vortexring 0 #1 August 5, 2008 This should be an interesting read. It's a book by Ron Suskind where you can read about the headlines it's making on numerous websites: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4466512.ece http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1041916/Bush-faked-letter-linking-Iraq-9-11-led-US-Britain-war-Pulitzer-prize-winner-claims-explosive-new-book.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html If you're interested his webite is here: http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/ edit: A brief description: 'In a sweeping, propulsive, and multilayered narrative, The Way of the World investigates how America relinquished the moral leadership it now desperately needs to fight the real threat of our era: a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists. Truth, justice, and accountability become more than mere words in this story. Suskind shows where the most neglected dangers lie in the story of "The Armageddon Test"—a desperate gamble to send undercover teams into the world's nuclear black market to frustrate the efforts of terrorists trying to procure weapons–grade uranium. In the end, he finally reveals for the first time the explosive falsehood underlying the Iraq War and the entire Bush presidency.' 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #2 August 6, 2008 QuoteThis should be an interesting read. It's a book by Ron Suskind where you can read about the headlines it's making on numerous websites: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4466512.ece http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1041916/Bush-faked-letter-linking-Iraq-9-11-led-US-Britain-war-Pulitzer-prize-winner-claims-explosive-new-book.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html If you're interested his webite is here: http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/ edit: A brief description: 'In a sweeping, propulsive, and multilayered narrative, The Way of the World investigates how America relinquished the moral leadership it now desperately needs to fight the real threat of our era: a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists. Truth, justice, and accountability become more than mere words in this story. Suskind shows where the most neglected dangers lie in the story of "The Armageddon Test"—a desperate gamble to send undercover teams into the world's nuclear black market to frustrate the efforts of terrorists trying to procure weapons–grade uranium. In the end, he finally reveals for the first time the explosive falsehood underlying the Iraq War and the entire Bush presidency.' Long interview with him on the radio today. On the whole he sounds much more convincing than the Bush camp.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #3 August 6, 2008 That wouldn't be difficult would it? Someone said this regarding the news report from The Times: 'Not exactly earth-shattering. I don't think there are many people left in the world who actually believe the US Governments version of events. We all know we were lied to in order to get the war America wanted. It's just a shame the media keeps debating what the public already knows.' I'd imagine most people would agree with that statement. So whilst it's becoming more and more popular for journalists to write critical stories of the apparant lies over Iraq, it'd be nice to eventually know the truth. The most credible reasoning I've come across has been from Naomi Klein. I still like to think our leaders are motivated for the long term common good. Certainly more so in Afghanistan than Iraq, but I do wonder sometimes. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #4 August 6, 2008 Quote edit: The Way of the World investigates how America relinquished the moral leadership Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #5 August 6, 2008 ? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #6 August 6, 2008 America relinquishes moral leadership and weakens itself at the behest of the left. If anyone wants to know why the world is more at risk of a nuclear-armed terrorist cell, you need not look to pin blame on conservatives, who believe in a strong military and maintenance of our fighting ability, our espionage programs, our intelligence programs, and the spending necessary to keep them up and running. The left, on the other hand, deliberately weakens all of these things -- why they feel that doing so is necessary is open to discussion. But it is, historically, the left that has left this void of moral leadership and fortitude that makes the world vulnerable to the psychos (more than it would have to be).Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #7 August 6, 2008 That's an interesting view. What examples would you state to support your argument? I'd appreciate reading them. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #8 August 6, 2008 QuoteThat's an interesting view. What examples would you state to support your argument? I'd appreciate reading them. Can't say I've thought, read, or written deeply on the subject. I just am kind of going by the sense I have that the left is not about strength; tends to leap on the "America's a bunch of arrogant S.O.B.s" bandwagon; blames us for the world's ills and ignores the widespread good we do; falsely claims, in screeds that sound like communist propaganda, that America is imperialist and is seeking to dominate the world, when nothing could be further from the truth. Most Americans are perfectly content to have our country over here, and have other countries everywhere else continue to exist and do their own sovereign thing, as long as we can enjoy a prosperous, enjoyable lifestyle just like anyone else wants. The idea that we have a domination desire is laughable. If we did, wouldn't we have at least some of our elected leaders avowing a policy of "go everywhere, take everything"? A policy that would state that since we beat Iraq's military, we own Iraq's territory? Who is saying that? No one that I can think of. But the world calls us the bad guys. Even as they are blown up on their subways by the true bad guys, they think of us and call us the bad guys, the bullies. Anyway, I'm rambling. Why do I think that the left owns the doctrine of yielding moral authority? Because it shows up in their rhetoric all over the place, and when the left controls the military, they downsize it as though having a powerful one is not worthy as a deterrent or a protection. (Thank you so much, Bill Clinton, you base-closing, enlistment-cutting fuckwad.)Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #9 August 6, 2008 QuoteBut the world calls us the bad guys. Even as they are blown up on their subways by the true bad guys, they think of us and call us the bad guys, the bullies. Then why did you attack Iraq, when it was Al Q. that you were after? The USA in history has done a lot of good with its military, such as the world wars.... In more recent history it has meddled in affairs that it shouldn't to the determent to the rest of the world. Osama b. L. for example was an ally of the USA and the USA made him very powerful indeed. Then............. If the US military had kept its hands out of places it didn’t belong, then maybe September 11 would never have happened, or do you think Al Q. Use a random method of attacking? Why did the US attack Iraq when the world consensus was against the idea, why wasn’t the focus on Al q.? Riddle me this."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #10 August 6, 2008 Quote Can't say I've thought, read, or written deeply on the subject. I just am kind of going by the sense I have that the left is not about strength; tends to leap on the "America's a bunch of arrogant S.O.B.s" bandwagon; blames us for the world's ills and ignores the widespread good we do; falsely claims, in screeds that sound like communist propaganda, that America is imperialist and is seeking to dominate the world, when nothing could be further from the truth. Uh oh looks like I'm about to be sucked back into a game of 'American doesn't understand the 20th century' Lets bring out the (partial) list... Quote Invading the Philippines. Invading Panama. Terrorizing Cuba for decades. Murdering 100,000s of people as WW2 came to a close. Setting up death squads from El Salvador down to Colombia. Destroying Haiti. Overthrowing Chile and setting up torture chambers. Your entire economic relationship with all of the Americas. Helping Suharto take over Indonesia resulting in 2+ million murdered poor people. Backing Suharto and arming him to invade East Timor resulting in one of, if not the, worst per capita genocides of the 20th century. Tampering with Korea and helping to kill 100,000 people before the US/Korea war officially started. Decimating Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and murdering 6+ million people. The overthrow of Iran at the beginning of the 1950s. The complete and full support of Saddam Hussein up until he stopped listening. The billions that go to Saudi Arabia to prop up a monarchy and block attempts at democratic and human rights movements. The complete support for Israel and several decades of both states unilaterally blocking all attempts at peaceful two state settlement that the majority of the world population agree on. Permanent military bases throughout the middle east. Kicking the inhabitants of a set of islands south of the Maldives out of their lands to create your third largest military base in the Indian Ocean. Giving billions in weapons to Egypt and Turkey and helping them to carry out terrorism against their populations Carrying out a terrorist war against Nicaragua in the 1980s and butchering 10,000s of peasants - then being found guilty by the International Court of Justice and the UN security council - then telling the world to f*** off after several requests to adhere to international law. Spending more on your military than the rest of the world spends on theirs combined. Exporting more weapons than any other place on earth. Having 700 or so military bases outside the US border in a world of roughly only 200ish countries. Yeah the people of the world are stupid -- you win birdlike. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #11 August 6, 2008 Quote Invading the Philippines. Invading Panama. Terrorizing Cuba for decades. Murdering millions of people as WW2 came to a close. Setting up death squads from El Salvador down to Colombia. Destroying Haiti. Overthrowing Chile and setting up torture chambers. Your entire economic relationship with all of the Americas. Helping Suharto take over Indonesia resulting in 2+ million murdered poor people. Backing Suharto and arming him to invade East Timor resulting in one of, if not the, worst per capita genocides of the 20th century. Tampering with Korea and helping to kill 100,000 people before the US/Korea war officially started. Decimating Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and murdering 6+ million people. The overthrow of Iran at the beginning of the 1950s. The complete and full support of Saddam Hussein up until he stopped listening. The billions that go to Saudi Arabia to prop up a monarchy and block attempts at democratic and human rights movements. The complete support for Israel and several decades of both states unilaterally blocking all attempts at peaceful two state settlement that the majority of the world population agree on. Permanent military bases throughout the middle east. Kicking the inhabitants of a set of islands south of the Maldives out of their lands to create your third largest military base in the Indian Ocean. Giving billions in weapons to Egypt and Turkey and helping them to carry out terrorism against their populations Carrying out a terrorist war against Nicaragua in the 1980s and butchering 10,000s of peasants - then being found guilty by the International Court of Justice and the UN security council - then telling the world to f*** off after several requests to adhere to international law. Spending more on your military than the rest of the world spends on theirs combined. Exporting more weapons than any other place on earth. Having 700 or so military bases outside the US border in a world of roughly only 200ish countries. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #12 August 6, 2008 I don't have answers to questions about "the real motivation for invading Iraq," etc. But I do want to point out that the rest of the world has been quietly very content to benefit from the U.S. putting itself in a position to be regarded as the arrogant, brash, imperialist bad-guy. When Britain and France are paying $20 a gallon for gasoline, we'll see how nasty and arrogant and selfish the U.S. was for trying to keep the Middle East stable all these miserable years when no one else gave a fuck about doing so.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #13 August 6, 2008 Quote Uh oh looks like I'm about to be sucked back into a game of 'American doesn't understand the 20th century' Lets bring out the (partial) list... Quote Invading the Philippines. Invading Panama. Terrorizing Cuba for decades. Murdering 100,000s of people as WW2 came to a close. Setting up death squads from El Salvador down to Colombia. Destroying Haiti. Overthrowing Chile and setting up torture chambers. Your entire economic relationship with all of the Americas. Helping Suharto take over Indonesia resulting in 2+ million murdered poor people. Backing Suharto and arming him to invade East Timor resulting in one of, if not the, worst per capita genocides of the 20th century. Tampering with Korea and helping to kill 100,000 people before the US/Korea war officially started. Decimating Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and murdering 6+ million people. The overthrow of Iran at the beginning of the 1950s. The complete and full support of Saddam Hussein up until he stopped listening. The billions that go to Saudi Arabia to prop up a monarchy and block attempts at democratic and human rights movements. The complete support for Israel and several decades of both states unilaterally blocking all attempts at peaceful two state settlement that the majority of the world population agree on. Permanent military bases throughout the middle east. Kicking the inhabitants of a set of islands south of the Maldives out of their lands to create your third largest military base in the Indian Ocean. Giving billions in weapons to Egypt and Turkey and helping them to carry out terrorism against their populations Carrying out a terrorist war against Nicaragua in the 1980s and butchering 10,000s of peasants - then being found guilty by the International Court of Justice and the UN security council - then telling the world to f*** off after several requests to adhere to international law. Spending more on your military than the rest of the world spends on theirs combined. Exporting more weapons than any other place on earth. Having 700 or so military bases outside the US border in a world of roughly only 200ish countries. Yeah the people of the world are stupid -- you win birdlike. Dr. Lecter, I wonder if you can turn that high-powered condemnation on other countries of the world. Did the English, French, Spanish and Dutch not FUCK UP lots of foreign countries, themselves? The really screwed up thing is the way people like you want to point that kind of finger at the U.S., while at the same time failing to do two things: 1) Realize that we are not alone in the kind of meddling you condemn 2) Comprehend the state the world would have been in had the U.S. not done much of what it's done historically. I find it particularly funny that the U.S. is to blame because Haitians act like savage animals to each other and simply cannot and will not live peacefully. Yeah, that's our fault!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #14 August 6, 2008 Quote The billions that go to Saudi Arabia to prop up a monarchy and block attempts at democratic and human rights movements. Yeah, you go on believing that Arab nations are just bubbling cauldrons of democracy waiting to happen, were it not for our American meddling! That's the best joke I'll hear all year! Are you for real? Arab nations would be going democratic if not for U.S. activity?! Holy shit, that's funny! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #15 August 6, 2008 QuoteCarrying out a terrorist war against Nicaragua in the 1980s and butchering 10,000s of peasants - then being found guilty by the International Court of Justice and the UN security council - then telling the world to f*** off after several requests to adhere to international law. Sort of like Saddam Hussein going years flouting international law and U.N. resolutions and sanctions, while the rest of the effete, pussy-ass world just let him keep doing it and kept redrawing the "line in the sand" farther back? That kind of telling the world to f*** off?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #16 August 6, 2008 Quote When Britain and France are paying $20 a gallon for gasoline, we'll see how nasty and arrogant and selfish the U.S. was for trying to keep the Middle East stable all these miserable years when no one else gave a fuck about doing so. So you believe we would be paying more for gas if the US had stayed out of the Middle East? Maybe if you didn't consume the amount of oil you do (you being the USA) then we would all be paying less than $1/gal still. Then France, England and the rest of the world would still be driving cars that get 4x the MPG than American cars."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #17 August 6, 2008 Quote Murdering millions of people as WW2 came to a close. Maybe I'm confused. I thought that the Second World War was begun by parties other than the United States. I thought that the United States was pretty much the factor that enabled the world to defeat Hitler's plans. I thought that it was well-settled that lives were saved by the A-bombing of Japan, and I am inclined to agree that those TRULY imperialistic zealots brought our response down upon themselves! When you fight an enemy that will not surrender under the circumstances that make ordinary enemies surrender, you have no choice but to bring them to the brink of utter annihilation to make them see what their options really are. You have a lot of damned gall calling our bombing of Japan "murder" after what Japan and Germany were all about doing the whole war long. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #18 August 6, 2008 Quote Dr. Lecter, I wonder if you can turn that high-powered condemnation on other countries of the world. Did the English, French, Spanish and Dutch not FUCK UP lots of foreign countries, themselves? None of them are the worlds only empire and none of them have morons trying to explain that empires are forces of benevolent wonder. Quote The really screwed up thing is the way people like you want to point that kind of finger at the U.S., while at the same time failing to do two things: 1) Realize that we are not alone in the kind of meddling you condemn Lots of states have done bad things throughout history but seeing as its 2008 the relevance of Roman atrocities are a lot less relevant than 20th century US atrocities. Quote 2) Comprehend the state the world would have been in had the U.S. not done much of what it's done historically. Yeah slaughtering millions of poor people decade in decade out is so helpful, why can't us stupid people of the world realise that? Man we are so stupid. Quote I find it particularly funny that the U.S. is to blame because Haitians act like savage animals to each other and simply cannot and will not live peacefully. Yeah, that's our fault! I suspect the underlying cause of your amusement has something to do with being poorly educated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #19 August 6, 2008 Quote Quote When Britain and France are paying $20 a gallon for gasoline, we'll see how nasty and arrogant and selfish the U.S. was for trying to keep the Middle East stable all these miserable years when no one else gave a fuck about doing so. So you believe we would be paying more for gas if the US had stayed out of the Middle East? Maybe if you didn't consume the amount of oil you do (you being the USA) then we would all be paying less than $1/gal still. Then France, England and the rest of the world would still be driving cars that get 4x the MPG than American cars. When was the last time England paid less than $1 a gallon, friend? You really going to lay all the economic woes of Europe at the feet of America? I also believe that the world would be far worse off if the U.S. had not at least attempted to keep the peace (or at least keep a general watch on things) in the Middle East. That part of the world is absolutely fucking PSYCHO. Is there any denying that? It is the world's WELLSPRING of psycho-ness. Besides, without the U.S. in the Middle East, we surely would have all watched a second Holocaust as the Israelis were subsumed by those who loathe them, who surround them on all sides, who simply will not live in peace with them. Would you be comfortable being a party to genocide through your inaction?Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #20 August 6, 2008 Quote Quote Dr. Lecter, I wonder if you can turn that high-powered condemnation on other countries of the world. Did the English, French, Spanish and Dutch not FUCK UP lots of foreign countries, themselves? None of them are the worlds only empire and none of them have morons trying to explain that empires are forces of benevolent wonder. Oh, because the U.S. is the world's LAST empire, you want to act as though we're the ONLY empire that's ever BEEN. Wow, that is some true contortionist thinking. It's too late to address the U.K. WHEN it WAS a destructive, world-eating empire. Same with Spain. Christ, same with Rome. Same with the Soviet Union. So we'll just pile on the U.S., even though the U.S. is nothing like an empire. Nothing. I guess those other countries are just lucky they stopped being empires soon enough to escape this latter day, revisionist, absurd indignation and condemnation. Quote Yeah slaughtering millions of poor people decade in decade out is so helpful, why can't us stupid people of the world realise that? Man we are so stupid. How conveniently you ignore the not-so distant past in which England slaughtered Africans and Indians, or the Soviets slaughtered tens of millions of their own people (if you count STARVING THEM TO DEATH as "slaughter," which I DO). Quote I suspect the underlying cause of your amusement has something to do with being poorly educated. That's debatable, but you'd be debating at a disadvantage, to be sure. Do I sound uneducated or otherwise "dumb"? Our onlookers should take note of who was first to resort to character attacks after abandoning idea-based and fact-base argument. (Hint: it was the America-hater. )Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #21 August 6, 2008 Quote Do I sound uneducated or otherwise "dumb"? Yes. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #22 August 6, 2008 Quote Quote Do I sound uneducated or otherwise "dumb"? Yes. Disingenuous responses made only for the sake of instigation do not count. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #23 August 6, 2008 Explain if you can....why those American soldiers who are wounded in Iraq, but die in Germany are NOT counted in the total number of dead from the Iraq war. I suppose its the Bush way of minimizing the count, to keep the American public from executing him....or maybe just impeachment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ErricoMalatesta 0 #24 August 6, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Dr. Lecter, I wonder if you can turn that high-powered condemnation on other countries of the world. Did the English, French, Spanish and Dutch not FUCK UP lots of foreign countries, themselves? None of them are the worlds only empire and none of them have morons trying to explain that empires are forces of benevolent wonder. Oh, because the U.S. is the world's LAST empire, you want to act as though we're the ONLY empire that's ever BEEN. 1. China will be the next empire 2. Last? What is going to happen? Jesus's magical Armageddon? 3. Everything you have said the entire thread is completely wrong or bizarre so I don't need to pick apart the Japan/Middle East/History ignorance rants Quote Wow, that is some true contortionist thinking. It's too late to address the U.K. WHEN it WAS a destructive, world-eating empire. Same with Spain. Christ, same with Rome. Same with the Soviet Union. So we'll just pile on the U.S., even though the U.S. is nothing like an empire. Nothing. Is anyone else reading the "lulz" birdlike is throwing out here? Quote I guess those other countries are just lucky they stopped being empires soon enough to escape this latter day, revisionist, absurd indignation and condemnation. If only we could all be so lucky that you would stop typing. Quote Quote Yeah slaughtering millions of poor people decade in decade out is so helpful, why can't us stupid people of the world realise that? Man we are so stupid. How conveniently you ignore the not-so distant past in which England slaughtered Africans and Indians, or the Soviets slaughtered tens of millions of their own people (if you count STARVING THEM TO DEATH as "slaughter," which I DO). Yeah I should not ignore all of those things because they are currently shaping the future and are changeable phenomenon with my time machine... Nope wait... my mistake... what you just said made little to no sense. Quote Quote I suspect the underlying cause of your amusement has something to do with being poorly educated. That's debatable, but you'd be debating at a disadvantage, to be sure. Do I sound uneducated or otherwise "dumb"? Well lets refer to the score card... You don't know anything about your own history. What happened in the 20th century. The critical dissent you would aptly apply to all other nation states you do not apply to your own country. Your arguments make no sense and you are full of absurdities A resounding yes to your question I'm afraid. Quote Our onlookers should take note of who was first to resort to character attacks after abandoning idea-based and fact-base argument. (Hint: it was the America-hater. ) I believe it was your comment on "Dr. Lecter," What is an "idea-based argument"? You mean like... a normal argument, thought up inside a human head with.... ideas... the things we construct everything with... As for facts there is a partial historical check list provided. Quote (Hint: it was the America-hater. ) Do you see any French jumpers on here defending French action in Algeria? Do you see any Russians on here defending Soviet aggression? Any of our Japanese or perhaps Japanese-American friends defending Japan's brutality in China? No, why is that? Hint: It's because all nation states do bad things and seeing as yours was in charge, and still is, for the last 100 or more years it did the most and the standards that you rightfully apply to all others you don't for yourself... I believe the gospels touch on what that is called. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #25 August 6, 2008 >you need not look to pin blame on conservatives, who believe in a strong military . . . . And, unfortunately, in the sort of wars that weaken us and leave us more vulnerable to terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites