Israel, Iran top 'negative list'

[kappa273]

i wonder where Kibitzer is?

what a shame, the US competing with Iran, Israel and North Korea!

perhaps we should not talk of the United States as a country but let's consider only the administration, more precisely the neo-cons who have succeeded in making the US compete for that position....

At least I can safely say that the average American citizen does not look anything like the neo-cons.... unfortunately, when the elections occur, internal issues are what decide the results of the elections with external politics having very minimal influence..........

kappa

[Lebanese_uk]

Originally Posted by WiseCookie

The entire American governmental system is intertwined. This argument is ridiculous.

I don't dispute that it is intertwined. It is, but you said I was ignorant for saying the State Department rather than the US Defense Department. I was simply saying that I could have mentioned either.

Although government agencies are intertwined, they have certain specialisations. Amongst the specialisations of the State Department is the promotion of US foreign policy which includes the 'war on terror.' So I was entirely correct in what I said...

And the department of defense has no public relations department? Here's the link if you want to check

I never said they didn't have a public relations department.

Anyway it appears your knowledge runs as far as conspiracy theories and pop culture when it comes to the CIA and Defense Department.

What conspiracy theories?

Right because there's no such things as extremists in the KSA, or Chechnyans in Russia, or Basque separatists and terrorist bombers in Spain, or Islamic terrorists in the UK or Germany or France.

This is nothing new. Nobody is denying the existence of these groups.

They're all just acts done by the state onto their own people to increase their power.

Again I did not say that. I said the state uses the actions of these groups as excuses to curtail civil liberties and engage in wars under the pretext of 'fighting terror', which in reality have nothing to do with the said groups but rather some other foreign policy objective, like oil.

Take the 'conspiracy theory' of Iraq for example. They claimed Saddam had links to Al-Qaida, turned out to be false. They claimed he had WMD, turned out to be false. So Anglo-American forces killed iraqis -- and don't forget the routine torture carried out by the occupation forces -- used depleted uranium munitions and this was all for a lie. All in the name of the 'War on terror'

God bless this 'crusade' of 'good' against 'evil.' Wow all of a sudden politicians sound messanic which is exactly what they want. Yes, messianic and very similar in lexicon to Bin Laden-- the irony of it all.

[WiseCookie]

Originally Posted by Lebanese_uk

I don't dispute that it is intertwined. It is, but you said I was ignorant for saying the State Department rather than the US Defense Department. I was simply saying that I could have mentioned either.

I apologize. I misunderstood you.

Although government agencies are intertwined, they have certain specialisations. Amongst the specialisations of the State Department is the promotion of US foreign policy which includes the 'war on terror.' So I was entirely correct in what I said...

Yes, you are right, but I was coming from the Department of Defense angle.

What conspiracy theories?

If you want to talk about the 'war on terror' you join the state department, if you want to help bomb and torture innocent civilians you join the Department of Defence or the CIA. You were talking, i.e. the former.

The way you worded it. You made it seem as if that's their only goal.

This is nothing new. Nobody is denying the existence of these groups.

Alright so what did this mean?

Yes many countries are claim they are fighting a 'War on terror.' These wars have nothing to do with 'terrorists' but are just an excuse to curtail civil liberties and terrorise, murder and torture foreign nationals from 'terror' nations. It is just a tool to give politicians power and a sense of importance and divinity.

Again I did not say that. I said the state uses the actions of these groups as excuses to curtail civil liberties and engage in wars under the pretext of 'fighting terror', which in reality have nothing to do with the said groups but rather some other foreign policy objective, like oil.

So France and Russia have objectives like foreign oil? Do you also know that when the US gets the oil fields fully operational in Iraq, they will get barely if close to any of the revenue? It will be all going to the Iraqi government. The pretext of oil is an outdated one. But i do agree with you that they sometimes use it to curtail civil liberties, but there has always been a debate going on.

Security for freedom, or freedom for security. It's a trade-off, and you have to choose. Some people have to be monitored, that is a breach of privacy, but would you rather have some one monitor a possible terrorist's phone calls and catch him, or fight for having privacy over talking with your friend about this girl you met last night, which the FBI is probably not going to care about ?

Take the 'conspiracy theory' of Iraq for example. They claimed Saddam had links to Al-Qaida, turned out to be false. They claimed he had WMD, turned out to be false. So Anglo-American forces killed iraqis -- and don't forget the routine torture carried out by the occupation forces -- used depleted uranium munitions and this was all for a lie. All in the name of the 'War on terror'

That's not a conspiracy theory. That's an intelligence failure and there have been many of those in the CIA's history, this is not the first one. But the Depleted Uranium Munitions as far as I know has no solid proof behind it, so that qualifies as a conspiracy theory, much like the balloons that landed in the south which were full of Helium but somehow managed to send 30 people to the hospital.

God bless this 'crusade' of 'good' against 'evil.' Wow all of a sudden politicians sound messanic which is exactly what they want. Yes, messianic and very similar in lexicon to Bin Laden-- the irony of it all.

Actually it's up to the people to give them the label of messianic or not. The goal might be ideal, but it's how politicians handle it that make it a just cause or a fake cause.

[DukeRustfield]

Originally Posted by Abufijli

Yes Leb Natio, most people view the US's invasions and massacre of over 600 000 people as more important than the tianemen square massacre. Rightly, guess you are in the minority in the world. Time to jump ship.

I read lots of 600,000+ reports of casualties. However, the most liberal of estimates places the breakdown as follows:

Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

So even if you assume 600,000+ deaths from the war and following occupation, 69% of the deaths were from non-coalition forces. Or, Iraqi-on-Iraqi or other outside units.

No doubt it's a terrible situation. But the idea that the US/coalition is killing the majority of people is simply wrong.

[Observer]

Yes the democracy of 600, 000 iraqi killed and the democracy of abu gharib. Some said that we need to adopt the democratic model of Jordan and Egypt or KSA. You know, they are the moderate Arab states, the same states the the US showers with praise day and night while trying to democratize Iraq.

لك الله يا عراق

[3asheq Beirut]

Originally Posted by DukeRustfield

I read lots of 600,000+ reports of casualties. However, the most liberal of estimates places the breakdown as follows:


So even if you assume 600,000+ deaths from the war and following occupation, 69% of the deaths were from non-coalition forces. Or, Iraqi-on-Iraqi or other outside units.

No doubt it's a terrible situation. But the idea that the US/coalition is killing the majority of people is simply wrong.

First, we can start by stating that the US military did indeed kill a lot of Iraqis, exact numbers aside. We can further say with a degree of certainty that those numbers are in the tens of thousands.

Second, no one knows for sure who is behind many of the killings taking place in Iraq. We hear a lot of generalizations and haphazard accusations and some questionable claims of responsibility, but we are not sure who the actual perpetrators are. The reason for this is the utter chaos prevalent in the country. What we do know, however, is that two British agents were caught a couple years ago attempting to plant explosives in Basra, dressed as Iraqi "insurgents", which has brought into question the role of the US and UK in many of the rampant bombings taking place there.

Third, while the United States may not be directly responsible for every single killing that has taken place, it is ultimately responsible for the situation at large. The US, after all, did invade a foreign country without any provocation, and completely dismantled the entire ruling system, from the army to the police to the security apparatus, etc. Logically, this can only lead to chaos and infighting, in any country, let alone Iraq, where there was and is a prevalent sectarian environment which the US has continuously exploited.

Most of the world has seen and realized the work of the US and what their hegemonic campaigns have done to other countries. This is why the US has such an unfavorable image amongst peoples of the world. People are not stupid and they do not hold any irrational hatred toward the US. In fact, most people around the world love and appreciate American culture. But this does not mean that they should also accept and support the US's wreaking havoc on other countries.