Blair ready to talk with freedom fighters

So what kind of 'freedom fighter' beheads two innocent men? I'd love to know.

Real freedom fighters use cluster bombs, and Depleted Uranium shells.

That's right.

30.09.2004 11:12
Real freedom fighters use cluster bombs, and Depleted Uranium shells.

George
_______


They do indeed! LOL! Watch those Iraqi childrens limbs fly!!!!!!! Yeehaw!!!!!

So you think these murderers who've got Bigley should be called freedom fighters?

The demands of Ken Bigley's captors were quite clear, release their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters from Iraqi Prisons, like Abu Graib, and Bigley will go free. But even from his cage, Ken knows Bliar is not listeneing. He's too busy having his ego massaged by arse-lickers, like Bono, at the Labour Party Conference ringed by a wall of police, whose budget will be increased to protect him.

The Labour Party has exonerated the Crime Minister, Phony Bliar, for citing fake intelligence to illegally invade Iraq, for the unlawful massacre of tens of thousands of civilians and the death or injury of hundreds of servicemen. The Party has overlooked the chaos caused by the war and that innocent Iraqi’s are still being bombed, every day.

Kofi Annan has also chosen to ignore these facts and call no-one to account for violating the UN Charter, International Law and the Geneva Convention, because the World is supposedly better off without the lawless Saddam Hussein. Well, the World is now a terrifying place, where Western Nations are above the law and impoverished nations are its victims.

If you're against the occupation, you're for the Islamist terrorists.
You're either for us, or against us. So pick which murderer you're going to back, NOW, motherfucker.

Italy admits paying $1,000,000 ransom for freed hostages

The Italian government did pay a ransom to secure the release of two female hostages held in Iraq for three weeks, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Italian Parliament told a French radio station on Wednesday.

“The lives of the women was the most important thing,” Gustavo Selva told RTL radio. “In principle, one must not give in to ransom payments. But this time, I think we had to give in.”

Asked about the denial by Italian leaders that a 1 million dollar ransom had been paid for the release of relief workers Simona Pari and Simona Torretta, Selva said, “This is an official denial which is the government’s obligation, to give the impression that it did not give in to a ransom demand.” - source
 http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2004/September/focusoniraq_September272.xml&section=focusoniraq




Company pays $500,000 ransom for hostages

A Kuwaiti transport company said it had paid a ransom of more than $500 000 (about R3-million) to an Iraqi militant group for the release of seven drivers freed on Wednesday after 43 days in captivity.

The three Kenyans, three Indians and an Egyptian landed at Kuwait airport, where they were met by diplomats and officials from the Kuwait and Gulf Link Transport Company (KGL).

A group calling itself the Black Banners Division of the Islamic Secret Army had kidnapped the men in July and demanded that KGL end its work in Iraq.

"We paid half a million dollars in order to release the hostages and in the past we have paid other sums," KGL chairperson Saeed Dashti said, referring to protracted talks with the kidnappers. - source
 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&click_id=2813&art_id=vn20040902100308654C503643&set_id=6


-----------------------------------------------

There seems to be 2 specific outcomes of the kidnappings taking place in Iraq of Mercenaries, Reconstruction workers, Press workers, Journalists, humanitarian and Aid workers,

1: demands for country specific troop pullout or prisoner release, resulting in either Pullout after big protests via the public in the country affected / or Beheadings

2: with demands for money, resulting in Payoff and release

where is the money going?

surely one million bucks a pop is not hard to trace?

if you were 'a kidnapper'
would you trust any country who is occupying your country, not to
track the money?


how are the authorities transferring the money?

by CASH?
or by WIRE?

Is the paying of ransoms actually masking a PAYOFF-

money transfers being made to a secret section of the Allawi / CIA / ex-Saddam secret forces?

Are they charged with the purpose of deliberatly destablizing and confusing the actual Insurgency?

 http://www.wardrobe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/murder_inc/berg.html

In places in Iraq where local elections have been held (places where the "freedom fighters" aren't going around destroying Christian shops, banning alcohol, enforcing the forced veiling of women, killing workers who refuse to give in to their intimidiation, and so on) the moderates have won in the vast, vast majority of places.

Jordan probably doesn't want elections in Iraq because it would be a precedent of democracy in the region, stimulating demands for democratic reform in Jordan. Perhaps they also harbour dreams of restoring a Hashemite throne to Iraq or something.

There is a difference between using bombs against a military enemy in a war, with the purpose, I might add, of liberating a country from a totalitarian tyranny and creating a democracy in the Middle East (other than Israel), and from kidnapping and murdering completely innocent civilians.

Paying a ransom may well get a man released. But the terrorists and prospective terrorists then know that they can make dosh my kidnapping Westerners, and that the West will always give in to their ever increasing demands. If you pay the ransom of ten million, why not release a terrorist? or release all terrorists? or still helping a government fight terrorists? or place sanctions on a country that Islamists don't like? or instruct the Saudis to let Osama head their government?

Give in to terrorism = more terrorism
Hold steady and don't give in to their huge demands = discouraging terrorism

Bollocks. If Bigley hadn't volunteered to go to Iraq, being paid well for helping to build a US occupation base, he would never have been kidnapped. He certainly doesn't deserve to die, but he does deserve to go to prison, if found guilty in a fair trial. But that will never happen, since the invasion and occupation have turned the country into a chaotic hell on earth.

"Giving in to the demands of terrorists" is exactly what we should be doing. We should pull out our troops and all the civilian contractors, and then face the inevitable consequences of our evil, greedy policies in the region since WWI. Yes, an Islamist govt will come to power, as it did in Iran when the US lost in its battle to keep a friendly dictator in power.

But Iran has on its own inched slowly towards becoming something better than Saddam's Iraq. With time, and maybe even some outside help if they want it, it could even become a true democracy, free from clerical control, and free from western control. That's not what the US and Britain want though: they want another Shah back in, and the oil under their thumbs.

Do you really think the US and UK are planning on "creating democracy" in the Middle East or anywhere else? Perhaps you could name a recent example, post-WWII, of how US intervention has "created democracy" somewhere else in the world?

The intention was always to put a more manageable Iraqi tyrant in place. If Saddam and the Taliban had kept obeying orders from Washington, they would still be there today, "Our Allies in the War On Terror".
Just like Karimov in Uzbekistan, just like Gen. Dostum, Gen. Khan and the rest of the evil fuckers now running Afghanistan, just like Gen. Musharraf, just like the Saudis.

...and now it gets really weird!


Dutch spooks 'raid Paul Bigley's home'



2 October 2004 - AMSTERDAM — The Dutch secret service AIVD has refused to comment on claims its agents raided the Amsterdam home of Briton Paul Bigley, whose brother Ken is being held hostage in Iraq.

Paul Bigley is said to be furious that the Dutch authorities have treated him like a criminal simply because he was working to free his brother who is under threat of death.

He told Sky News that AIVD officers — accompanied by British officials — carried out the raid on Thursday. Earlier the UK's Daily Telegraph reported that Paul Bigley's computer was searched and material downloaded from the hard disk was sent to London for "analysis".

Paul Bigley says he was interrogated about his alleged contacts with terror group Tawhid and Jihad, led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which is holding his brother. The latest video from the group shows Ken Bigley chained in a cage.

Paul Bigley has been severely critical of the British government's handling of the kidnap crisis and he has been working to establish his own contacts in the Middle East. He has denied he has made contact with Tawhid and Jihad, but says he has had indirect contacts via the Arab news broadcaster al-Jazeera. He claims the "nonsense" raid by the AIVD had set his campaign to free his brother back by 48 hours. - Expatica
 http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=12467&name=Dutch+spooks+'raided+Paul+Bigley's+home'+



LONDON (Reuters) - The brother of Kenneth Bigley, held hostage in Iraq, says intelligence officers raided his Dutch home, copied data from his computer and forced him to make a five-page statement about his activities.
Paul Bigley, brother of hostage Kenneth, said the raid happened two days ago and had made him feel like a criminal and had wasted time in the race to save his brother's life.

"I've lost 48 hours of my quest to get Ken free because of all this nonsense," Paul Bigley told Sky Television News by telephone from the Netherlands. "It was incredible."

"I understand that people have to check things out ... but there are ways of doing these things."

Bigley said Dutch and British officers took part in the raid on his home in the Netherlands, where he runs his own business.

"(They copied) my whole computer, which of course they are welcome to copy," he said, adding that there was nothing suspicious on it.

Asked about a newspaper report which said the officers forced him to make a five-page statement detailing his recent activities, he said: "That's true".

"It's a very poor show ... I felt diabolical," he said. - Reuters
 http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=595157&section=news


Raid denied...

Paul Bigley, brother of hostage Kenneth Bigley, said the raid happened two days ago but a spokeswoman for the London Foreign Office said neither British nor Dutch officials had carried out such a raid.

"There was no raid," she said. "No British officials of any kind have raided Paul Bigley's home." - reuters
 http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=595164&section=news




Video a PSYOP? By whom?

The raid came amid claims that the British hostage was free to roam his kidnappers' home in Iraq and was "caged" only for terrorist videos.

In Fallujah, Mohammed Kasim, an Iraqi-born gunman with a British passport, said the latest video of Mr Bigley showing him shackled in a cage had been staged to "terrify" the British public. There was no way of verifying the claim, particularly in a country awash with rumour and conspiracy theories. - Telegraph
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/02/wbig02.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/10/02/ixportaltop.html




Is it not beyond the realm of anyones imagination to see
that Bigleys house would have been under surveillance
phones tapped, movements watched...

this development is really sinister...

I think Paul Bigley has discovered something...

was it that these kidnappings are a money laundering operation?

If we withdrew, an Islamist or Ba'athist government may come to power, but more likely would be a civil war. The Sunnis vs the Shias, the Kurds vs the Arabs, the Islamists vs the Ba'athists, the totalitarians vs the democrats, and so on. This would be terrible for the Iraqi people, who, as I mentioned earlier, have been electing moderates in the numerous local elections held throughout the country, not the extremists.

And the idea that the US or UK wants a Shah back in Iran is nonsense. The US, through National Endowment for Democracy, has been funding all sorts of Iranian democrats, from left to right.

And notice that in Iraq they put all sorts of ppl in charge - pro-western democrats, moderate islamists, less moderate islamists, democratic secular communists, and so on, and when elections the leaders will be democratically elected.

The US backs the Uzbek dictator because they prefer him to instability in the region and the victory of islamist terrorists. He has actually accused them of funding the democratic opposition yknow, and I think they are.

"If we withdrew, an Islamist or Ba'athist government may come to power, but more likely would be a civil war."

Agreed. This will almost certainly happen, and it will be the fault of our own govts. But civil war will probably happen whether we withdraw now or later. You do think we should withdraw at some point, I assume?

"This would be terrible for the Iraqi people, who, as I mentioned earlier, have been electing moderates in the numerous local elections held throughout the country, not the extremists."

Which moderates? In which elections? Let's look at the results you're talking about in context.

"And the idea that the US or UK wants a Shah back in Iran is nonsense."

Really? The CIA, and the rest of the US thugs who put the Shah in power in a bloody coup against Mossadegh, they've changed their minds now? Why do you think that?

I can believe the US don't want their viceroy actually called "the Shah", as that title is now tarnished. No, they'll call him "President" or "Prime Minister" this time. He'l be much more media-aware than the old Shah, too.

"The US, through National Endowment for Democracy, has been funding all sorts of Iranian democrats, from left to right."

Which democrats? Have you got any numbers on this? I'd be interested to see some.

"The US backs the Uzbek dictator because they prefer him to instability in the region and the victory of islamist terrorists."

Yes, stability, you've nailed it on one word. They prefer stability to instability. That's why they backed the very stable Taliban regime for so long, until, as I mentioned, they stopped obeying orders.
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm
 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FE18Aa03.html

You can still buy islamist textbooks in the Rawalpindi and Peshawar markets, which the University of Nebraska (funded by a USAID $50 million grant) shipped out to Afghanistan back in the 80s, when your "Islamist terrorists" were known in Washington as "Mujahadeen Freedom Fighters".

"He has actually accused them of funding the democratic opposition yknow, and I think they are."

That's possible. It would be a good way of keeping the evil fucker on his toes, and ensuring he doesn't "do a Taliban" on them. Stability, remember.

The US and Britain (and France for that matter) have been meddling destructively in the affairs of that region since the Sykes-Picot agreement in 1923. It's brought the people there nothing but misery. It's time for us to quit being so fucking helpful for a change.

The US, through National Endowment for Democracy, has also worked to remove democratically elected leaders from office.

Just because you call something democratic, does not make it so. In Iran, the US removed the democratically elected Mossadeq and replaced him with the Shah. In Chile, the CIA assassinated democratically elected Allende and replaced him with Pinochet, a brutal dictator. And if you think this is just a relic of the cold war, this policy continues today, throughout the world, such as this example from Venezuela.

Also, another more recent example is Haiti. But of course, the media doesn´t focus on the democractically elected leaders who are being removed by the US, it wants to focus on the US's BRAVE BATTLE FOR DEMOCRACY in the middleeast.

Bullshit. The US is concerned about its own interests, not in whether a country is democratic or not. You said it yourself. The only reason we dont remove the President of Uzbekistan is because it is in their INTERESTS to keep him there as a stabilising power. Why didn´t that same principal apply to Iraq? Because the President of Uzbekistan allows US troops into the country, while Saddam Hussein was antiUS.

These are the real reasons. Either you know this, and you are simply trying to cover up Imperial policies, or you are completely ignorant of the RealPolitik that people in power adhere to.

Here is my example from Venezuela. It was recently found that the groups behind a militiary coup against the democractically elected President were funded by the US.

"It is evident today, as we witness the fall of the Coordindora Democrática (“CD”) in Venezuela (note the similarity in name), also known in press circles as the “democratic opposition”, that this coalition of unlikely partners was never a Venezuelan creation. Rather, the U.S., which has supplied the members of this coalition with more than $30 million in financing since 2001 utilizing the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development as conduits, forced these groups to come together to create a “solid” opposition movement. Evidence shows that the establishment of the coalition was probably conditional to receiving U.S. financing and political support. From their initial formation post-coup in 2002, the members of the CD have consistently bickered and fought amongst themselves. One of the principal reasons attributed to their failure in each attempt to remove President Chávez from office (the April 2002 coup, the December 2002 crippling strike and the August 2004 referendum) has been their lack of unity and cohesion. The CD could never agree on just one candidate or party to oppose Chávez or to represent the coalition, and they were never able to come to a consensus on a political platform that could offer an alternative to the Venezuelan voting public. Their dissolution after losing the August 15th recall referendum is merely evidence of the failure of this old school U.S. tactic – it may have worked in Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, the Philippines and Haiti, but it has failed in Venezuela."

"Agreed. This will almost certainly happen, and it will be the fault of our own govts. But civil war will probably happen whether we withdraw now or later. You do think we should withdraw at some point, I assume?"

No it won't. If the US and UK built up the Iraqi forces of the democratic government then they will be able to fight the minor terrorist incidents themselves. If we withdraw now they probably wouldn't be able to cope.

The US put the Shah in power, but Mossadegh had already abolished parliament and increased his own powers so its not exactly a case of democracy v dictatorship. And in Chile Allende was acting authoritarianly, and the constitutional court or something said that he was and requested military intervention. I don't think it can be disputed that in Chile you had a civil war style division of the country, between communist-led left and anti-communists. In a Cold War context, you think US shuda supported the communists? And compare Chile now with Cuba. After a couple of decades of dictatorship Chile went back to democratic system. In Cuba the communist regime is still totalitarian.

Sykes-Picot was 1916 not 1923.

If you actually take a look at neo-con ideology, they see this is an amazing time in history, when a democracy based on the principle of popular sovereignty is the most powerful nation in the world. They believe that they US should us the moment while it can to spread democracy. Their whole theories, probably wrong, about Iraq where it would be like a domino - democracy in Iraq sparks demands for democracy in other countries, and so on. The US has been funded democratic NGOs and so on throughout the Middle East, and promoting democratic and market reform - Bush's whole "New Middle East" project.

...and not much in the way of hard evidence.

"And in Chile Allende was acting authoritarianly, and the constitutional court or something said that he was and requested military intervention."

I see. And if a British govt too left-wing for your liking was democratically elected, as was the case in Chile, so the Law Lords "requested" a US invasion of Britain, would that be OK by you?

"I don't think it can be disputed that in Chile you had a civil war style division of the country, between communist-led left and anti-communists."

Of course it can be disputed, even though you disagree. It was not a civil war. The people "voted wrongly", Kissinger said as much at the time, and they had to be straightened out. Tens of thousands of dead, disappeared and tortured later, and Pinochet eventually decides to step down, as the pesky electoral problem has now passed, and it's time for him to retire. This is the "democracy" you have in mind for Iraq too?

"And compare Chile now with Cuba. After a couple of decades of dictatorship Chile went back to democratic system. In Cuba the communist regime is still totalitarian."

It's not a binary choice beween left and right authoritarianism, as you know full well. Chile was not authoritarian until Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected Allende govt, with US help. And so on, across Latin America and around the world.

"The US has been funded democratic NGOs and so on throughout the Middle East, and promoting democratic and market reform - Bush's whole "New Middle East" project."

Again, more deliberately fuzzy assertions about "funding democracy". Where? When? How much? How does this compare with the number of people killed or impoverished under the US boot? Where has democracy taken root as a result?

And have you thought of any examples of the US "creating democracy" post WWII yet, as I asked above? You seem oddly silent on this point.

Hellooo, you never notice all those strikes across Chile against the Allende government? You think that the middle classes, the shopkeepers etc, want a communist dictator? Allende did win elections, but so did Hitler. And you think a Stalinist friend of Castro was going to nationalise everything in the country, institute rationing and state control of everything, but keep "bourgioise democracy"? Even if it meant allowing counter-revolution to be victorious in the polls? I think not.

Want some examples of US supporting democracy? Japan, US created a democracy out of an authoritarian tyranny. West Germany, US created a stable democracy. Italy, US funding helped democrats beat the Communist totalitarians in the elections. Greece, US supported the government fighting the Communist totalitarians, allowing the authoritarian rightist governments to evolve into democracy. Israel, only democracy in the Middle East, and the US is its friend. All across Latin America, whereas sometimes the US had to support military coups and so on against the pro-Soviet and Communist forces in the countries, it always encouraged return to democracy when there was no longer any Communist threat. And, in case you hadn't noticed, when the Cold War ended, every country in Latin America, except Communist Cuba, because a democracy. And Wolfowitz, or Perle can't remember, says his best achievement was the toppling of Marcos of Phillipines. The CIA also was funding all the democratic forces in the Soviet bloc, which helped end Communism and bring democracy there, even Solidarity, tho they were trade union radicals.

...you can't name a single example of the US "creating democracy" post-WWII.

Instead you begin by naming two from WWII (Germany and Japan), rather than post-WWII as I asked.

Then you allude to how the US funded the candidates of its choice in an existing democracy in Italy, implying that the US was involved in "creating democracy" there, when in fact it was plainly subverting it.

You attempt the same with Greece and Latin America, then feel too ashamed not to point out yourself that the US actually put brutual military juntas in power in both. Yes, that's exactly the kind of "creating democracy" we can expect to see in Iraq.

The you cite that fine old Neocon chestnut about Israel being the "only democracy in the Middle East", neglecting to point out that this "democracy" was not extended to those in the former majority who were killed or chased out of the country or into refugee camps.

And what sort of "democracy" is in place in Israel today for those non-Jews who grudgingly took Israeli citizenship, and those qualified automatically by Jewish birth? Systematic suppression of the Palestinians; second-class status for Christians and other non-Jews; inequality of women; rights denied to half-Jewish "mamzerim" (illegitimate in Israeli law even if their parents are married!); discrimination against black and Oriental Jews; police state powers; and many other features of Israeli law and policy.
Is this the sort of "democracy" we can look forward to in Iraq?

You even attempt to give the CIA credit for the collapse of Stalinism in the Eastern bloc by "funding all the democratic forces in the Soviet bloc", which is truly laughable. Stalinism collapsed under its own weight and corruption, and the former CIA people who were involved in Eastern bloc ops (and who are not currently politicians) freely admit it. In fact the CIA failed spectacularly to predict the fall of Stalinism, and was totally unprepared for it. Today, democracy in Russia is a sick joke. And the former Soviet republics Belarus, Ukraine etc, now banana-republic dictatorships? Is that the kind of "democracy" you're hoping to see in Iraq?

As for Marcos, well that's a very good analogy to Iraq, thank you. The US put the brutal dictator Marcos in power, kept him in power for decades while it suited them, then when he was no longer useful booted him out, taking credit on the way for "people power". What a crock of shit!

------------------------------------------------------------(quote)
"We love your adherence to democratic principle and to the democratic processes," said George H.W. Bush to Ferdinand Marcos as he raised his glass in a toast to the Philippine dictator during his visit to Manila in 1981.[1] From the beginning of the Marcos dictatorship until its end, the US government persisted in fondling the Filipino tyrant (who fondled America back).

But we are of course expected to pretend that this never happened.

We are not supposed to remember that the American Chamber of Commerce described the imposition of martial rule in the Philippines in 1972 as a "heaven-sent relief" and we are expected to forget that, after martial law was declared, the same august Chamber wished Marcos "every success in your endeavor to restore peace and order, business confidence, economic growth and the well-being of the Filipino people."[2]

We are not supposed to remember that, two years before Marcos inflicted martial law on Filipinos, US investments in the Philippines stood at $16.3 million; and that by 1981, the year of the Bush toast to the Filipino tyrant, US investments stood at $920 million.[3]

We are expected to forget the 1965 -1966 Indonesian bloodbath - the slaughter of a million Indonesians perpetrated by a vile gang of Indonesian generals backed by America. A culling that overthrew a government that the US government disliked. A slaughter that midwifed the three-decade dictatorship of the Indonesian despot Suharto.

We are not supposed to remember that during the carnage, the US government had supplied Suharto and his generals lists containing the names of those America wanted slaughtered. "It was a big help to the army," said Robert J. Martens, a political officer of the U.S. embassy in Jakarta, of the 1965-1966 butchery. Suharto and his thugs "probably killed a lot of people and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands but that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at the decisive moment."

"We were getting a good account in Jakarta of who was being picked up," said Joseph Lazarsky, deputy CIA station chief in Jakarta. "The army had a 'shooting list' of about 4,000 or 5,000 people. They didn't have enough goon squads to zap them all, and some individuals were valuable for interrogation . . . We knew what they were doing . . . Suharto and his advisers said, if you keep them alive, you have to feed them."

"The US is generally sympathetic with and admiring of what the [Indonesian] army is doing," said the American Ambassador in Jakarta, Marshall Green, of the killings.[4] But we are not supposed to remember these things.

We are expected to forget about the Iraqi coup of 1963. A coup that took place four years after a massive public demonstration attended by half a million Iraqis had demanded working class leadership in Iraq. A coup that took place two years after the government of Abdul Karim-Qasim attempted to implement socio-economic reforms that included increasing taxes on the rich, the introduction of inheritance taxes, rent controls, price controls, the regulation of working hours and the provision of compulsory systems of social insurance.

We are not supposed to remember the 1963 coup. A US-engineered coup that eventually catapulted a certain Saddam Hussein to the highest echelons of leadership in Iraq. We are not supposed to remember that the Ba'ath Party came to power, in the words of a Ba'athist president, "using an American locomotive."

"I know for a certainty that what happened in Iraq on February 8 [1963] had the support of American intelligence," said King Hussein of Jordan, in a meeting in Paris with the editor of Egypt's most influential daily, al-Ahram. "Numerous meetings were held between the Ba'ath Party and American intelligence, the more important in Kuwait. Do you know that on February 8 a secret radio beamed to Iraq was supplying the men who pulled the coup with the names and addresses of Communists there so that they could be arrested and executed?" said the King of Jordan.[5]

We are expected to forget all these things lest we ask some interesting questions. Without America's support, would the Marcos regime have lasted as long as it did? Without America's instigation, would Suharto have been able to slaughter so many and rule Indonesia for so long and with such barbarity? Without the American locomotive of 1963, where would Iraq be today?

"If we have to use force," said Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State during the Clinton administration, "it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation."[6]

Indispensable, yes, until we really choose to remember. "The past is never dead," said William Faulkner. "It's not even past."


NOTES:
[1] "What We Say Goes: The Middle East in the New World Order," Noam Chomsky, Z Magazine, May 1991.
[2] "Memory as a Means of Empowerment," Maria Serena I. Diokno, August 23, 2001, Paper presented at the Conference on Memory, Truth-Telling and the Pursuit of Justice. The Legacies of the Marcos Dictatorship, September 20-22, 1999, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines.
[3] A Fateful September, Letizia R. Constantino, Issues without Tears Vol. 5, Karrel Inc., 1986.
[4] The new rulers of the world, John Pilger, Verso, 2002.
[5] Bush in Babylon: The recolonisation of Iraq, Tariq Ali, Verso, 2003.
[6] Quoted in "Blowback: A Review Essay on an Academic Defector's Guide to America's Asia Policy," Walden Bello, March 12, 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------(end quote)


So since you cannot really think of any examples of the US "creating democracy" anywhere post-WWII, perhaps it's time for you to consider the possibility that they aren't the slightest bit interested in "creating democracy" in Iraq either.

They exist to burn up as much of your time as possible, and can't be convinced of anything. Do yourself a favour.

cheers

Thats right IMC ppl call anyone who disagrees a "troll".

Are you saying that America created democracies in Germany and Japan during World War Two? Or did World War 2 end in 1945 and the US subsequently created POST-WAR democracies in those countries? Moron.

And I'll refute a few of the typical examples given:

Iran, 1953. Mossadegh had already abolished parliament and given himself authoritarian powers, and the Communist Tudeh party was infiltrating the government. He was also a reactionary and opposed even the limited reform program proposed by the Shah. Under the Shah land reform was instituted, there were attempts to create a modern society in Iran, with women's rights, the middle class women were liberated for example, and the forced Veiling of women was banned, and Islamic reactionary education was reduced, though still taught because its part of the culture, there were attempts to industrialise the country, increase education, and so on. Khomeni actually admitted that his biggest fear was that Iran would evolve into a modern democracy. Sure, the SAVAK may have been brutal, but its not the case of democratic progressive vs undemocratic reaction, as the left would have you believe.

Guatemala, 1954: The Communists were infiltrating the government and were in alliance with Arbenz. Arbenz's wife was even a communist. He was given an ultimatum by the military to expel the Communists from his government. He refused, and he and the Communists created people's militas and instituted a brief reign of terror arresting their opponents before the military invaded and added their own anti-communist reign of terror.

Cuba, 1959: The US was not actually backing Batista, but the Communists were. They had been supporting his government for decades, called Castro a counter-revolutionary, and were even infiltrating government bureaucracy etc. They then struck a deal with Castro. And notice that attempts to overthrow Castro only began after he had alreay imposed the totalitarian system, let in the Russians, and so on.

Iraq, 1963: The King of Jordan may well claim CIA involvement, but thats up to him. Some involved have said they didn't organise it and everyone in the American embassy was all running around in a frenzy wondering what was going on and getting lists of Communists to arrest/liquidate. And Qassim's government and instituted a Red Terror, throwing people in jail and so on, and had the Communists in government. And the Ba'athists were a far left movement also. I actually have leftist books from the 1960s and they all talk about the radical left Ba'athist alternative and so on.

Indonesia, 1965: They claim that 500,000 were killed, I expect thats a massive exaggeration. But its often forgotten anyway that Indonesia's got a population of like 100 million so they're not that big anyway. And the PKI, the pro-China Communist party, was mainly confined to the Chienese minority. It was involved in the government of Sukarno, and it then launched a coup supposedly against the threat of a coup, but in its Revolutionary Council everyone of them was a Stalinist. The military moved and they massacred Communists to establish order and so on. As is obvious from quotes etc, the US didn't like it, but they knew sometimes this had to be done. Would you rather Indonesia, very strategically important, had gone Communist? And remember only a small minority of the population actually supported Communism.

Oh and Israel.

"neglecting to point out that this "democracy" was not extended to those in the former majority who were killed or chased out of the country or into refugee camps."

The UN partitioned Palestine, giving Jews and Arabs each a state. Jews were jubilant that their right of self-determination in the parts of Palestine where they lived was recognised, and accepted it. Palestinian Arabs rejected the plan. They were led by Husseini the Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent the war in Berlin approving the Holocaust, organising SS units, and calling on Muslims to kill Jews wherever they found them. They started the war, they are responsible for the subsequent refugees. There has been not one bit of evidence that Israel had any policy of expelling Arabs, and Ben-Gurion always saw the rights of the Arab minority in Israel as crucial to securing good relations with the Arab world.

"And what sort of "democracy" is in place in Israel today for those non-Jews who grudgingly took Israeli citizenship, and those qualified automatically by Jewish birth?"

Jews have a right to citizenship, this is so they can freely escape persecution, something they could not do during the Russian pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust. Israeli Arabs are richer than other Arabs, and live in a democracy with full civil rights, where they even elect anti-Zionist pro-PLO parties to the Knesset. Polls in the Oslo period also overwhelmingly showed they'd rather be in Israel than a Palestinian state, because of civil rights, democracy, rule of law, prosperity, etc.

"Systematic suppression of the Palestinians; second-class status for Christians and other non-Jews; inequality of women; rights denied to half-Jewish "mamzerim" (illegitimate in Israeli law even if their parents are married!); discrimination against black and Oriental Jews; police state powers; and many other features of Israeli law and policy."

Police state powers? Israel is a DEMOCRACY that functions even during these constant wars, occupation, etc. Non-Jews have full rights within Israel, certainly far more than Christians or Jews have in Arab or Muslim countries. When Jordan occupied Jerusalem all Jewish synagogues etc were destroyed and Christians had their rights completely restricted, for example. Israeli women have equality, David Ben-Gurion was a socialist and an adament advocate of this. Muslim women are practically slaves. Black and Oriental Jews may have experienced discrimination, but they are basically equal. And they tend to vote Likud, by the way.

His name is Harry. Nobody but a troll would spout goofy shit like this with a straight face:

"Sure, the SAVAK may have been brutal, but its not the case of democratic progressive vs undemocratic reaction, as the left would have you believe. "

"Arbenz... instituted a brief reign of terror..."

"The US was not actually backing Batista, but the Communists were."

"They claim that 500,000 were killed, I expect thats a massive exaggeration. But its often forgotten anyway that Indonesia's got a population of like 100 million so they're not that big anyway."

"They [Arabs] started the war, they are responsible for the subsequent refugees."

"Jews have a right to citizenship, this is so they can freely escape persecution"
(hahahaha! Escape from their "persecution" in New Jersey!)

"Non-Jews have full rights within Israel, certainly far more than Christians or Jews have in Arab or Muslim countries. "

...and so on. Whew! How much more "refuting" like that can we take?

Time for your stinging rebuttal now, Harry. Nighty night, neocon troll!

Please stop using the name H or h, that's my name.

Ya fuckin' moron

.

H, you have yet to provide an example of the US creating a democracy other than Germany and Japan.

The issue in Iran was this. Mossadeq wanted to nationalise the oil. The British didn´t like it, asked the US to intervene, and overthrew the Prime Minister of a country, putting the Shah into power, who certainly was not democratic, and paving the way for the Islamic Revolution AGAINST the hated Shah, which is certainly not democratic.
You make it sound like Mossadeq was an Islamist, when he was not. He was a populist leader who demanded more favourable agreements with respect to the British exploitation of Iranian oil. The British imposed embargoes and sanctions upon Iran, and in the political chaos THEN mossadeq began adopting more autocratic measures.
And EVEN THEN, he never instituted the same sort of secret police forces, ( the Shahs Savak ) that the Shah instituted.

The same with regards to Chile. Allende was popular and democratically elected. Under his rule there was political and economic upheaval, as the left and the right fought for control. BUT there was NEVER the DISSAPPEARED of Pinochets rule. Never the murder and torture.

THAT is what the US backed in both these countries, because it didn´t like the ECONOMIC policies of those countries NOT because they were not democratic or they abused human rights.

And this has been the position of the US for the past 50 years.

The NeoCons don´t want to bring democracy to the world. They want, to quote from their website, AMERICAN LED democracy. Ie, a democracy where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. How is it democratic to wage a war against people against their wishes!!! How is it democratic to say ´We know how to run your economy better than you, so we´ll depose your leader and put in someone we like´.

It´s a ridiculous position you´ve adopted, that doesn´t stand up to fact and logic. You can´t impose democracy by bombing people. Its like in the middleages when people tried to spread Christs message of ´peace and love´ by slaughtering Muslims and eating Syrian villagers.

PS, it is worthwhile feeding the ´Trolls´, you other guys, because the process of argument leads one to discover the facts and learn the truth. I like the trolls. They are feeding us, in fact.

While we're informing one another in a lively debate, let's consider shall we that Iran is the next Middle East nation to be attacked by US/UK Imperialist armies!

US/UK government would be fighting for their corporation oil industry interests to secure the Caspian Sea to Persian Gulf oil pipeline that has to go through Iran. This pipeline is essential to the new eastern superpower, China, along with Indonesia and India whose economies are booming and very oil thirsty.

However Iran has already make deals with the EU, as indeed did Iraq, and the US is at the back of the queue, of course CIA backed political changes might just cancel all deals with EU nations including France.