Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on September 18, 2003, 07:28:07 am
-
Welsley Clark is running for President, as a Democrat, and is being touted as an antiwar guy. The name not ringing a bell? Here's a good article on the subject:
________________________________________________
It is normally not within the bounds of this column to offer commentary on internal American issues, with the notable exception of consistent advocating of non-intervention in foreign quarrels and stepping back from the assumed role of World Empire. Such policies, harmful as they are to the very fabric of American society, nonetheless do far more damage in target countries, where any "help" that is proffered soon proves to be but another form of grievous injury.
Many a harsh word has been expended here upbraiding the misguided and malicious politicians of the Balkans for a veritable train of abuses against the lives, liberty and property of their own people and others. In the process, similar harshness has been employed against the agents of Empire, who have set to remake the fractious and complex peninsular tapestry by brute force and power of prejudice. Now one such agent seeks to apply his Balkans experiences at home, here in the United States, seeking the office of President – but in truth, coveting the laurels of Emperor.
Candidate Number Ten
Wesley Clark, former US Army general and Supreme NATO Commander in Europe, announced Wednesday that he will run for President of the United States in 2004 as a Democrat, joining nine other Democratic candidates vying for the opportunity to challenge George W. Bush.
Incongruously, Clark supporters and mainstream media seem to purport that he is running on an "antiwar" ticket. Only a few, including the Christian Science Monitor, believe that Clark could outflank Bush in his belligerence.
It's as if everyone has forgotten Wesley Clark was the Bomber of Belgrade, the highest-ranking military official in a cabal that systematically violated international law, the NATO Charter (and with it the US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2) and committed the greatest crime under the Nuremburg principles: that against peace.
Even Michael Moore, the gut-punch filmmaker who challenged the NATO attack (after a fashion) in his Oscar-winning feature "Bowling for Columbine," recently gushed over Clark. What has possessed all these people to believe that the answer to George W. Bush's policy of Global Balkanization lies in a man whose hands are drenched in Balkans blood?
War Criminal
Clark's BBC profile notes the general's words at the beginning of NATO's 1999 aerial aggression:
"We're going to systematically and progressively attack, disrupt, degrade, devastate and ultimately, unless President Milosevic complies with the demands of the international community, we're going to destroy his forces and their facilities and support," he said.
Systematically, he said. Destroy, he said. Facilities and support, he said. The bombing was indeed systematic – bridges, schools, hospitals, passenger trains, buses, refugee columns, marketplaces, anything that could be hit except the Yugoslav military, which successfully camouflaged its systems and avoided most attacks. Apparently, for Clark and his coterie, the "facilities and support" of the Yugoslav military were the people and infrastructure of Serbia itself, from the roads and bridges to the power grid and TV networks.
One of the Nuremberg prosecutors warned in vain that war crimes laws applied to Americans also. Comfortable in their knowledge that no court in the world would ever touch them – proven later on by their ICTY pawns' abject refusal to even consider an investigation – Clark and Co. committed war crimes freely and often.
Unlike Slobodan Milosevic, who was accused of "command responsibility" for alleged genocide and crimes against humanity in the Balkan Wars without a shred of reliable evidence, there is plenty of proof in Clark's case. That is, if there were an honest war crimes court in the world.
Starting World War III
Despite the barrage of propaganda, and a tailor-made "indictment" of Milosevic by NATO allies at the Hague Inquisition, the campaign of terror was failing. Only the intercession of a Russian government envoy and the "neutral" Finn Martti Ahtisaari (later amply rewarded by NATO supporters) convinced the Serbian authorities to make a truce with their attackers. No one knows whether Chernomyrdin or Ahtisaari knew that the Alliance had no intention of honoring the agreement, or the UN resolution that codified it.
Russia tried to ensure NATO lived up to the bargain by sending troops to Kosovo. When the invading British troops encountered the Russians at the Pristina airport, Clark hysterically ordered British commander General Sir Michael Jackson to dislodge them by force. Jackson refused, reportedly saying, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."
Events have vindicated Jackson's judgment; earlier this year, Russians completely withdrew from Kosovo, having failed to do anything but legitimize the illegitimate occupation of the province. For NATO's – and Clark's – "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo has only ever been a crudely manufactured lie based on most despicable deception.
What Victorious Soldier?
BBC's profile of Clark's candidacy also claims that his "credentials for running against President George Bush in 2004 rest squarely on his military reputation." If so, that is great news, for Clark hardly has any.
There is little respect for Clark among his colleagues in the military. An investigative report by CounterPunch magazine in 1999 reveals a man of gargantuan vanity, arrogant to subordinates and subservient to superiors, obsessed with micro-management, and politically savvy at the expense of military expertise.
One officer who served with Clark termed him "The poster child for everything that is wrong with the [general officer] corps," and said that under Clark's command, the 1st [Armored] Cavalry Division at Fort Hood was "easily the worst division I have ever seen in 25 years of doing this stuff."
One of America's most decorated soldiers, Col. David H. Hackworth (Ret.), speaks of Clark thus:
"Known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince,' he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."
Wesley Clark boasts about "Waging Modern War," but he is hardly a Maximus Decimus Meridius. One would be tempted to compare him to Lucius Cornelius Sulla, but for the Roman tyrant's record of actual military competence.
Some might protest that Clark was, after all, knighted by the British for his "boundless energy" in the terror-bombing of Yugoslavia; awarded the French Legion d'Honneur; and the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom. That these governments profaned their highest decorations in support of their criminal endeavor speaks more about their (dis)honor than about Clarks' alleged "accomplishments."
Was He at Waco?
It has long been known that US Army tanks took part in the tragic and lethal 1993 storming of a religious commune in Waco, Texas. But was one of the officers involved Wesley Clark? Records indicate his second-in-command advised federal officials in preparation for the assault. One official Congressional report mentions the involvement of two high-ranking officers. In the spring of 1999, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair of CounterPunch speculated the mystery officer may have been no other than Clark:
"Certainly the Waco onslaught bears characteristics typical of Gen. Wesley Clark: the eagerness to take out the leader (viz., the Clark-ordered bombing of Milosevich's private residence); the utter disregard for the lives of innocent men, women and children; the arrogant miscalculations about the effects of force; disregard for law, whether of the Posse Comitatus Act governing military actions within the United States or, abroad, the purview of the Nuremberg laws on war crimes and attacks on civilians." (CounterPunch)
Soon thereafter, they unearthed the names of the two officers, and it turned out Clark was not involved. So, Clark's defenders can say with pride that their champion did not rain death and destruction at demonized Americans, but only demonized foreigners. Let voters' conscience be the judge of such an ethical distinction.
Blood Sacrifices
It is one thing to worship the fallen and false god of democracy by pretending elections actually mean something. But is the American public ready to take the next step, and start endorsing blood sacrifices? Wesley Clark has sacrificed many lives at the altar of power, and he will do so again.
By now it is obvious that a vote for Bush/Cheney will be a vote for Empire. It should be equally obvious that a vote for Clark would have the same effect. The very fact that Clark walks free, that he is proud of what he has done, that he is running for President, is proof of the ethical abyss which seems to have engulfed the world.
Clark's methods of "waging war" – approved by his superiors at the time, be it noted – hardly differ from those espoused by Osama Bin Laden: cowardly attack civilians with missiles and bombs, hoping their spirit breaks and they capitulate to your demands. Yet this man would be President.
Surely, Americans know better.
___________________________________
Welcome to the USA, where the number of people killed is a measure of success. Ignorant fu**s who vote for him need to have history beaten into them with a large bat.
-
Uh huh... intresting to say the least..
oh.. sorta related: Former UN weapons Inspector Richard Butler is now the governor of Tasmania..
i'm trying to figure out whether to be afraid or to laugh my head off :nervous:
-
well can't be as bad as President Clark from B5 ;)
-
[color=66ff00]
Originally posted by Maeglamor... Somewhere else:
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/staff/maeglamor/bush.jpg)
[/color]
-
John McCain should run for President again...I would've voted for him and not for Bush had he not dropped out...
-
Originally posted by Hunt Smacker
well can't be as bad as President Clark from B5 ;)
I'll remind you that when I start seeing posters saying "Traitors Can't Hide" in CNN
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
I'll remind you that when I start seeing posters saying "Traitors Can't Hide" in CNN
If anyone would do it, I'm sure it would be Bush.
-
While the idea that any of the 11 Dwarves could possibly have a hope to beat Bush in 2004. The entry of Clark, who is backed by the Clintons doesn't bode well. Especially the way the media is fawning over him.
The running theory is that if he wins the nomination, Hillary will be his vp and something will happen and he will have to drop out leaving Hillary in the top spot.
And right now Hillary is the only one the Dems have that could beat Bush.
If anyone would do it, I'm sure it would be Bush.
Let me guess, you beleive everything that CNN says about Bush?
The only reason that Bush is demonized and hated by most of the world is because he is a strong leader. And he's unapologetic about being a Christian conservative.
Most of the Dems would see this country turned into a weak-kneed, lily-livered, milk-drinking prat who cowtows to unimportant, washed-up old men with out a clue as to how the real-world works.
I like George W. Bush, dammit, and I'm PROUD he's my president!
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The only reason that Bush is demonized and hated by most of the world is because he is a strong leader. And he's unapologetic about being a Christian conservative.
Most of the Dems would see this country turned into a weak-kneed, lily-livered, milk-drinking prat who cowtows to unimportant, washed-up old men with out a clue as to how the real-world works.
I like George W. Bush, dammit, and I'm PROUD he's my president!
People said similar things about Hitler. Now while I'm not comparing the two I find it pretty insulting to be told that I don't like Bush simply because he is a strong leader. There have been many stong leaders throughout history who have simply lead their followers off a cliff.
I dislike Bush simply because he is a self serving, money-grabing bastard who is only out to line the pockets of himself and his friends with as much cash as he can and who doesn't care how many poor people he has to tramble over to do it.
If you think that makes me a democrat you are also mistaken. I don't much like them either.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The only reason that Bush is demonized and hated by most of the world is because he is a strong leader. And he's unapologetic about being a Christian conservative.
Most of the Dems would see this country turned into a weak-kneed, lily-livered, milk-drinking prat who cowtows to unimportant, washed-up old men with out a clue as to how the real-world works.
I like George W. Bush, dammit, and I'm PROUD he's my president!
Frankly, those grumpy washed-up old men have been running the real world for about 3-4 thousand years longer , and have been doing a heck of a better job at it. The real world isn't about war, it's about preserving peace. You don't hear about the numerous times when peace was saved because it doesn't sell in the news. But you have have a cowboy gung-ho president who goes in guns blazing, shoots first, shoots later, and then when everybody's dead tries to ask some questions. I've been saying this before, and I'm saying it again that US never went to Iraq to restore peace, if they wanted that, they'd have handed the Iraqi goverment over to the Iraqis a long time ago. Not to mention that the entire situation could have been resolved without a war anyway.
And need I remind David Kelly.
And now Bush is swinging an axe over the heads of Iran and Saudi-Arabia. Now this is the kind of behaviour that got the US into the 9-11 situation in the first place. Instead of randomly killing everyone in the middle-east, you should think why 9-11 ever happened. Don't upset the arabians. Sure, they don't live like you do, their women are dressed up from head-to-toe, but that doesn't mean it's any more wrong than any of the western traditions. Sometimes a tradition is just a tradition, not an act of dictatorship (sorry about that rant, I just remember an argument back when you were at war with afganistan, and that was brought up as a reason why the US should invade).
Lastly, you haven't had a war on your soil for nearly 300 years. That's because, well, the only ones that could invade you are Canada and Mexico. Europe hasn't been that fortunate. We know that war sucks. So we avoid it. So WOPEE to our washed-up old men.
-
Now this is the kind of behaviour that got the US into the 9-11 situation in the first place.
First of all, it is September 11th, not 9-11. That sounds like a convenience store.
Secondly, this is not the kind of behavior that led to that terrible day. The behavior that led to September 11th is the same behavior that happens in the US and Europe everyday. Men and Women get up and go work or church or school.
The Militant Muslims hate us because we are not Muslim. They beleive that we are evil and that their god has commanded them to convert us, and if we don't convert, to kill us. In truth, they are small-minded men who fear what we represent.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why there are so many uneducated peasants in the Middle East? One reason and one reason only: Ignorant people are easier to control. Middle Eastern countries, of which most are Islamic theocracies whether they look it or not, have very little in the way of basic human rights that you and I take for granted such as free speech. The reason they don't complain is because they know that they will be killed by their leaders to prevent an uprising.
And the charge the Bush is acting only to line his and his cronies pockets is laughable and not worth replying to.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Secondly, this is not the kind of behavior that led to that terrible day. The behavior that led to September 11th is the same behavior that happens in the US and Europe everyday. Men and Women get up and go work or church or school.
well sure, that's why they bombed the Eiffel Tower and Big Ben and left the WTC alone :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Venom
well sure, that's why they bombed the Eiffel Tower and Big Ben and left the WTC alone :rolleyes:
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
I'm saying it again that US never went to Iraq to restore peace, if they wanted that, they'd have handed the Iraqi goverment over to the Iraqis a long time ago. Not to mention that the entire situation could have been resolved without a war anyway.
Setting up a decent infrastructure, government, etc., all the things you need for a stable nation, in a place like Iraq will take a long, long, long, long time. The Allied powers were pretty damned sick of war and wanted peace at the end of World War II, yet they stayed in Germany and Japan for YEARS and took three years to set up a government in Germany. THREE YEARS! I think the Union occupied the South for a long time too.
-
Well they certainly did a fine job in Afganistan:doubt:
-
Afghanistan is beyond salvation. It will always be a ****hole.
-
Then what was the point in invading it anyway?
-
To get rid of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Bastard
-
Lol, I don't even ****ing care anymore. Seriously, I stopped following that stuff because it's all full of ****-heads, with big prostates and even bigger egos.
-
Well, it's all cause and effect with this War on Terror.
We only ever seem to be fighting the effects.
Flipside :D
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
To get rid of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Bastard
Taliban's changed from a legal organisation to an underground one, Al Quaida is still there, and Osama is presumably still alive. Gee-whiz.
-
The potential for them to harm us is all but gone.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
The potential for them to harm us is all but gone.
how'd you figure ?
I agree with Liberator when it comes to hardliners.
-
:nod:
To them, everyone who is not a fanatical fundamentalist Sunni Muslim must be converted or destroyed.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The Militant Muslims hate us because we are not Muslim. They beleive that we are evil and that their god has commanded them to convert us, and if we don't convert, to kill us. In truth, they are small-minded men who fear what we represent.
And yet they don't attack France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, Japan, China.......[Carries on for another 100 countries or so].... all of whom are not muslim countries.
America has been picked because America has a habit of meddling in the affairs of other countries including most of the Middle East. If the Americans hadn't put a bee in his bonnet Osama Bin Laden would have been relaxing by a swimming pool in Saudi Arabia right now instead of plotting the fall of the west.
-
true, but whenever anarchy breaks out everyone calls for American troops to be sent in.
and where would NATO be without US forces ?
I'm not American, and America isn't perfect, but compared to the other major powers we've seen in recent history (the Nazis and Communisim) I think things worked out for the best.
I'm proud of the history between the US & UK.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And yet they don't attack France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, Japan, China.......[Carries on for another 100 countries or so].... all of whom are not muslim countries.
America has been picked because America has a habit of meddling in the affairs of other countries including most of the Middle East. If the Americans hadn't put a bee in his bonnet Osama Bin Laden would have been relaxing by a swimming pool in Saudi Arabia right now instead of plotting the fall of the west.
Osama thinks we're all evil but to him Americans are the most evil of them all because we're rich and powerful and he thinks we like to listen to the music of slutty teenagers in bikinis (I wouldn't touch a Titney Spears album with a 10-light-year pole myself). Also, he believed America was a nice, fat, juicy, easily terrorized, and weak target, perfect for a terrorist attack.
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
true, but whenever anarchy breaks out everyone calls for American troops to be sent in.
and where would NATO be without US forces ?
I'm not American, and America isn't perfect, but compared to the other major powers we've seen in recent history (the Nazis and Communisim) I think things worked out for the best.
I'm proud of the history between the US & UK.
I agree 100%.
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
true, but whenever anarchy breaks out everyone calls for American troops to be sent in.
and where would NATO be without US forces ?
I'm not American, and America isn't perfect, but compared to the other major powers we've seen in recent history (the Nazis and Communisim) I think things worked out for the best.
I'm proud of the history between the US & UK.
holy ****! a non-american that doesn't hate the US!!!~~!11
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Osama thinks we're all evil but to him Americans are the most evil of them all because we're rich and powerful and he thinks we like to listen to the music of slutty teenagers in bikinis (I wouldn't touch a Titney Spears album with a 10-light-year pole myself). Also, he believed America was a nice, fat, juicy, easily terrorized, and weak target, perfect for a terrorist attack.
And yet he was willing to work with America for several years when the CIA picked him up from Saudi Arabia and convinced him to get involved in the war against USSR in Afghanistan? Did you not realise that Osama learnt every thing he knows about hiding in caves to avoid the military from Americans? Do you really believe that the whole time he was thinking "Just a little bit longer and then I'll turn on them"?
The whole 9/11 thing is a global case of Fatal Attraction. Osama was used by America to achieve their goals and then unceramoniously dumped the second the russians pulled out of Afghanistan. Unfortunately they picked the wrong psycho and now he's determined to get some sort of payback. It's nothing to do with being jealous of the west or wanting to convert them to Islam.
-
*insert general and generic warning to remember to keep this thread calm and flame-free here*
;)
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Lastly, you haven't had a war on your soil for nearly 300 years. That's because, well, the only ones that could invade you are Canada and Mexico. Europe hasn't been that fortunate. We know that war sucks. So we avoid it. So WOPEE to our washed-up old men.
Let's see...
300 years, eh?
French and Indian War (AKA The Seven Years War): Ended in 1763. 2003-1763 = 240 years.
The American Revolution: Ended in 1783. 2003-1783 = 220 years.
The War of 1812: Ended in 1815. 2003-1815 = 188 years.
Mexican-American War: Ended in 1848. 2003-1848 = 155 years.
The American Civil War: Ended in 1865. 2003-1865 = 138 years.
I admit that we haven't actually participated in a war that threatened American possessions since World War II (where the Aleutians, Midway, Hawaii, and all targets for conquest by Japan and the Japanese submarines attacked American shipping off of California).
But at least get your facts right! I admit that the president doesn't have a clue that he's playing with fire, but come on, at least support your statements with correct facts.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
We only ever seem to be fighting the effects.
Flipside :D
Hehe, well, that's western culture ;)
-
I skimmed most of the post, and man; you people have a talent for just ignoring the original topic in favour or the same old BS. I can't say that I haven't done the same, but still...
For the purpose of this thread, I don't give a **** about Bush's policies, or bin Laden or Israel or anything else that has been discussed a thousand times before. The issue here is that a mass murdered, under who's command thousands of civilians were killed, is running for President, and no one see's the fault in this. I honestly don't see how dropping bombs from a plane, after you have signed a piece of paper saying that you're at war, justifies civilian deaths. As far as I'm concerned, this is like electing bin Laden for president, and I challenge anyone to dispute that.
Thats about as non-flaming as I can be on the topic.
-
well Ike was elected in '52. very different person however
where the hell did that article come from anyway.
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
holy ****! a non-american that doesn't hate the US!!!~~!11
I don't hate the USA. Heck, I'm dating an American, a Texan no less.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
For the purpose of this thread, I don't give a **** about Bush's policies, or bin Laden or Israel or anything else that has been discussed a thousand times before. The issue here is that a mass murdered, under who's command thousands of civilians were killed, is running for President, and no one see's the fault in this. I honestly don't see how dropping bombs from a plane, after you have signed a piece of paper saying that you're at war, justifies civilian deaths. As far as I'm concerned, this is like electing bin Laden for president, and I challenge anyone to dispute that.
Unfortunately it's all connected. The only reason someone like this can run on an anti-war ticket is because of Sept 11th and the war on Iraq.
That said I've never given much credence to complaints of Serbs about Kosovo cause given their war record it did look like they were about to start yet another war in the Balkans.
I will agree that the UN have handled the situation dreadfully though and that's mostly because the UN couldn't find their arse with both hands.
-
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices."
-
Well, aside from Serbian greivances about Kosovo, Welsley Clark is still guilty of what the world defines as genocide.
But, since it was Serbs dieing, and we all know how evil they are, its not important. Its the double-standard that really gets to me. Dead Americans are heros. Dead Albanians are victims. Dead Serbs are ex-targets, not even mentioned in any news program; their deaths unknown (and un-cared) to the world. Indeed, they're a trophy on some asshole's wall, who now wishes to become president.
And please, don't talk about the "Serbian war record" or Albanian claims to ownership. You know nothing of either. Though I don't know everything there is to know certainly, I suspect that my info stems from sources a bit more varied and a bit more reliable than CNN..
-
You know, this policy of invading and "liberating" small middle eastern countries in our own vision wouldn't be so bad... if the US-Army was any good at post war management. Unfortunately for everyone, they're a tad out of their depth.
1st thing that should have happened was, alright - war technically over, start deploying UN multi-national peace keeping forces to the major populous centres. Then, redeploy British and American forces to hunt down resistance in the country and underground of Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And please, don't talk about the "Serbian war record" or Albanian claims to ownership. You know nothing of either. Though I don't know everything there is to know certainly, I suspect that my info stems from sources a bit more varied and a bit more reliable than CNN..
Hey. I didn't say that the Kosovo Albanians weren't a bunch of genocidal scum and I'd fully agree that they've done their own version of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo with the UN looking on.
But then again the UN looked on with the same stupid expression on their faces while the Serbs were carrying out much the same thing in Bosnia and Croatia.
Had the UN not moved in the situation would simply have been reversed and instead of ethnic cleansing of Serbs we would have simply had ethnic cleansing of Albanians. The UN's plan was to stop a repeation of Bosnia but like I said the UN couldn't find its arse with both hands so it failed miserably.
While the UN must take a large portion of blame for the mess they made in Kosovo it doesn't follow that Serbia can simply point at US generals and say "It's all his fault." If Serbia had not previously been involved in two wars within such a short period of time people might not have been as quick to assume that it was just a case of them being at it again when trouble started in Kosovo.
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
holy ****! a non-american that doesn't hate the US!!!~~!11
I flat refuse to jump on the America-hating bandwagon.
-
I don't particularly hate Americans either. I got there about once a year and most of them seem perfectly nice people.
I hate the American governement with a passion but then there are easily 200 Million Americans who hate them more :D
-
I suppose my real concern is that, no matter how I try, I cannot find periods of History where the administrative leader of ANY country has claimed to be doing 'God's work' and which hasn't included a period of mass murder/destruction/suspicion and seperatism. Indeed, it was such a regime who practices were used as an excuse to start the Iraq War.
This is why I get REALLY nervous when I see the American President about 2 sylabbles from saying exactly the same thing.
Remember, it is America which is mistrusted, I have no problem with Americans whatsoever. Small minded people like Bin Laden bundle you all in the same basket, and after his actions, he deserves to be captured and punished, I would never question your countries' right to that.
I suppose this War on Terrorism should really be a War on 'Them and Us' attitudes, which is far closer to the source of the problem... as if 'They' are somehow any different in their thoughts, hopes and fears from 'Us'. What concerns me about America is that their current foreign policies seem to serve only to highlight to the Middle East EXACTLY who America considers to be 'Them' and who is 'U.S.'.
Flipside :D
-
I think "them" and "us" was a natural reaction when faced with horrors such as September 11th.
I also think we are now seeing the damage America did (knowingly or otherwise) to some of the countries during the cold war years.
Although we must remember why they did what they did at the time.
I believe the Anti-America brigade forget (ignore ?) how desperate those cold war times were.
-
I used to be quite proud of my country (USA), but now I'm not so sure. Most of the people living it are quite nice, decent people, but the upper guys are the ones that bug me.
-
It IS a country to be proud of, it's own people made it that. I am certainly glad of the relationship between our two countries. However, this is what I mean about America and Americans, Bin Laden thinks he can hurt America by acts such as the 11th Sept, but all he has suceeded in hurting is Americans. Two buildings and financial disruption will not deeply hurt America in the long term, though it has deeply hurt all Americans.
I agree with Magatsu that what happened deepened the 'Them' and 'Us' divide. But that is a reason to fight all the harder against it, otherwise, in every single way, Bin Laden has achieved exactly what he set out to do.
Unfortunately the reaction of America was to become secular and to treat ALL of the Middle East with suspicion, it still does. An understandable reaction in a way. When America acts like this in another country, all Americans are assumed compliant with the act. The fact is that, at the moment, America is flexing it's muscles and basically re-asserting it's position as a Superpower. Now, I know this may not be the will of the American people, but this strutting is branding them all.
Flipside :D