“Galloway” Blair and Bush have blood on their hands

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by Sauron
I my self personally believe Mr. Galloway is correct, in that the West (American foreign policy along with Britain) has increased the levels of terrorism and terrorist world wide.
It would only be expected, keep shoving some one you will get shoved back.

What does this mean? Im sure Russian resistance against the Nazis increased Nazi activity, but what does this all mean. You aren't implying that we wouldn't have terrorism if we didn't go into Iraq, by that same standard there would have be no Nazis in Russia.

Actually it is a very simple concept. If you force people to do something, they will eventually raise against you. After that whatever naming conventions you use are arbitrary, the result is that a cause from the stronger resulted in the effect of the weaker resisting.

America started this thing in Iraq and Iran decades ago. We need to start to think in longer time periods than the mode we currently are in. After a week it is old news and a month it is forgotten - that is why they are able to lie so fully and get away with it. Very few have memories long enough to remember what actually was going on instead of the history revisionism that is so previlent today.

The US isn't bad because they are bad, it is wrong because it subscribes to a concept that is unsustainable, and thus will always require more resources than they themself's have, and thus the increasing force in other parts of the world. The citizen's have been mentally neutered with pop culture and the propaganda machines of their corperate masters to even attempt to see the underlying reasons of the problem - so they are generally left to spout that it is jealousy or some other tripe.

All empires fail and flounder in the end, but what a sad way for the US to go. In a way the US is a lot like Mike Tyson in Boxing. Big, strong, full of range that when harnessed is capable of astonding feats, but when left unchecked the personal ego creates a manical drunkard falling overhimself in rage without reason, which causes distrust and dislike from others, that only produces more rage without reason, which creates more distrust......

In the end, both the US and Tyson look to be headed the to the same gutter. Sad really on both counts.

Originally posted by Passer By
Actually it is a very simple concept. If you force people to do something, they will eventually raise against you. After that whatever naming conventions you use are arbitrary, the result is that a cause from the stronger resulted in the effect of the weaker resisting.

When did we force people to become terrorist?

America started this thing in Iraq and Iran decades ago. We need to start to think in longer time periods than the mode we currently are in. After a week it is old news and a month it is forgotten - that is why they are able to lie so fully and get away with it. Very few have memories long enough to remember what actually was going on instead of the history revisionism that is so previlent today.

Saddam had the ability to make up his own mind. Knew what he was getting himself into. No, Iranian students started what is happening in Iran, as well as the overthrow of the Shah. Two cases not backed by the US. Maybe you have the short term memory.


All empires fail and flounder in the end, but what a sad way for the US to go. In a way the US is a lot like Mike Tyson in Boxing. Big, strong, full of range that when harnessed is capable of astonding feats, but when left unchecked the personal ego creates a manical drunkard falling overhimself in rage without reason, which causes distrust and dislike from others, that only produces more rage without reason, which creates more distrust......

In the end, both the US and Tyson look to be headed the to the same gutter. Sad really on both counts.

So who has been America's Cus Amato for the past 250 years?

Frosty:

Saddam had the ability to make up his own mind. Knew what he was getting himself into. No, Iranian students started what is happening in Iran, as well as the overthrow of the Shah. Two cases not backed by the US. Maybe you have the short term memory.

First off, what do you mean Saddam had the ability to make up his own mind? To do what? Invade Kuwait? Dare to have no WMDs? Kill internal political opponents?

And as for Iran, look to 1953. Here is a link to the National Security Archives in George Washington University. It details the CIA's involvement in the coup against Premier Mohammad Mossadeq and the reinstatement of the monrachy. And yes, Iranians have the Internet.

www.gwu.edu...

This extremely important document is one of the last major pieces of the puzzle explaining American and British roles in the August 1953 coup against Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq. Written in March 1954 by Donald Wilber, one of the operation’s chief planners, the 200-page document is essentially an after-action report, apparently based in part on agency cable traffic and Wilber’s interviews with agents who had been on the ground in Iran as the operation lurched to its conclusion.

TONS of documentation.

This one's the motherlode. Irrefutable. First paragraph says it all.

www.gwu.edu...

jako




[edit on 7-8-2005 by Jakomo]