, simply cannot believe what he--and all of us--are expected to swallow. The approach of Stewart and his "reporters" is not to attack Bush policies as ideologically problematic; instead, they expose them as utterly absurd, as nonsense, deranged. When Rumsfeld issued his warning to Syria and Iran that the United States would hold them accountable if they interfered in any way in the invasion of Iraq, Stewart asked in barely restrained mock horror, "Do you see what he just did there? He's starting another war." Central to the show's sensibilities, and to its success, is Stewart's insistence that the news generated by Team Bush be treated on its own terms, not as news at all but as fatuous PR, ludicrously out of touch with reality. Because Stewart is a comic and not a politician, one would expect that he would skewer Al Gore, were he President, with comparable glee. He has, for example, blasted Tom Daschle's criticism of the war by reminding viewers that Daschle voted for the war. Indeed, Stewart told the London Guardian that the show is neither Democratic nor Republican but simply seeks to represent the "politically disappointed." His special target is spin: "We're out to stop that political trend of repeating things again and again until people are forced to believe them." Nonetheless, he has consistently opposed the war, even in his more sober interviews with guests like the prowar comic and Saturday Night Live alum Dennis Miller. Unlike other late-night comedy shows, which safely go for cheap laughs by dissing Saddam, The Daily Show has recaptured the pre-9/11 sensibilities that prevailed about Team Bush before the attacks encased him in Teflon. The studio audience howls and applauds in delight at Stewart's irreverence. Its core audience (73 percent) is the coveted 18-to-49 demographic. And here's some cheering news: More people (4 million) tune in to The Daily Show in a given week than watched Fox news at the height of the war (3.3 million). Stewart has a keen eye for Bush's hypocrisies. After Baghdad had fallen, he showed excerpts of Bush's television address to the Iraqi people. "You are a good and gifted people," the President intoned unctuously. "You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers." Stewart, sticking out a cocked forefinger as if he were chucking a toddler under the chin, cooed in a high voice, "Yes you do, yes you do, you're a very good country, ga, ga, ga, goo goo." As part of his assault on the triumph of right-wing PR, Stewart reserves special derision for Fox News. After making fun of Iraqi state TV as a mere government mouthpiece, Stewart asked, "Imagine a government that has an entire TV station to lay out its agenda." He then aired Fox footage, after which he appeared to be hypnotized, chanting, "Must support war, tax cut good." In another show, he noted, "This war has truly belonged to Fox. Not only did they start it...they managed to offer fair and balanced coverage." We then saw Fox footage of a soldier saying hi to his family and closing with, "You're watching Fox News." Stewart couldn't believe it: "They've got soldiers doing station IDs!" He then played a montage Fox aired of the "sights and sounds...of operation Iraqi Freedom," which showed massive bombs exploding in Baghdad accompanied by appallingly sentimental New Age piano music. "That was real," Stewart confirmed in disbelief. "Sounds like our troops have liberated a Yanni concert." Yes, it is important to itemize, carefully and seriously, all the reasons Team Bush is lethally dangerous to all except the upper echelons of the Fortune 500. But The Daily Show reminds us that ridicule, scorn and laughter may be some of the most effective weapons of all. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030505&s=douglas

quote: Although, if he was talking about the actual war, he's dumber than Bush. Much dumber than Bush... Agreed

quote: arrested Conviction? FBI? COINTELPRO? Reality? quote: taking Iraqi money Skakir al-Khafaji is an Iraqi American who opposes this war. Now I realize that he should be in an internment camp somewhere but I guess I could settle for just calling him a Saddam sympathizer in a clumsy attempt to discredit him. quote: but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost." I think he is talking about occupation and American style reconstruction.....we'll see how it goes....I get the feeling this thing is far from over.

quote: There are plenty more where this came from, so if you are so gung ho anti war that you actually go to one of these anti war rallies, guess who you're supporting? A little behind the power curve on this one. Every left source that I have read about the anti-war position acknowledges this and pretty much agree that these people have a different agenda. Only a tiny fraction of the millions who oppose this war support the WWP. But I know youre not concerned with this reality. Funny thing is that all those in the administration who pushed for this war all stand to make huge revenues from the many documented business political relationships....it's hard for me to say someone working in the WWP is any worse than the chicken hawk war profiteers who claim to love profit...er....freedom so much. But go on and wave the flag and disseminate half truths.thats the name of the game with grand ole petroleum.

quote: flowering of democracy from Eastern Europe to Latin America HA HA HA!!! That's a good one. Other wise a good read.

quote: It is time for us to come together and support our troops and our president The people always reserve the right to disagree with the president....always. Trying to mesh the issues of support for the soldiers with support for the administration is clever but wrong. The two issues are decisively separate no matter how much you wish it weren't so. quote: My attitude is this, the antiwar protesters have lost the argument Really? quote: This is NOT vietnam No kidding quote: all we on the right have to do is keep quiet and watch them shoot themselves in the foot. The right has the ball....and el presidente is really sticking out there....I think you've got this one confused. quote: Your socalled ACTIVISTS have had NOTHING to do with that policy, it has ALWAYS been there Youre dreaming. We were the only one to veto the land mine treaty....we still use cluster munitions that are proven to devastate local populations after hostilities have ended....this is just recent history, I could go back further and demolish this statement but I don't have the time. quote: Bush has made NO mistakes at all, Of course you don't think so....your posts have been almost fanatical in their support for all his polices....really amazing seeing as even the administration has strong internal disagreements.... quote: but they chose not to Don't rewrite history. Read a timeline do something.... quote: If France and Germany WOULD have stayed on board and backed us with the threat of force We never asked for use of force....Bush demanded use of war and they rightly objected. If you can't remember the ways this administration tried to load 1441 with tripwires and vague language on use of force (easy war) than...well....it would be consistent with most of your arguments. quote: as ong as those tinpot dictators keep to themselves and do not support terrorists Oh wait I thought your article was on the evil of "dictators"....now its "terrorist dictators"....now I understand.... quote: We didn't reestablish anything Yes we did. quote: the UN mandate was clear Im sorrywhy did UN approval matter then? Clearly democracy could have been established and freed the many people of Kuwait from an illegal regime. quote: Yes, we do have a long, long way to go, and that is why I love the Bush doctrine so much Ever the "Constitutionalist" I would just like to revisit your statements about the right keeping quiet....well too late... Lott, slashing VA benefits, and the latest and greatest. trying to force the hero's of 9-11 to work overtime with vastly expanded responsibilities for ZERO pay.....oops..Im sure its only going to get better.. [ 04-03-2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

quote: 1st one: Saddam is a maniac, and kills his own people, or do you deny that he does this? No. But why is it that we do business with people like this? If that were the only reason to go to war we have a long long long way to go. quote: Saddam has attempted and in 1 case succeeded in taking over other soveriegn countries on his borders, or do you deny this? What does sovereign even mean anymore? Yes he invaded Kuwait.and after we forced him out we reestablished the dictatorship. quote: Saddam has his henchman and sons keep the Iraqi people in terror through torture, murder, and rape, or do you deny that he does this? No but this is a tactic used by many regimes even ones the US does business with. quote: Since he VIOLATED the terms of the ceasefire, this socalled Gulfwar2 is in fact just the end of Gulf war1. All those issues point to the fact the UN would have the responsibility to enforce these things. I know you don't believe in this organization but many do. So you believe the US can act unilaterally and I do not. I believe the UN needs an overhaul but it is a good idea at its core. quote: We HAVE no intention of staying there in any long term capacity. Or do you deny this? I'm guessing that as long as American oil companies are secure and operating we would then leave sorta.....for some reason we love leaving bases all over the planet....I guessing eventually a new government will nationalize the industry probably end up starting a new war...that's if our CIA and local intelligence doesn't deal with any "trouble makers" first....but we'll see. Anyway you are dismissing the notion that all of this could have, and was, on the way to being sorted out under UN diplomatic pressure and US threat of force. Would that have gotten rid of the regime nowill getting rid of Saddam make us or the world a safer place..nobody knows that..is OBL smoking the hash and thanking us, yesdoes America look like an empire now, yes.. I will say this.thanks to the efforts of thousands of activists around the world, when America makes war it does its best to minimize civilian casualtiesthe military leadership is doing a good job all around..well just see if this administration makes any more profoundly disturbing mistakes.

quote: none of the sources quoted in this topic thread are creditable sources If they lie they can be sued. If they were show me and I'd agree.

quote: American general says West is failing Afghans By Phil Reeves LAHORE: As American and British cruise missiles create havoc in Baghdad, a US general has accused the West of failing to do enough to rebuild the last country visited by President BushÔÇÖs military ÔÇô Afghanistan. His remarks come amid widespread fury in the international community over the US-British invasion of Iraq, coupled with concern that the onslaught began before adequate preparations had been made for a possible humanitarian crisis. The chief of the US forces in Afghanistan, Lt-Gen Dan McNeill, said he was ÔÇ£frustratedÔÇØ that the West had ÔÇ£not made a more bold stepÔÇØ to rebuild Afghanistan, adding that this could be an important lesson for Iraq. The US search for Al Qaeda and the Taliban would have been easier if the aid had flowed faster, he said. His remarks echo the worries of many in AfghanistanÔÇÖs capital city of Kabul, ranging from international aid workers to officials in the unstable transitional government of President Hamid Karzai. Fears abound that the war in Iraq, and its aftermath, will mean that international support falls away. Although the US has repeatedly portrayed post-war Afghanistan as a success story, frustration has been steadily growing on the ground over the slow pace of reconstruction, which in many cases has scarcely begun. General McNeill ÔÇô who commands 10,500 troops in Afghanistan, of whom 8,500 are American ÔÇô said that foreign aid had helped avert a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, but some countries had not fulfilled subsequent aid promises. Speaking at Bagram air base outside Kabul, he said: ÔÇ£What is needed now is an overstep by the international community towards reconstruction. ÔÇ£Clearly there is a lesson to be learnt for those who have responsibility for other conflicts and post-conflict situations.ÔÇØ The rebuilding of Afghanistan, after a quarter of a century of conflict, has been plagued by squabbles between the US military and international aid agencies, by continuing violence, and by the new governmentÔÇÖs lack of security control over most of the country. In most of Afghanistan, fundamental components of the infrastructure ÔÇô health services, power supplies, communications, education, security services and a road network ÔÇô are either rudimentary or missing altogether. Funds for reconstruction have been been a problem from the early stages. A year ago, the World Bank estimated that $10.2bn (┬ú6.5bn) would be needed over the following five years, but international pledges were for about half that sum. According to a recent report by Care International, the per capita spending of aid money in Afghanistan last year was well under half that of post-conflict Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and East Timor. Despite his criticisms, Lt-Gen McNeill said that the US militaryÔÇÖs mission was ÔÇ£going very wellÔÇØ. In the run-up to the start of the Iraq invasion, there had been feverish media reports that the net was closing in on Osama bin Laden. But the general said he had ÔÇ£no compelling evidenceÔÇØ either way to suggest that Osama bin Laden was dead or alive. He spoke as his forces were involved in their largest operation for more than a year, hunting through villages and mountains of south-eastern Afghanistan. Their mission has grown beyond a man-hunt for Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban elements to encompass other armed elements ÔÇô such as those led by the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. It has been complicated by growing opposition to the US military presence, coupled with attacks aimed at destabilising the Karzai government and spoiling efforts to build an Afghan national army. There was more evidence of this on Saturday. Police officials said on Saturday that three Afghan soldiers were killed and four kidnapped in pre-dawn attacks on security checkpoints near Spin Boldak in eastern Afghanistan. ÔÇöIndependent http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...4-3-2003_pg4_22 Yeah you could say some people skeptical....

quote: A Marxist Threat To Cola Sales? The London Guardian Greg Palast Sunday, November 8, 1998 E-Mail Article Printer Friendly Version 'It is the firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup... Please review all your present and possibly new activities to include propaganda, black operations, surfacing of intelligence or disinformation, personal contacts, or anything else your imagination can conjure...' 'Eyes only, restricted handling, secret' message. To US station chief, Santiago. From CIA headquarters. 16 October 1970. You would be wrong to assume this plan for mayhem was another manifestation of the Cold War between the 'free world' and communism. Much more was at stake: Pepsi-Cola's market share and other matters closer to the heart of corporate America. In exclusive interviews with The Observer last week, the former US Ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry, told the story in - and behind - these and other top secret CIA, State Department and White House cables recently released by the National Security Archives. Korry filled in gaps in the story by describing cables still classified, and disclosing information censored in papers now available under the US Freedom of Information Act. Korry, who served Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, told how US companies, from cola to copper, using the CIA as an international debt collection agency and investment security force. Indeed, the October 1970 plot against Chile's President-elect Salvador Allende, using CIA 'sub-machine guns and ammo', was the direct result of a plea for action a month earlier by Donald Kendall, chairman of PepsiCo, in two telephone calls to the company's former lawyer, President Richard Nixon. Kendall arranged for the owner of the company's Chilean bottling operation to meet National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger on September 15. Hours later, Nixon called in his CIA chief, Richard Helms, and, according to Helms's handwritten notes, ordered the CIA to prevent Allende's inauguration. But this is only half the story, according to Korry. He claims the US conspiracy against Allende's election did not begin with Nixon, but originated - and read no further if you cherish the myth of Camelot - with John Kennedy. In 1963, Allende was heading towards victory in Chile's presidential election. Kennedy decided his political creation, Eduardo Frei, the late father of Chile's current President, Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, could win the election by buying it. Kennedy left it to his brother, Bobby, the Attorney-General, to put the plan into action. The Kennedys cajoled US multinationals into pouring $2 billion into Chile, a nation of only 8 million people. This was not benign investment, but what Korry calls 'a mutually corrupting' web of business deals, many questionable, for which the US government would arrange guarantees and insurance. In return, the American-based firms kicked back millions of dollars to pay for well over half of Frei's successful election campaign. By the end of this process, Americans had gobbled up more than 85 per cent of Chile's hard-currency earning industries. The US government, the guarantor of these investments, committed extraordinary monetary, intelligence and political resources to protect them. Several business-friendly US government front organisations and operatives were sent into Chile -including the American Institute for Free Labor Development, infamous for sabotaging militant trade unions. Then, in 1970, US investments, both financial and political, faced unexpected jeopardy. A split between Chile's centre and right-wing parties permitted an alliance of communists, socialists and radicals - uniting behind the socialist Allende - to finish the presidential election 1 per cent ahead of his nearest rival. That October, Korry, a hardened anti-communist, hatched an off-the-wall scheme to block Allende's inauguration and return Frei to power. To promote his own bloodless intrigues, the ambassador claims he 'back-channeled' a message to Washington warning against military actions that might lead to 'another Bay of Pigs' fiasco. (Korry retains a copy of this still-classified cable.) But Korry's prescient message only angered Kissinger, who had already authorised the Pepsi-instigated coup, scheduled for the following week. Kissinger ordered Korry to fly in secret to Washington that weekend for a dressing-down. Still not knowing about the CIA plan, Korry told Kissinger in a White House corridor that 'only a madman' would plot with Chile's ultra-right generals. As if on cue, Kissinger opened the door to the Oval Office to introduce Nixon. Nixon - who described his ambassador as 'soft in the head' - did agree that, tactically, a coup could not yet succeed. A last-minute cable to the CIA to delay action was too late: the conspirators kidnapped and killed Chile's pro- democracy Armed Forces Chief, Rene Schneider. Public revulsion at this crime assured Allende's confirmation by Chile's Congress. Even if the US president's sense of realpolitik may have disposed him to a modus vivendi with Allende - Korry's alternative if his Frei gambit failed - Nixon faced intense pressure from his political donors in business who were panicked by Allende's plans to nationalise their operations. In particular, the president was aware that the owner of Chile's phone company, ITT Corporation, was illegally channelling funds into Republican Party coffers. Nixon could not ignore ITT - and ITT wanted blood. An ITT board member, ex-CIA director John McCone, pledged Kissinger $1 million in support of CIA action to prevent Allende from taking office. Separately, Anaconda Copper and other multinationals, under the aegis of David Rockefeller's Business Group for Latin America, offered $500,000 to buy influence with Chilean congressmen to reject confirmation of Allende's victory. But Korry wouldn't play. While he knew nothing of the ITT demands on the CIA, he got wind of, and vetoed, the cash for payoffs from Anaconda and the other firms. Korry, speaking last week from his home in Charlotte, North Carolina, disclosed that he even turned in to the Chilean authorities an army major who planned to assassinate Allende - unaware the officer was linked to the CIA plotters. Once Allende took office, Korry sought accommodation with the new government, conceding that expropriations of the telephone and copper concessions (actually begun under Frei) were necessary to disentangle Chile from seven decades of 'incestuous and corrupting' dependency. US corporations didn't see it that way. While pretending to bargain in good faith, they pushed the White House to impose a clandestine embargo on Chile's economy. But in case all schemes failed, ITT, claims Korry, paid $500,000 to someone referred to in their intercepted cables as 'The Fat Man'. Korry identified him as Jacobo Schaulsohn, Allende's ally on a committee set up to compensate firms whose property had been expropriated. It was not money well spent. In 1971, when Allende learned of the corporate machinations against his government, he refused the compensation. It was this - the Chilean leader's failure to pay, not his perceived allegiance to the hammer and sickle - that sealed his fate. The State Department pulled Korry out of Santiago in October 1971. On his return to the US, he advised the government's Overseas Private Investment Corporation to deny Anaconda Copper and ITT compensation for their seized property. Korry argued that, like someone who burns down their own home, ITT could not claim against insurance for an expropriation the company had itself provoked by violating Chilean law. Confidentially, he recommended criminal charges against ITT's top brass, including, implicitly, chief executive Harold Geneen, for falsifying the insurance claims and lying to Congress. Given powerful evidence against the companies, OPIC at first refused them compensation, and the Justice Department indicted two mid-level ITT operatives for perjury. But ultimately, the companies received their money and the executives went free on the grounds that they were working with the full co-operation of the CIA - and higher. In September 1970 in a secret cable to the US Secretary of State, ambassador Korry quotes Jean Genet: 'Even if my hands were full of truths, I wouldn't open it for others.' Why open his hand now? At 77, one supposes there is a desire to correct history. He says only that it is important to take out of the shadows what he calls - optimistically - the last case of US 'dollar diplomacy'. http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=13&row=1

quote: Emperor George What has become of American values and idealism? All swept away in this thoroughly un-American war Jonathan Freedland Wednesday April 2, 2003 The Guardian This war is un-American. That's an unlikely word to use, I know: it has an unhappy provenance, associated forever with the McCarthyite hunt for reds under the beds, purging anyone suspected of "un-American activities". Besides, for many outside the US, the problem with this war is not that it's un-American - but all too American. But that does an injustice to the US and its history. It assumes that the Bush administration represents all America, at all times, when in fact the opposite is true. For this administration, and this war, are not typical of the US. On the contrary, on almost every measure, they are exceptions to the American rule. The US was, after all, a country founded in a rebellion against imperialism. Born in a war against a hated colonial oppressor, in the form of George III, it still sees itself as the instinctive friend of all who struggle to kick out a foreign occupier - and the last nation on earth to play the role of outside ruler. Not for it the Greek, Roman or British path. For most of the last century, the US steered well clear of the institutions of formal empire (the Philipines was a lamentable exception). Responsibility was thrust upon it after 1945 in Germany and Japan. But as a matter of deliberate intent, America sought neither viceroys ruling over faraway lands nor a world map coloured with the stars and stripes. Influence, yes; puppets and proxies, yes. But formal imperial rule, never. Until now. George Bush has cast off the restraint which held back America's 42 previous presidents - including his father. Now he is seeking, as an unashamed objective, to get into the empire business, aiming to rule a post-Saddam Iraq directly through an American governor-general, the retired soldier Jay Garner. As the Guardian reported yesterday, Washington's plan for Baghdad consists of 23 ministries - each one to be headed by an American. This is a form of foreign rule so direct we have not seen its like since the last days of the British empire. It represents a break with everything America has long believed in. This is not to pretend that there is a single American ideal, still less a single US foreign policy, maintained unbroken since 1776. There are, instead, competing traditions, each able to trace its lineage to the founding of the republic. But what's striking is that George Bush's war on Iraq is at odds with every single one of them. Perhaps best known is Thomas Jefferson's call for an America which would not only refuse to rule over other nations, it would avoid meddling in their affairs altogether. He wanted no "entangling alliances". If America wished to export its brand of liberty, it should do it not through force but by the simple power of its own example. John Quincy Adams (before Bush, the only son of a president to become president), put it best when he declared that America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy". Could there be a better description of Washington's pre-emptive pursuit of Saddam Hussein? The Jeffersonian tradition is not the only one to be broken by Operation Iraqi Freedom. Last year the historian Walter Russell Mead identified three other schools of US foreign policy. Looking at them now, it's clear that all are equally incompatible with this war. Those Mead calls Hamiltonians are keen on maintaining an international system and preserving a balance of power - that means acknowledging equals in the world, rather than seeking solo, hegemonic domination. So Bush, whose national security strategy last year explicitly forbade the emergence of an equal to the US, is no follower of Alexander Hamilton. Jacksonians, meanwhile, have always defined America's interests narrowly: they would see no logic in travelling halfway across the world to invade a country that poses no immediate, direct threat to the US. So Bush has defied Andrew Jackson. Woodrow Wilson liked the idea of the US spreading democracy and rights across the globe; banishing Saddam and freeing the people of Iraq might have appealed to him. But he was the father of the League of Nations and would have been distressed by Washington's disregard for the UN and its lack of international backing for this war. Which brings us to a key un-American activity by this Bush administration. Today's Washington has not only broken from the different strands of wisdom which guided the US since its birth, but also from the model that shaped American foreign policy since 1945. It's easy to forget this now, as US politicians and commentators queue up to denounce international institutions as French-dominated, limp-wristed, euro-faggot bodies barely worth the candle, but those bodies were almost all American inventions. Whether it was Nato, the global financial architecture designed at Bretton Woods or the UN itself, multilateralism was, at least in part, America's gift to the world. Every president from Roosevelt to Bush Senior honoured those creations. Seeking to change them in order to adapt to the 21st century is wholly legitimate; but drowning them in derision is to trash an American idea. The very notion of unprovoked, uninvited, long-term and country-wide invasion is pretty un-American, too. When it thinks of itself, the US is a firm believer in state sovereignty, refusing any innovation which might curb its jurisdiction over its own affairs. Hence its opposition to the new international criminal court or indeed any international treaties which might clip its wings. Yet the sovereignty of the state of Iraq has been cheerfully violated by the US invasion. That can be defended - the scholar and former Clinton official Philip Bobbitt says sovereignty is "forfeited" by regimes which choke their own peoples - but it is, at the very least, a contradiction. The US, which holds sovereignty sacred for itself, is engaged in a war which ignores it for others. The result is a sight which can look bizarre for those who have spent much time in the US. Americans who, back home, resent even the most trivial state meddling in their own affairs are determined to run the lives of a people on the other side of the planet. In New Hampshire car number plates bear the legend, Live Free or Die; a state motto is Don't Tread on Me. If a "government bureaucrat" comes near, even to perform what would be considered a routine task in Britain, they are liable to get an earful about the tyranny of Washington, DC. Yet Americans - whose passion for liberty is so great they talk seriously about keeping guns in case they ever need to fight their own government - assume Iraqis will welcome military rule by a foreign power. Talk like this is not that comfortable in America just now; you'd be denounced fairly swiftly as a Saddam apologist or a traitor. The limits of acceptable discussion have narrowed sharply, just as civil liberties have taken a hammering as part of the post-9/11 war on terror. You might fall foul of the Patriot Act, or be denounced for insufficient love of country. There is something McCarthyite about the atmosphere which has spawned this war, making Democrats too fearful to be an opposition worthy of the name and closing down national debate. And things don't get much more un-American than that. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...,927754,00.html

Nice.

quote: Did you just call Oliver North a Traitor Yup quote: You are a clueless spoiled child who doesn't like the way the world works because you just can't seem to get ahead, and therefore it must be the world's fault. It must be capitalism, it must be our government, it must be this, it must be that. YouÔÇÖre the one who throws tantrums when someone doesn't agree with your ill-informed and parrot like monologues. I am sorry you lack any kind of critical thinking skills but maybe one day you'll stop eating the spoon fed BS and come back to earth. quote: They only understand one thing, and that's a Missile up their A**! I always supported muscular disarmament but this approach wasn't even attempted. There were numerous meaningful ways we could have achieved our goals before resorting to war. The WWII analogy fall short because successful containment of Iraq after the last gulf war kept his military at the 1/3 pre gulf I levels and prevented him from having a serious weapons program. It also falls short because there is no power imbalance in that theater. It is a bogus analogy and a propaganda tool for this administration trying to justify an illegal war born out of an inept foreign policy. All in all I agree that threat of force is necessary when dealing with people like this....only that analysis would mean that he isn't insane....wreaking another BS claim by this administration and their corporate media echo chamber. Anyway you can't just say look at hitler just before the war without looking at the situation that created him...it is all related.

quote: I looked through several of the news sources that you posted there and found most of them to be nothing but propaganda for the Iraqi government quote: does anyone even ponder the idea that the problem with Hitler could have been solved via "Diplomatic Channels"? Most people realize that hitlers path to power was paved with outrageous war payments from WWI and an economy in the gutter resulting in a pissed off middle class. So yes intelligent policy would have most likely averted war through diplomatic channels. This thing is not black and white.even if thats what Fox news want us to believe. Did anyone hear that the military asked Geraldo Rivera to leave the country? The dumb bastard likes to draw pictures of 101 positions in the sand on camera. Of course Id take him over that traitor oliver north any day.but thats just me.

quote: And that excuses it right? The WTC is a political target to you? It's what it means to them guy. If they just wanted to kill a lot of people they could have hit a full stadium....or hit a chemical plant or a nuke plant....many other target would have yielded greater casualties with less risk. Yes the WTC and the Pentagon were political targets. You need to remember we are living on the happy side of capitalism.....the other side is vast and tragic. quote: FULL OF CIVILIANS Yes it was. They don't see it that way. They see a global center of American power full of people who support their enemy. It was tragic and criminal but if you want to understand the situation you have to THINK. quote: just like Afghanistan was supposed to Obviously that is a different situation. What the hell are you talking about? quote: You are clueless Well at least your not ranting about love it or leave it....well maybe not yet....

quote: I don't think so No kidding...we aren't attacking them.... quote: So far they are tenuous They don't exist. quote: we cut about 50% of the funding that goes to them That is nonsense. And if you think that stopping Saddam from paying the families of "homicide" bombers is going to stop them...think again. quote: that is what it takes to run a terrorist organization No it doesn't....it takes people who would rather kill others than live in a world of oppression, poverty, and exploitation.... The Bush doctrine is just digging up the ant pile....his administration is responsible for the blow back we will suffer. God help us if he uses a nuke for anything other than a retaliatory strike because so far OBL has attacked political and military targets with conventional equipment..if Bush starts using WMD because its expedient the door will be open for any state and non state actors to do the same. This whole action is serving to destabilize the planet and force America to basically use military force as the primary method of conflict resolution. Not to mention authorizing any half baked imperial escapade that captures the fancy of a given administration.or that of another country. You better hope this administration doesnt screw up anymore than it already has.

Some have compared bush to hitler..... We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Keep watching Fox news and stay in fairy land Jag....there are a lot of different reasons for this conflictand freedom and democracy are on the bottom of list.. It's funny how people will talk crap about celerity critics until they get celebrities that support the position they want to hear. At least have some consistency in the hypocrisy....I realize your most likely taking your cues from this administration but at least keep personal integrity.

quote: that was a dead link there lotharr hmmmm...works when I click on it..... quote: and only good can come of that quote: support your soldiers and your president. Unfortunately these two issues are not one in the same. Falling in lock step behind an administration in times of war is something best left to fascists..dissent is healthyespecially now that 99% of protesters qualify any position or statement with support for the troops.