Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Crosshairs on Iran: Turning Truth On Its Head
by moonwolf | October 31, 2007 at 08:10 am
640 views | 12 Recommendations | 19 comments
by merrie
Outright lies, obfuscation and clever fabrications using partial truths, the tools of the bloody trade of invasion, regime change, destruction, murder and occupation used by the US Administration in the Iraq debacle are again being trotted out to sow the seeds of fear and thus justify an insane and unjustified attack on Iran. This article from the Guardian highlights the recent blatant prevarication by Condoleeza Rice, George Bush and Dick Cheney as they push the USA towards the precipice of a war that will spell the end of the US economy, the final end of its global influence and ability to project it's dwindling power.
Take the time to follow the links and you will clearly see the pattern of deceit being perpetrated by Washington in it's blind rush towards more war.
The US has opened up a new front in its now sharply accelerated war drive on Iran. The announcement last week by Condoleezza Rice, branding Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organisation, and imposing the strongest sanctions yet since 1979 Iranian Revolution, alarmed several democratic presidential candidates who described it as an indication that the White House had begun its "march to war".In his article in today's Guardian, Max Hastings correctly predicts that within six months these sanctions could only lead to a military attack on Iran, a prospect that he opposes. However, he plays right into the hands of warmongers by giving unequivocal support to the two main US accusations against Iran:
"Few strategists dispute either that Iranian revolutionaries are playing a prominent role in frustrating the stabilisation of Iraq, or that Iran is doing its utmost to build nuclear weapons."
These are precisely the allegations that are used by the neoconservatives and Israel to demonise the Revolutionary Guards and the government of Ahmadinejad, justify the latest sanctions and pave the way for a military attack.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is an army of 125,000 and an indispensable part of the Iranian military. It was formed during the eight-year war waged against the Islamic Republic by Saddam Hussein, who was at the time fully supported by the US and its European allies. With this historic role in defeating foreign aggression, the Corps occupies a special place in the Islamic Republic, has a large domain of operation and runs a significant part of the economy.
The US designation is the first time in international relations that a military body of a sovereign state is branded as terrorist. Given the Revolutionary Guards' credibility in defending the country, the US measures will be seen in the eyes of ordinary people as an attack by the US on Iran's sovereignty, along the lines of the US-UK engineered coup against the democratically elected government of Dr Mossadegh in 1953.
As a justification for the new sanctions against Iranian banks, companies and individuals, Rice accused the Revolutionary Guards of being "proliferators of WMD". This accusation has been repeatedly contradicted by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr ElBaradei's unambiguous assertions that there is absolutely no evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme in Iran. In August, the IAEA cleared Iran of its plutonium experiments and confirmed the peaceful nature of all of Iran's declared enrichment activities.
"We have not come to see any undeclared activities or weaponisation of their programme", Dr Mohammad ElBaradei said in September, "Nor have we gotten intelligence to that effect." This Sunday, he repeated the same assertion in a CNN interview.
But Rice's accusation against the Revolutionary Guards is not only totally unfounded, it turns the truth outrageously on its head. Throughout its eight-year war of aggression, the Iraqi army used chemical weapons on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, soldiers and civilians. The US was complicit in both the proliferation and the use of WMD against the Revolutionary Guards, who were amongst the 52,000 Iranian victims of this war crime.
In response to the latest US measures against Iran, Vladimir Putin, who along with the Chinese, has refused to back further sanctions against Iran, saying: "Running around like a mad man with a blade in one's hand is not the best way to solve such problems."
Also, Rice's accusation against the Quds force, a division of the Revolutionary Guards, of support for terrorism in Iraq and beyond, is in sharp contrast to British government's own evidence. David Miliband, the foreign secretary, in an interview with the Financial Times in July admitted that there was no evidence of Iranian involvement in the violence and instability in Iraq. Afghanistan's foreign minister has recently contradicted the US accusations against Iran by pointing out that there is no evidence for Iran arming the Taliban forces. Prime Minister Maliki and President Karzai too have repeatedly stressed Iran's positive role in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unfounded allegations by the US and Rice's declaration to the Congress that Iran was "perhaps the single greatest challenge" for US security, is part of the unmistakable chorus of war from the US administration, following Bush's invocation of the "World War III" and Cheney's threat of "serious consequences" for Iran, the week previously. It is an ominous indication that the voices of dialogue have been decidedly drowned by the war camp who are pushing for a military attack on Iran.
In Britain, Gordon Brown has been quick to support the latest US measures and refused to rule out the military option. The new sanctions will not avert the military option by the US, as a number of leading politicians in the UK, France and Germany claim, but would only be the prelude to a military attack. Brown is placing Britain in the path of another unprovoked and illegal war with catastrophic consequences for the people of Iran, the region and the whole world.
Seymour Hersh wrote in a recent article in the New Yorker that this summer in a closed circuit video discussion between Bush and Ian Crocker, the US ambassador in Iraq, Bush said that he wanted all along the border inside Iran to be bombed and that "the British were on board".
The British public should wake up to the disastrous foreign policy the UK government is continuing to pursue after the invasion of Iraq and urgently demand their MPs to table an emergency motion in the House of Commons to oppose sanctions and any military attack on Iran
October 31, 2007 at 08:10 am by moonwolf, 640 views, 19 comments
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (19)
at 09:13 on October 31st, 2007
I am flagging this as good stuff because you have classified it under opinions, as it should be (not because I agree with all of the content). I do wish that there was a "Political Opinion" area because it is not really news. Bush being impeached (we can hope can't we?) would be "political news".
I wish, however, that your preamble text was not bolded (totally unnecessary and inflammatory, and that your introduction acknowledged the fact that is actually from a blog written but two Iranian-born residents of Great Britain. I feel that since you highlighted the entire piece, you should have also acknowledged the organization they are from.
Without these acknowledgments, the piece has no context.
at 09:53 on October 31st, 2007
Thanks Christopher.
I will not bold my introductions in future and will change that now, you're point is well taken.
I disagree with you in relation to context however. My pre-amble includes reference to the Guardian, a British newspaper, the article is highlighted which is designed to give clear author attribution, and anyone who clicks on the "go to original" story link will see who wrote this and its source. As a discerning reader I always do that anyway.
Within the article there are links to many source references such as a PDf of an actual document from the IAEA to give this piece great contextual depth; in fact much more than I normally see here or most other publications.
I must also ask: Does the fact that these two are Iranian born British
Citizens and not white British or Americans alter the credibility of
the article or the depth of research they have done? This is, after
all, an editorial as you pointed out.
"Abbas Edalat is professor of computer science and mathematics at
Imperial College London and founder of the Campaign Against Sanctions
and Military Intervention in Iran
Mehrnaz Shahabi is a journalist and executive editor of www.campaigniran.org."
Obviously two highly educated and contributory British Citizens who do not want the USA to attack and decimate their country the way it has Iraq, just as you or I or anyone here would being in similar circumstances.
Why does their opinion have no weight?
at 10:30 on October 31st, 2007
I am not saying their opinion does not carry weight. However, they do have an agenda based on their affiliation, and that should should be disclosed as a "value add" as part of the highlighting process. And yes, it DOES matter that they are Iranian-born, the same as it would be if I lived in Iran and published a pre-United States piece based on "research"*. It gives context. If you are going to take the time to highlight an entire pice, you should provide the background information as well. Don't make the reader have to go through multiple clicks to get to it.
I wonder why they do not expend as much effort to get that maniacal puppet out of office in their own country, the true root cause of the tension.
*I quote "research" because their field is NOT political analysis or
intelligence gathering. Yes I know the US blows intelligence too.
at 11:38 on October 31st, 2007
The importance of this message is that I could not find it or anything like it anywhere in US media, just more and more of American "authorities" pontificating negatively on everything Iranian, ad nauseum. Before countries go to war one would think it important to have considered the people and rights of those you are about to kill, out of fabrications and manipulation of an out of control leader and his band of cut-throats and criminals.
Contrary to all the blabber from the loonies in Washington it isn't, after all, Americans facing a rain of death out of the night sky, it is Iranians, and one well-tested method utilized by your 'dogs of war' is to never give you any direct truthful information from the country or about the people and lives your armed forces are about to obliterate. Demonization is the order of the day. They are just a bunch of evil, Islamofascist, torturing, suicide bombers champing at the bit to get at Israel and America, and other absolute crap. When one takes the time to access information from hundreds of sources outside the USA a very different picture of the culture and the peoples of Iran emerges, one your government would not want your citizens to see, as they might not have the stomach for the slaughter if they saw the citizens of the target country as real, ordinary people, with ordinary kids and ordinary lives, the differences in their laws, mores, and culture notwithstanding. Having your population begin to empathize would be disastrous for those who would dominate the entire Middle East and eventually the world by force if they are allowed to.
As to your directions on how to use this site; I am doing it within the parameters set out by the owners and paid employees of the site and have been doing so since before you arrived, and I will continue to do so. I do not "make" readers click to many other sites. I provide an embedded bibliography for their ellucidation and provide them with the opportunity to access context which validates the articles position if they choose to go to that length. That is how this electronic medium works and embedding is the standard by which all articles and sites operate. If that doesn't meet with your more and more restrictive views about how it should be, or what I should be doing well I'm sorry but get over it.
"I wonder why they do not expend as much effort to get that maniacal
puppet out of office in their own country, the true root cause of the
tension." -your words.
The assumption you have made here is absurd, ill-advised and borders on slanderous to these two men. You have absolutely no idea what actions they are taking to reign in their own loonies in Tehran. My guess is they left Iran because their freedoms were sorely impaired and that they are, in all probability very active from their new country Britain in their efforts to bring about change within their beloved homeland, and they felt they could do more from Britain than Iran. Rather than accuse them of something of which you know nothing why not write to them and ask?
What are you personally doing to get your "maniacal puppet" out of office and under control? Death toll from Iranians attacking other neighbouring countries, zero. Death toll from the USA attacking Iranian neighbours over a million, but that is OK because even if he should be impeached he is still the President?! They should be risking their lives in Iran while you take no more action than bemoaning the fact that no one has impeached Bush yet? If you are part of any action within the USA to bring your looney down tell us about it!
Your facile statement about Iran being the root cause is simplistic, without context, and completely untrue, based again on the all to typical miopic, limited US views of this complex historic sittuation, and your desire to pass all responsibility onto the "other guy". Ultimately the "root cause" stems back to British and western interventions in the region going all the way back to the religious loonies and the Crusades. More recently the absolutey stupid move by Britain and the Intenational Community of just arbitrarily "establishing" the State of Israel in the middle of Palestine therby triggering the horrendous intractable situation that lies beneath most all the tensions in the region today. Then you have US interference in the internal affairs of Iran over the last 60 years, including aiding Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran at the cost of millions of Iranian and Iraqi lives, coupled with the US illegal invasion and occupation of two of Iran's neighbours and the growing blatant threats of your crazies and those in Israel to attack Iran pre-emptively.
Anyone who has for a moment looked at this situation in even a passing manner knows where the true roots of the tension lies.
at 12:12 on October 31st, 2007
at 11:25 on October 31st, 2007
It really is Canada's fault?:-)
But seriously, I have said nothing to slander these two people (I believe one is actually a woman). I merely stated my opinion as do you. But you are right, I do not know all of the actions they are taking, and neither do you. And I did not say that Iran is the source of the tension. I said their President is the root cause of the current tension (well actually I left the word 'current' out, but that is what was meant).
I am not trying to state restrictive views on what you should or should not do with your posts. I am just suggesting that you try and make the posts more user-friendly.
What am I going to do about our President? Nothing except vote when I need to, the way I need to. That is the way our process works, like it or not.
at 11:54 on October 31st, 2007
That is the extent of your responsibility as a US citizen under the Constitution? Isn't there something in there about protecting your Republic from all enemies foreign and domestic, and fairly clear definitions of how you are obliged as a citizen to carry out that responsibility, and tools given you by the founding fathers to ensure you can carry out said obligations?
All you have to do is vote and you're done? I am sorry Christopher but in my opinion your statement nullifies any credibility you have on the subject of social or political activism in any country, and the responsibilities of citizens either at home or abroad. You are free to post your opinion which I invite, but by your own words your opinion carries no moral weight.
I appreciate your honesty which allowed for this exchange, which I believe is clear demonstration of the need to post such articles where Canadians and Americans can access information and opinions which are restricted by our politically biased and often irrelevant news delivery systems.
at 11:56 on October 31st, 2007
The language you cite is part of the oath office that elected federal officials and military personnel take when they are sworn into office, and not explicitly of citizens:
Enlisted Soldiers
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform
Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code;
Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789,
with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Commissioned Officers
"I,
_____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the
United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that
I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon
which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959,
for officers.)
The President
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of
my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.
I find it interesting that Canadian officials take an oath to the crown:
"I, NAME, do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of
Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me
God"
This piece from Wikipedia may be useful for readers:
United States
In the United States, the oath of office for the President of the United States is specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of
my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.
The oath may be sworn or affirmed.
Although not present in the text of the Constitution, it has become a
standard practice for modern presidents to add "so help me God" at the
end of the oath. There is a legend that George Washington started this tradition by adding these words at his inauguration in 1789.[1]
The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and
judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states,
shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
For other officials, including members of Congress, it specifies
they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this
constitution." At the start of each new U.S. Congress,
in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or
re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and
one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[2]
"So help me God." is customarilly added to the end of the oath, but
as mentioned above cannot be required as part of the oath of office in
the United States.
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the
Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal
employees other than the President. While the oath-taking dates back to
the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s,
drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
In 1789, the First United States Congress
had reworked the constitutional requirement into a simple fourteen-word
oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." It also passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established an additional oath taken by Supreme Court justices and district court judges:
without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the
rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform
all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities
and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the
United States. So help me God.[3]
The outbreak of the Civil War
quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous
significance. In April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting
loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln
ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to
take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency
session in July, members echoed the president's action by enacting
legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of
the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern
version of the oath.
When Congress returned for its regular session in December 1861,
members who believed that the Union had as much to fear from northern
traitors as southern soldiers again revised the oath, adding a new
first section known as the "Ironclad Test Oath." The war-inspired Test
Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862,
required "every person elected or appointed to any office ... under the
Government of the United States ... excepting the President of the
United States" to swear or affirm that they had never previously
engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Those government employees who
failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who
swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment.
The 1862 oath's second section incorporated a different rendering of the hastily drafted 1861
oath. Although Congress did not extend coverage of the Ironclad Test
Oath to its own members, many took it voluntarily. Angered by those who
refused this symbolic act during a wartime crisis, and determined to
prevent the eventual return of prewar southern leaders to positions of
power in the national government, congressional hard-liners eventually
succeeded by 1864 in making the Test Oath mandatory for all members.
The Senate then revised its rules to require that members not only
take the Test Oath orally, but also that they "subscribe" to it by
signing a printed copy. This condition reflected a wartime practice in
which military and civilian authorities required anyone wishing to do
business with the federal government to sign a copy of the Test Oath.
The current practice of newly sworn senators signing individual pages
in an oath book dates from this period.
As tensions cooled during the decade following the Civil War,
Congress enacted private legislation permitting particular former
Confederates to take only the second section of the 1862 oath. An 1868
public law prescribed this alternative oath for "any person who has
participated in the late rebellion, and from whom all legal
disabilities arising therefrom have been removed by act of Congress."
Northerners immediately pointed to the new law's unfair double standard
that required loyal Unionists to take the Test Oath's harsh first
section while permitting ex-Confederates to ignore it. In 1884, a new
generation of lawmakers quietly repealed the first section of the Test
Oath, leaving intact the current affirmation of constitutional
allegiance.
The oaths of state and local officials are largely patterned on
these. Typical would be the oath taken by all New York government
officials:
I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New York,
(and the Charter of the City of New York, e.g.), and that I will
faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (mayor of the City of
New York, e.g.) to the best of my ability. (So help me God is traditionally added.)
Federal judicial oaths
In the United States, federal judges are required to take not just one, but two oaths. The first oath is this:[4]
The second oath that federal judges must take is this:[5]:
Federal statute specifically says that the latter oath "does not affect other oaths required by law."[5]
Your last statement is crossing over into flaming (which is defined in the eye of the flamee), so I will end this discussion now. But I will say this: If you think it will be different with Democrats in office, then you are sadly mistaken.
at 12:15 on October 31st, 2007
I am slowly working my way through this and I am not there yet. There is a lot here - let alone the blog!!!. The first link goes to another Guardian page but if you follow the link to the authors. Abbas Edalat and Mehrnaz Shahabi it leads to “Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.” So Chris, you are right, they do have a very obvious agenda! I would take issue with their reporting of no evidence of Iran supporting the Taliban. British and American soldiers have been reported, to have found, Iranian and Chinese weapons. Does anybody have access to “Jane’s Defense Weekly”?
Britain is a place where there are many asylum seekers start protests that they could not make in their own country. The Brits appear to be at ease with people coming to their country and disagreeing with them. They enjoy the irony of it as they revel in their new freedoms. Maybe that enjoyment does not cross the Atlantic too well - although my personal experience suggests it does. Incidentally, Max Hastings was a soldier and a right wing editor of a British newspaper. And here he is writing in the most liberal broadsheet. I love these contradictions of linear thinking! It is healthy and thought provoking. I don’t think this article is easy for the reader, I love good presentation, but I am really enjoying going through what you could only call a journey. From what I’ve read so far I can only agree with your big tick for this article.
at 14:54 on October 31st, 2007
Thanks Anglo!
I found the article interesting and thought provoking as well and never thought for a moment that the two authors had no agenda. I just think it is important for Americans to be exposed to more of this.
As to the claims of Iran providing material support for the Taliban or the even the Insurgency in Iraq the jury is still out with a lack of irrefutable hard evidence either way as far as I have read. In fact the subject has become an instrument of propaganda for the US and as such, seeing the list of previous lies and propaganda used to justify the carnage they have committed so far, their "reports" lose all credibility. Always glad to get some new sources though so pass what you have on.
"They" have reported finding Chinese and Iranian weapons. I must say that the insurgents also have a preponderance of US, British, and Canadian weapons and ordnance as well wouldn't you?
For me even if Iran is aiding the Taliban and the Iraqi Insurgency they have every right to do so considering their situation, and the USA has aided and abetted insurgents and terrorist groups around the world anytime it felt that was the right way to protect its global "interests". That any different tactical and strategic rules "should" be applied to a beleagered Iran, hemmed in by aggressors, sanctioned, starved and threatened with destruction would be another foolish and unacceptable double standard. Since the USA has overwhelming military superiority Iranians must use a-symetric warfare and whatever they have at hand to defend themselves and ward off the combined agressions of the USA, Britain, and France. One cannot start a war against a sovereign country and then cry out when their neighbours, who are also threatened come to their aid.
at 12:29 on October 31st, 2007
Christopher,
I stand corrected on the responsibilities of citizens spelled out within the constitution, thank you for the information.
However I am sure you will agree that citizens have a higher responsibility than just to vote when the Constitution and all it guarantess are under threat from the Executive Branch. Simply voting is not enough to maintain a vibrant democracy, and in my opinion, whether they have a legal responsibility to hold their politicians to account they have practical and moral responsibilities to do so. Especially when the whole thrust and justification of US Foreign Policy set by the President gives the President, in the name of his citizens, the right to kill anyone in any foreign country simply because he wants to and says its the "right" thing to do, and yet is supposedly predicated on the higher moral elevation and deeper commitment to democracy of the US Administration, justice system and its citizens.
The US Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens:
The oath of allegiance is:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce
and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,
potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore
been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United
States when required by the law; that I will perform
noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when
required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance
under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this
obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
so help me God."
Do you think that citizens fortunate enough to be born in the USA should be subject to less responsibilities than those who come to your country and work hard to become US citizens? Can you expect them to carry a higher code and responsibility to take action than you?
- reply
crissy333at 13:46 on October 31st, 2007
I don't see any articles from the poster holding Canadian politicians to account. I guess all is perfect over there.
at 14:19 on October 31st, 2007
What relevance does that have to this discussion crissy333?
But so that you can understand why I focus more on US politics: Canadian politicians aren't responsible for a million+ Iraqi deaths and aren't threatening to attack Iran.
Perfect up here? Not likely! But better than down there? You betcha!
I also participate on a number of levels here in Canada to hold our politicians feet to the fire on a number of issues. I phone, write letters and emails directly to them asking questions and communicating my concerns and expectations, I participate with several activist groups and am an active supporter of the New Democratic Party of Canada.
And for the record. My first post here was about the Canadian Armed Forces.
Then there was a piece the same week on Canada's involvement in the effort to create a North American Union
I could go on.
at 15:45 on October 31st, 2007
at 15:51 on October 31st, 2007
Anglo,
In response to your comment which is now below this one in the thread. :D
Here, here!
And from an ongoing conversation between Karen and I:
"This is why I keep on keeping on Karen. I am not at all anti-American,
quite the opposite. I am pro-a responsible America leading by example,
using its wealth to take the point and shine a light ahead into the
darkness for all of us.
The moral bulwark America used to be for the whole world is gone, and I for one want it back!!
America was never perfect but it was the best as well as the worst of
humanity. The dichotomy between its darkness and the brilliance of its
moral light shared freely and honestly through a free press lifted the
conversation of the human race.
Now that the light from America has fallen to the powers of darkness I fear for all of us."
at 15:50 on October 31st, 2007
OK, gone through the article and read all the links. For any rational dialogue to exist you have to know the arguments for and against. If one follows all the links, this article gives you the opposing views, missing in the US media, that is obsessed with news reporting to fit on a bumper sticker. Perhaps the most telling remark comes from Max Hastings - a man hardly known for his liberal credentials....
I have always had a sneaking suspicion that most people reading at NP do not have a passport and have never had one. So they will never know how true this statement is. I look forward to a return to the "benign nature of American purposes." Good stuff.
at 15:53 on October 31st, 2007
Hey Anglo,
See my comment above.
- reply
crissy333at 16:13 on October 31st, 2007
When did the world have faith in the benign nature of American purposes? There have always been those who think America wants to rule the world. But just like the Che T-shirt it is a fad to hate Americans these days. you do not need a passport to know that and by the way there are many who have never been to America either. personally I could care less what anyone in another country thinks of me. The past history of most of those countries is nothing to be proud of.
at 16:19 on October 31st, 2007
Thank you for proving my point.