Those who detest war, recognize that nearly every war is the product of mendacious, power-hungry political leaders.
Warlords who make soldiers believe they're fighting for an entirely good and proper cause that they fought only after having been attacked without provocation, that their enemies were vile monsters, and that their victory made the world a better and more hopeful place for all mankind.
Yes, those who have this dangerous tendency in their international thinking to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. They consider themselves to be more noble and decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right and wrong in the world.
The exigencies of war necessitated many so-called crimes, and the bulk of the rest could be blamed on the mental distortion which war produced. But they publicized every inhuman act of their opponents and censored any recognition of their own moral frailty in moments of desperation. That is how superpowers go to war to fight fairly.
Iran's nuclear crisis, lost hopes in the world cup, and lot's of new sham conspiracy theories… Iranians are so disappointed, feeling that they're deceived again. Those who chanted down with USA are asking for direct talks. And people are wandering in agony if they have been fooled all these years.
Warlords who make soldiers believe they're fighting for an entirely good and proper cause that they fought only after having been attacked without provocation, that their enemies were vile monsters, and that their victory made the world a better and more hopeful place for all mankind.
Yes, those who have this dangerous tendency in their international thinking to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward other nations. They consider themselves to be more noble and decent than other peoples, and consequently in a better position to decide what is right and wrong in the world.
The exigencies of war necessitated many so-called crimes, and the bulk of the rest could be blamed on the mental distortion which war produced. But they publicized every inhuman act of their opponents and censored any recognition of their own moral frailty in moments of desperation. That is how superpowers go to war to fight fairly.
Iran's nuclear crisis, lost hopes in the world cup, and lot's of new sham conspiracy theories… Iranians are so disappointed, feeling that they're deceived again. Those who chanted down with USA are asking for direct talks. And people are wandering in agony if they have been fooled all these years.
posted by Spooky Witch at 6:21 AM
22 Comments:
I agree, many wars are started by power hungry leaders, but there are others who wish for war (and even manipulate the leaders to start wars) only to enrich themselves. The owners of companies that make weapons and other war materials are making a fortune right now because of the invasion of Iraq. In my opinion, Bush is totally a pawn of others. He is probably the least intelligent man to ever be President of America. However, he does delude himself with a dangerous form of religious fundamentalism. He believes that his god is on his side, no matter what he does!
I was hoping Iran would win some matches at the World Cup just to give Iranians something to feel good about. Good luck to the Iranian team tomorrow!
Spooky you've ispired me to start a new campaign:
Peace Through IKEA
Maybe folks could walk hand in hand, browse cheap swedish furniture, assemble it together with their screaming kids, and then share a laugh when it collapses under their weight after a hearty meal of swedish meatballs, everything would be OK.
Everyone wins, not like in soccer.
It is disgusting how powerful nations play with the future of innocent lives in their selfish pursuits !!!!
The very idea of was in any form is horrific..
"...but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
- Abraham Lincoln
Hope ur country wil find its peace..
..Me
David, I'm going to have to raise the BS flag on this one. I'm only correcting this, because I have some respect for you.
Here's your statement:
"He is probably the least intelligent man to ever be President of America. However, he does delude himself with a dangerous form of religious fundamentalism."
An Iranian is accusing the President of America of religious fundamentalism. Would you really like to do a side by side comparison of our two countries? Especially in the catagory of religious fundamentalism?
That would be like an American saying that Brazil has a crappy soccer team. Actually, that'd be more like Haiti saying that Brazil has a crappy team.
I really can't take you seriously unless you rephrase that.
Yeah, the next person with the audacity to take something as awesome as teh is and make it teh was is getting smoke checked.
Ok Brando, I agree, my wording can be improved upon (I don't always write well late at night!). Perhaps Bush is not in the same fundamentalist league as the top Mullahs of Iran. However, he is certainly strongly influenced by fundamentalists who would love nothing more than to create the Christian Republic of America.
Actually, what I said in my previous comment was an allusion to something Bush said a few years ago. He was asked if he consulted with his father before he decided to invade Iraq. He said that he had not talked to his father, but that he had consulted a "higher power".
Anyway, here is my rephrase:
He is probably the least intelligent man to ever be President of America. Additionally, he deludes himself into believing that his god is on his side, no matter what he does!
However, he is certainly strongly influenced by fundamentalists who would love nothing more than to create the Christian Republic of America.
OK, the difference is that such a republic is inconceivable under the current US constitution. In order for it to happen, the present constitution would have to be, I dunno, replaced by something else, which is equally inconceivable. Furthermore, fundamentalist christians make up a relatively small percent of the US population, and even people who would be considered "devout christians" wouldn't be interested in making the christian equivalant to a caliphate in the USA. people who advocate stuff like that are called "crazy".
most americans simply aren't interested in what other people are doing (unless if affects them) and can't be bothered to oppress them religiously.
Huh? I wasn't commenting on FP. What I was saying is that the US population isn't interested in making a christian version of a caliphate (we'll call it "Jesustan" for lack of a better term.)
I wasn't saying anything really about the governments, I was speaking on the populace. I don't know anything about the general Iranian populace, so I won't speak for them.
However, what I did [briefly] mention was that if a politician started ranting about creating a United States of Jesustan, even if they did get into the congress or senate, they'd be written off as a crazy person.
I agree, the USA is great for its own people, but unfortunately most of the people that live in the USA (non-immigrants at least) dont realize that. This is a big reason why, while I love being American, I dont live there. =)
Paul, Iranian people never yearned to get under control of radical fundamentalists thus I can't deny the influence of religious leaders.( I can't go through conspiracy theories that these leaders were generally supported from outside of the country)
Throughout your history your senate blocked people like McCarthy but this time it seems they can't control Bush administration.
You're comparing McCarthy to Bush? Can you explain that?
Paul, the U.S. Constitution is a remarkable creation, and it has served America well for more than 200 years, however, I do perceive some real danger signs for the future of democracy in America. The fundamentalists have been trying for decades to pack the Supreme Court with people who share their views. It is too early to tell how Bush's two Justices will vote on some of the important issues, but I think the court has taken a strong tilt to the Right with the loss of Justice O'Connor. Also, the Republican Congress and Senate have completely surrendered their Constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of the Executive branch. They are far more interested in promoting the Machievellian power politics of the Bush administration and saving their own political asses than in actually serving the average American. If things keep getting worse in Washington, the Constitution could end up being just words on a page like the old Soviet Constitution was. It promised lots of freedoms, but the reality was quite different. I agree that most Americans don't seem to be interested in what is going on. Half of them who could vote don't even bother. However, the fundamentalists do turn out to vote. Their numbers may be relatively small, but they make themselves heard!
Spooky, you have made an excellent point about Bush. He is really a remarkable hypocrite considering all his talk about morality and about being a uniter not a divider. Comparing his words and promises to what he has actually done, it almost seems like he has a Jeckel and Hide sort of split personality!
Why would average Americans vote for a guy like Bush? You know, its almost funny now (compared to what has happened since) to remember back to when he was first elected President. I remember the three debates that Bush had with Al Gore, the Democratic nominee for President. In my opinion, Gore won all three debates, but he came off as being too serious and like an agressive bully to some viewers. Some people say that Americans like to support the underdog. Well, Bush was an in-the-basement dog compared to Gore! I think Bush actually got a lot of sympathy votes the first time. Four years later, things were a lot different. The 9/11 attack made a lot of Americans afraid, and the Bush administration did everything it could to keep feeding the flames of fear. I agreed with going after Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan, but there was never a ligitimate reason to invade Iraq. Of course, it is well known now that Bush and his people always wanted to invade Iraq even before they went into Afghanistan. They wove an intricate web of half truths and outright lies and rammed it down the American people's throats, all the while, playing on peoples fears to dampen any cries of discontent. By the time of the 2004 Presidential election, the U.S. was fully committed in Iraq. Many voters had swallowed hook, line, and sinker the lie that connected Al Queda to Iraq. People tend to vote based on their fears, not out of a sense of altruism. Oh well, these are just a few of my ideas. No doubt the reasons that people vote the way they do are far more complex than the few things I have thought of.
Hold on there Spooky.
"Taking into consideration that I didn't agree with your point of view toward many issues brought up here but I always showed manners toward you even if you didn't act accordingly."
Oh heck no. I'm the one that has demonstrated self restraint here. You don't get to do the passive-aggressive thing with me, that's my gig. Please compare that with what others (including yourself) have posted. What I say and do is good-to-go at all times. And if it isn't let’s logically debate it. I wince at some of the stuff others (and you) have written, but you seem to embrace it. Just an integrity check.
Seriously. "Manners"?
About being "self-righteous". Well...yeah...I suppose so. I'll tone it down a bit.
Back to the discussion. SW raised this question.
"Why it is so when there is a question asked about error made by USA, its advocators accuse the questioner by being anti-American?"
This isn't so much about raising a question of error, but more about announcing that America is bad at a certain thing. It also makes a great deal who the speaker is. (meaning the speaker has to be better) Also, after reading some of the stuff on your blog, and the number of times you use the word “hate”, would it really be out of the question to guess that you’re anti-American?
I used to have a friend in high school that would declare that certain professional football players "sucked". That didn't make any sense to me. My friend wasn't even the best player on our little high school team. Weird. Shouldn’t he be better than the target of his ridicule?
When an Iranian says that America didn't respond to a humanitarian mission fast enough, it implies that their country responded much faster.
When an Iranian says that America isn't doing enough on the War on Terror, it implies that they are making more headway at stopping terrorists.
It works for any topic and for any person, including myself. I can’t carry a tune, therefore I don’t tell people that particular bands suck.
It's what I like to call the "put up or shut up" rule.
Paul, my comparison of McCarthy and Bush administration was regarding to the methods McCarthy had used in his investigations and for his abuse of certain senators and Senate committees. Un-cover-ups due to violation of Americans privacy by recording their phone records and more over the very same issues like patriot act and so make me think an American citizen who is not a white Anglo-Saxon lives the very same life of an Iranian but with better standards in economical terms.
Moreover the very similar speeches you might hear from Bush and neo-cons with the same tendency but regarding to different self-made foes.
It's McCarthy's speech against Marshall:" What is the objective of the great conspiracy? I think it is clear from what has occurred and is now occurring: to diminish the United States in world affairs, to weaken us militarily, to confuse our spirit with talk of surrender in the Far East and to impair our will to resist evil. To what end? To the end that we shall be contained, frustrated and finally fall victim to Soviet intrigue from within and Russian military might from without."
Doesn't this seem familiar to our minds the very matching expressions of Bush in his post 11th September speeches while trying to persuade USA's public that America have been attacked by countries supporting the terrorists not by groups of fanatics? There were never found any reliable evidence that Iran supported Al Qaeda, alas Iran was there in Bush's famous Axis of Evil.
I couldn't come up with a better example to judge against the Bush's administrations .Maybe I had to put more thoughts on that.
David, you brought out legitimacy of Bush's war campaign I don't remember about any UN resolutions that approved USA intervening in Iraq. USA ignores international organizations like UN and also Geneva Convention.
Conceivably Americans voted for bush again because they were shocked after the 11th September.
There is still a lot unsaid about unreliable documents that Bush's administration held to convince the Security Council about Iraq's secret WMDs.
Brando,let's utter what was unstated.
Accidentally,I noticed over Paul's blog that you called me nuts. Where I even didn't commented over politics but just about IKEA.I don't ever recall stating anything really Islamist nor even anti-west or anti-amercian, what makes me NUTS in your perspective? I wouldn't allow myself to call someone with names even if he/she states wired things according to my conception.
I always tried to choose my words as cautiously as I could, and I am sorry if I didn't achieve that at some points and left misunderstandings.
I am interested on Paul's blog and I liked his Advaturestan, I still like his posts over Japan .His Advanturestan was one of the very few blogs I enjoyed reading about war on Afghanistan. He sounds well-educated and enlightened and also who is familiar with cultural diversity.
Yes you tried to ease down Jinxy but if someone from Iran opposes just like with his manners don't you consider that person a terrorism supporter?! Sure you would do. I really don't care to that kind of jokes of people like Jinxy. Maybe I could do as you did ,post it on my blog and ask the world to realize the danger of one small comment puts them through. How ridiculous it is?!
Assuming that people's intellect hidden in them first appears by their way of expressing their thoughts, I think the issues like nationality comes later. I don't think I can't question about things like errors of USA because I hold Iranian citizenship. I have the right of questioning anything because I am a human. Unless you just consider AMERICANS as only human beings. And mostly I have suffered outcomes of these policies that make me and my people victims of it. So I fit the position to question USA's policies, the very same I would do with Iran's or South Africa's. I am eligible to question like everybody else who wishes to make this world a better place.
I never used the word HATE toward America I just used that word against SOME USA policies, and at some point against Bush's administration. Not that I hate anyone but I wanted to show the dislike over their actions how they caused many other innocent people suffer half world away for I don't what for sake only.
I think you would even accuse many LIBERAL Americans of being anti-America because they showed their dislike with the word HATE many times before.
Whatever, I didn't mean to set fire to rage nor I didn't tried to yield hatred toward any other nation.
Thanks for writing and thanks for using words instead of bullets.
Wow. So many things and only one post.
Um, War on Afghanistan? nice.
Again. To raise a question is different than making an absolute statement.
If you make an absolute statement, there's no wiggle room. You forfeit the option of saying it was merely a question at some later time.
As far as me saying that US liberals are anti-American. What I label them is determined solely by their behavior. They are anti-American. They sacrifice their own honor.
I denounced what Mr. Jinxy said quickly. I don’t issue threats, and I don’t acknowledge saber-rattling. Words have meaning. The only reason I posted what Deci said was because it reflected accurately on the group. I don’t want there to be “death to america”, and I didn’t “really enjoy” 9/11. Not only did you embrace it, you actually denounced me for making her say that. What an odd concept.
I know that you oppose what I say, from the very start, however it may be wiser not to use words like bullets and actually engage in dialogue using facts and solid logic. No reading between the lines. You're not my enemy, but unfortunately I was your’s from the very start. That's very sad.
Spooky, I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with what I said? However, it is my understanding that Bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal on the basis of established international laws and agreements. It certainly was not legitimate in my eyes!
..American citizen who is not a white Anglo-Saxon lives the very same life of an Iranian but with better standards in economical terms.
I can't comment on this because I've never been an Iranian citizen, and as far as I know you've never been an American citizen. Maybe should should stop by and ask some non-Anglo-Saxon [naturalized!] citizens if they are more satisfied living in the USA than in their former regime or whatever? Or maybe you can ask the droves of people trying to become citizens what their perspective is? The proof is in the pudding. If the USA weren't a step up, people from every country in the world would stop trying to get a piece of it, and there would be a flood of people trying to leave the USA.
As for your McCarthy stuff, I don't wholly disagree with it, so I won't comment on it. However, for me personally, if a bunch of blond-haired, blue eyed nordics ran a couple airplanes into some buildings and routinely blew themselves up, would people be crazy for seeming suspicious of them? if i were a politician i'd probably use it to my advantage. fortunately, im not (nor will i ever be) a politician, so i dont have to worry about that stuff. =)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brando,how other way I should have denounced her statement? I earlier noted how I deeply was sad about 11th September and I made myself clear that I was extremely against actions of those fanatic fundamentalists who planned all that. They relied on dramatic, spectacular, bloody and destructive act of hit-and-run violence to attract attention to themselves and their cause, which their cause was never really known. Deci's feelings was kind of understandable, perhaps she should have showed her frustration with Middle East's current affair more reasonably. But I really don't see why she has to be counted as an enemy of USA when she even doesn't intend to harm any interest of America. I didn't try to defend her; my intention was to point out what I dig up from her statements.
I also hate it to see there are people who label all Muslims as being terrorism supporter particularly when any opposition is heard from them, or whatsoever. You denounced jinxy but called me nuts afterwards, anyway, that was kind of funny. I don't mind to be criticized also it is great that I see many peoples of different opinion share their thoughts here.
American Constitution, Bill of right, the Equal right Amendment and every other stone of American democracy assures that anybody can raise a question against your government; its action and its policies .Does raising a question on rational ground have any chance of causing a real change?
I don't think there should be any reason according to my logic that you might be my enemy for the reason that you have different kind of values. There is no point in entitling a person as my enemy because s/he disagrees with my opinion. You never were my enemy. I am sorry if you misunderstood my words when I didn't agree with you on elements of anti-Americanism.
I as well try to use more moderate words.
David,I agree with you on point of illegitimacy of USA war on Iraq, it was not supported by any international organization. Bush needed Security Council to be persuaded that Iraq was following secret plans to achieve WMDs but allegedly those evidences used to illustrate the danger of Saddam's programs never sustained any credibility.
Paul, I don't know why I brought out racial issues. That was kind of unrelated However, it is obvious there are discriminations against some minorities there. Where is not? All over the world someone is being discriminated because of the gender, religion and race. Bringing up a country as a perfect figure and model for other countries is not tolerable, particularly when this model is forced to another country.
Yes, maybe if there are reliable polls that shows they're happier there or living in their former country. Honestly, I think 90% would say they're happier. There is no doubt that people of every nationality, back ground are living in USA and they're not experiencing any sectarian conflicts like any other parts of the world.
I am still looking for a better comparison for Mr. Bush.
Nordic blonds, they look so pacifist ,don't they?
I would not quote Abe Lincoln as he started the American Civil War which killed thousands of Americans. The USA is not the "World Police" as there are way too many problems internally. What ticks me off is when the US gets blamed for the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict that has been going on for decades. Then I hear "The US support for Israel" crap. We have sent billions to Yasser Arafat to establish building new homes, schools, food, job creations,even trying to do the peace deal with Arab countries backing. Israel has pulled completely out of Gaza which is the first step however the bombings still continue. The US is not babysitters for Israel. People all over the Middle East says we meddle too much but when we don't meddle we get blamed. Did you know that the President and Defense Min in Israel are Iranian Jews?? We also support Jordan, Egypt, Saudi, Kuwait, UAE and others by sending them military equipment as well as money. Where did all that money go Arafat had?(His wife is living extremely large in France).
As far as terrorism goes, during the first Gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Why didn't the entire Arab world come together to remove Saddam? Bin Laden apparently went to the Saudi Govt and asked if he and his men could force them out. The Saudi Govt in turn told him he wasn't strong enought to do it. Kuwait & Saudia Arabia called emergency meeting in the UN. They needed help and asked us along with a host of other countries to get rid of Saddam. The US had to take this agenda before Congress and they had to vote. In meantime, Saudi's already chose an area for us use as military base (we don't get to pick & choose where to put our equipment). The Congress voted yes, however, strict orders were given to Colin Powell to ONLY remove Iraq from Kuwait.
Now bin Laden is mad at the US and Europe and Canada. Al Queda first bombed the US twin towers in 1993, then bombed our Embassies in Mogadishu where 18 US rangers went on a peace-keeping mission for the UN and dragged one our US soldier's dead body up and down the road. Bombed embassy in Kenya, then bombed the USS Cole. So what did Pres Clinton do? NOTHING! The US should have protected our borders back then but, nooooo, allowed visas for people in those countries to come here and let them live here without checking their backgrounds in the US since 1994 taking flying lessons. We did however, thwart a terror plot on the Canadian Border from an Al Queda operative who wanted to blow up the Los Angeles Airport on Dec. 31, 1999. When Bush was in office for only 8 months, that is when 9/11 happened. His presidency started January 25,2001. What is America supposed to do to try to protect its people??? That is why we invaded Afghanistan because of Bin Laden.
As far as Iraq goes it was WMD and any harboring country of Al-Queda, which there was harboring (Ansar Al-Islam) then to find wmd's 500 warheads for nerve gas and sarin gas not too long ago.
As far as war-mongers, it's a male trait that goes back to ancient history. It's that motto "Me Tarzan-You Jane".
As far as Sudan & Somalia goes, why can't Canada go? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? France? Germany? The World should not call on the US all the time. The UN is responsible for the Sudan & Somalia problems not the US.
Hi Spooky,
If you are in the mood for somthing other than politics, please stop my my blog. I have definitely left all worldly cares behind! :)
"I would not quote Abe Lincoln as he started the American Civil War which killed thousands of Americans."
Historical clarifications for those unfamiliar with American history;
It was the South that fired first.
The Northern victory in the Civil War ended legalized slavery in the United States.
Post a Comment
<< Home