[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

The Obituary Page - Steely_D - Jan 27, 2020 - 8:04pm
 
Impeachment Time: - kurtster - Jan 27, 2020 - 7:20pm
 
Automotive Lust - cc_rider - Jan 27, 2020 - 6:41pm
 
THREE WORDS - ColdMiser - Jan 27, 2020 - 5:44pm
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - ColdMiser - Jan 27, 2020 - 5:37pm
 
What Makes You Sad? - haresfur - Jan 27, 2020 - 4:52pm
 
Trump - kurtster - Jan 27, 2020 - 4:37pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Jan 27, 2020 - 4:04pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - edz - Jan 27, 2020 - 3:07pm
 
war is a racket - R_P - Jan 27, 2020 - 2:48pm
 
Animal Resistance - jahgirl8 - Jan 27, 2020 - 2:35pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - rmgman - Jan 27, 2020 - 11:09am
 
Music News - Steely_D - Jan 27, 2020 - 10:42am
 
Documentaries - Steely_D - Jan 27, 2020 - 10:40am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 27, 2020 - 9:53am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Proclivities - Jan 27, 2020 - 7:58am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - haresfur - Jan 27, 2020 - 7:01am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Proclivities - Jan 27, 2020 - 6:15am
 
Thorium Power - miamizsun - Jan 27, 2020 - 4:18am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Jan 27, 2020 - 3:42am
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jan 26, 2020 - 4:08pm
 
Edward Norton's Neo-Noir film Motherless Brooklyn. - SeriousLee - Jan 26, 2020 - 3:23pm
 
What are you listening to now? - Steely_D - Jan 26, 2020 - 3:10pm
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - R_P - Jan 26, 2020 - 2:02pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - SeriousLee - Jan 26, 2020 - 10:51am
 
Pandemics and Rights - miamizsun - Jan 26, 2020 - 7:39am
 
Ask the Libertarian - Lazy8 - Jan 26, 2020 - 7:14am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2020 - 7:03am
 
Yamaha Musiccast - ilveroluca - Jan 26, 2020 - 6:11am
 
Things that make you cautiously optimistic - miamizsun - Jan 26, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Stream Stopping - Multiple Platforms - ilveroluca - Jan 26, 2020 - 5:58am
 
Neil Young - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 6:26pm
 
Democratic Party - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 4:41pm
 
What did you have for dinner? - Red_Dragon - Jan 25, 2020 - 4:34pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Chuck1 - Jan 25, 2020 - 4:25pm
 
Official date for our 20th Anniversary? - buddy - Jan 25, 2020 - 1:10pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 12:38pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 11:57am
 
Brazil - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 11:18am
 
Mars - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 10:27am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - SeriousLee - Jan 25, 2020 - 9:39am
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 12:09am
 
Name My Band - Red_Dragon - Jan 24, 2020 - 7:46pm
 
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet - gvajda - Jan 24, 2020 - 5:54pm
 
Way Cool Video - Red_Dragon - Jan 24, 2020 - 5:22pm
 
We need some new car names - jahgirl8 - Jan 24, 2020 - 4:00pm
 
how do you feel right now? - Antigone - Jan 24, 2020 - 2:38pm
 
Iran - jahgirl8 - Jan 24, 2020 - 2:32pm
 
A motivational quote - jahgirl8 - Jan 24, 2020 - 2:23pm
 
Interesting Art - Proclivities - Jan 24, 2020 - 1:36pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Jan 24, 2020 - 11:23am
 
Economix - R_P - Jan 24, 2020 - 10:49am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Jan 24, 2020 - 10:10am
 
Acting - R_P - Jan 24, 2020 - 9:55am
 
Strange & Cool Music - Proclivities - Jan 24, 2020 - 9:32am
 
Recommended documentaries - cc_rider - Jan 24, 2020 - 9:05am
 
Florida - miamizsun - Jan 24, 2020 - 5:31am
 
Croatia - EdSe - Jan 24, 2020 - 12:06am
 
Bad News / Good News - haresfur - Jan 23, 2020 - 4:11pm
 
WTF??!! - Antigone - Jan 23, 2020 - 3:04pm
 
The war on funk is over! - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2020 - 12:59pm
 
Jazz - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2020 - 12:41pm
 
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage? - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2020 - 12:21pm
 
SFW & Gluttony Pants - Proclivities - Jan 23, 2020 - 9:23am
 
songs that ROCK! - sirdroseph - Jan 23, 2020 - 7:05am
 
Your app for Mac needs an update - gtufano - Jan 22, 2020 - 11:36pm
 
RP and Sonos - jarro - Jan 22, 2020 - 5:04pm
 
What Do You Want From RP? - buddy - Jan 22, 2020 - 2:53pm
 
Movie Quote - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 22, 2020 - 10:32am
 
A Sad Day, Indeed - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 22, 2020 - 7:09am
 
Goodnight everyone! - Proclivities - Jan 22, 2020 - 4:06am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Egctheow - Jan 22, 2020 - 1:14am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - BlueHeronDruid - Jan 21, 2020 - 11:33pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jan 21, 2020 - 10:37pm
 
ONE WORD - buddy - Jan 21, 2020 - 9:24pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Anti-War Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Post to this Topic
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:44pm

 RichardPrins wrote:

If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?

Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.

If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.

 
The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East.  SE Asia doesn't seem to be all wrapped up in the concept.  Indonesia and Malaysia are not building armies, nuclear weapons and sponsoring terror around the world.

I'm not paranoid, just offering my take.  Either one considers Jihad a real threat or one doesn't.  If one doesn't then what I have offered is meaningless.  No worries on my part.  I'm just along for the ride. like everyone else.

But as far as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned, absolutely ... with modifications to reflect the 21st Century.  The US needs to stick to the Western Hemisphere.  We only verred away from it to save Europe's a$$, twice and for the Cold War, which is over.

Time for the US to come home and mind our own business and leave the Middle East and all the crap that goes with it behind.  We've paid for it long enough.  Time for the slackers of the world to take it over.


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:14pm

 RichardPrins wrote:

If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?

Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.

If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.

 

Stop confusing the issue with facts!
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:08pm

 kurtster wrote:


I'll risk crawling farther out on my limb ...

 

Rather reaching.{#Wink} As usual I agree with RichardPrins.{#Arrowd}
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:02pm

 sirdroseph wrote:


Absolutely is part of the equation. Given this, Romney as opposed to Obama or anyone for that matter is going to make them hate us less by...........and if you don't care whether they hate us and just want to support Israel at all cost and increase bombing of the Islamic world than this policy is going to make us safer by..........

 

I'll risk crawling farther out on my limb ...

These are my assumed givens ... in no particular order.

Jihad is seperate from Islam in the senses I am speaking.
Obama has clearly thrown Israel under the bus.
Jihadists only respect power.  Negotiation is interpreted as a sign of weakness, therefore to be regarded as inferior and the negotiators culled.
Arminajad or however you spell his name is serving his last term in office.
Arminajad seeks to bring the Islamic version of End Times on the world.
He is hell bent of wiping out Israel and will use the bomb as soon as he can.

As long as Obama is in office, there is doubt that the US will back Israel should they elect to act on their own and are highly vulnerable to unchallenged retaliation.  Romney as POTUS clearly represents unwavering support for Israel, making any initial hostile actions towards them less likely.  How much I don't pretend to know, but there would certainly be an effect.

The mullahs in Iran are getting unhappy with A...d and if there is chance to wait him out, that is the best strategy.  The mullahs are looking at him like a loose cannon.  I don't think they really want to bring about End Times.  There is no way we can stop Iran from getting a nuke without a military action and even that is uncertain.  I would prefer to have someone in office who might make the mullahs think twice about it and slow down A....d internally.

Meanwhile, we secure our own energy resources and make us totally independent of the Middle East so when it does go nuclear, we will not suffer immediately and directly.  It becomes Europe, Russia and China's problem as they are the ones dependent on the oil, not us.  We will cut Israel loose, but later rather than sooner.  Eventually Israel will have to stand up for itself.

We need to get back to where the US was at its peak and strongest.  That was when we didn't need the rest of the world, they needed us.

The Monroe Doctrine again comes into play as a guide for our future foreign policy.
All the above is incomplete, oversimplified and broadbrushed.  And it only matters if we can survive our domestic economic problems.

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 11:59am

 kurtster wrote:
Its a little deeper than 1947.  It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand.  The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US.  The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.
 
If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?

Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.

If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 11:20am

 kurtster wrote:


Its a little deeper than 1947.  It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand.  The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US.  The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.

 

Absolutely is part of the equation. Given this, Romney as opposed to Obama or anyone for that matter is going to make them hate us less by...........and if you don't care whether they hate us and just want to support Israel at all cost and increase bombing of the Islamic world than this policy is going to make us safer by..........
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 11:13am

 sirdroseph wrote:


If this is true, than does it not render any policy or stance we take towards the Islamic world mute, making it a complete non-issue as to how we react towards them? In other words, they are gonna do what they are gonna do regardless of US policy and who is implementing them therefore they don't give a rat's ass whether Obama, Romney or the Pillsbury doughboy occupy the White House.  Given this, why even speak of it in regards to making our choice for POTUS?  Not to mention, I am sure US foreign policy in particular from 1947 on has absolutely nothing with providing fertile ground for the impoverished Arab youth to take up arms against us I am sure. I am thinking that there is something in the dirty water that makes them hate us.{#Rolleyes}

 

Its a little deeper than 1947.  It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand.  The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US.  The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 10:59am

 kurtster wrote:

I'll reply broadly to the 4 posts below and directly answer the questions above.

Economic imbalances and upheaval are not to be ignored or discounted by my original post.  They are always a threat to peace.

Jihad is a special distinction and the US has been fighting the status of Infidel for two hundred years.  From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ... from the Marine Hymm.  Jihad is sanctioned war.  It is instutionalized.  It is institutionalized meglamania when applied broadly.  It requires as little as a cartoon to be implemented.  It is a fight to the death.

While Jihad is a minority view of the broader Muslim community, one risks death in denouncing it from within.  Dictators of varying bents and extremes have come and gone and been killed, vanquished or whatever, Jihad has no singular face or personna.  It is an ideal.  It does not require a Hitler for example to be successful or effective or continue indefinitely.

It will use anything deemed worthy for justification, from economic to religious reasons.  To answer a question posed above, IMO it can never be satisfied.  The US is still being treated in the same terms for 200 years.  Only the total conquering of the US will end the Jihad declared against it.  Same as erasing Israel from the map.

Jihad is currently working and conducting extreme violence as we speak.  There are no other worldwide threats currently operating that threaten world peace on the levels of the Jihadists, hence my point that Jihad is the greatest threat to global peace that we have at this point in time.

I do not think that our country has expressed any language equal to convert or die.

Either I explained myself or dug a deeper hole.  I'll let y'all decide ...

 

If this is true, than does it not render any policy or stance we take towards the Islamic world mute, making it a complete non-issue as to how we react towards them? In other words, they are gonna do what they are gonna do regardless of US policy and who is implementing them therefore they don't give a rat's ass whether Obama, Romney or the Pillsbury doughboy occupy the White House.  Given this, why even speak of it in regards to making our choice for POTUS?  Not to mention, I am sure US foreign policy in particular from 1947 on has absolutely nothing with providing fertile ground for the impoverished Arab youth to take up arms against us I am sure. I am thinking that there is something in the dirty water that makes them hate us.{#Rolleyes}
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 10:48am

 islander wrote:

Who do you feel has called for Jihad?  What do you think it would take to satisfy it?  Do you think that any of our countries actions might objectively be defined using the same language and terms?

 
I'll reply broadly to the 4 posts below and directly answer the questions above.

Economic imbalances and upheaval are not to be ignored or discounted by my original post.  They are always a threat to peace.

Jihad is a special distinction and the US has been fighting the status of Infidel for two hundred years.  From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ... from the Marine Hymm.  Jihad is sanctioned war.  It is instutionalized.  It is institutionalized meglamania when applied broadly.  It requires as little as a cartoon to be implemented.  It is a fight to the death.

While Jihad is a minority view of the broader Muslim community, one risks death in denouncing it from within.  Dictators of varying bents and extremes have come and gone and been killed, vanquished or whatever, Jihad has no singular face or personna.  It is an ideal.  It does not require a Hitler for example to be successful or effective or continue indefinitely.

It will use anything deemed worthy for justification, from economic to religious reasons.  To answer a question posed above, IMO it can never be satisfied.  The US is still being treated in the same terms for 200 years.  Only the total conquering of the US will end the Jihad declared against it.  Same as erasing Israel from the map.

Jihad is currently working and conducting extreme violence as we speak.  There are no other worldwide threats currently operating that threaten world peace on the levels of the Jihadists, hence my point that Jihad is the greatest threat to global peace that we have at this point in time.

I do not think that our country has expressed any language equal to convert or die.

Either I explained myself or dug a deeper hole.  I'll let y'all decide ...
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 4:50am

from Anti-War.com...

Informant: NYPD paid me to 'bait' Muslims



NEW YORK (AP) — A paid informant for the New York Police Department's intelligence unit was under orders to "bait" Muslims into saying inflammatory things as he lived a double life, snapping pictures inside mosques and collecting the names of innocent people attending study groups on Islam, he told The Associated Press.

Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bangladeshi descent who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called "create and capture." He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests.

"We need you to pretend to be one of them," Rahman recalled the police telling him. "It's street theater."

Rahman said he now believes his work as an informant against Muslims in New York was "detrimental to the Constitution." After he disclosed to friends details about his work for the police — and after he told the police that he had been contacted by the AP — he stopped receiving text messages from his NYPD handler, "Steve," and his handler's NYPD phone number was disconnected.

Rahman's account shows how the NYPD unleashed informants on Muslim neighborhoods, often without specific targets or criminal leads. Much of what Rahman said represents a tactic the NYPD has denied using.

The AP corroborated Rahman's account through arrest records and weeks of text messages between Rahman and his police handler. The AP also reviewed the photos Rahman sent to police. Friends confirmed Rahman was at certain events when he said he was there, and former NYPD officials, while not personally familiar with Rahman, said the tactics he described were used by informants.

Informants like Rahman are a central component of the NYPD's wide-ranging programs to monitor life in Muslim neighborhoods since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Police officers have eavesdropped inside Muslim businesses, trained video cameras on mosques and collected license plates of worshippers. Informants who trawl the mosques — known informally as "mosque crawlers" — tell police what the imam says at sermons and provide police lists of attendees, even when there's no evidence they committed a crime.

The programs were built with unprecedented help from the CIA.

more...



islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 6:45am

 kurtster wrote:
Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.

Jihad does not take prisoners.  All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.

The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.

 
Who do you feel has called for Jihad?  What do you think it would take to satisfy it?  Do you think that any of our countries actions might objectively be defined using the same language and terms?
Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 6:36am

 kurtster wrote:
Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.

Jihad does not take prisoners.  All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.

The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
 
The greatest threat to world peace is economic inequality. There was war long before there was jihad, and there will be war after jihad. Wars, on the other hand, have almost invariably been over economics. 

Jihad is the struggle of Muslims that is either internal or external. Like many things Islam, there are many meanings, from improving your home and community, to the armed struggle against infidels and non-believers. 


sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 5:56am

 kurtster wrote:
Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.

Jihad does not take prisoners.  All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.

The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.

 

I actually think on the whole Jihad is not really a big deal. At worse they may unleash a bomb here and there. No, the greatest threat does not even involve bombs and military at all, that is an antiquated 20th century way of looking at the world. No the greatest threat is the world economy and currency.{#Yes}


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 5:24am

Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.

Jihad does not take prisoners.  All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.

The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 5:18am

 miamizsun wrote:

americans aren't very concerned about their rulers slaughtering innocent people, and if they are I don't see many speaking out about it

it seems the anti-war or peace movements have been marginalized by authority and sham promises

some people are afraid of that same govt putting them on a list or targeting them for whatever, they fear the violence or threat of violence

others just don't know or care, they're looking at (listening to) promises of what govt can do for them

those promises are backed up by force/laws/rules and folks want to be on what they perceive to be the beneficial end of that coercion and violence, even if it means ignoring or turning a blind eye to murder, death, destruction and locking people in cages

obama and romney are both purchased by the same lobbyists and people will fall for their rhetoric cause they've been trained to or because it is just easier to go along

the war machine is a big business and wielding that power has been coveted by rulers for ages

human rights? peace? innocent life?

they'll continue to be snuffed by these two and millions will vote to enable it...

regards

 
Interestingly, it didn't always use to be this way (see Vietnam). And even stranger when you go further back in time: American Resistance to a Standing Army

Now, apparently, "resistance" is living the atomized good life, keeping your head down and avoiding eye contact.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 4:42am

 RichardPrins wrote:
In Foreign Policy Debate, Romney Capitulates, Agrees With Obama
In Monday’s presidential debate, GOP contender Mitt Romney persistently avoided confronting President Obama on foreign policy issues, with both candidates agreeing on most fundamental issues.

Romney’s ‘Me Too’ Foreign Policy Debate

Kill on...

 
americans aren't very concerned about their rulers slaughtering innocent people, and if they are I don't see many speaking out about it

it seems the anti-war or peace movements have been marginalized by authority and sham promises

some people are afraid of that same govt putting them on a list or targeting them for whatever, they fear the violence or threat of violence

others just don't know or care, they're looking at (listening to) promises of what govt can do for them

those promises are backed up by force/laws/rules and folks want to be on what they perceive to be the beneficial end of that coercion and violence, even if it means ignoring or turning a blind eye to murder, death, destruction and locking people in cages

obama and romney are both purchased by the same lobbyists and people will fall for their rhetoric cause they've been trained to or because it is just easier to go along

the war machine is a big business and wielding that power has been coveted by rulers for ages

human rights? peace? innocent life?

they'll continue to be snuffed by these two and millions will vote to enable it...

regards
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 12:53am

In Foreign Policy Debate, Romney Capitulates, Agrees With Obama
In Monday’s presidential debate, GOP contender Mitt Romney persistently avoided confronting President Obama on foreign policy issues, with both candidates agreeing on most fundamental issues.

Romney’s ‘Me Too’ Foreign Policy Debate

Kill on...
Umberdog

Umberdog Avatar

Location: In my body.
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 21, 2012 - 4:06am

 RichardPrins wrote:
Michael Parenti: The Nobel Peace Prize for War
(...) But what was I to expect? For years I ironically asserted that the best way to win a Nobel Peace Prize was to wage war or support those who wage war instead of peace. An overstatement perhaps, but take a look. (...)
 
A very thoughtful piece. Thank you.

Note that my remaining eye hates you. ::joking:: (It's hard to read these days.)


R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 21, 2012 - 2:26am

Michael Parenti: The Nobel Peace Prize for War
(...) But what was I to expect? For years I ironically asserted that the best way to win a Nobel Peace Prize was to wage war or support those who wage war instead of peace. An overstatement perhaps, but take a look. (...)

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 16, 2012 - 11:40pm

The first world war: the real lessons of this savage imperial bloodbath

(...) All the main warring states were responsible for the brutal suppression of nations, large and small, throughout the racist despotisms that were their colonial empires. In the years leading up to the first world war an estimated 10 million Congolese died as a result of forced labour and mass murder under plucky Belgian rule; German colonialists carried out systematic genocide against the Herero and Nama peoples in today's Namibia; and tens of millions died in enforced or avoidable famines in British-ruled India, while Britain's colonial forces ran concentration camps in South Africa and meted out continual violent repression across the empire.

The idea that the war was some kind of crusade for democracy when most of Britain's population – including many men – were still denied the vote, and democracy and dissent were savagely crushed among most of those Britain ruled, is laughable. And when the US president, Woodrow Wilson, championed the right to self-determination to win the peace, that would of course apply only to Europeans – not the colonial peoples their governments lorded it over.

As the bloodbath exhausted itself, it unleashed mutinies, workers' revolts and revolutions, and the breakup of defeated empires, giving a powerful impetus to anti-colonial movements in the process. But the outcome also laid the ground for the rise of nazism and the even bloodier second world war, and led to a new imperial carve-up of the Middle East, whose consequences we are still living with today, including the Palestinian tragedy.

Unlike in 1940, Britain wasn't threatened with invasion or occupation in 1914, and Europe's people were menaced by the machinations of their masters, rather than an atavistic tyranny. Those who died didn't give their lives "for freedom"; they were the victims of an empire that was a stain on humanity, the cynicism of politicians and the despicable folly of the generals. As Harry Patch, last British survivor of the trenches who died three years ago, put it, the first world war was "nothing better than legalised mass murder". (...)


Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22  Next