America's Innocence Ravaged On 9/11
- Thread starter kotzabasis
- Start date
Re: RE: AMERICA'S INNOCENCE R
Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom, and the freedom of
friendly countries around the world will suffer if control of
the world's great oil reserves fell in the hands of that one
man, Saddam Hussein.{60}
Thus spaketh George Herbert Walker Bush to the people of
America.
Toro,it was about oil the first time and it's still about oil. to suggest that $10-20 billion would buy that oil is rediculous, it's projected to be worth trillions over the life of the reserves, and as a matter of fact it's actually priceless. It is absolutely vital that the Anglo-American alliance secure it, without that oil it's the end of the road for a lot of powerful people and a lot of little people that support them.
Toro said:
Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom, and the freedom of
friendly countries around the world will suffer if control of
the world's great oil reserves fell in the hands of that one
man, Saddam Hussein.{60}
Thus spaketh George Herbert Walker Bush to the people of
America.
Toro,it was about oil the first time and it's still about oil. to suggest that $10-20 billion would buy that oil is rediculous, it's projected to be worth trillions over the life of the reserves, and as a matter of fact it's actually priceless. It is absolutely vital that the Anglo-American alliance secure it, without that oil it's the end of the road for a lot of powerful people and a lot of little people that support them.
Re: RE: AMERICA'S INNOCENCE R
The reason why the US is interested in the Middle East is because of energy. There is no question about that. And America does have a history of meddling in the region. And you are correct that America liberated Kuwait to stop Saddam, whom the Saudis loathed believed wanted to invade their country.
However, that does NOT mean that the US invaded Iraq for the oil fields.
There is no annexation of the Iraqi oil fields. And there will not be. The Iraqi oil fields are under are and will remain under the domain of the Iraqi government, and will be run like every other arrangement western oil companies operate under around the world. They pay a royalty to the Iraqi government, and will continue to do so.
This civil war that you are seeing going on Iraq now - which is really a war going on in the Sunni Triangle - is about power, who will control the state of Iraq, and how the spoils of Iraq will be divided. Well, guess what the spoils of Iraq are? Oil!
The constitution that Iraq passed divides the oil revenues. And guess who gets all the oil? Primarily, the regions where the oil is located. And where is that? In the Kurdish north and in the Shi'a south. Who gets shut out? The Sunnis. Now, if you ask me, that's not a particularly good constitution. However, there ain't much war going in those two regions where all the oil is located.
Why? Because the Kurds and the Shi'a know that when either the war stops or the country blows apart, they are going to be the biggest benefactors. The Sunnis know they're going to be the big losers. The Sunnis reaped the spoils under Saddam. Saddam took care of his own. No more, and the Sunnis are pissed.
So what has this got to do with the invasion of Iraq? Simple. If it was all about oil and the Americans annexing the oil fields, then the Shi'a and the Kurds would be revolting too. But they're not. They are the biggest beneficiaries of oil revenues, not the Americans.
So America did not invade Iraq to control the oil fields. No way, no how.
Do American oil companies benefit? Of course. But why wouldn't they? Its American blood and treasure that has been spilled to liberate Iraq, so why would you reward the French and the Russians, who actively opposed the Americans? Iraqi oil output had fallen over the past 20 or so years from 3 million barrels a day to about 1.5 million. The equipment is dilapitated, so there's lots of work to be done. And American firms will be rewarded and they will benefit.
"Well, cheap oil is about feeding the American economic beast?" is the next argument. Well, the US could have had the same effect by paying Saddam $10-20 billion, or whatever the number would have been. They could have said to Saddam "Hey Saddam, the most important thing in the world to us is oil. We need cheap oil. We need it to flow. I know we've had our differences, but hey, we had an arrangement before, we can have an arrangement again. We'll end this embargo, find an honourable way out for you, and pay you $10-20 billion and you can award our oil companies with new contracts and we'll get your output up again to 3 mmb/d. Whatsay, Saddam? Do we have a deal?"
And of course, Saddam would have accepted. After all, according to the Far Left, he was once a lackey of the Americans, right? I mean, he invaded Kuwait on the nod from the US ambassador, correct? He was funded by the CIA, eh?
So, instead of paying off Saddam, the US has spent $400 billion, killed 40,000 Iraqis and 2,000 Americans, wounded 10,000 Americans, created tremendous ill-will around the world towards the United States, undermined America's leadership in the world, tank their own currency, create another Vietnam, etc., for pretty much the same result.
Right.
darkbeaver said:
The reason why the US is interested in the Middle East is because of energy. There is no question about that. And America does have a history of meddling in the region. And you are correct that America liberated Kuwait to stop Saddam, whom the Saudis loathed believed wanted to invade their country.
However, that does NOT mean that the US invaded Iraq for the oil fields.
There is no annexation of the Iraqi oil fields. And there will not be. The Iraqi oil fields are under are and will remain under the domain of the Iraqi government, and will be run like every other arrangement western oil companies operate under around the world. They pay a royalty to the Iraqi government, and will continue to do so.
This civil war that you are seeing going on Iraq now - which is really a war going on in the Sunni Triangle - is about power, who will control the state of Iraq, and how the spoils of Iraq will be divided. Well, guess what the spoils of Iraq are? Oil!
The constitution that Iraq passed divides the oil revenues. And guess who gets all the oil? Primarily, the regions where the oil is located. And where is that? In the Kurdish north and in the Shi'a south. Who gets shut out? The Sunnis. Now, if you ask me, that's not a particularly good constitution. However, there ain't much war going in those two regions where all the oil is located.
Why? Because the Kurds and the Shi'a know that when either the war stops or the country blows apart, they are going to be the biggest benefactors. The Sunnis know they're going to be the big losers. The Sunnis reaped the spoils under Saddam. Saddam took care of his own. No more, and the Sunnis are pissed.
So what has this got to do with the invasion of Iraq? Simple. If it was all about oil and the Americans annexing the oil fields, then the Shi'a and the Kurds would be revolting too. But they're not. They are the biggest beneficiaries of oil revenues, not the Americans.
So America did not invade Iraq to control the oil fields. No way, no how.
Do American oil companies benefit? Of course. But why wouldn't they? Its American blood and treasure that has been spilled to liberate Iraq, so why would you reward the French and the Russians, who actively opposed the Americans? Iraqi oil output had fallen over the past 20 or so years from 3 million barrels a day to about 1.5 million. The equipment is dilapitated, so there's lots of work to be done. And American firms will be rewarded and they will benefit.
"Well, cheap oil is about feeding the American economic beast?" is the next argument. Well, the US could have had the same effect by paying Saddam $10-20 billion, or whatever the number would have been. They could have said to Saddam "Hey Saddam, the most important thing in the world to us is oil. We need cheap oil. We need it to flow. I know we've had our differences, but hey, we had an arrangement before, we can have an arrangement again. We'll end this embargo, find an honourable way out for you, and pay you $10-20 billion and you can award our oil companies with new contracts and we'll get your output up again to 3 mmb/d. Whatsay, Saddam? Do we have a deal?"
And of course, Saddam would have accepted. After all, according to the Far Left, he was once a lackey of the Americans, right? I mean, he invaded Kuwait on the nod from the US ambassador, correct? He was funded by the CIA, eh?
So, instead of paying off Saddam, the US has spent $400 billion, killed 40,000 Iraqis and 2,000 Americans, wounded 10,000 Americans, created tremendous ill-will around the world towards the United States, undermined America's leadership in the world, tank their own currency, create another Vietnam, etc., for pretty much the same result.
Right.
Re: RE: AMERICA'S INNOCENCE RAVAGED ON 9/11
Sorry, I didn't get back to this thread until now.
Samuel Huntington is a political scientists who wrote the book entitled "The Clash of Civilizations" where he argued that the next big conflict of the post-cold war era would not be about ideology i.e. communism vs democracy, but about culture/religon. He believed that the age of ideology has ended and that the world, or at least in the arena of international affairs had returned to it's normal state of cultural conflict. He argues that the West's insistance on democratization as a universal norm, will only antagonize other "civilizations". He argues that democracy is part of western culture, not necessarily suited for other nations (cultures).
He's also an institutionalist, who argues that this is key to a successful democracy on a domestic level, but also argues for stronger instituions i.e. the UN on an international level.
Anyway, here's a link with lots of detail, analysis, counter arguments etc: Huntington
Wednesday's Child said:
Sorry, I didn't get back to this thread until now.
Samuel Huntington is a political scientists who wrote the book entitled "The Clash of Civilizations" where he argued that the next big conflict of the post-cold war era would not be about ideology i.e. communism vs democracy, but about culture/religon. He believed that the age of ideology has ended and that the world, or at least in the arena of international affairs had returned to it's normal state of cultural conflict. He argues that the West's insistance on democratization as a universal norm, will only antagonize other "civilizations". He argues that democracy is part of western culture, not necessarily suited for other nations (cultures).
He's also an institutionalist, who argues that this is key to a successful democracy on a domestic level, but also argues for stronger instituions i.e. the UN on an international level.
Anyway, here's a link with lots of detail, analysis, counter arguments etc: Huntington
Re: RE: AMERICA'S INNOCENCE R
But, you're forgetting about Canada's role in the manufactering of those same bombs.
BitWhys said:
But, you're forgetting about Canada's role in the manufactering of those same bombs.
911 was a horrific attack. I dont think anyone on this post disputes that. Was it the loss of innocence? Noone is innocent in this world. We all ultimately are responsible for our governments decisions. After all, we elected them. Unless, of course, you are saying that we do not live in a democracy. That is why many people on this post argue against Canada's involvement in the war. If we dont agree with it, then it is up to us to stand up and protest clearly against it.
Was 911 a turning point in history? No more than any other event in the life cycle of the world. Yeah, it was pretty amazing to see the buildings crash. Yeah, many people were killed. But only someone who wasnt paying attention to world events could say that this was a turning point. Why, it wasnt even the start of the Afghanistan War. Afghanistan has been at war for hundreds of years. It was very early on recognized as a strategic zone. And 911 wasnt even the start of US involvement there. Bill Clinton had allready had the US Navy fire cruise missiles on Afghani supposed terrorist camps in 1998 after the East Africa bombings.
Dont get me wrong.. I think 911 was an atrocious act and a horrific loss, as are all terrorist attacks. But I think the fact that so many people focus on it as a turning point emphasizes that for them the only thing that would make them sit up and take notice of the world was having an event happen in their own backyard.
Was 911 a turning point in history? No more than any other event in the life cycle of the world. Yeah, it was pretty amazing to see the buildings crash. Yeah, many people were killed. But only someone who wasnt paying attention to world events could say that this was a turning point. Why, it wasnt even the start of the Afghanistan War. Afghanistan has been at war for hundreds of years. It was very early on recognized as a strategic zone. And 911 wasnt even the start of US involvement there. Bill Clinton had allready had the US Navy fire cruise missiles on Afghani supposed terrorist camps in 1998 after the East Africa bombings.
Dont get me wrong.. I think 911 was an atrocious act and a horrific loss, as are all terrorist attacks. But I think the fact that so many people focus on it as a turning point emphasizes that for them the only thing that would make them sit up and take notice of the world was having an event happen in their own backyard.
RE: America's Innocence R
I agree Fuzzylogix, in the grand scheme of things 9/11 was just another attack by terrorists, who some may call freedom fighters, it's the way of the world, to be frank it's no biggie (no offence)
I agree Fuzzylogix, in the grand scheme of things 9/11 was just another attack by terrorists, who some may call freedom fighters, it's the way of the world, to be frank it's no biggie (no offence)
Well, it could be said that it was a turning point with respect to the fact that it was a wake up call.... I think we in the western world have had a luxury up til 9/11 - we enjoyed living in a place where this IS unusual... having the violence brought into home territory on such a large scale forced us to see that we are not impervious, and if we're going to play in the mud, we might get dirty. Yes, our innocence was ravaged in a horrific way - and wasn't that the intention of the culprits?
.... we have been forced to ask ourselves "Why....." The answers are still being debated, and likely never agreed upon. My response - from the moment occured - was this: "All attack is a cry for help" ...in my idealistic little brain, it seemed that the answer to Why could best be arrived at by actually asking the question "What is it you perceive we have done to elicit such an extreme gesture from you?" And then actually listen to the answer.... What baffles me is the debates I see raging all over insisting that it's somehow related to a purely unjustified hatred towards all things, people and ideas western/American. Doesn't wash with me.... these people obviously feel they have a serious and valid grievance. I am not not not condoning 9/11 - that event has etched itself on my heart as deeply as everyone else here... and I've wrestled with the Why question too...but I don't personally see yet how we've made any kind of response to it that will actually alleviate the motivation for such attacks.... fear and intimidation only work for so long - and it seems we've come far past that place where the threat of retaliation is an effective deterrent... the time is ripe to look for new solutions...
.... we have been forced to ask ourselves "Why....." The answers are still being debated, and likely never agreed upon. My response - from the moment occured - was this: "All attack is a cry for help" ...in my idealistic little brain, it seemed that the answer to Why could best be arrived at by actually asking the question "What is it you perceive we have done to elicit such an extreme gesture from you?" And then actually listen to the answer.... What baffles me is the debates I see raging all over insisting that it's somehow related to a purely unjustified hatred towards all things, people and ideas western/American. Doesn't wash with me.... these people obviously feel they have a serious and valid grievance. I am not not not condoning 9/11 - that event has etched itself on my heart as deeply as everyone else here... and I've wrestled with the Why question too...but I don't personally see yet how we've made any kind of response to it that will actually alleviate the motivation for such attacks.... fear and intimidation only work for so long - and it seems we've come far past that place where the threat of retaliation is an effective deterrent... the time is ripe to look for new solutions...
RE: America's Innocence R
nah, thats rubbish zan, take the algerian extremists in france, ETA in spain, the Facists in Italy, those lovely people from the IRA and nationalist factions in the UK, nope most of the "western" world have been living with this problem for a long time.
it's a wake up call for the US no doubt, but no biggie to most of the western world, and frankly I find it insulting that people make such a big deal of it, it happens to everyone, but because it happend to the US it's somehopw different????
nah, thats rubbish zan, take the algerian extremists in france, ETA in spain, the Facists in Italy, those lovely people from the IRA and nationalist factions in the UK, nope most of the "western" world have been living with this problem for a long time.
it's a wake up call for the US no doubt, but no biggie to most of the western world, and frankly I find it insulting that people make such a big deal of it, it happens to everyone, but because it happend to the US it's somehopw different????
no, daz, not rubbish. Just my opinion... But I think we agree to a point... you're saying that it should not be regarded any differently no matter whose soil it occurs on.... I'm saying the same thing.....differently lolll
and it is obviously a big deal to some people... why? Speculation on my part is that Westerners didn't get how real all this terrorist activity is - until it landed on home turf... so the waking up of us Westerners to the reality of terrorism vs the violence playing out in someone else's backyard is what's new in this instance of terrorism...and so the waking up of westerners is what the big deal is imo...
and it is obviously a big deal to some people... why? Speculation on my part is that Westerners didn't get how real all this terrorist activity is - until it landed on home turf... so the waking up of us Westerners to the reality of terrorism vs the violence playing out in someone else's backyard is what's new in this instance of terrorism...and so the waking up of westerners is what the big deal is imo...
RE: America's Innocence R
"Western dependence on Persian Gulf
oil will rise dramatically" in the next decade; while General
Schwarzkopf, who had lifelong ties to the Middle East, testified:
Mideast oil is the West's lifeblood. It fuels us today, and
being 77 percent of the Free World's proven oil reserves, is
going to fuel us when the rest of the world has run dry. ...
It is estimated that within 20 to 40 years the U.S. will have
virtually depleted its economically available oil reserves,
while the Persian Gulf region will still have at least 100 years
of proven oil reserves.{65}
It was actually 69 percent at the time, and since the Soviet
Union has joined the "Free World", it's even less.{66} It should
also be noted that the good general's prediction for the US is
rather speculative, and that the term "economically available" is
a reference to the fact that US domestic oil reserves are more
costly to exploit than those in the Gulf. But this only makes it
a profit problem, not an oil-supply problem. Moreover, the vast
potential residing in alternative energy sources must be included
in the equation. WWW.killinghope.org
"Western dependence on Persian Gulf
oil will rise dramatically" in the next decade; while General
Schwarzkopf, who had lifelong ties to the Middle East, testified:
Mideast oil is the West's lifeblood. It fuels us today, and
being 77 percent of the Free World's proven oil reserves, is
going to fuel us when the rest of the world has run dry. ...
It is estimated that within 20 to 40 years the U.S. will have
virtually depleted its economically available oil reserves,
while the Persian Gulf region will still have at least 100 years
of proven oil reserves.{65}
It was actually 69 percent at the time, and since the Soviet
Union has joined the "Free World", it's even less.{66} It should
also be noted that the good general's prediction for the US is
rather speculative, and that the term "economically available" is
a reference to the fact that US domestic oil reserves are more
costly to exploit than those in the Gulf. But this only makes it
a profit problem, not an oil-supply problem. Moreover, the vast
potential residing in alternative energy sources must be included
in the equation. WWW.killinghope.org
RE: America's Innocence R
yeah, my terminology was a bit strong there, sorry zan, but I agree, it's not really a big point until it hit's you on home soil, but unfortunatly it has been "hitting" home soil around the world for many, many years, it just seems to me that a lot of people seem to think this is anything new, in that, it is not
yeah, my terminology was a bit strong there, sorry zan, but I agree, it's not really a big point until it hit's you on home soil, but unfortunatly it has been "hitting" home soil around the world for many, many years, it just seems to me that a lot of people seem to think this is anything new, in that, it is not
RE: America's Innocence R
Official Washington's embrace of the oil mystique has given
rise to a long-standing policy, expressed as follows by political
analyst Noam Chomsky:
It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy
since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources
of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United
States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent,
indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence
on the administration of oil production and price.{68}
WWW.killinghope.org
Official Washington's embrace of the oil mystique has given
rise to a long-standing policy, expressed as follows by political
analyst Noam Chomsky:
It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy
since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources
of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United
States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent,
indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence
on the administration of oil production and price.{68}
WWW.killinghope.org
Re: RE: America's Innocence R
Well Daz_Hockey, for a country (yours) that has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other nations, I would suggest it was somewhat of a "biggie". If you feel "insulted" YOUR media makes a big deal of it, I suggest you take it up with the BBC or any other media outlet you get your news from.
As for Americans, until 9/11, war and terrorism were events happening in far away lands. The American public could not conceive of such major acts of war on our home territory. We have always had the feeling of being "guarded" by our oceans, illusions of "invincibility", in that sense, America's "innocense" went out the window. That is the only element I can see that makes the whole issue "different", to us anyway, and the fact the terrorist act claimed the most lives from countries all over the world, I would "guess" it would make a difference to you also.
Daz_Hockey said:
Well Daz_Hockey, for a country (yours) that has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other nations, I would suggest it was somewhat of a "biggie". If you feel "insulted" YOUR media makes a big deal of it, I suggest you take it up with the BBC or any other media outlet you get your news from.
As for Americans, until 9/11, war and terrorism were events happening in far away lands. The American public could not conceive of such major acts of war on our home territory. We have always had the feeling of being "guarded" by our oceans, illusions of "invincibility", in that sense, America's "innocense" went out the window. That is the only element I can see that makes the whole issue "different", to us anyway, and the fact the terrorist act claimed the most lives from countries all over the world, I would "guess" it would make a difference to you also.
Re: RE: AMERICA'S INNOCENCE R
Said1 is the manufacturing of arms and munitions for Uncle Sam really Canadian or is it corporate, the two are not the same thing the corporate world has no alligance to any nation the corporatists only repect money and that trumps any nationalistic connections.
But it is criminal that we permit the manufacture of arms for the machine.
Said1 said:
Said1 is the manufacturing of arms and munitions for Uncle Sam really Canadian or is it corporate, the two are not the same thing the corporate world has no alligance to any nation the corporatists only repect money and that trumps any nationalistic connections.
But it is criminal that we permit the manufacture of arms for the machine.
One of the very unfortunate political events to emerge after 9/11 was the lumping of resistance movements that use terrorist methods with terrorists groups like al Qaeda. These groups are very different. The US is now recognizing this in Iraq as it negotiates with indigenous insurgents. Hamas is also negotiating now as the Israeli terrorist group Irgun did before them. If you look at it historically one will see many examples of resistance groups that have been reincorporated into the political structure.
The Arabs in Iraq like Zarqawi are mercenaries with no real cause and are terrorists. Zarqawi has killed in Jordan as well. Al Qaeda has mounted terrorist attacks in Morocco and throughout the Arab world. It has launched attacks Spain and England.
Carlos in the seventies was always trying to attach his crimes to some social cause to achieve legitimacy. Carlos was a terrorist without a cause and so he hijacked other people’s causes. What he really tried to do was to appropriate other identities to give his hatred context and meaning. Is this the kind of world we want where any psychopath can justify their hatred based on the experience of some other people? Advocating for social justice and simply hating the US are two different things and should not be confused.
Ralph Novak a conservative columnist (I believe) wrote an article about how the US owes a great debt to Muslim Americans as they are the ones who have prevented a second terrorist strike in the US. There are Afghans and Palestinians living in the greater New York area and the latter while having hopes for a Palestinian state had no involvement with 9/11. They have proven that they are patriotic Americans and deserve to not have guilt continuously thrust on them.
Also I like many Canadians have American family and friends. We have a place in Manhattan less than a 15 minute walk from where the towers stood. I cleaned up the windows and sills after 9/11 which was a very humbling experience. I also know people who work in the financial district and they still travel and live their lives as they always have. I imagine the same is true in Madrid and London and Casablanca and Bali.
Given all the visceral hatred in Canada for the US I am surprised there are not more incidents. I have US plates and I’ve spent about 2 months a year the last few years in Canada and I don’t make a point of saying I’m Canadian and yet I have never experienced any hostility. And I lived in Mexico during the Reagan years and remember a lot of anti-gringoism. It’s very odd.
The Arabs in Iraq like Zarqawi are mercenaries with no real cause and are terrorists. Zarqawi has killed in Jordan as well. Al Qaeda has mounted terrorist attacks in Morocco and throughout the Arab world. It has launched attacks Spain and England.
Carlos in the seventies was always trying to attach his crimes to some social cause to achieve legitimacy. Carlos was a terrorist without a cause and so he hijacked other people’s causes. What he really tried to do was to appropriate other identities to give his hatred context and meaning. Is this the kind of world we want where any psychopath can justify their hatred based on the experience of some other people? Advocating for social justice and simply hating the US are two different things and should not be confused.
Ralph Novak a conservative columnist (I believe) wrote an article about how the US owes a great debt to Muslim Americans as they are the ones who have prevented a second terrorist strike in the US. There are Afghans and Palestinians living in the greater New York area and the latter while having hopes for a Palestinian state had no involvement with 9/11. They have proven that they are patriotic Americans and deserve to not have guilt continuously thrust on them.
Also I like many Canadians have American family and friends. We have a place in Manhattan less than a 15 minute walk from where the towers stood. I cleaned up the windows and sills after 9/11 which was a very humbling experience. I also know people who work in the financial district and they still travel and live their lives as they always have. I imagine the same is true in Madrid and London and Casablanca and Bali.
Given all the visceral hatred in Canada for the US I am surprised there are not more incidents. I have US plates and I’ve spent about 2 months a year the last few years in Canada and I don’t make a point of saying I’m Canadian and yet I have never experienced any hostility. And I lived in Mexico during the Reagan years and remember a lot of anti-gringoism. It’s very odd.
i dont believe JUSTIFICATION is what is being argued here
it more like EXPECTATION--
2 wrongs dont make a right
but one wrong often LEADS to another wrong
its to be expected
and once a wrong is commmitted-- those examples that juan gave---innocence cannot be claimed on the part of the NATION-- america--
of course the people dying in 911 were innocent but not their nation
the article talks about --- innocence of america-the nation
and what of course made this spectacle ugly was the fact that one was observing it
if , as one of the posters said up there, you could in real time observe how this whole shock and awe happens-- how innnocent people are being mutilated and tortured partially as a consequence of the US and coalition actions -- one might be quite upset
the right wingers up their ill bet dont feel a thing when stats like ---- 1000s 0r 10,000 0r 100,000 iraqis- mostly civilian die -- by our hand-- not saddam---
they may care-- that doesnt represent the same emotional impact as the 911 attacks
it a hypocrisy of the most vile kind
it more like EXPECTATION--
2 wrongs dont make a right
but one wrong often LEADS to another wrong
its to be expected
and once a wrong is commmitted-- those examples that juan gave---innocence cannot be claimed on the part of the NATION-- america--
of course the people dying in 911 were innocent but not their nation
the article talks about --- innocence of america-the nation
and what of course made this spectacle ugly was the fact that one was observing it
if , as one of the posters said up there, you could in real time observe how this whole shock and awe happens-- how innnocent people are being mutilated and tortured partially as a consequence of the US and coalition actions -- one might be quite upset
the right wingers up their ill bet dont feel a thing when stats like ---- 1000s 0r 10,000 0r 100,000 iraqis- mostly civilian die -- by our hand-- not saddam---
they may care-- that doesnt represent the same emotional impact as the 911 attacks
it a hypocrisy of the most vile kind
RE: America's Innocence R
Real Anti-American action will begin to take place in Canada soon, with Mr Harpers agenda becoming clear with respect to deep intigration with American Institutions, violent fallout cannot be avoided. I don't believe that Canadians will tolerate wholesale sellout quietly.
Real Anti-American action will begin to take place in Canada soon, with Mr Harpers agenda becoming clear with respect to deep intigration with American Institutions, violent fallout cannot be avoided. I don't believe that Canadians will tolerate wholesale sellout quietly.