Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
puck7x

John Kerry for US President!

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Leafs Suck

Bringing the son of a 9/11 victim on and attacking him verbal because he opposed to the war, not to mention threatning to beat him up. I don't see how you could defend someone like that.

Course it's hard to like a guy who says "bomb those communist Canadians and their medicare system".

I watch O'Rielly somewhat regularly, and I agree he often cuts people off. But most of the time he does this because the people are making stupid arguments that make no sense if you think about. I never recall hearing him threaten to beat people up. And if he did say something like "bomb Canada" I cannot believe he was saying it seriously.

Ann Coulter I cannot talk about, becuase I don't really know that much about her.

And Al Franken is a huge asshole. Bill refuted the idiotic stuff Franken said about him numerous times and in numerous places. I am sure he was sick of people asking him to talk about the idiotic comments of Al Franken.

And please stop bashing FoxNews. They may not be as fair and balanced as they think, but they at least provide the public with views that differ from the liberal media, which dominates the other news channels. The media shouldn't keep to one side as much as they do. At least Fox provides an alternative to people who get fed up with the liberal media, like me. There are two sides to every issue, why doesn't the media provide people with both sides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pat buchannan, william safire, david brooks, newt gingrich, buckley, coulter, gretta van sustren, david frum, stephen moore, dennis miller, michael rubin, new york post, fox news, clearchannel.... man, I hate that pinko liberal media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33

And yes, pulling out of Iraq would be loved by terrorists.  It would prove to them that they can succeed.  If the US pulls out, it will show terrorists that they are winning, and should continue their battle against the US.  The US cannot allow the terrorists to believe they are winning.  (And on a side note, if this was an oil grab, why am I still paying outragious prices for gas?)

What has the US invasion and occupation of Iraq got to do with GW's war on terrorism? Where are the links between Iraq and Al Quaeda?

Originally posted by Fanpuck33

Saddam was a brutal leader.  The MAJORITY of Iraqis are grateful.  It is the minority that is performing the acts of terror.

The US invaded Iraq because Saddam's regime wouldn't come clean on WMDs. But, after killing thens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis, they find none. Then the US states that Saddam is an evil man, the reincarnation of Hitler, and that they invaded to rid the starved and tortured Iraqi people of Saddam and his vile minions. So what's happening now? The US is torturing the Iraqi people.

I think the Iraqis were better off without the US and their sordid brand of "civilization" and anyone who tries to justify their barbaric actions in Iraq makes me want to :puke: ...but then again I enjoy reading Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore.

During his remarks to the Nuremburg tribunal, Justice Jackson observed that, in implementing its sentences, the participating powers were morally and legally binding themselves to adhere forever after to the same standards of conduct that were being applied to Nazi leaders. In the alternative, he said, the victorious allies would have committed "pure murder' at Nuremberg ­ no different in substance from that carried out by those they presumed to judge ­ rather than establishing the "permanent benchmark for justice" which was intended.

US standards of conduct have now matched the level of the Nazis. Good job GWB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by simonus

pat buchannan, william safire, david brooks, newt gingrich, buckley, coulter, gretta van sustren, david frum, stephen moore, dennis miller, michael rubin, new york post, fox news, clearchannel.... man, I hate that pinko liberal media.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by habitual_hab

The US invaded Iraq because Saddam's regime wouldn't come clean on WMDs. But, after killing thens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis, they find none. Then the US states that Saddam is an evil man, the reincarnation of Hitler, and that they invaded to rid the starved and tortured Iraqi people of Saddam and his vile minions. So what's happening now? The US is torturing the Iraqi people.

Come on now, you are going to let isolated incidents convince you the US is torturing the Iraqi people? And where are you getting these Iraqi casualty numbers from?

Originally posted by simonus

pat buchannan, william safire, david brooks, newt gingrich, buckley, coulter, gretta van sustren, david frum, stephen moore, dennis miller, michael rubin, new york post, fox news, clearchannel.... man, I hate that pinko liberal media.

Let's see here, most of those people are on FoxNews. You listed a bunch of people who work primarily on 2-3 media outlets as their main way of getting their messages out. How about MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.? Some are more left than others, but all I consider to have at least a small lean to the left. At least other stations exist to show there are two sides to an issue. And Dennis Miller is a conservative? Ugh, I can't stand him. But is he even in the media displaying political views? His show on HBO years ago couldn't have reached the masses since it was on a premium channel, then he was on Monday Night Football. I haven't even heard of him since then. He was awful.

Originally posted by simonus

I really would like to hear about the good things that Bush has done during his tenure, because I am quite unaware of anything.  Please post links to where I can find some info.  My taxes haven't gone down, my insurance premiums keep going up, I want to move but I cant find jobs anywhere, my cable bill is soaring and I have to buy fox sports in order to get ESPN classic, my telephone coverage sucks, my flights are always late, most airline coverage to my parent's small town in the midwest has been cut and my gas is $2.00 a gallon and my wrist hurts from repetitive stress from my non-osha workstation.

http://www.angelfire.com/ok/funwithunclejim/bush.html

Sure, I see that this is a conservative forum, but the facts seem to be there. And what, do you want Bush to lower your cable bill and give you ESPN Classic? And interesting that your taxes are so high, mine hav remained about the same, and I enjoyed my rebate quite a bit. (Actually, I used part of it to buy a Habs jersey :). )

Here is another site, showing that the economy is not as bad as the media makes it out to be.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/19/news/econo.../election_sotu/

A few things on there trouble me, like the whole NASA obsession. Why do we need manned missions to Mars and a base on the moon? That is just stupid.

[Edited on 5-4-04 by Fanpuck33]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33
Originally posted by simonus

pat buchannan, william safire, david brooks, newt gingrich, buckley, coulter, gretta van sustren, david frum, stephen moore, dennis miller, michael rubin, new york post, fox news, clearchannel.... man, I hate that pinko liberal media.

Let's see here, most of those people are on FoxNews. You listed a bunch of people who work primarily on 2-3 media outlets as their main way of getting their messages out. How about MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.? Some are more left than others, but all I consider to have at least a small lean to the left. At least other stations exist to show there are two sides to an issue. And Dennis Miller is a conservative? Ugh, I can't stand him. But is he even in the media displaying political views? His show on HBO years ago couldn't have reached the masses since it was on a premium channel, then he was on Monday Night Football. I haven't even heard of him since then. He was awful.

Miller is on CNBC, Buchannan is on MSNBC, Safire and Brooks are on New York Times, Sustren is on CNN, Coulter makes the rounds on all the major networks. Frum and Rubin are on National Review.

Originally posted by Fanpuck33
Originally posted by simonus

I really would like to hear about the good things that Bush has done during his tenure, because I am quite unaware of anything.  Please post links to where I can find some info.  My taxes haven't gone down, my insurance premiums keep going up, I want to move but I cant find jobs anywhere, my cable bill is soaring and I have to buy fox sports in order to get ESPN classic, my telephone coverage sucks, my flights are always late, most airline coverage to my parent's small town in the midwest has been cut and my gas is $2.00 a gallon and my wrist hurts from repetitive stress from my non-osha workstation.

http://www.angelfire.com/ok/funwithunclejim/bush.html

Sure, I see that this is a conservative forum, but the facts seem to be there. And what, do you want Bush to lower your cable bill and give you ESPN Classic? And interesting that your taxes are so high, mine hav remained about the same, and I enjoyed my rebate quite a bit. (Actually, I used part of it to buy a Habs jersey :). )

I'll check out those conservative sites after work, but I do blame Bush partially for my cable bill - he helped, through Michael Powellm, to deregulate the cable industry and allowed for higher media consolidation. Payroll taxes are up and I didn't get a rebate check. I definitely blame bush in part for my gasoline bill. Bush is not completely to blame for all these ills, but he has a hand in many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gretta von Susteren is on FoxNews every weeknight at 10, so if she does appear on CNN, I don't think it is every day. I can't say anything about a slant about the NYT because I have never read it. Now that you mention it, I think did know Buchanon was on MSNBC, but he seems to be the conservative thrown in so people can't say they are totally liberal. Probably similar to why Alan Colmes works for FoxNews. And Miller is likely the same on CNBC, even though he is annoying.

I agree the economy hasn't been too great, but it's not as bad as some media outlets make it out to be. And the economy was in a postition when Bush took office that it was bound to go down. Had Gore been elected, there still would have been the recession that occured. And gas prices ar a no win situation for Bush. If they are too high, he gets blamed. If they go down, people will say, "See? The Iraq invasion was an oil grab." The high gas prices do piss me off though.

The other day, I heard an interesting poll on the radio. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it involved asking people why they would vote for Kerry. An overwhelming majority said, "Because I don't care for Bush." They interviewed some of these people about Kerry, and most could not identify Kerry's stance on major issues. Shouldn't people know about the man they are going to vote for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scarlborough and oberman also have their own shows on MSNBC. Both are conservative, scarlborough is a former republican congressman. I was wrong about sustren, she was hired away from cnn from Fox. NYT is really the paper of record, and is usually attacked as a liberal bastion, which is why i mention it. To argue that a guy (actually 3) get a show just to prove that a network isn't completely liberal is a little disengenuous - for what ever reason MSNBC has conservative broadcasters controlling the discussion for many hours a day, therefore their broadcast day is not completely liberal.

It is true that kerry supporters are not as familiar with their candidate as bush supporters, but that is mostly because bush is the incumbant. For three years we have had pretty constant coverage of bush's policies and opinions, not so for kerry. It was the same for dole when he ran against incumbant clinton and clinton when he ran against incumbant bush I.

In american politics it is common on legitimate to vote against a candidate as much as to vote for one. In canadian political system it is a bit different because of the relative importance of the party platform. People have a general understanding that NDP is NDP, Tory is Tory and Liberal is Liberal (although Martin is progressively altering the Liberal position).

Even in the case of Gore v. Bush, people who voted for bush overwhelmingly chose him rather than "4 more years of clinton/gore". As governor of Texas, bush had neither the opportunity nor the desire to make well known his stance on many national issues using the famously vague "compassionate conservatism" his autobiography and motto. What the hell does that mean?

I live in Massachusetts, so I guess I have been made more familiar with kerry, but as to his opinion on international relations (the major occupation of our commander in chief) I have little idea - he's a senator! He votes on certain bills, his position based on the politician that brings up the bill, the legislative math of the congress and minor pork that surrounds the original issue. Following the voting record of any senator is decidedly complicated and often misleading, one reason that senators are rarely elected into office. BTW - its kinda funny for a mass resident to hear kerry bashed because of his liberal tendencies. We do have a very liberal senator in mass, but it ain't kerry - its Ted Kennedy (another character who is loved within mass and hated outside). Kerry aint that much of a liberal - he's against most gun control!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by simonus

scarlborough and oberman also have their own shows on MSNBC.  Both are conservative, scarlborough is a former republican congressman.  I was wrong about sustren, she was hired away from cnn from Fox.  NYT is really the paper of record, and is usually attacked as a liberal bastion, which is why i mention it.  To argue that a guy (actually 3) get a show just to prove that a network isn't completely liberal is a little disengenuous - for what ever reason MSNBC has conservative broadcasters controlling the discussion for many hours a day, therefore their broadcast day is not completely liberal.

I will admit, my idea here has no real basis, I just thought I would throw it out there.

Keith Olberman has never struck me as a conservative. Does he have nightly show there now? I know he has bounced around after he left Sportscenter. I just can't seem to take him seriously in the political world. I always expect some kind of SportsCenter comedy or something. You have shown that MSNBC is not totally liberal, but I would say they do have a liberal lean for the most part.

I am sure the NYT has a few conservatives on staff, but I have always had the impression that it is quite liberal. I can't argue this, because I don't follow it. What I have heard about it comes from my family, some of whom are liberals.

It is true that kerry supporters are not as familiar with their candidate as bush supporters, but that is mostly because bush is the incumbant.  For three years we have had pretty constant coverage of bush's policies and opinions, not so for kerry.  It was the same for dole when he ran against incumbant clinton and clinton when he ran against incumbant bush I.

This is true, but many of the interviews they aired, the people didn't know his stance even on major issues. That is sad.

In american politics it is common on legitimate to vote against a candidate as much as to vote for one.

And this is one of many things wrong with American politics. The parties are more worried about beating the other than they are about the actual issues. I vote Republican for the most part, but if I feel a Democratic candidate is better, screw the Republican. This is how people should vote. But history shows this isn't how it is.

And something I found interesting was a recent, so-called "Democratic Unity" dinner. It was quite amusing. The first speaker, Al Gore began by saying how he didn't support Kerry until it was obvious that he would get the nomination. How's that for unity, haha.

By the way, I enjoy this debate. Too many times while arguing politics, my opponents call me stupid and leave. This current debate has led me to look further into both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33
Originally posted by habitual_hab

The US invaded Iraq because Saddam's regime wouldn't come clean on WMDs. But, after killing thens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis, they find none. Then the US states that Saddam is an evil man, the reincarnation of Hitler, and that they invaded to rid the starved and tortured Iraqi people of Saddam and his vile minions. So what's happening now? The US is torturing the Iraqi people.

Come on now, you are going to let isolated incidents convince you the US is torturing the Iraqi people? And where are you getting these Iraqi casualty numbers from?

Passing off the torture of Iraqis by US forces by calling them isolated incidents doesn't cut it as there are reports from Afghanistan now about US torture of prisoners. Add to that the Canadian citizen who now claims he was tortured by the US in Iraq.

Saddam tortured the Iraqis. Now the US, after killing ten thousand civilians, tortures the Iraqis. What's the difference between the US and Saddam? None that I can see.

IBC and the Guardian state that over ten thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed by the US and their minions. Hundreds of thousands was an emotional overstatement on my part.

Also, you have linked the war against Saddam with the US war against terrorism. Please show me the proof of this link. I would expect it's similar to Colin Powell's proof of weapons of Saddam's WMDs - non-existant.

[Edited on 2004/5/5 by habitual_hab]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by habitual_hab

Passing off the torture of Iraqis by US forces by calling them isolated incidents doesn't cut it as there are reports from Afghanistan now about US torture of prisoners. Add to that the Canadian citizen who now claims he was tortured by the US in Iraq.the difference between the US and Saddam? None that I can see.  

I am not trying to pass off these horrible incidents. I am just saying that this is not the norm. If it were, we would have heard about it long ago. The people who are doing this torture are idiots. And even bigger idiots are people I have seen calling the incidents nothing more than "a little hazing." There are idiots out there, in every place on earth. The people responsible are being dealt with via court marshall. Bush and other leaders have made it clear this behavior is not acceptable. These incidents are terrible, but are not the norm.

And I finally found a site with numebrs of Iraqi casualties. A large number of them have been killed in terrorist acts, such as car bombings. A very large protion of civilians have been killed in incidents where Iraqi militarists fire on American troops from civilian locations. Are the troops supposed to ignore this because the shots come from civilian institutions? And how many of these civilians are actually civilians? It has been obvious that many Iraqi militarists dress up in civilian clothes, in order to sneak attack American troops. I am not trying to downplay the tragedy of civilian casualties, but I do wonder about the numbers.

And to compare the US to Saddam is sickening. We are not trying to perform ethnic cleansing. We are not lining people up and shotting them, families and all. We do not threaten Iraqi men that unless they join the army their families will die. We have not used chemical and biological weapons on Iraqis.

One more thing I would like to ask about. Disregarding the information that no WMD have been found in Iraq, did you believe, before the war, that there were WMD in Iraq? Most people I know, whether or not they supported the war, believed there were. Why else would Saddam refuse inspectors for so long? Even when he did allow them in, he had plenty of time to hide them well. Evidence has shown that shortly before the invasion, Iraq was in communication with both France and Russia. Possibly discussing ways to get the weapons out of the country? Nobody knows, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33
Originally posted by habitual_hab

Passing off the torture of Iraqis by US forces by calling them isolated incidents doesn't cut it as there are reports from Afghanistan now about US torture of prisoners. Add to that the Canadian citizen who now claims he was tortured by the US in Iraq.the difference between the US and Saddam? None that I can see.  

I am not trying to pass off these horrible incidents. I am just saying that this is not the norm. If it were, we would have heard about it long ago. The people who are doing this torture are idiots. And even bigger idiots are people I have seen calling the incidents nothing more than "a little hazing." There are idiots out there, in every place on earth. The people responsible are being dealt with via court marshall. Bush and other leaders have made it clear this behavior is not acceptable. These incidents are terrible, but are not the norm.

And I finally found a site with numebrs of Iraqi casualties. A large number of them have been killed in terrorist acts, such as car bombings. A very large protion of civilians have been killed in incidents where Iraqi militarists fire on American troops from civilian locations. Are the troops supposed to ignore this because the shots come from civilian institutions? And how many of these civilians are actually civilians? It has been obvious that many Iraqi militarists dress up in civilian clothes, in order to sneak attack American troops. I am not trying to downplay the tragedy of civilian casualties, but I do wonder about the numbers.

Your imformation difers from the info I found at the Guardian: At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000.

Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict.

Its latest report compares those figures with 14 other counts, most of them taken in Iraq, which, it says, bear out its findings.

Researchers from several groups have visited hospitals and mortuaries in Iraq and interviewed relatives of the dead; some are conducting surveys in the main cities.

Three completed studies suggest that between 1,700 and 2,356 civilians died in the battle for Baghdad alone.

And to compare the US to Saddam is sickening.  We are not trying to perform ethnic cleansing.  We are not lining people up and shotting them, families and all.  We do not threaten Iraqi men that unless they join the army their families will die.  We have not used chemical and biological weapons on Iraqis.

Forgive me for doubting the moral corectness of US endeavours in Iraq:

According to a Senate Report of 1994: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow and agonizing deaths, were:

- Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

- Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

- Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.

- Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

- Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

- Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.

- Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA.

Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.

The United Nations inspectors have uncovered evidence that Iraq was conducting research on pathogen enhancement and biological warfare-related stimulant research on many of the identical types of biological agents shipped to the country from the United States. These shipments continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s.

During the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, the United States gave military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping that each would inflict severe damage on the other, and, in a tilt towards Iraq, the US provided satellite imagery to Iraq for use during their chemical warfare against Iran.

tacit consent and complicity. As I see it, US leadership is on par with Saddam.

As for the Kurds, perhaps you might try reading the Pike Committe and in which Henry Kissinger who, after the US set up the Kurds to be slaughtered by Iraq, stated that "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

One more thing I would like to ask about.  Disregarding the information that no WMD have been found in Iraq, did you believe, before the war, that there were WMD in Iraq?  Most people I know, whether or not they supported the war, believed there were.  Why else would Saddam refuse inspectors for so long?  Even when he did allow them in, he had plenty of time to hide them well.  Evidence has shown that shortly before the invasion, Iraq was in communication with both France and Russia.  Possibly discussing ways to get the weapons out of the country?  Nobody knows, yet.

Most people I know viewed Iraq as a threat to no one. A non-functional army, weapons programs dismantled by Un inspectors... Before the war, Hans Blix had this to say about the lack of WMDs and Iraqi cooperation: "Plausible ... verifiable ... progress..." Your famous aluminum tubes turned out - if one believes Mr Blix, and why not - to have nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

Another point: Any country with hospital facilities or a high school chemical or bilogy labratory has the capacity to create WMDs. Is GWB going to go after them all? And what about Israel's nuclear weapons program? They have over 100 warheads, perhaps 200. Is this not a threat to international peace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware that Iraq got many chemical compunds from the US, but how is this Bush's fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33

I am aware that Iraq got many chemical compunds from the US, but how is this Bush's fault?

I didn't say it was GWB's fault but what I did imply was that that type of action - the disrespect for international law, the disrespect of the lives of people in other nations - is systemic of US foreign policy.

And while the US has not performed ethnic cleansing in Iraq it does have a nice history of it. To complain about Saddam's ethnic cleansing and celebrate Columbus Day is hypocrisy at its worst.

[Edited on 2004/5/5 by habitual_hab]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call the treatment of Native Americans as ethni cleansing, but they were screwed over royally and treated terribly. Slaves and Native Americans were treated very poorly, but I fail to see what that has to do with today. At that point in history, Europeans, and then the early Americans honestly did not know how to handle these peoples. They did not even believe they were fully human. I am not defending the atrocities of slavery and the taking on Native American land, but these events don't prove a history of ethnic cleansing in the US. And something to remember is that the people in charge of the US government were mostly first and second generation Europeans.

Since perhaps the 1850s, the closest thing to ethnic cleansing were racist white people, but that was not led by the government, or even a majority of the people. Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not condone these things, I am just trying to show they don't give any kind of pattern to compare the US government to Saddam Hussein.

Columbus is an interesting myth indeed. He is credited with discovering America, when in fact he found the Caribean islands by accident, and never went to North America. But his legend grew for some reason, so much so that publishers are afraid to change the famous "In 1492 Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue." And Columbus went on to treat the natives as less then human. This is something that most schools in the US do not teach, one of the many flaws in the education system, which I will soon be a part of as a teacher. (At least there isn't much controversy in math!) People honor him each year as the founder of our country. The legend has become such a part of the country's so-called history that nobody has the balls to set the story straight.

[Edited on 5-6-04 by Fanpuck33]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quick note - the history of how native americans and blacks were treated in North America has everything to do with today. The permanent change in the lifestyle of native americans is incredible and much of the wealth,education, and rights disparities between whites and black can be traced back to slavery and racial persecution. The US government was implicitedly involved in racism for a long time during and after slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33

I wouldn't call the treatment of Native Americans as ethni cleansing, but they were screwed over royally and treated terribly.  Slaves and Native Americans were treated very poorly, but I fail to see what that has to do with today.  At that point in history, Europeans, and then the early Americans honestly did not know how to handle these peoples.  They did not even believe they were fully human.  I am not defending the atrocities of slavery and the taking on Native American land, but these events don't prove a history of ethnic cleansing in the US.  And something to remember is that the people in charge of the US government were mostly first and second generation Europeans.  

Since perhaps the 1850s, the closest thing to ethnic cleansing were racist white people, but that was not led by the government, or even a majority of the people.  Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not condone these things, I am just trying to show they don't give any kind of pattern to compare the US government to Saddam Hussein.

Columbus is an interesting myth indeed.  He is credited with discovering America, when in fact he found the Caribean islands by accident, and never went to North America.  But his legend grew for some reason, so much so that publishers are afraid to change the famous "In 1492 Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue."  And Columbus went on to treat the natives as less then human.  This is something that most schools in the US do not teach, one of the many flaws in the education system, which I will soon be a part of as a teacher.  (At least there isn't much controversy in math!)  People honor him each year as the founder of our country.  The legend has become such a part of the country's so-called history that nobody has the balls to set the story straight.

[Edited on 5-6-04 by Fanpuck33]

Native America, both north and south, experienced a sustained and incredibly impactful process of genocide, extending over a period of three to five hundred years, depending on which locale you're talking about.

When we take the hemisphere, North and South, various numbers are given of indigenous peoples that were here before the Europeans came. At present, the best estimates that I'm aware of bracket it at somewhere between 100 and 150 million people, hemispherically speaking. That is circa 1500.And how successful were the Europeans at “cleansing” the Americas of its first inhabitants? Approximately 97 to 98 percentile liquidation of population by approximately 1890.

Hitler took note of Native Americans, indigenous people of the Americas, specifically within the area of the U.S. and Canada. He used the treatment of native people, the policies and processes that were imposed upon them, as a model for what he articulated as being Lebensraumpolitik, the politics of living space.

In essence, Hitler took the notion of a drive from east to west, clearing the land as the invading population went and resettling it with Anglo-Saxon stock, primarily, as a model by which he drove from west to east into Russia, displacing, relocating, dramatically shifting or liquidating populations to clear the land and replace it with what he called "superior breeding stock," meaning Germanic peoples. It was essentially the same process, and he was very conscious of the fact that he was basing his policies in the prior experience of the Anglo-American population, or Nordic population, as he called it, in the area north of the Rio Grande River.

And the connection to Hitler is interesting because just as Hitler de-humanized the Jews, so did American leaders de-humanize Indians. George Washington, for example, describing Indians as "wild beasts of the forest" and "savage as the wolf." Thomas Jefferson chimed in with also very judicious comments about Indian peoples, "Driving them like wolves into the stony mountains." Which incidentally was a fairly adequate description of U.S. policy at the time.

Andrew Jackson, who had horses' bridles made of Indian skin and bragged about it in his campaigns. He claimed that he had never fought an Indian he didn't kill and never killed an Indian he didn't scalp and that the scalps were available for inspection in his personal residence. That got him elected President. That speaks well to the public sensibility in the U.S., too.

Take a look at the Genocide Convention and then look at how the American government treated (and treats to this day) 20th Century American Indians:

- The compulsory transfer of American Indian children from their families, communities and societies to Euroamerican families and institutions (in violation of Article I(e) of the 1948 Convention). The stated goal was “assimilation” or the disappearance of Indian society, again, in direct contravention of the Genocide Convention.

- An even clearer example of US govt genocide is the involuntary sterilization of American Indian women by the BIA’s Indian Health Service during the 1970s. This is of course in violation of Article I(d) of the 1948 Convention.

For more info on the “American Holocaust” I’d check out Ward Churchill, one very angry Indian.

[Edited on 2004/5/6 by habitual_hab]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i found it interesting how the british honour their war dead. their leader actually attends the funerals!

damn those silly brits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33
Originally posted by habitual_hab

The US invaded Iraq because Saddam's regime wouldn't come clean on WMDs. But, after killing thens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis, they find none. Then the US states that Saddam is an evil man, the reincarnation of Hitler, and that they invaded to rid the starved and tortured Iraqi people of Saddam and his vile minions. So what's happening now? The US is torturing the Iraqi people.

Come on now, you are going to let isolated incidents convince you the US is torturing the Iraqi people?

The mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in US custody is not limited to isolated cases but forms part of a systematic pattern, the Red Cross has said.

A spokesman said the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had been warning the US about such cases for more than a year.

He was responding to the publication of parts of a leaked ICRC report. The document concluded that abuse of Iraqi detainees was widespread and in some cases tantamount to torture.

The Red Cross mentions a number of "serious violations of humanitarian law", including beatings and prolonged solitary confinement. But on Friday the Wall Street Journal quoted parts of the 24-page report. It alleges, among other things, that prisoners were kept naked in cells, in darkness and without facilities.

It says prisoners were beaten, in one case leading to death, and that soldiers fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some of them.

The report concludes there have been serious violations of the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

The report says the ill-treatment was widely tolerated, especially with regard to extracting information from Iraqis. The report is at odds with the position of the US government, which insists that cases of abuses were isolated.

ICRC director of operations, Pierre Kraehenbuehl, disputed this.

"We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system," he said.

Kind of reminds me of that song by The Who, "in comes the new boss, same as the old boss."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

americans can stick their head in the sand and act like this iraqi prisioner story is no biggy.

i'd be interested to seeing their reaction if american soliders are subjected to the same treatment. i am sure it'll be WW3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Leafs Suck

americans can stick their head in the sand and act like this iraqi prisioner story is no biggy.

i'd be interested to seeing their reaction if american soliders are subjected to the same treatment. i am sure it'll be WW3.

Of course this is a big deal. These are horrible acts of human rights violations. I just argued that some people are making too big a deal out of hit. Some people have posted that this is commonplace. I am just trying to say that this is not the norm. People are accusing the US of treating all prisoners like this, which is untrue. I am just upset that people are blowing it out of proportion. It is bad enough that it happened, it is worse how the media has tried to spin it. Nobody is burying their heads in the sand here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33

Of course this is a big deal. These are horrible acts of human rights violations. I just argued that some people are making too big a deal out of hit. Some people have posted that this is commonplace. I am just trying to say that this is not the norm. People are accusing the US of treating all prisoners like this, which is untrue. I am just upset that people are blowing it out of proportion. It is bad enough that it happened, it is worse how the media has tried to spin it. Nobody is burying their heads in the sand here.

The International Committee for the Red Cross, in visits that started months ago to Iraq's US-administered prison, has been documenting abuse that was not the 'exception' but was tanatmount to the norm - abuse that was 'tantamount' to a policy of torture, and tolerated by coalition forces.

Jeezuz, look back at Vietman and the Pheonix Program run by William Colby and the tortured used against Vietnamese citizens and you'll see a policy of torture promoted by US govt agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when Bush was whining about American prisioners being treated fairly. "They better respect the Geneva conventions". Ugh.

What were the two main reasons to go into Iraq?

WMD's and liberate the Iraqi people from the torture and mistreatment.

Boy that looks REALLY idotic right now.

This Iraq war is like an onion. The more layers you peel, the more it stinks.

Bush doesn't care about this, frankly he prolly knew about it well before we did. He is more worried about getting re-elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...