SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (6482)12/23/2004 5:55:02 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22250
 
Iraqi Resistance hits the Paper Tiger at Camp Ghazlaani
Kurt Nimmo

December 22, 2004 - Is there a reason the corporate media is ignoring reports that a truck loaded with explosives “inflicted significantly higher casualties than officially claimed” on the US base Camp Ghazlaani in Mosul? General Richard Myers told Times Online “it looks like it was an improvised explosive device worn by an attacker” that killed the 22 soldiers and contractors officially acknowledged. “We have had a suicide bomber, apparently, strap something to his body and go into the dining hall,” Myers said. “We know how difficult this is, to prevent people bent on suicide.” ( timesonline.co.uk
)

Other reports, however, dispute this. “Sources close to the Iraqi resistance indicate the attack on the US base Camp Ghazlaani in Mosul inflicted significantly higher casualties than officially claimed,” Truth Seeker reports.( thetruthseeker.co.uk ). “Moreover, it appears that a suicide bomber used a Mercedes truck loaded with explosives to carry out the attack… Mafkarat al-Islam reported that the 12-ton truck packed with explosives slammed into the dining hall on the base during a packed lunch [and]… reported that the suicide bomber was wearing the uniform of an Iraqi policeman when he drove the Mercedes truck through two barriers toward the mess hall. Eyewitnesses said that the truck was going fast, about 120km per hour, when it crashed into the glass front of the mess hall and exploded, reducing the building to a burning ruin.”

Myers and the Pentagon want you to believe that it was just plain darn luck that allowed a single “attacker” with “something” strapped to his body to kill 22 or more GIs and contractors during lunch at a supposedly heavily armed and guarded military base in Mosul. Here’s what they don’t want you to know: the Iraqi resistance has evolved to the point where it can breach security at a major U.S. military base with a 12-ton truck packed with explosives and kill dozens of Americans. It can target Green zone checkpoints ( bloomberg.com.
b8yQ&refer=top_world_news ) with car bombs and mortars, and even brazenly hand-carry bombs into the most fortified section of Baghdad. ( washingtonpost.com ).

“We have no front lines, the front lines can be the dining hall, the mayor’s office,'’ Myers told Bloomberg. “They operate everywhere. It’s going to be very tough. As this insurgency has changed and it’s become more intense, and our resolve has to be all that much tougher.” ( bloomberg.com
QEyk&refer=top_world_news )

I’m no military strategist—even so, it does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that if the resistance can target the U.S. military while it eats and catches R&R, Bush’s “mission” is doomed.

In 1960, Hanoi formed the National Liberation Front for South Vietnam—the American government and corporate media would derisively call the National Liberation Front the “Vietcong” —after Ngo Dinh Diem, the U.S. “appointed” dictator of South Vietnam, refused to hold elections. It took thirteen years for the United States to declare “peace with honor” in Vietnam—in other words, when the war criminal Henry Kissinger signed a “cease-fire agreement” with Le Duc Tho in Paris, the United States essentially admitted defeat—and pull troops out of Vietnam and (in 1973) end the draft. In Iraq, however, the timeline appears to be much shorter. It may be two or three years instead of thirteen.

If the devastating explosion at Camp Ghazlaani demonstrates anything, it is that the U.S. military—with its bristling repository of high-tech armaments—is no longer capable of imposing its will on the third world (that is, short of nuking them) and is, as Mao Tse-tung wrote in 1956, truly a “paper tiger.” ( marxists.org
/volume-5/mswv5_52.htm ) As Mao saw it nearly fifty years ago, “U.S. imperialism is quite powerful, but in reality it isn’t. It is very weak politically because it is divorced from the masses of the people and is disliked by everybody and by the American people too. In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of, it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe the United States is nothing but a paper tiger.”

Mao, however, was wrong about the American people. At best, they are ambivalent about U.S. imperialism, that is if they know anything about it. Most Americans naively—as the result of lives spent under the spell of public education and mass media brainwashing—believe their government is attempting to do good in the world. Difficult as it will be to accept, the American people will acknowledge defeat in Iraq with the same degree of ambivalence they acknowledged the defeat in Vietnam, even though the corporate media and corporate publishers of history refuse to admit the United States experienced defeat in Vietnam (or will be in Iraq), setting the country up for the next clique of power-mad rulers—neocon, neoliberal, or otherwise—who will attempt to force their will on the world.

Fortunately for the world—but not the American people—there will not be a next time. As it now stands, the U.S. economy is in tatters, propped up for the moment by foreign investors. Soon enough, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down, taking with it the massive burden of the military-industrial complex. Americans may be impoverished in large numbers, experiencing economic decline worse than that suffered during the so-called Great Depression, but for the world this will translate into peace, or at least the realization that the U.S. military leviathan will no longer bomb its cities and kill millions of its people. It is an unwritten part of American history that revolution was near at hand during the last depression (read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States: free.freespeech.org
lesHistory.html ). Is it possible the American people will get it right this time? Or will they be fooled once again?



To: geode00 who wrote (6482)12/23/2004 6:01:09 PM
From: fresc  Respond to of 22250
 
'The problem is that the right wing fringe has taken over 90% of talk radio/cable and 75% of major media. The 24/7 barrage of right wing talk makes the country appear to be more fundamentalist and more nutty than it actually is'.

LOL! Geo your a mess! What a imagination :)



To: geode00 who wrote (6482)12/25/2004 4:47:04 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Respond to of 22250
 
Re: ...the country appear to be more fundamentalist and more nutty than it actually is.

Yet, by European standards, the US is a madhouse packed with Jesus freaks and trigger-happy rednecks --as British authors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge have pointedly expounded it in their latest book:

amazon.com

Somehow you indulge in the same wishful thinking as most Europeans do... Europeans travel to NYC, the Big Apple, and back home, they say that EVERY US city is like New York... They watch Hollywood movies where all police chiefs are black and all the villains are Middle-Eastern-looking and they fancy it's the same all across small-town America... Next they hear of same-sex marriages in San Fransisco and they surmise that every burg in America is crawling with married gays and lesbians! But the truth is, flyover America is just one big conservative, bigot fortress, and what you call merely "conservative" would be labelled "reactionary" or even "fascistic" by most European liberals... Hundreds of radio talkshows broadcast racial hate and slurs around the clock in America --yet you boast it as a beacon of "free speech" and freedom! Just imagine the outcry if hundreds of radio stations did the same in Europe! Not to mention your attitude towards Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants... I mean, we're talking of people of SPANISH ancestry here!!! And I found out that those immigrants are despised as if they were some sort of ape-like untermensch!!! Goddamit!

Gus



To: geode00 who wrote (6482)12/25/2004 5:13:49 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22250
 
Follow-up...

Settler nation

Huntington bewails the half-truth that the United States is a "nation of immigrants". Americans' ancestors were not immigrants but Anglo-Protestant settlers who came to the New World in the 17th and 18th centuries to create a new society. "Immigrants came later (1830s) to become part of the society the settlers had created" (p 40). The Anglo-Protestant settler culture and its political and economic freedoms attracted immigrants to America. Settlement was central not only to the nation's formation but also to its internal westward expansion, the "peopling of the frontier".

Liberal beliefs that American identity is defined entirely by political principles of liberty, equality and individual rights is another partial truth for Huntington. Settler Americans enslaved and massacred native peoples, segregated blacks, excluded Asians, discriminated against Catholics and obstructed immigration from outside northwestern Europe. From King Philip's War (1675) onward, white Americans ethnically cleansed "savage", "backward" and "uncivilized" natives. Until 1965, blacks were denied basic liberties and insulted as an inferior class of beings. Up to 1952, Asian immigrants were shunned as "a menace to our civilization".

Core culture

The core components of Huntington's American identity are Anglo-Protestant practices inherited from fragments of English society whence the settlers came. The English language, Tudor governance and Protestantism were the bedrocks from which emerged the "American Creed" (Gunnar Myrdal). "America was created as a Protestant society just as Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies" (p 63). Evangelicals and Puritans carved the American national value system - extreme individualism, glorification of work and self-made men. The moralistic dualism of US foreign policy is derived from the same Anglo-Protestant culture that sets right apart from wrong and appropriate from inappropriate.

The United States, a predominantly Christian nation, was always the most religious country in the Western Hemisphere. Throughout American history, the proportion of church members has increased. Sixty-eight percent of respondents in a 1992 opinion poll felt that belief in God was "extremely important for a true American". So-called "de-Christianization" of the country was and is a myth. The US Catholic Church was "de-Romanized" in the late 19th century and adapted to the Protestant environment. American "civil religion", centering on special destiny and a mission to save the world, originates from the Protestant ethic.

[...]

Zigzag path

[...]

For Huntington, the greatest threat to American "societal security" (identity, culture and customs) came from waves of Hispanic immigration. Sixty-nine percent of illegal immigration to the United States is of Mexican origin. Latin American immigrants were reluctant to approximate US norms, especially Mexicans, who remained highly concentrated. Separatist Mexicans engendered the "most serious cleavage in American society" by converting the country's southwest into a "MexAmerica" that has the potential of going the Quebec way.

[E]fforts for not getting Americanized were supported by liberals who claimed that ethnocentrism was dangerous. A "reactive ethnic consciousness" resulted, especially among Mexican immigrants, whose identification with American values was zilch. They grew "increasingly contemptuous of American culture", living "in America but not of it" (p 256).

Non-assimilatory immigrants detrimentally affected the meaning and practice of US citizenship. Naturalization was trivialized into an exercise of claiming government economic benefits. Lacking any requirement of loyalty and nationalism, US citizenship was rendered unexceptional.

Hispanization, in Huntington's assessment, can threaten the political integrity of the US, what with the Mexican Embassy issuing consular cards to illegal immigrants. "The Mexican government, in effect, determines who is an American" (p 282). Congressional contests in the US are fought between opposing diaspora lobbies. Cuban dominance of Miami has transformed the city into an "out-of-control banana republic" with an "independent foreign policy" (p 251).
[snip]

atimes.com



To: geode00 who wrote (6482)12/25/2004 5:53:02 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22250
 
Merry Xmas... and a wake-up call:

The Rumbling At Our Feet

December 15, 2004
By Pamela Troy


I keep having the same slightly mad conversation with moderates. By "moderate" I mean the people, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, who use words like "troubling" or "disturbing" to describe what's happening in this country, but laugh off any suggestion that stronger language might be appropriate.

"Oh, come on, don't be so melodramatic," I'm told, when the subject of the recent irregularities in our last election comes up. "If it gets to the point where we've truly lost faith in our system of elections, why, we'll march en masse on Congress, put the fear of God in 'em and demand that they do something about it!"

"And why would marching on Congress make them do this?" I ask.

"Because they're politicians," I'm informed with amused and exaggerated patience. "They want to be re-elected. They know if they don't listen to us, we're going to go to the voting booths and cast our ballots..."

It's like talking to a teenager who understands mortality on an intellectual level but is unable to associate it with drinking too much, driving too fast, or accepting rides from strangers.

Without a voting system that we can trust to reflect our will, we have no weapons but naked defiance. As Americans I'm afraid we are unaware of the terrible price such defiance can exact in a country where the government ascribes to itself the power to incarcerate citizens indefinitely, secretly, and without access to a lawyer, and where the word "torture" is being legally redefined into meaninglessness.

Perhaps much of this complacency lies in the fact that most of us are currently too low or too high on society's food chain to believe that there can be serious consequences for speaking out. We aren't insiders like Joe Wilson, high profile enough to be a genuine threat, or marginal individuals like Jose Padilla, too foreign and scary-looking to be accepted as "real Americans" by the majority.

But we have still gone further down the road to one party rule than I would have credited several years ago, in spite of almost every mainstream assurance we have been given for the past twenty years about the supposedly imminent demise of the religious right, the commitment of Democratic leadership to actually confronting the extremists who have taken over the Republican Party, and the status of the press as an independent watchdog over powerful interests. We seem cheerfully oblivious to the fact that every safeguard to freedom, every check and balance that we take for granted has been undermined.

While the assurances from the mainstream have been hollow, the rumblings of the right-wing Internet have proven to be a horribly reliable barometer of the direction we've been headed for the past twenty years. I've been online since the mid-eighties, was frequenting discussion boards when using the term "Internet" in a sentence generally required a detailed explanation. Back then, I used to encounter ridiculous arguments on the web about how the founders didn't really intend there to be separation of church and state, how liberals are all Communists and Joe McCarthy was right and those who opposed the Vietnam war were traitors.

The people who posted this kind of dreck considered the actual truth of a statement to be beside the point. Back then, such an approach to political discussion was regarded and treated as marginal, a joke to most liberals and an embarrassment to most conservatives.

Today I see those same arguments being seriously offered by pundits with their own national TV shows. Bill O'Reilly has warned us to shut up if we know what's good for us. Ann Coulter has labeled the Democratic Party as treasonous. That same level of dishonesty has become the norm in mainstream political discourse, in which high-ranking members of the administration rewrite history without a blush mere weeks after the fact.

And in the meantime the subterranean noises online have gotten even more extreme and more violent. Torture? It's not treated with shame or even lame denials and excuses, but embraced, positively lauded as a virtue, while the rhetoric towards those of us designated as "liberals" is increasingly crossing the border into violence. To oppose Bush's "War on Terror" is to be labeled as one of the enemy - and the enemy can be abused at will. Rational debate has become all but impossible as language is twisted to defend what was not so long ago regarded as indefensible by everyone but the most wild-eyed neo-fascist.

Offline, those of us who pride ourselves on our reason and moderation cluck our tongues ruefully over the recent voting "irregularities" in Ohio. We treat that, and the administration's claim that it has the right to label anyone in the world an "enemy combatant" and imprison them - and the administration's claim that torture isn't torture - and the administration's conviction that they have been appointed by God - as if they were separate issues.

Loudmouths like Michael Moore and Al Franken and Greg Palast make us wince. Goodness, couldn't they be a little less shrill? I mean, sure they have a point, but really they're just reducing their own credibility with all that arm-waving, all that unseemly anger! Disenfranchisement is something that happens to somebody else. Like torture, kidnapping, religious and political repression, it's something to disapprove of from what we imagine to be a safe distance.

I don't anticipate any serious personal consequences for posting this piece. A family member's career will not be ruined. I'm not going to be picked up at an airport and whisked into legal limbo. Even in the face of what's unfolding before me, I find it hard to grasp that I, an American, could at some point be harshly punished for speaking my mind. In that sense I'm like the nineteen-year-old who can remember Grandma's funeral but still can't believe that mortality also applies to me. After all, it never has before.

But as any mature adult knows, things change. At nineteen, I didn't understand how fragile is the human body, how easily it can die. Today, enough of my friends have been lost to avoidable car accidents, drug overdoses, and even just ordinary carelessness about their health for me to understand that little should be taken for granted.

Ten years hence, God only knows what Americans citizens may not just believe, but know as an ugly and undeniable fact about the health of our status as a free society.

democraticunderground.com