http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0 Comments for "She complains about democracy?, " en http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410019 Hi Lawson560, I was very interested to read your post. Could you recommend any more source material? I have the Butler book, but would like to read more about this area -particularly the "kicked in the testicles" reference. My email is charles.young@bbc.co.uk. I hope to hear from you Regards, Charles Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:54:14 +0100 charles.young comment 410019 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410029 fdbjr.... Your Nixon-led (right-wing) government of the day secretly attacked a nuetral country that was doing what it could to stay away from you, and your war. Your government LIED to to the American people about it at the time. End result was hundreds of thousands of dead and Pol Pot in power ( Which led to MILLIONS of dead.) The Vietnamese finally went in and removed the bastard. YOUR governments response to that was to try and get a resolution, in the UN, condemning the Vietnamese for "Illegal Aggression". Today, the CIA class Cambodia as a "Multi-party demomacracy". Any of the above statements you wish to dispute? DaveGood Ps.... militarily... You did do quite well... if a kill ratio of what?... 60,000 US against nearly 5,000,000 Veitnamese, Cambodians and Laotians is to be the guide. It left you with no friends in SE Asia though. That you could have conquered and occupied North Vietnam? Maybe. That the world would now be a better place for it? Well.... who knows. Fact is... in area's that are under total US dominance such as the Caribbean.. middle and south America... I don't see one happy, healthy, thriving democracy...grateful for the protection and aid provided by the US... do you? Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:47:38 +0100 DaveGood comment 410029 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410028 DG, That the uS brought the war to Cambodia is another myth that revisionist history has explosded. The Vietcong decamped there first, beginning in the late 60's, because of the success the US had in interdicting supply routes. Just about all the historians agree that the US did quite well miltarily in the ar, bu lost the political will. To burst a couple of another balloons, this ain't Vietnam because there is no North Vietnam, And it ain't the WEst Bank because there is no disputed territory. I don't know what sources you're reading, but things have swung quite dramatically up in the last two weeks, since the interim government was appointed. The US media has clearly begun to swing, and some of the better things happening in Iraq (which have been happening all along) are now beginning to be reported. The US/UK is going to get a sensible UN resolution. There is considerable reason for optimism. Does this mean the end of civil unrest? Good chance. An end to terrorism? Unfortunately, no, becauee of the funadmenalist element - but hiopefully the Northern Irish kind, ebcoming more and more marginal all the time. Message was edited by: fdbjr Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:35:29 +0100 fdbjr comment 410028 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410027 Khmer Rouge? Pol Pot? Let's see.... Nixon\Kissinger orders a massive, illegal, secret, no warning, assault on a nuetral country doing it's best to stay out of America's War ( A war crime by the way.... for which Kissinger may well have to answer should he ever come to certain civilized democracies in Europe.... which is why he never crosses the Atlantic)) The American people were lied to at the time.... told that no such mass carpet-bombing, then invasion, was taking place against Cambodia. Hundreds of thousands of harmless peaceful citizens were killed in that, the government so destabilized by the resulting famine, economic chaos and huge death toll, that Pol Pot rode to power on it. And after he had... what pratical intervention was made by the west and the US to try and correct this vast misery we had inflicted? Only damn thing we did was Complain about Vietnams "illegal aggression", to the UN, when they finally went in to throw that monster out. DaveGood PS.... The Vietnamese.... once they had thrown out the Tyrant Pol Pot... withdrew, and withdrew completely, pretty fast.... and now Cambodia ( for all it's troubles and problems... largely an on-going legacy from those times three decades ago)... is a multi-party democracy.....(According to the CIA World factbook, published 18th December, 2003) Isn't Ironic that the Communist Vietnamese succeeded in doing to Cambodia.... what the US is failing to achieve in Iraq? PPS The final paragraph above may be a little unfair.... 1 year and 2 or 3 months is not enough to establish a democracy..... Nevertheless... the trends are all pointing one way.... Iraq is collapsing into another "failed state".... even the West Bank, Gaza and Rafah gets to hold elections. Message was edited by: DaveGood Sun, 06 Jun 2004 11:09:18 +0100 DaveGood comment 410027 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410026 fdbr: Excellent post. The left is somehow always trying to show that a few american made weapons ended up in the hands of the Khmer Rouge while ignoring the massive support given to them by the Chinese in an effort to balance out a relationship gone bad with the Vietnamese. Also, where and when can I get your book! Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:48:15 +0100 jmiddleton comment 410026 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410025 > Hi fdbjr (That's an awkward handle - can you post > your name?) > Pol Pot certainly paid lip service to what he claimed > was "Maoism" but it was "socialist" in the same way > that Hitler's Nationalist Socialist German Workers' > Party was: ie not at all. When you don't like the history, change the name. The Khmer Rouge did what it did in the name of Maoist Communism of a strain recognizable throughout SouthEast Asia. They weren't Communists in the same way Stalinists aren't - meaning the distinction makes no difference. But you do not address the main point. This was possible because the US LEFT, not because it arrived. > > The left is not in denial about Cambodia. The first > journalist to expose what had been going on was John > Pilger, a respected Aussie left wing journo who is > now one of the leading lights in the anti-war > movement. He also exposed (and I can anticipate your > response) the fact that the US and UK were secretly > channeling cash and arms to Pol Pot in order to > destabilise Vietnam. You're also right about David > Puttnam's (a leftie and also anti-war) Killing Fields > - a harrowing film. I have not made myself clear. The sacred cow enshrined in Leftist mythology is the opposition to the Vietnam War, its proudest moment. It is to what that opposition actually led that the Left ignores. (It also ignores the fact that the opposition was far more to the draft than to the War, and effectively ended in 1971 when the draft did.) > > As for Vietnam, that's a different ball game. After > defeating the US they had a continuing war with > Cambodia until they invaded and installed Heng Samrin > in Pnomh Penn but then had to maintain a force on the > Thai border to which Pol Pot and his gangsters > retreated. There was a constant economic blockade by > the US which caused the economic collapse which led > to the exodus of the boat people in the 1980s. There > was some repression certainly, especially against > erstwhile collaborators - but nothing compared to the > murderous Thieu regime which the US had supported. > When criticising Vietnam you also have to remember > that the US unloaded more ordnance into this > relatively small country than was used by all sides > in both world wars put together. You try running a > democracy in the aftermath of that lot. God lies in the details. The regime in South Vietnam was pretty much what the regime in North Vietnam had been before the conflict, as documented by the missionary Dooley and a host of others. Once again, my main point is the cannonization of the opposition, when the historical reality is that it led to (or at least did not affect) abuses of human lives and rights on a gargantuan scale. > The fact that the US is trying to scapegoat 24 > ordinary grunts for what is quite obviously official > policy shows that the whole matter is being covered > up. A word to the wise about debating, uh - dude. Avoid that word 'obviously'. Usually what is characterized as obvious is anything but. For my money, you've got it backwards. The media is trying to characterize the ordinary processes of military justice as widespread policy. I don't know how long you've been around here, but one of the real rad journals posted an inflammatory post about Marines shooting at ambulances in Fallujah. Indeed they were - because the snipers were using ambulance runs as cover for their own attacks. Similarly Sadr's retreat to sacred mosques, knowing damn well the US cannot attack them and then doing his best to provoke one. At this stage in the game, you can trust the media. They're in frenzy. No scandal will be overlooked. Remeber the wedding party? Notice how it's disapeared? My bet is that it didn't check out, and the've lost interest. Corrections are no fun. > > "Iraq is recovering from thirty five years of one > party rule, in a territory that is traditionally > beset by tribal and religious fanaticism." > > It's mostly recovering (if, it is indeed recovering > at all) from 10 years of sanctions. As for the point > about religious fanaticism, Iraq is one of the most > secular countries in the middle east with more > religious tolerance than most. Even under Saddam > Christians, Jews, Sunni and Shia were allowed to > worship freely. Al Qaeda had no foothold here except > in areas not controlled by Saddam. It has now! Iraq WAS one of the most secular countries in the Middle East. Long term oposition to Saddam also revived mainline and fundamental Islam. However, the main cause of the street violence (as oposed to the planned bombings)is neither religious nor political (in my opinion), but sociological - lots of unemployed young men with time on their hands, no method of self-actualization, and no effective police. That's a crime wave or riot waiting to happen. Whether the cause is Rodney King or nearby US troops, the effect is the same. Al-Quaeda is a CULTURAL, not national, phenonmenon, loosely related to demened Wahabi fundamentalism/pan-Arabism. ANY Arab nation that veers west is going to become a target. You might pick up Gerald Posner's book 'Why America Slept'. (Posner is the well-known debunker of Kennedy assassination theories (more Leftist myth), and a 'just the facts' type - no polemicist. He is hard on Bush and realy rough on Clinton.) There is pretty good circumstantial evidence that OBL made an unholy deal with the House of Saud back in the early 90's, that they wouldn't interdict his activities if he kept them off the home turf. The bargain was probably in place through 9/11. Which is why the activity on Saudi soil, as tragic as it is, is actually a positive development. The major source of funding and the home base no longer exists. It should be far harder for that element - whom we both agree are truly evil - to mount large scale operations. The point is the focus of hatred is Western leaning Islam states. Iraq could stay safe by remaining a police state, or becoming fundamentalist Islam - both of which are worse conditions than enduring the present terror. You are again mistaking the cause. It's apparent now that US and British forces will be gone sometime in the near future. What Al Quaeds is opposing is the emrging state. > "One year is indeed quite a short time." > > Not if you're waiting outside Abu Ghraib or similar > prisons to see if your loved ones will emerge in one > piece > Ah, me. The one item I have looked for in that over-reportage on that situation is that any inmates of that prison were there for political crimes. I haven't seen any - meaning the population consisted of the usual thieves, murderers, robbers, and miscreants. Check out the weblogs and you'll find the Iraqi public is and was largely indifferent- its big concern, naturally, is safe streets - any more than I care too much about what goes on at San Quentin or you do at the major Scottish prison. Trust me, there is a ready-made scandal at any major prison in the world - it has to do with the difficulty of handling sociopaths en masse and their tendency to infuriate the people with whom they come into contact (who have problems of their own or they wouldn't be guards). So dry your eyes. Most of those in the prison were probably going to do more time than a year and are delighted to be out. The real scandal is more likely the effect of the releases on the safety of the streets. And thanks for the civility of the post. I have enjoyed responding. Frank Message was edited by: fdbjr Message was edited by: fdbjr Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:16:20 +0100 fdbjr comment 410025 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410024 Hi fdbjr (That's an awkward handle - can you post your name?) "This is the major myth of our time, the one issue that the Boomers (my generation) refuse to reexamine. The milliosn didn't die because the UScame. They died because it left. By 1975 the anti-war members of the media had succeeded in portraying the Viet Cong and the Khmer Rouge as misunderstood populists, victimized by the US. Unfortunately, they imposed the most savage kind of Asian Communism possible in response." I'm afraid that you're oversimplifying here. The Khmer Rouge were indeed one of the bloodiest of dictatorships the world has ever seen. But it was not the left of this nationalist movement (led by Heng Samrin) which prevailed but the right led by Pol Pot. By the way the red in the name is from Cambodia's national colour - it doesn't imply red in the same way that I am a red. Pol Pot certainly paid lip service to what he claimed was "Maoism" but it was "socialist" in the same way that Hitler's Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party was: ie not at all. The left is not in denial about Cambodia. The first journalist to expose what had been going on was John Pilger, a respected Aussie left wing journo who is now one of the leading lights in the anti-war movement. He also exposed (and I can anticipate your response) the fact that the US and UK were secretly channeling cash and arms to Pol Pot in order to destabilise Vietnam. You're also right about David Puttnam's (a leftie and also anti-war) Killing Fields - a harrowing film. As for Vietnam, that's a different ball game. After defeating the US they had a continuing war with Cambodia until they invaded and installed Heng Samrin in Pnomh Penn but then had to maintain a force on the Thai border to which Pol Pot and his gangsters retreated. There was a constant economic blockade by the US which caused the economic collapse which led to the exodus of the boat people in the 1980s. There was some repression certainly, especially against erstwhile collaborators - but nothing compared to the murderous Thieu regime which the US had supported. When criticising Vietnam you also have to remember that the US unloaded more ordnance into this relatively small country than was used by all sides in both world wars put together. You try running a democracy in the aftermath of that lot. "As for the rest of your post, as the US and Britain push resolutely on, turning over authority to an interim government that is independent enough to denounce them publicly," Criticising the US is one thing. Telling them to leave or even having any effect on their behaviour is another. A US soldier can murder an Iraqi citizen in cold blood and this bunch of quisling can do nothing about it except complain to head office. "the characterization of car bombers and the like as freedom fighters becomes harder and hard to maintain." I've said this before - I don't have any time for the car bombers. You need to distinguish between the car bombers, who are al Qaeda and ordinary Iraqis like those in Fallujah who simply want their country back. Al Qaeda's agenda is not only to kill Americans but also to provoke civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites (whom they regard as worse than the Americans) - so far they are having little luck there. If they can force the US to STAY in Iraq then they have a result because that helps their world-wide jihad. Watch for more instability in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt (as well as terrorism in Europe and the US) as a direct result of what's happening in Iraq. "(A headline in the NYT two days ago, that the ARmy is looking into 'other abuses' outside of the prison. Indeed it is - all 24 of them, in 14 months time, by a contingent of 138,000. Some pattern. Some empire. There are more crowded municipal court dockets.)" The fact that the US is trying to scapegoat 24 ordinary grunts for what is quite obviously official policy shows that the whole matter is being covered up. By and large the crimes of the occupiers, such as robbing people at road blocks, sniping at civilians burying their dead, mowing down civilians in demonstrations etc go completely unpunished - including the main one, which is staging an unprovoked and predatory invasion of a foreign country. "Iraq is recovering from thirty five years of one party rule, in a territory that is traditionally beset by tribal and religious fanaticism." It's mostly recovering (if, it is indeed recovering at all) from 10 years of sanctions. As for the point about religious fanaticism, Iraq is one of the most secular countries in the middle east with more religious tolerance than most. Even under Saddam Christians, Jews, Sunni and Shia were allowed to worship freely. Al Qaeda had no foothold here except in areas not controlled by Saddam. It has now! "One year is indeed quite a short time." Not if you're waiting outside Abu Ghraib or similar prisons to see if your loved ones will emerge in one piece Keep it coming dude regards Charles Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:54:09 +0100 charles_4 comment 410024 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410023 > > If Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon had learned this one > America would have a few thousand more old people now > and Vietnam would would have a few million more. This is the major myth of our time, the one issue that the Boomers (my generation) refuse to reexamine. The milliosn didn't die because the UScame. They died because it left. By 1975 the anti-war members of the media had succeeded in portraying the Viet Cong and the Khmer Rouge as misunderstood populists, victimized by the US. Unfortunately, they imposed the most savage kind of Asian Communism possible in response. I was an opponent of the War at the time, though never a True Believer. But what came out afterwards has to be approached and evaluated. Very few are willing to do that. There is a good new documentary making the rounds, and of course the barely fictionalized Killing Fields. As for the rest of your post, as the US and Britain push resolutely on, turning over authority to an interim government that is independent enough to denounce them publicly, the characterization of car bombers and the like as freedom fighters becomes harder and hard to maintain. (A headline in the NYT two days ago, that the ARmy is looking into 'other abuses' outside of the prison. Indeed it is - all 24 of them, in 14 months time, by a contingent of 138,000. Some pattern. Some empire. There are more crowded municipal court dockets.) Iraq is recovering from thirty five years of one party rule, in a territory that is traditionally beset by tribal and religious fanaticism. One year is indeed quite a short time. Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:39:56 +0100 fdbjr comment 410023 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410022 "Iraq belongs to Iraq. The only thing standing between them and rightful exercising of their rights is themselves -- and their own unwillingness to cooperate and work together." Could it be that the main thing standing between them and the "rightful exercising of their rights" is 138,000 heavily armed men (and some women), who are using the wholesale slaughter of civilians, rape, robbery and torture to get their way. "The cranes will rise over Iraq. They will be operated by Iraqis and the businessess and financing agents will be Iraqi approved." Yes...but only by US approved Iraqis! All non-oil businesses have already been put up for sale at knock-down prices to the scheisters who support the Bush regime. "It's only been one year." What do you mean "only" a year? VICTORY was declared one year ago and resistance is increasing not decreasing as Bush claimed it would be. Both the US and, to the shame of the majority of Brits, the UK are having to increase their troop levels at a point where they claimed they would be decreasing them. "The hard core lunatics are still blowing themselves up. Things will settle." The opposite is happening Rick. It is no longer simply a few ex-ba'athist hotheads who are resisting this illegal occupation. The victory over the marines in Fallujah was due to participation of the whole town. If it had been a few "hard core lunatics" they would have been overcome by the population.(A victory because the marines were forced to give up their demand for the handing over of heavy weapons, the hunt for those who despatched the "civilian" contractors was abandoned and the town was handed over to an ex ba'athist general who immediately co-opted the resistance fighters to restore law and order) On the subject of "hard-core lunatics" the stupidity of the moronic Bremer has turned Al Sadr, a man with a tiny following before the closing down of his paper, into a national hero. The US propaganda machine originally claimed that he had no more than a few hundred followers. He has tens of thousands now. And when these idiots eventually martyr him he will inspire hundreds of thousands to join the resistance - and many of those will be secular Iraqi patriots rather than religious nutters. "I think Iraq was pretty broke before we got there friend." It depends on when you admit you "got there". When the Ba'athists who ruined the country, took over in the sixties, their thugs queued outside the US embassy in Bagdhad to be given lists of communists, socialists, trade unionists and human rights activists to be slaughtered. Or perhaps you can count the encouragement and help given to Saddam by Reagan to attack Iran. Or, more ironically, the visit by Donald Rumsfeld to sell Saddam the chemicals used to kill the Kurds at Halabja (as well as a considerably larger number of Iranians). But the biggest thing which "broke it" was the sanctions operated by Bush senior and then Clinton. Half a million children dead as a result? " A price worth paying" says Madeleine Allbright. It was broke alright Rick. But only because you (and us Brits) had already been there. "1,000,000 dead in a Sunni Shiite war that continues to this day in Pakistan" Not sure of your point here. Pakistan is not Iraq. The growth of Al Qaeda in Pakistan is largely due to the import of fanatical Islamists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1970/80s. The majority of shia and sunnis throughout the world live together peacefully just like protestants and catholics (who also have their flashpoints - I live in Scotland,the land of Celtic and Rangers football teams - only Americans call this game "soccer" - like the fake Bin Laden on the infamous video) "environmental terrorism, drying up the ancient marshlands, 10,000's of people dead and dissappearing" Take a look at the Colorado River Rick. This no longer reaches the sea and has become an environmental disaster in its own right. Certainly more than 10,000 killed by this - though these are mostly Indians and Mexicans and therefore well off the US radar. "Guys getting cut up with axes in English beds -- it seems you Brits couldn't defend Iraqis in your own country." Do you mean Alawi? I'm afraid political refugees get attacked by their governments all over the world - including in the US. I apologise for making a cheap shot but I can't resist pointing out that Saddam was a Reagan (and Thatcher) ally when this happened. "It was already broke. But we will fix it with or without your help thank you." Unfortunately you have my countries help but I don't think it will fix it. I am old enough to remember America's entry into Vietnam (also using a lie as an excuse) and have a sense of deja vu about all the bullsh** which is now being spouted about Iraq. A slightly better smug homily is appropriate: When in a hole, stop digging. If Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon had learned this one America would have a few thousand more old people now and Vietnam would would have a few million more. Look around at the young American men and women now in their teens and twenties. Many of these are likely to be drafted into Iraq and killed if your leaders don't put down the shovel soon. Yours in reason (I have no faith, this is too often used to justify murder) Charles Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:21:36 +0100 charles_4 comment 410022 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410021 DG, "Is it not a fact Iraq, instead, is fast becoming another huge West Bank?" I am encouraged by the ridiculousness of the debate. You guys are getting desperate. I've heard some intresting accusations thrown out about how the USA is selling Iraq to itself -- and I don't buy it. I don't believe any American business would either. I had a friend whose father owned a huge trucking company in Egypt. He was a Greek born Englishman -- carried the queens passport. When they threw the Brits out, they threw Johnny's father out too -- a riches to rags story. You can't argue with the sovereign goverment of a country can you? Iraq belongs to Iraq. The only thing standing between them and rightful exercising of their rights is themselves -- and their own unwillingness to cooperate and work together. The cranes will rise over Iraq. They will be operated by Iraqis and the businessess and financing agents will be Iraqi approved. It's only been one year. The hard core lunatics are still blowing themselves up. Things will settle. Perhaps when Europe calms down and stops complaining about it, when all the western media goes home and Western politics doesnt' have an intrest there -- proving the right wrong!!! Some of you guys are humorous. You sound so smart but say the dumbest things. ""You break it, you own it" Well, you broke it." I think Iraq was pretty broke before we got there friend. 1,000,000 dead in a Sunni Shiite war that continues to this day in Pakistan, environmental terrorism, drying up the ancient marshlands, 10,000's of people dead and dissappearing. Guys getting cut up with axes in English beds -- it seems you Brits couldn't defend Iraqis in your own country. It was already broke. But we will fix it with or without your help thank you. Yours in faith and Reason, Rick. Wed, 02 Jun 2004 01:01:55 +0100 Rick comment 410021 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410020 fdbjr...... Before this invasion, the US Administration made a number of confident predictions about what Iraq would look like by now. The Coalition forces would be welcomed into Baghdad as liberators by grateful crowds tossing flowers at them.... Water, electricity and other essential services would be damn near fully restored by now....every Iraqi who wanted a job would now be cheerfully hard at work helping to reconstruct thier own country.....Iraq would be well down the road to a smiley prosperous, consumer society that all it's nieghbours would envy.....and so on and so on Be honest.....has any of that come true? Does that look like Iraq to you? Is it not a fact Iraq, instead, is fast becoming another huge West Bank? ( Bomb\rpg attacks averageing three a night in Baghdad alone... the West Bank is actually a safer, calmer, place) But this time, A West Bank with 14 major American military bases built on it. Wasn't all this widely predicted before the War? Isn't that why most of the world was yelling at your administration NOT to do it? Didn't your own military and security services forecast this? People like your own chief of staff for example...... in front of the Senate house committee... and he had his career ended for doing so What was is it your secretary of State said when told by the "President" that invasion and occupation would go ahead? "You break it, you own it" Well, you broke it. Incidentally....talking of building... as far as "reconstruction" goes...... take a look at your nightly news from Baghdad..... watch as the camera pans round the skyline.... you see so much as a single crane working? One of those "Detainees" released from Abu-Ghraib this week said... "The Americans brought Electricity to my ass before they brought it to my house" Is that what the US went to Iraq to do? And if it wasn't, why do it? fdbjr..... you have reached a place in your arguements now where your core position is,..... it's "Incompetence" that is preventing the Coalition from reaching those worthy goals. Well, if that's so,..... it's your adminstrations "Incompetence".... Why aren't you out there, and in here, campaigning to get them thrown out before they do any more damage.. Instead of apologiseing for them? DaveGood Mon, 31 May 2004 08:44:25 +0100 DaveGood comment 410020 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410002 Lawson: You can right all the 'justice for Nazi' posts you like. As far as I am concerned, they could have been torured for confessions, and then buried alive, and it could matter to me less. Charles: Your characterization of 'defeat' is interesting. The Coalition effected regime change last year. That's your conventional victory. The goal these days is to create a nation that will have a resemblance to a republican, federated democracry. If the citizens of Fallujah vote next January, and accept the results of the referendum as dispositive, and align themselves with that government, that'll count as success. There is some background you might not be aware of. Fallujah was indeed a Marine town. US Marines pride themselves on relatively light policing, which works for them. When the riot broke out, they were short of armored carriers, and - to their embarrassment - had to borrow a few from their hated enemy - the US Army. In terms of conventional military tactics, once they were fully armored, it would have been a simple matter to roll the tanks in, cordon off streets, impose curfews, etc. That's the way the European colonialists - English, French, Dutch, or German - would have done it. (If you think there is a little dig there, you are entirely correct.) But that would not have been a useful means to the ultimate end - which I see, and I believe the Administration sees, a bit more clearly than many who participate in these discussions. It is the general incompetence in achieving the goal rather than the goal itself that frustrates moderates. If you page back sixty days in this forum, you will see a great many posts rejoicing openly or covertly about the Sunni revolt in Fallujah, the Shiite (Sadr) uprising in Najaf, and confidently predicting that the whole country would soon be in flames. It didn't happen. The US forces actually handled both with excellent discretion, considering what the actual ultimate objective is. In this particular matter, their tactics were awfully good. There is a little moral here. Describe the ultimate objective here as 'imperial' and I guess you count coup in the traditional way. But that definition of success is vigorously asserted by the opposition to justify its opposition. It is not the way the US defines it. Assume that the Bush administration means what it says - that the goal here is the creation of a viable secular Islamic state - and 'victory', 'defeat' don't have the same meaning. A conventional military victory for the Marines in Fallujah would have been a disaster for the larger, longer term goal. Finally, it's nice to appreciate Woody Guthrie and Joe Hill. But don't let your history get stuck there. The perpetual waves of immigration, the success of Johnson's Great Society in creating an Afro-American middle class, and the awesome effect of mass communications has created an incredibly open and diverse society in the US. Posters still struggling with the tribalism that afflicts the rest of the world almost cannot credit it. (That's another dig.) You can find the reality in some of the quieter sociology being written, but not, of course, in the constant strident advocacy on the op-ed pages. Message was edited by: fdbjr Mon, 31 May 2004 01:52:16 +0100 fdbjr comment 410002 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410018 Nothing much has changed since 1945: - we appear to run as savage and corrupted a denial system as ever! "American investigators at the U.S. Court in Dachau, Germany, are known to have used the following methods to obtain confessions from German prisoners: At Dachau Germany Dachau, German officers were subjected to beatings and brutal kickings, knocking out of teeth and breaking of jaws. Also mock trials, solitary confinement, and impersonators posturing as priests. There was spiritual deprivation, and promises of acquittal (if the victim could be terrified into incriminating fellow prisoners to corroborate the Allied trial scenarios). All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair." Here is a really classic example of prisoner maltreatment: This time its a confession obtained by the British. The confession (known as NO-1210) is allegedly of Rudolf Hoess, the former wartime commandant of Auschwitz in Poland after WW2. Rudolf Hoess "confessed" to the most incredible things during the Nuremberg Trials. Alarmingly U.S. "Chief Justice" Harlan Fiske Stone, in his reference to the Nuremberg trials and speaking of the American Chief prosecutor Robert Jackson, had this to say: "Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he remarked. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law". Many Germans, at Nuremberg and elsewhere were made to stand trial for "war crimes", have "confessed" to brutalities under "duress" or by other physical and mental inducements. Documents, testimony and confessions as well as affidavits presented at Nuremberg and elsewhere, were frequently produced and signed after psychological and physical torture of its authors. There are just too many allegations of outright forgery. For an eye opener to the torture of captured Germans by the Allies, read" Legions of Death", a book by Rupert Butler*, an English writer, who gives a good description of how the wartime, one-time Concentration Camp Commandant, Rudolf Hoess, was beaten mercilessly, and drugged with alcohol for several days, before he signed his famous "confession" admitting to two-and-a-half million people gassed in gas chambers in Auschwitz. He was later executed. NB: This under duress "confession" of Rudolf Hoess (Not Hess) was hand written in English, incredibly Hoess did not speak or understand English. The following blatant lie was used at Nuremberg: the original text was recast and presented as a "Translation" from his German into English! * printed in England. used copies available (I think) occasionally via bookfinder.com Can we expect more of the same from our current Baghdad "investigators" during the coming months? Recent authentic photo images of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated, sometimes much worse, by US investigators, must indicate that the confessions and later indictments may well mirror the fakery of Nuremberg. Let us beware of creating another juridical monstrosity. The world is watching. Mon, 31 May 2004 00:47:36 +0100 lawson560 comment 410018 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410001 fdbjr:Well your apology is accepted with the grace which which I am sure you intend it but would you please reply to what posters say rather than what you wish they had said in future: In other words read the post and reply to the argument. As regards my nationality I am a Welshman living in Scotland and a citizen of the world. Because my favoured music comes from your fine country then so does much of my language. No apologies for that. By the way I resent being called anti American because most of my heroes (Joe Hill, Woody Guthrie, Martin Luther King, and many more) are American and I regard the Declaration of Independence as one of our species' greatest steps forward since we left the caves....and most things your country has done since as the greatest steps back. I don't celebrate street thuggery as resistance. Crime is crime. But that cuts both ways and I find it difficult to understand how US Marine snipers could argue that people burying their dead or unarmed children constitute legitimate targets. But the reason the marines were defeated in Fallujah (and they were defeated) was because the whole town rose against them. If the majority had opposed them, as you suggest, then they would not have won. And as for the torturers and murderers of Abu Ghraib...I'm surely they will get the punishment they deserve....for being caught. Once the dust has settled and press attention is focused elsewhere, the murders and tortures will resume. As one who has consistently opposed Saddam Hussein since the 1980s I am also glad to see him gone. But he is being replaced with a stooge regime. Chalabi of the Pentagon funded Iraqi National Congress (a gang of crooks with no support within the country whatsoever)has been discredited so his rival Alawi from the State Dept funded Iraqi National Accord ( A gang of ex Ba'athist war criminals - including those involved with the gassing of Halabja)has been appointed. Some democracy! Just the result of a turf war between two lots of spooks. The elections won't work for one simple reason. Anyone co-operating with the invasion force will rightly be seen as a traitor and will automatically be despised by the Iraqis. Anyone who does not co-operate with the occupation will not be allowed to stand. Message was edited by: charles_4 Mon, 31 May 2004 00:20:39 +0100 charles_4 comment 410001 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment-410000 Petrol? Biscuit? Tou're a Brit? What's with this 'dude' stuff? Stick to your own slang. I am determined on civility, so if I missed a cut and paste error, my apologies. But like most Lefties, you are living in either the past or your own brand of belittlement and wishful thinking. There are no Jim Crow laws any more, and the election committees that actually oversee polling places in the Deep South are not only representative but often Afro-Ameroican dominated. Any felon improperly disenfranchised could have set the record straight with the registrar of voters had he or she actually registered to vote. I remember all the blah, blah, blah Vietnam statistics from the 60's. I believed them then. Unflortunately, 40 years have past, and the pudding has been thoroughly tasted. The actual North Vietnamese and Cambodian regimes unfortuantely justified all of the fears of the establishment US at the time. As I mention in the heresies posting, one of the real moreal failures of the boomer generation is a reluctance to revisit the opposition to the war and see where it really leads. Belittlement and wishful thinking? The proposal for women's enfranchisement, a huge step in Islamic society, is dismissed because it is only a first step. The street thuggery of Sadr, even though obnoxious to most Shiite Iraqis, becomes an opposition. Etc., etc. The prosaic fact is that most Iraqis greeted the overthrow of Hussein as a blessing. Their resentment of the US has to do with the inefficiency and disorder of the occupation - too much freedom, as it were, in the form of criminality and terorist acts. These are precisely what you celebrate as reistance. I'd take you up on that castle, if you owned one. There are going to be elections in January 2005, assuming the nation is secure enough for them. annd the US will abide by the result. But what I am morally certain of is that you and the others of your ilk will not accept them as valid unless they turn out in a way you approve. Sun, 30 May 2004 22:14:58 +0100 fdbjr comment 410000 at http://www.opendemocracy.net http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0 For all her wailing and gnashing of her teeth, the fact that the Abu Ghraib story first surfaced in the US media should be all the proof positive Ghoussoub needs to show the worth of democratic society, if she chooses to learn it. Many a Japanese historian has remarked that the greatest lesson in democracy they learned from MacArthur was his being fired by his elected, ununiforned boss back home. http://www.opendemocracy.net/she_complains_about_democracy_0#comment conflicts Iraq - the war & after Tue, 11 May 2004 21:18:08 +0100 tjcass7880 21283 at http://www.opendemocracy.net