Here: ...Bush claims he's going to introduce democracy in the Middle East when his soldiers are facing more than resistance in Iraq. They are facing an insurrection. So let's take a look at the latest lies. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," he told us on Thursday. "Because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." Well said, Sir. George Bush Jr sounds almost as convincing as, well, Tony Blair. It's all a lie. "We" - the West, Europe, America - never "excused and accommodated" lack of freedom. We endorsed lack of freedom. We created it in the Middle East and supported it. When Colonel Ghaddafi took over Libya, the Foreign Office thought him a much sprightlier figure than King Idriss. We supported the Egyptian generals (aka Gamal Abdul Nasser) when they originally kicked out King Farouk. We - the Brits - created the Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan. We - the Brits - put a Hashemite King on the throne of Iraq. And when the Baath party took over from the monarchy in Baghdad, the CIA obligingly handed Saddam's mates the names of all senior communist party members so they could be liquidated. The Brits created all those worthy sheikhdoms in the Gulf. Kuwait was our doing; Saudi Arabia was ultimately a joint Anglo-US project, the United Arab Emirates (formerly the Trucial State) etc. But when Iran decided in the 1950s that it preferred Mohammed Mossadeq's democratic rule to the Shah's, the CIA's Kim Roosevelt, with Colonel "Monty" Woodhouse of MI6, overthrew democracy in Iran. Now President Bush demands the same "democracy" in present-day Iran and says we merely "excused and accommodated" the loathsome US-supported Shah's regime. Now let's have another linguistic analysis of Mr Bush's words. "The failure of Iraqi democracy," he told us two days ago, "would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region." Here's another take: the failure of the Bush administration to control Israel's settlement-building on Arab land would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Now that would be more like it. But no. President Bush thinks Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is "a man of peace". And then there's that intriguing Bush demand for a revolution in undemocratic Iran. Sure, Iran is a theocratic state (a necrocracy, I suspect), but the morally impressive President Mohamed Khatami, repeatedly thwarted by the dictatorial old divines, was democratically elected - and by a far more convincing majority than President George Bush Jr in the last US presidential elections. Yes, "democracy can be the future of every nation", Bush tells us. So why did his country support Saddam's viciousness and war crimes for so many years? Why did Washington give its blessing, at various stages, to Colonel Ghaddafi, Hafez Assad of Syria, the Turkish generals, Hassan of Morocco, the Shah, the sleek Ben Ali of Tunisia, the creepy generals of Algeria, the plucky little King of Jordan and even - breathe in because the UNOCAL boys wanted a gas pipeline through Afghanistan - the Taliban...? ...We created this place, drew its borders, weaned their grotesque dictators. And we expect the Arabs to trust Mr Bush's promise?
Neither of these statements are lies. Your meandering analysis completely fails prove anything that he said was false. Neither of these statements contain "resistance" as opposed to "insurrection" yet you start off your menifesto with that opinion. This type of logic characterized the rest of your argument. "Excusing and accomodating" was a clear statement of the policy of the Western powers in the Cold War era to support right wing regimes in order to counter communism. THis policy has no doubt engendered ill will among people all over the world towards the U.S., but President Bush was not ducking the issue. It is a matter of opinion whether "Excusing and accomodating" is less appropriate to use in that context than "endorsing", but not a lie on the part of Bush. Your tired repetition of Cold War history does not answer the fact that Bush is trying to do something different in Iraq; the installation of a true democracy. Your effort to somehow discredit the statement ("The failure of Iraqi democracy," he told us two days ago, "would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region.") by saying that the administration is failing to control Jewish settlement building is completely illogical. The Bush Administration cannot "control" what Israel does anymore than the Clinton or any other administration could. The ideology of terrorism is at this point self-perpetuating in many cultures of the Middle East. There will be Palestinian terrorists until they achieve their goals...American actions or inactions will not change this. The Bush administration was not responsible for supporting the fledgling Israeli state after WWII and it is ridiculous of you to blame Muslim resentment of Israeli settlements on current policy.
Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... Are you talking to Fisk, or to me? 'Cause - I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you - Fisk won't answer...he doesn't like soccer. As for the part of your diatribe I CAN answer: What, exactly, is your intimate knowledge with the Bush team's clear and precise plan to, as you put it, install "...a true democracy."? have you seen something that we have not? What, exactly, will this democracy look like? What, exactly, is you understanding of the Bush team's articulation of what "democracy" is? Checks ad balances? Permanent sovreignty over natural resources? Government of, for and by the people? Tyranny of the majority? Mob rule? Can ya share a link or somethin'? You claim "democracy." Do you think that means voting? 'Cause the Iraqis already had that...
Re: Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... First of all, I was simply pointing out that there was no lie. Second, there was voting but no democracy...unless you think 100% of the population voted for Sadam. I have non idea what the administration is going to do, but it will probably try to introduce a functioning democracy...in other words a political system in which the people have to power to elect without intimidation...a true franchise and political voice.
Re: Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... You are *#*#*#*#ing demented. You are. This tears it. You love Saddam! You do! Damnit it to hell everyone, Universal loves Saddam! He's defending the former Iraqi "democracy" where Saddam was "president." Holy crap. I really don't believe you said this. You are seriously twisted. UNIVERSAL LOVES SADDAM.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... it's a stupid statement, but you seriously need some anger management classes. i've never seen someone virtually jump of a cliff at one statement like you do.
Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... I generally agree with your point about the difference between saying "excuse and accomodate" vs. "endorse and support." But you fail to see how you calling the above opinion a "fact" is totally spurious. Most of the world (correctly, IMO) realizes that Bush is not at all intersted in creating democracy in Iraq--he's interested in a client state easily manipulated by U.S. corporate interests. He and the neocons have couched this in terms of "building democracy," but only the naive (and historically challenged) believe it. Granted, a majority of Americans are aptly described that way.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... No i dont need anger management classes. I'm very very tired of Uni pretending he's this great defender of democracy when in reality is a Saddam admirer. I won't tolerate such statements, and i dont think you should either.
Iraq went from a dictationship, at one time sponsored by US and UK interests, to an occupied country, controlled by US and UK interests. When the leadership council of Iraq stops being a pliable doormat and starts pushing back against Bremmer on issues like sale of Iraqi assets to foreign firms, and when the muslim clerics start invoking their new-found popular strength, what are the odds that the US and UK will give up control to groups that will work against US and UK interests? The lie is that Bush and Blair are promising democracy, but only if it serves their interests. Which is no democracy at all. The history of the past century indicates that this will happen.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... Fixed. Get a hold of your gonads, fish-child. My quote submits that if Feris thought that democracy meant voting, the Iraqis had that; obviously they never had democracy, so democracy does not equal voting. You are an idiot.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... You either need a reading comprehension class or a Democracy 101 class. Either way you're woefully unprepared to respond to any claims Fisk made. Or Mel for that matter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... It's funny. Your posts are always wrapped in ambiguity until someone calls you on it. Then of course your response is "well i meant this..." Maybe you should make yourself more clear fignuts. What a mailbox head you are.
manny, I don't put Mel on my ignore list because he's so wrong he's funny. But I don't take him seriously either. I suggest you take the same approach.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... Like I said, you need some reading comprehension. His first post did say just that. Here, look: " Do you think that means voting? 'Cause the Iraqis already had that..." Read it until you figure out that it means that voting does not automatically mean you have a democracy. Until you get that you haven't read it right.
Wow; but yet you engage Manny, who has just shown everyone he cannot even read, let alone effectively manage a thought process, even if its just to dig at me?...my respect for you just, well, fell through the floor and is parked in China...I take you seriously, because if folks like you, who can indeed bother to think critically about issues, cannot do anything but operate within these systems (which the majority of your posts reflect, IMHO - as opposed to evolutionary or even revolutionary thinking), then we're in for some serious hurt over the long run...but to dismiss me as funny is in and of itself humorous, particualrly observing the folks whose ideas and arguments you ahve engaged...sigh...oh well; just thought that you brought more to the table...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fisk: Let's take a look at the latest lies... You just cannot be this stupid. Its not for your sake that I pray against you being this much a mooncalf; its for my own. I simply do not want a citizenship affiliation with someone this *#*#*#*#ing retarded, particularly someone so obviously lumpish yet who thinks they are erudite...THAT'S the scary part; and to watch superdave have some sort of alliying dialogue with you about me...well, that's rather vomitous, and brings his online je ne sais quois down two or three pegs... WOW! Can you even read? This simply blows my mind; I guess, given the very political FACT of Bush, and American proficiency scores in high school the last 5-10 years or so, I should have expected folks like you, but to know, through experience, that you actually exist is...well, frightening. I fear for not only the nation, but the globe...
mailbox head? Wow, going old school with the Mickey Rivers reference. I'm impressed. He shows flashes of potential.