Forsake the troops gets destroyed!

[11XHooah]

O.K. : round number - #.....flame as much as you want:

 

The United States' government has earned such a great reservoir of ill will and hatred in the world that it is surprising that this country has been spared violent acts of retribution for so long until 9/11. But the oceans are wide...All over the world, many millions of oppressed people have many just grievances against U.S. imperialism. They have been exploited, bullied, invaded and bombed by the United States of America. The rest of the world is neither stupid nor blind, and it has a memory. Washington is treading a dangerous course, in the eyes of much of the world, probably most of the world - the U.S. is "becoming the rogue superpower," considered "the single greatest external threat to their societies."

 

This is why the United States today is so deeply hated around the world and why its embassies, military bases and other important objects now more and more often become targets of retribution. What is called "terrorism" often, "is a political act, a response to U.S. foreign policy. It is an act of war waged by people too weak to have a conventional army or one large enough to take on the United States."

Clearly, the August 7, 1998, explosions at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania must be viewed in this context. President Clinton called these embassy bombings abhorrent and inhuman. But the truth is: from Hiroshima to Vietnam to Iraq, the United States of America has been the biggest and most ruthless perpetrator of bombings in the world. The victims of these bombings number in many thousands or even millions. Well, the Chinese have a saying: "The emperor can burn down villages, but the people are forbidden to even light a candle." The oppressors claim the right to commit great crimes, but scream in outrage when others respond in even the slightest way. They feign surprise when the violence they send out into the world comes back to haunt them....

 

During the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991, the dropping of 60,000 bombs on the Iraqi people was described as "clean," "surgical" and even heroic...The White House, the Pentagon, the Congress, and, of course, the corporate media sang hymns of praise to "our heroic men and women in the Persian Gulf." In reality, such as American pilots who, while bombing and strafing helpless retreating Iraqis in 1991, were exclaiming: "we toasted him"..."we hit the jackpot"..."a turkey shoot"... "shooting fish in a barrel"..."basically just sitting ducks"..."There's just nothing like it. It's the biggest Fourth of July show you've ever seen, and to see those tanks just 'boom', and more stuff just keeps spewing out of them... they just become white hot. It's wonderful."

 

Why is it abhorrent to explode two car bombs in front of U.S. embassies, but heroic to drop tens of thousands of bombs from warplanes onto cities, water treatment plants and hospitals as the United States did in Iraq? In what condition is the American mentality, that even its school children can't see the hypocrisy and double standards that America applies?

 

The U.S. lashes out with force and violence at countries it has designated as enemies, contrary to international law and irrespective of any certainty that those it strikes have actually committed acts against it. It claims the right to go halfway around the world to bomb any building, facility or installation whenever it chooses. Following the embassy bombings, on August 20, 1998, at least seventy-five Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from U.S. warships at targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, through a U.S. military operation named "Infinite Reach." The missiles killed and injured dozens of people in Afghanistan. In Sudan, the U.S. bombs exploded in a residential area in the city of Khartoum, destroying a pharmaceutical factory and causing many civilian casualties.

 

Sudan is not at war with the United States. Sudan did not invade or threaten to invade the territory of the United States. The U.S. bombing came without warning. When Clinton gave the okay to bomb the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum with dozens of missiles - killing at least twenty Sudanese citizens - his primary "justification," again, was that this plant apparently made chemical weapons, specifically nerve gas. The alShifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. plant was right in the midst of the city of Khartoum. If the United States was so sure the plant made deadly chemicals, then bombing it would have endangered thousands of civilians, would risk sending vapors into the air and killing hundreds or thousands of innocent Sudanese...Clearly, this "indispensable nation" that "stands tall" and proclaims "In God We Trust" on its money doesn't care much about such "trivialities" as the death of innocent people...The Sudanese president accused the American President Bill Clinton of being "a war criminal of the first degree" for its attack on the al-Shifa factory.

 

The al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory produced more than fifty percent of all medicines used by the people of Sudan. According to Sudanese doctors and health officials, the factory's destruction could lead to severe drug shortages endangering the lives of thousands of Sudanese. Because the U.S. imposed severe economic sanctions on Sudan, the country is unable to get the hard currency it needs to buy sufficient medicine on the world market. Thus, Sudan built the huge pharmaceutical factory inside the country to provide medicine for its people. After the U.S. air strike, news reports from the site and interviews with plant officials, local doctors, and foreigners involved in the construction and operation of the facility confirmed that it produced antibiotics, pain relievers, drugs for treating malaria and tuberculosis, and veterinary medicines. This medicine factory also had a contract with the United Nations. Even the Clinton administration officials eventually acknowledged that the factory did produce pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Department of State has acknowledged that the United States had approved the sale of medicines produced by al-Shifa.

 

The British engineer who helped build and equip the factory, and many other foreign experts with "intimate knowledge" of the factory deny that it produced anything but medicine. As one American businessman, testified: "I spent a total of two months in Khartoum. One of the places where the Sudanese like to take you is the pharmaceutical plant. It was a showplace for them." After the attack, Sudan invited journalists and foreign diplomats to come to the bombing site to see for themselves that there were no chemical weapons being produced there.

 

Bill Clinton declared that the target was a "terrorist network" and he said that the United States' "war against terrorism" is "a struggle between freedom and fanaticism." This statement came from the head of a government that has thrown hundreds of thousands of poor American children off welfare and into destitution and suffering. Clinton claimed that the United States wants "peace, not conflict...to lift lives around the world, not take them." These words come from the top representative of a country that launched tens of thousands of bombs against suspicious "military targets" (read civilian) in Iraq in 1991, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and now seems determined to starve the remainder into submission. The same world power that just wiped out a factory that reportedly made half the medicine in the desperately poor, famine-stricken country of Sudan.

 

Ironically, in his TV speech after the bombing, Clinton advised the American people that terrorists target the United States "because of what we stand for." However, the dropping of U.S. bombs on Sudan and Afghanistan as retaliation was as cold-blooded and terror-oriented as the embassy bombings it aimed to punish. This bombing shows the arrogance of the White House and the Pentagon who act as though they have a divine mandate to rule the world through the lawless use of mass violence. Their use of aerial bombings against areas populated by civilians is proof again of the terrorist tactics of the U.S. Government.

 

What are the interests and motives behind the cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan? Well, first of all, this was an attempt to send a brutal message that the United States of America remains the only superpower with the will and capability to strike militarily anywhere around the world. Second, the U.S. government seeks to set outrageous new precedents for future bombings and interventions by its military forces. Heretofore, the United States designated countries such as Iraq or Libya or Sudan as "rogue states" (just as it once tagged the Soviet Union as "the Evil Empire) and carried out military attacks against them. As evidenced by its attack against Afghanistan, countries can apparently be subjected to unannounced U.S. military attack for providing "sanctuary" to accused "terrorists," or even for permitting their investments!

 

The attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan openly flaunted international laws. No matter. The U.S. Department of Justice declared that the missile strikes were "legal"...under U.S. laws. In short, the United States appears to have given itself a blank check for military aggression anywhere around the world under the pretext of "striking back at terrorism." It attempts to demonize and criminalize all opposition to its global imperialism as "terrorism" - and portray U.S. military actions against such opposition as a struggle for "democracy and freedom."

 

In keeping with its efforts to establish itself as the arbiter of the actions of other nations, the U.S. has struggled to weaken or prevent the creation of an International Criminal Court. On July 17, 1998, at a special United Nations conference in Rome, by a vote of 120 to 7, the nations of the world established a permanent international criminal court with jurisdiction over genocide, aggression and other war crimes. This international court would bring to justice and punish those who commit atrocities comparable to those committed by the Nazis during World War II or by Pol Pot in Cambodia. All the leading democracies of the world supported the treaty. Only Libya, Algeria, China, Qatar, Yemen, Israel, and the United States of America voted against it. Why?

 

The United States says that with U.S. troops deployed around the world, it must protect them from "politically-motivated charges." State Department spokesman James Rubin said the new court didn't "comply with and comport with our special global responsibilities." As they say , he's given the game away...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You finished? All I heard in that whole rant was blah blah blah, I hate America, blah, blah, blah.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Their might of course......but when you dictate others what is right and what is wrong based on your might, in this case military might, then there is only one word for that here: new age tyranny.....and the US is nothing but a modern Roman empire.....

 

P.S. and when it comes to your joke...sorry but I don't smoke....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The biggest difference is both simple and obvious. The US will only react, it wont act. At least in an overt millitary manner. Saddam had countless chances to back down and he didnt.

 

9/11 gave George the mandate to do whatever he wanted.Pull a tiger by the tail dont be suprised if it bites you.

 

Let me paint you a picture to dispel your "Roman Empire" theory. If the US was a modern day Roman Empire then Iraq would be depopulated at this point. The Romans would move in and as long as you did things the Roman way everything would be fine. Resist once they had conquered you wouldnt last very long. The US may be spreading an ideology of democracy but it's hardly empire building.

[213374U]

and the US is nothing but a modern Roman empire.....

Of course it is. And empires protect their interests before anyone else's. Why should they do otherwise?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

When I say "Roman Empire" theory I didn't mean it quite literally, anyone who did would be a fool. The US is spreading its "empire" accordingly with the conditions and with political, economical and military circumstances in the world.

And it isn't spreading democracy at all, it is only spreading the ideology of capitalism and globalisation under their banner....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your fault for not putting Roman Empire in "" which I see you have this time.

 

Really Iraqs having/had elections isnt it ? Democratic elections... ummm yep that means that the US is spreading democracy.

 

Afganistan has an elected leader...

 

Conclusion your either clueless or your irrational hatred for the US blinds you to the facts.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The biggest difference is both simple and obvious. The US will only react, it wont act. At least in an overt millitary manner. Saddam had countless chances to back down and he didnt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In order for Saddam to back down, he had to produce and destroy his weapons of mass destruction - the ones that didn't exist. A few more months of weapons inspections would have shown this - so why did the US force the weapons inspectors out and launch a war?

 

The US attack on Iraq was a pre-emptive war, not a reaction to September 11. The Bush administration was considering an attack on Iraq as soon as it came to power - the attack on the World Trade Centre was just a pretext, a way of muddying the issue.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

In order for Saddam to back down, he had to produce and destroy his weapons of mass destruction - the ones that didn't exist.  A few more months of weapons inspections would have shown this - so why did the US force the weapons inspectors out and launch a war?

 

The US attack on Iraq was a pre-emptive war, not a reaction to September 11.  The Bush administration was considering an attack on Iraq as soon as it came to power - the attack on the World Trade Centre was just a pretext, a way of muddying the issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But he was also being obtrusive and not giving the inspectors full access. That may have changed right at the 11th hour but that was his general attitude.

 

Still could you ever see the war happening without 9/11 ? Because I really cant.

[SteveThaiBinh]

But he was also being obtrusive and not giving the inspectors full access. That may have changed right at the 11th hour but that was his general attitude.

 

Still could you ever see the war happening without 9/11 ? Because I really cant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It might not have been Iraq or Afghanistan, but it would have been somewhere. When you have a military as large as that of the US, you'll always find somewhere to use it. It sort of offers itself as a solution to a problem. If Iraq had been peaceful and US troops were already pulling out, they would already be preparing for an attack on Iran or Syria.

 

Hans Blix and the other inspectors stated that they were able to do their job, but needed more time. The US should have respected that.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It might not have been Iraq or Afghanistan, but it would have been somewhere.  When you have a military as large as that of the US, you'll always find somewhere to use it.  It sort of offers itself as a solution to a problem.  If Iraq had been peaceful and US troops were already pulling out, they would already be preparing for an attack on Iran or Syria.

 

Hans Blix and the other inspectors stated that they were able to do their job, but needed more time.  The US should have respected that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats quite an assumsion although if Iran keeps up with it's nuclear program then it could happen. Really dont see it though not without some catalyst. I doubt "reports" are going to be particularly convincing this time around.

 

They had already had more than enough time if they were not being constantly watched impeded and railroaded. If the guy had nothing to hide why do it ? Since the logical conclusion is you dont need to mislead if there is nothing there anyway.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If the guy had nothing to hide why do it ? Since the logical conclusion is you dont need to mislead if there is nothing there anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a fascinating question, isn't it? He did have nothing to hide, so why did he behave the way he did?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It's a fascinating question, isn't it?  He did have nothing to hide, so why did he behave the way he did?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some say it's because he wanted people to think he had the weapons and that the US would never attack because the UN would never let them. At the same time all but bribing France to block the war.

Perhaps an Iraq without any sort of weapons he saw as vulnerable to attack from others in the region.

 

But in defence of Mr Bush if my inspectors were being treated like that, well the conclusion I would reach is they were shifting the stuff around while the inspectors were being distracted.

 

But if the inspectors had been given 100% access from the start I dont think this would have ever happened regardless of what George wanted because you needed at least a doubt that he might have weapons, and as pointed out his actions blocking the inspectors could certainly be seen as suspicious.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Do not agree.....Bush made up his mind to attack Iraq after his failure to capture Osama in Afganistan, he had to shift the American and the worlds attention somewhere else.....so the perfect place was Iraq.

And his attempt to back up his invasion with a UN resolution was just his wish to justify his war in the eyes of the world, and when the majority of the world was against it...he went in anyway.

We can fight here for the war and against the war forever, because no sides will "run out of ammo".....but the fact remains, if the US continues attacking  around countries without a consensus from the international community, it's going to find itself in a deeper and deeper isolation that is going to hurt everybody and will further distabilize the globe, politicly, economicly and militarily, rather then stabilize it.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes but even if he did your not going to get any support even from staunch allies from the UK if inspectors have gone over every millineter of the country and been granted full access to everything they requested without being watched like hawks and huge ammounts of procrastination. As for the Iraqis saying they were spying, what the hell do they have technology wise that the US would be interested in?

 

This another thing that amuses me. The UN is neither infallable or all knowing. In fact I consider them a bunch of spineless ****ups yet you get their ok and it's seens as a legitimate mandate weird isnt it.

[metadigital]

... This another thing that amuses me. The UN is neither infallable or all knowing. In fact I consider them a bunch of spineless ****ups yet you get their ok and it's seens as a legitimate mandate weird isnt it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The UN (as the only legitimate offspring of the League of Nations) was incorporated as a forum for nations to discuss and argue their agendas, without need to resort to war. The UN is a validating body because it represents the best form of world government that we have at this time (a democracy of nations, with special rules for the nations that are big and ugly enough to go-it-alone, i.e. a veto in the UN Security Council).

 

If nations start acting outside the auspices of the UN, then the UN is a pointless artriface, and we are bacck to pre-WW2 nation states and rampant Nationalism. I am sure I have no need to explain why this is a backward step on geopolitics. Think of how you would feel if the US was not the only HyperPower, but instead Russia or China or India was. Scared? I am.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well you say if the inspectors had full access, there wouldn't have been a war at all... Well you think then the war was about WMD, but I think otherwise, this war was never about WMD - they were just a perfect excuse to invade for reasons I have mentioned in my previous posts...

 

P.S. I agree the UN is far from perfect, but it's the best thing we curently have to to prevent conflicts, I'm sure when I say if it hadn't been for the UN in the last 50 years or so there would have been anarchy and much more suffering and pain upon the world......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I couldnt say as a fact that there would be no war. However one of the major reasons for instigating it would be gone. Regardless of whether the war was about UMD's or not take that reason away by letting the weapons inspectors to the job unhindered which was certainly not the case. And that puts a whole different complexion on things. Even without finding anything Saddams behaviour prior to the start of the war blocking and misleading the inspectors pretty much justifies it as he looks like he's hiding something even if that something dosnt exist.

 

Well when you have nations like France being "bribed" into a no vote It cant do its job as those who are voting no are doing it as much out of self interest as those voting yes.

 

The UN is a paper tiger. It's amazing the gulf between the credibility that people think they have and what they actually have. Put it this way , without the US the UN would be little more than an empty threat who waggles their finger at naughty nations. Which is all they end up doing a good deal of the time anyway.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The UN has come under sustained attack by US and other conservative politicians, and so it is not highly regarded in the West. In much of the rest of the world, it is still considered a very important body, as it is the only hope for a restraint on US 'aggression'. Plus most people have more contact with UN bodies such as UNICEF and UNDP than with the Security Council. The respect for the UN worldwide is not going to go away, however much the current US administration mutters and snipes from the sides.

 

The evidence that France was 'bribed' is, I think, largely the product of the efforts of the Iraq Survey Group and a US senate committee. The Iraq Survey Group was tasked with legitimising the war by finding weapons of mass destruction (which it failed to do). It is not an impartial organisation, and its accusations are just that - accusations. As for the US senate committee, that's just laughable. Is there anyone outside the US who would believe a word they say?

 

This was an illegal war. If the UN had rubber-stamped it with a second resolution, its authority would have been even more undermined. As it is, it came out weakened, but its moral authority largely intact, unlike the US whose moral authority is now gone.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I would have done the same thing as Saddam......imagine, the US comes with acusations that Iraq has WMD, hands out NO credible evidence to back their claims, other then old satellite photos ( don't start with the "evidence" Colin Powell brought before the security council because that was just pathetic and rediciolus).....Why would I allow someone to force me do things that disgrace my name and my country when I say I don't have something....and they claim otherwise and yet don't hand out ANY credible evidence that would force me do differently......I would have said to the US fu*k off and I would still get attacked by that chimp because allegedly I "have" WMD...and we all saw the big arsenal of WMD Saddam "had"...really if the US hadn't attacked Iraq, the world would have surely been destroyed - yeah right <_< .

But the old chimp says the world is a safer place now - -that word buy only the SUCKERS, the violence has errupted not only in Iraq, but in the whole world in general...thanks God there isn't a third term in US, but if all goes as planned for the Republicans they will nominate Tom Daschl as a rep. candidate, because he's the leader of the Republican majority in the US congress...and if he's elected, G.W.Bush will seem like a hard line liberal compared to good old Tom, who's nickname is (I think) "pitbull".....

I'm off to sleep

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then your an idiot. Look at it like this. The police come to search your house and they have a warrant to do so (UN approval). Since you have nothing to hide you let them in give them the grand tour and if your worried about them planting stuff call in a third party witness. They find nothing they go away.

You act like an arse to them because they are "invading your space" lock doors behind them as they are searching and generally act like a nuiscence. Honestly now would you be suprised if you got arrested even though they find nothing?

Dont forget in this context Saddam is a convicted criminal (first war) which means they have no reason to trust him and every reason not to.

 

 

Well if George is as devious as you give him credit for instability just further plays into his hands because thats the next platform to launch from.

[11XHooah]

You finished? All I heard in that whole rant was blah blah blah, I hate America, blah, blah, blah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can understand that you're out of arguments or just frustrated at my post because your obviously a passionate patriot.....but between my theory that the US is nothing but a bully and another terrorist and your view that the US is just trying to help everybody and its spreading democracy, believe me when I say the truth is somewhere in between.....there is no black and white in the world anymore, every major country in the world that has been part of the most important political and military events in recent history have blood on their hands, including the United States of America....

 

 

 

P.S. under what divison are you enlisted on, just out of curiosity.....?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Out of arguments? Ha, not on your life. Just getting tired of debating. That's the thing with debates; they don't get anywhere. In the end, both sides are still just as passionate about their cause as they were in the beginning. And I don't see how the U.S. is a terrorist. You know, seeing as how we have led numerous humanitarian efforts, not to mention the amount of effort we put in to the tsunami relief. Even american citizens were giving money out of their own pockets. And we're terrorists?

 

In response to your p.s., I'm not part of a division as of yet. I have yet to even ship out to BCT. But I'm heading there this July. Then I can help fight for my country. Or in your translation: fight for big bad evil Bush and the imperialistic United States. <_<

[11XHooah]

O.K. : round number - #.....flame as much as you want:

 

The United States' government has earned such a great reservoir of ill will and hatred in the world that it is surprising that this country has been spared violent acts of retribution for so long until 9/11. But the oceans are wide...All over the world, many millions of oppressed people have many just grievances against U.S. imperialism. They have been exploited, bullied, invaded and bombed by the United States of America. The rest of the world is neither stupid nor blind, and it has a memory. Washington is treading a dangerous course, in the eyes of much of the world, probably most of the world - the U.S. is "becoming the rogue superpower," considered "the single greatest external threat to their societies."

 

This is why the United States today is so deeply hated around the world and why its embassies, military bases and other important objects now more and more often become targets of retribution. What is called "terrorism" often, "is a political act, a response to U.S. foreign policy. It is an act of war waged by people too weak to have a conventional army or one large enough to take on the United States."

Clearly, the August 7, 1998, explosions at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania must be viewed in this context. President Clinton called these embassy bombings abhorrent and inhuman. But the truth is: from Hiroshima to Vietnam to Iraq, the United States of America has been the biggest and most ruthless perpetrator of bombings in the world. The victims of these bombings number in many thousands or even millions. Well, the Chinese have a saying: "The emperor can burn down villages, but the people are forbidden to even light a candle." The oppressors claim the right to commit great crimes, but scream in outrage when others respond in even the slightest way. They feign surprise when the violence they send out into the world comes back to haunt them....

 

During the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991, the dropping of 60,000 bombs on the Iraqi people was described as "clean," "surgical" and even heroic...The White House, the Pentagon, the Congress, and, of course, the corporate media sang hymns of praise to "our heroic men and women in the Persian Gulf." In reality, such as American pilots who, while bombing and strafing helpless retreating Iraqis in 1991, were exclaiming: "we toasted him"..."we hit the jackpot"..."a turkey shoot"... "shooting fish in a barrel"..."basically just sitting ducks"..."There's just nothing like it. It's the biggest Fourth of July show you've ever seen, and to see those tanks just 'boom', and more stuff just keeps spewing out of them... they just become white hot. It's wonderful."

 

Why is it abhorrent to explode two car bombs in front of U.S. embassies, but heroic to drop tens of thousands of bombs from warplanes onto cities, water treatment plants and hospitals as the United States did in Iraq? In what condition is the American mentality, that even its school children can't see the hypocrisy and double standards that America applies?

 

The U.S. lashes out with force and violence at countries it has designated as enemies, contrary to international law and irrespective of any certainty that those it strikes have actually committed acts against it. It claims the right to go halfway around the world to bomb any building, facility or installation whenever it chooses. Following the embassy bombings, on August 20, 1998, at least seventy-five Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from U.S. warships at targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, through a U.S. military operation named "Infinite Reach." The missiles killed and injured dozens of people in Afghanistan. In Sudan, the U.S. bombs exploded in a residential area in the city of Khartoum, destroying a pharmaceutical factory and causing many civilian casualties.

 

Sudan is not at war with the United States. Sudan did not invade or threaten to invade the territory of the United States. The U.S. bombing came without warning. When Clinton gave the okay to bomb the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum with dozens of missiles - killing at least twenty Sudanese citizens - his primary "justification," again, was that this plant apparently made chemical weapons, specifically nerve gas. The alShifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. plant was right in the midst of the city of Khartoum. If the United States was so sure the plant made deadly chemicals, then bombing it would have endangered thousands of civilians, would risk sending vapors into the air and killing hundreds or thousands of innocent Sudanese...Clearly, this "indispensable nation" that "stands tall" and proclaims "In God We Trust" on its money doesn't care much about such "trivialities" as the death of innocent people...The Sudanese president accused the American President Bill Clinton of being "a war criminal of the first degree" for its attack on the al-Shifa factory.

 

The al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory produced more than fifty percent of all medicines used by the people of Sudan. According to Sudanese doctors and health officials, the factory's destruction could lead to severe drug shortages endangering the lives of thousands of Sudanese. Because the U.S. imposed severe economic sanctions on Sudan, the country is unable to get the hard currency it needs to buy sufficient medicine on the world market. Thus, Sudan built the huge pharmaceutical factory inside the country to provide medicine for its people. After the U.S. air strike, news reports from the site and interviews with plant officials, local doctors, and foreigners involved in the construction and operation of the facility confirmed that it produced antibiotics, pain relievers, drugs for treating malaria and tuberculosis, and veterinary medicines. This medicine factory also had a contract with the United Nations. Even the Clinton administration officials eventually acknowledged that the factory did produce pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Department of State has acknowledged that the United States had approved the sale of medicines produced by al-Shifa.

 

The British engineer who helped build and equip the factory, and many other foreign experts with "intimate knowledge" of the factory deny that it produced anything but medicine. As one American businessman, testified: "I spent a total of two months in Khartoum. One of the places where the Sudanese like to take you is the pharmaceutical plant. It was a showplace for them." After the attack, Sudan invited journalists and foreign diplomats to come to the bombing site to see for themselves that there were no chemical weapons being produced there.

 

Bill Clinton declared that the target was a "terrorist network" and he said that the United States' "war against terrorism" is "a struggle between freedom and fanaticism." This statement came from the head of a government that has thrown hundreds of thousands of poor American children off welfare and into destitution and suffering. Clinton claimed that the United States wants "peace, not conflict...to lift lives around the world, not take them." These words come from the top representative of a country that launched tens of thousands of bombs against suspicious "military targets" (read civilian) in Iraq in 1991, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and now seems determined to starve the remainder into submission. The same world power that just wiped out a factory that reportedly made half the medicine in the desperately poor, famine-stricken country of Sudan.

 

Ironically, in his TV speech after the bombing, Clinton advised the American people that terrorists target the United States "because of what we stand for." However, the dropping of U.S. bombs on Sudan and Afghanistan as retaliation was as cold-blooded and terror-oriented as the embassy bombings it aimed to punish. This bombing shows the arrogance of the White House and the Pentagon who act as though they have a divine mandate to rule the world through the lawless use of mass violence. Their use of aerial bombings against areas populated by civilians is proof again of the terrorist tactics of the U.S. Government.

 

What are the interests and motives behind the cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan? Well, first of all, this was an attempt to send a brutal message that the United States of America remains the only superpower with the will and capability to strike militarily anywhere around the world. Second, the U.S. government seeks to set outrageous new precedents for future bombings and interventions by its military forces. Heretofore, the United States designated countries such as Iraq or Libya or Sudan as "rogue states" (just as it once tagged the Soviet Union as "the Evil Empire) and carried out military attacks against them. As evidenced by its attack against Afghanistan, countries can apparently be subjected to unannounced U.S. military attack for providing "sanctuary" to accused "terrorists," or even for permitting their investments!

 

The attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan openly flaunted international laws. No matter. The U.S. Department of Justice declared that the missile strikes were "legal"...under U.S. laws. In short, the United States appears to have given itself a blank check for military aggression anywhere around the world under the pretext of "striking back at terrorism." It attempts to demonize and criminalize all opposition to its global imperialism as "terrorism" - and portray U.S. military actions against such opposition as a struggle for "democracy and freedom."

 

In keeping with its efforts to establish itself as the arbiter of the actions of other nations, the U.S. has struggled to weaken or prevent the creation of an International Criminal Court. On July 17, 1998, at a special United Nations conference in Rome, by a vote of 120 to 7, the nations of the world established a permanent international criminal court with jurisdiction over genocide, aggression and other war crimes. This international court would bring to justice and punish those who commit atrocities comparable to those committed by the Nazis during World War II or by Pol Pot in Cambodia. All the leading democracies of the world supported the treaty. Only Libya, Algeria, China, Qatar, Yemen, Israel, and the United States of America voted against it. Why?

 

The United States says that with U.S. troops deployed around the world, it must protect them from "politically-motivated charges." State Department spokesman James Rubin said the new court didn't "comply with and comport with our special global responsibilities." As they say , he's given the game away...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Since you want an argument in response to this post, here it is:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncle Sam has spoken :D

[SteveThaiBinh]

Since you want an argument in response to this post, here it is:

 

Uncle Sam has spoken :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Venceras, pero no convenceras.

[11XHooah]

Since you want an argument in response to this post, here it is:

 

Uncle Sam has spoken :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Venceras, pero no convenceras.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Conquering, but not to convince" eh?

[SteveThaiBinh]

"Conquering, but not to convince" eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Close. "You will win, but you will not convince". It's a quote from Miguel de Unamuno, a Spanish conservative writer and intellectual.

[Aponez]

1.- SteveThaiBinh the quote is "vencereis pero no convencereis" Unamuno said it to General Millan Astray as a reply to his "muera la inteligencia, viva la muerte" (he was a legionaire) "

 

2.- A nice photo about Irak

 

 

3.- 11XHooah as you said you had a friend in the army give him the next thing for me. "The eggs you offered us one year ago you can give it now to the "brave" american boys who now don't want join the army to go to Irak, and don't forget the chicken sounds" If he was in Irak, and I'm spanish, he will understand.

 

4.- If Sadam has the WMD ready to use in 45 min, as said your PM ShadowPaladin, why he didn't use them when was attacked?

 

5.- If the problem where the WMD. Why US didn't attacked North Korea (they said very clear they had it), why US don't call for an embargo and the disarm of Israel who has WMD and has attacked his neighbours.

[SteveThaiBinh]

1.- SteveThaiBinh the quote is "vencereis pero no convencereis" Unamuno said it to General Millan Astray as a reply to his "muera la inteligencia, viva la muerte" (he was a legionaire) "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My understanding is that the quote is disputed, as there's no official record of the meeting. Still, you're right, perhaps that's the more likely version.

[Lucius]

Well he is spanish after all. But I don't know, I had spanish for two years in high school and I can't speak a word of it. Why is it always when it's too late that you realize you should have paid more attention in class? :D

 

Edit: Good point Aponez, Danish Freedom Fighters in WW2 were probably considered terrorists by Nazi Germany as well. Although I will say this, some foreign groups of islamic extremists are very much 'terrorists' (and probably some Iraqi groups as well), I'm talking about those who behead civilians on TV and blow up markedplaces filled with innocents, those who would execute unarmed people who are injured or have already surrendered... This one goes for US troops as well.

[213374U]

2.- A nice photo about Irak

 

Demagogy at its finest. A widely extended practice to be sure, but taken to an absurd degree in my country.

 

Oh, well. I'll stop now before I'm accused of being a fascist.

[Aponez]

Well he is spanish after all. But I don't know, I had spanish for two years in high school and I can't speak a word of it. Why is it always when it's too late that you realize you should have paid more attention in class? :D

 

Edit: Good point Aponez, Danish Freedom Fighters in WW2 were probably considered terrorists by Nazi Germany as well. Although I will say this, some foreign groups of islamic extremists are very much 'terrorists' (and probably some Iraqi groups as well), I'm talking about those who behead civilians on TV and blow up markedplaces filled with innocents, those who would execute unarmed people who are injured or have already surrendered... This one goes for US troops as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well Lucius in Irak now there are terrorism and resistance, but when you heard the US news they only talk about terrorism, for them they are all terrorists.