If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Print | | Digg | Stumble | delicious | Tweet | Technorati | Reddit | Yahoo | GoogleThe Palestinian American Federation
Press Release
The Palestinian American Federation expresses its disappointment with the passing of HR4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. The vote count was 361 yeas, 37 nays, 9 presents (abstentions), and 25 not voting (Roll Call Vote No. 181).
It is a sad day in the history of a country that prides itself on the principles of "Liberty and Justice for all" This bill places the Palestinian People in great danger and would exacerbate a human catastrophe. This bill targets Palestinian families and children, and deprives them of their basic human needs by our Congress.
Instead our Congress should have voted "NO" to this bill to assure that the Palestinian families and children will be treated in a manner that would reflect our values that human lives are valuable.
A " NO" vote would have sent a message to the World of our intense desire to achieve a just and lasting peace. Our American values of compassion and charity were silenced where they should have been emphasized instead.
This vote was not a vote for peace, it was not a vote for America, it was a vote for more violence and more bloodshed.
As Rep. John Dingell ( D-MI) simply put it" Peace in the Middle East is not going to be achieved at gunpoint. It is going to be achieved by negotiations, by people working together; and that process may be ugly, dirty and slow, but it is the only process that will work."… "Our purpose should be to look to the well-being of the United States, craft a policy which is good for this country. And that policy can only be one which is good for Israel and for the Palestinian people, one which is fair to all, one which puts the United States as a friend and an honest broker of peace to both parties where we can be so accepted
Please go to the link below to find out which way your congressman voted, send him a thank you note if he voted yes, but if he voted NO, before you blame him ask yourself when was the last time he/she heard from you? Educate him, get involved.
{ 65 } Comments
"Educate him, get involved."
aaah the smell of political naiveness. the votes were courted, planned and set. there wasn't even a party struggle. it passed with ease. a constituent calling his representitive to "educate" him is a great right, but a useless one in this case. they knew what they were doing and the consequence of their actions. there's no pleading ignorance on this one.
I think there is a positive aspect of this.
The United States, and especially most of its people, are living in complete separation of the reality that goes on on a daily basis in the Middle East. They know things are wrong, and when they ask why the answer is usually along the lines of "terrorism is the cause". Therefore, they must deal with this terrorism problem, and in that context this act makes sense to most Americans who live in such state of ignorance of reality. The US shouldn't sponsor [Palestinian] terrorism.
However, this act is really not going to change anything or make it better for the Americans. It has already incited more hate and displeasure towards the US in the Muslim world, and it is going to physically cause harm to the already harmed and brutalized Palestinians who live in Gaza and the West Bank. Things ARE going to get worse in the Middle East because of this act and that will translate to more troubles in the Middle East and in return more trouble for the Israelies and their allies in the US and finally the American people.
A person who lives in complete denial of his or her surroundings can only go so far before realizing that they are clueless and that something completely different and radical has to be done.
At one point in the future, the United States is going to hit that state of awareness, when they realize that nothing makes sense based on their assumptions, and it is at that point that they're going to have to reconsider all their assumptions about the Middle East. The average American who usually doesn't care about foreign policy that much is going to realize that caring about domestic policies when voting is simply not enough. And this is already happening, everyone knows about the research paper that was published about the Israel Lobby in the US. It's one example of people in the US waking up to the reality of their nation's extremely biased and inhumane involvement in the Middle East.
Maybe this act is taking the US one step closer to confrontation with the real problem; their sponsoring of a terrorist and apartheid state of Israel.
Don't hold your breath. The likelihood that the U.S. proletariat will wake up is as slim as Kafka's "Hunger Artist." Most are resigned to doing absolutely nothing, either feeling that there is nothing they can do, or not being bothered enough to do anything.
The days of revolution in the U.S. are long passed. I would be thrilled to be challenged on this point by the actions of the many toward global consciousness and responsibility.
The majority has yet to call for the impeachment of their President, guilty of acts as bad as or exceeding those of Nixon. Certainly far exceeding those for which Clinton was impeached.
I think the majority of U.S. citizens would have to fall below the poverty line before they raised themselves against the atrocity that is in their seat of power.
Raymond, I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen anytime soon
Restoring peace and justice to the Middle East is going to take a very long time probably most of us won't even live to see it happen.
This is for me personally a hard subject to broach. I received the CFL alert concerning this bill, I clicked the appropriate box. Do I personally think it makes much difference? No, sadly I do not. This is an instance of David vs. Goliath (apoligies for using a Jewish analogy, but it is the first one that comes to mind). I am a constant student of political science and a former government teacher. I actually gave my seniors in high school extra credit for registering to vote. I will ALWAYS vote, even when the choices are so dim. Do I think one vote makes a difference? Absolutely in that we all must take personal responsibility for being aware and participating. But in the case of the Palestinian issue, there are no viable options for us as Americans to choose, they are all pro-Israeli. It need not really matter why, it is just so.
Something troubles me greatly in this matter. The Israelis could not possibly do what they do without the support of the US. On the other hand we have the Palestinians who have little support from the other Arab nations of the Mideast. We have a lot of lip-service from the Arab countries, but no where near the support that I think could be possible. The Arabs boycott Israel, but when it comes right down to it, I do not believe they are doing all they can do. In the 70's there was the oil embargo. Now THAT was some action. Somewhere in this equation I feel like some of the Arab countries would rather this problem continue so that it can be used as a scapegoat and diversion from their own inadequasies. If the Arab despots are able to unite their citizens in their hatred of Israel they are able to ignore many of the problems in their own countries. It's always Israel's fault for everything (believe me, I am NOT trying to take away from any of what Israel does). What if the Arabs took their oil and put their money where their mouth is? What if the Gulf states launched a full force information campaign to bring attention to the situation? Why can't the other Arab nations do more for the Palestinians?
On the other hand, as an American, if I could personally change our politicians support of Israel, I would more than gladly do all that I could do. I'm a single person. The bottom line is the Palestinians are outnumbered in support, that is the problem. I don't mean to ruffle any feathers but sitting by and thinking the US is going to change course under the current situation is only very wishful thinking. Instead of wishful thinking, it is up to someone to step up to the plate and shake things up. Perhaps I'm all wrong. Perhaps there are good reasons the other Arab nations cannot do more. I just hate seeing fat-cat Gulf Arabs sitting around bemoaning the problem when they have the economic power to actually do something about it. I am very open to suggestions as to why this is not a good idea. Could someone explain this to me?
Good news. It's not anti-Palestinian; it is pro-Palestinian, but anti-Hamas. Don't we all agree that Hamas is no good? The sooner there is a viable alternative to Hamas and Fateh the sooner Palesinians will start living better. The bill is likely to help.
Just a view point; no offence meant.
shlemazl is right. Things would be entirely different were Hamas not a terrorist organization with a very recent terrorist past who refuses to stop using terrorist tactics. By electing Hamas, the Palestinians gave America no real choice in the matter - the Americans can't say that they are fighting against those who fund terror and then give money to Hamas.
Hamas is bad for the Palestinians. They wanted power because they wanted access to money - not because they care about the welfare of the Palestinian people or because they want peace with Israel. The Palestinians will be much worse off with the Hamas government regardless of the international aid situation and the sooner Hamas is out the better.
shlemazl,
HR4681 punishes the general populace of Palestine, not just the governing body.
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=14037
http://www.btselem.org/english/special/20060514_Health_Services_Crisis.asp
Here's an excellent article about why the Hamas victory should not be viewed as bad by the US: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/pb46_Brown_final.pdf
Good points Robin.
Raymond, the general populace of Palestine voted in the Hamas government. Did they not foresee a reaction like this from their biggest financier, the US, before they voted in an organisation that uses terror tactics to further their cause?
Ever heard the phrase 'biting the hand that feeds you?' Sadly, it is almost literal in this case.
Keep in mind, my fiance' is from Israel and is Arab. Many of the Arabs living there believe their compatriots shot themselves in the foot when they voted for Hamas.
I am reminded of the proverb that says 'Why should fools have money for an education when they refuse to learn?'
I am personally sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people. I have seen, first hand, the effects of the Israelis there. However, as all parents know, you do not reward bad behavior of your children.
Here's another axiom: Be careful of what you wish for.
With the current neo-conservative lunatics in control of US policy (in bed with the Zionists) there is no hope for a just US policy towards the Palestinians. Maybe I'm all wrong but didn't Abbas and many other Palestinians want to postpone the election?
The basic problem as I see it from a US foreign policy basis is that the American public has been sold a bill of goods based on Zionist fairy tales. 1)Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast (BAH!!) 2)US style democracy is good for the Mideast 3)Give them elections and everything will work out.
The worst problem is American total ignorance of the Arab prospective. Case in point: Remember Rummie, Cheney, Pearl and others telling us that the Iraqi citizens would roll out the red-carpet, we'd get rid of the Baathists, there will be elections and everything will be hunky-dorey? If you know ANYTHING at all about the Arab perspective you would know this was pure hogwash.
These elections were held, Hamas was elected. The Palestinians chose Hamas because of Fateh's inadequasies and chicanery. No one is lillie pure in this case, but starving the Palestinian people and passing US laws such as this only ratchets up the animosity. It has gone from the "ball in in your court" to the Caterpillar will tear down your house and Islamic Jihad (or others) will launch a suicide attack. Has anyone ever heard of using a carrot rather than the stick as a method of first choice? Why is it that no matter what the Palestinians do it just isn't right? Yes Hamas was a risk to vote in, but after years of Fateh failure it was chosen as the only other option put to them. (Maybe the US would have been smart to install it's own Dibold machines to secure the outcome they wished for) But I suggest that no matter WHO the Palestinians had voted for Israel would not budge and through their lackies in Congress, US policy would not have changed.
Another thought. Maybe if a warning memo issued by the US would have been posted at each Palestinian voting booth then Hamas would not have won. (Extreme sarcasm). I suspect that the memo would have only garnered more votes for Hamas because even moderate Palestinians would have been given the cause to show their middle finger. I am NOT saying that the Hamas victory was good. I am simply stating it is a fact. I see the Hamas victory as a desperate clutching at self-determination. I further suspect that the Zionists (despite their public claims) relished the Hamas victory because it furthers their cause as victims. Again, maybe I'm all washed up but it's just my opinion. I only see a witch's cauldron being stirred.
Haitham,
Up above it says, "go to the link below to see how your congressman voted" but I don't see a link. I found this one:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/181/
Woops, it said look "below" but it was above. My mistake.
Sorry, Robin!
Fixed now. It's now 'above' and 'below'
I have not seen this being publicly announced on any American news media, therefore millions of Americans still remain missinformed about this sad issue. Truly, I would have not expected any different outcome as for this passed bill.
As for every conflict in the Middle East, America is just using the lame old excuse of terrorism to further their cause. Clearly America is in the support of Israel. What ever the Palestinians do in their self-defense is conssideret a terrorist act, supported by Hamas. Why is it that just because Israel has proper military equipment and doesn't use bombs justify their terror and the taking of innocent life? Palestinians are terrorists for killing an Israeli, yet Israelis are NOT-terrorists for killing a Palestinian.
You know very well that Israel uses bombs. They fire them from the Apache helicopters that the U.S. has sold them.
Of course HR4681 didn't make the news in the U.S. Had it gained widespread exposure, perhaps Olmert would not have received so many standing ovations for his "great peacemaking initiatives". But that is hopeful thinking.
Unfortuneately, that doesn't let the Americans off the hook. The fact that the wide majority accepts whatever garbage is fed them from their little boxes is proof that they are a wide majority of fools. I have no problem with fools per se, except when their ignorance means the destruction of lives.
It is known that Fatah was corrupt to the bone and merely lining their pockets while the general populace went to the dogs. So that populace voted Hamas. Now everyone is pulling their funding and the Palestinians are suffering. You know that they suffered under Fatah and they suffered before Oslo, from 1948 through the present day.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Freedom_of_Movement/Economy_1967_1994.asp
Palestinian parties and allegiances have shifted innumerably over the last 58 year, but one thing has not: Israel's determination to erase Palestine by creating new facts on the ground. Despite UN resolutions and despite Oslo, they continued to do it when they had a "partner in peace" and they'll continue to do it without. Hamas is just another excuse to do what they more quietly were doing before: destroying Palestinian homes and building new Israeli ones.
And with a partner in the US and others in the world community, they will go on doing so until the remaining 13 percent becomes zero. What does John or Jane Q. Public of Bangor, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Houston, Wichita, Aspen, or Seattle care? Everybody's equal under the US Constitution, right? Pay your taxes, lend your neighbor eggs and flour, use recycled toilet paper and die with a clean conscience.
500 million dollars are being spent on a 9-11 memorial while New York's homeless population is the largest it has been in all of history.
http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/advocacy/basic_facts.html
Meanwhile, farmers leave their lands fallow to maximise profits, and funds are cut to programs like Headstart and Boys and Girls clubs.
Tell me, from even an extremely nationalist standpoint (or especially from one), how can the U.S. afford to be spending the 280 billion (and growing) in Iraq?
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
How can the U.S. afford aid to Israel?
http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
How can the U.S. afford to be ignorant?
And I thought such act has been already in act, since God knows when!
Yeah, like it gonna make a differene or change the fact that Palestinians are already living in hell!
Satan is complaning that Palestinians who go to hell feel like home!
For regular updates on what's happening in Palestine:
http://english.wafa.ps/
Hey Robin,
As an Israeli (and a Zionist), I can tell you that you suspect wrong. The vast majority of us held very dearly to the myth that the majority of Palestinians want peace and that the terrorists are just a tiny minority who don't enjoy popular support. Hamas' landslide was devastating for us because it shattered that myth.
Hey Streetcat,
I'm not Palestinian by any far stretch of the imagination. But since you are a self-proclaimed Zionist and you addressed me, I would really be interested in what your definition of peace is? I would really like to hear your proposed plan. (I am also STRONGLY anti-terrorist btw, but that goes for all parties.)
Streetcat,
You actually believed that oppressing the Palestinians for 58 years would endear them toward peace with Israel?
Streetcat,
I join Robin with interest in your definition of peace and what you see as the solution.
Streetcat,
I join Robin with interest in your definition of peace and what you see as the solution. In terms of the land, what do you see as the goals of Zionism and what does this mean for the Palestinians?
Raymond,
"Tell me, from even an extremely nationalist standpoint (or especially from one), how can the U.S. afford to be spending the 280 billion (and growing) in Iraq?" "How can the U.S. afford aid to Israel?"
How? By increasing the continuously rising debt that has already passed their heads. America has broken the world record with $44 trillion dollars, the highest debt ratio in history; that is $147,312 per one person to pay off. Ameirca will continue to finance these acts, and the debt will keep rising.
Yes, I know Israelis are using bombs it is just in the way they use them that makes them non-terrorist. Just because they throw them on innocent civilians, and don't wrap the bomb around their waste and blow themselves up with everyone else, makes them a legitimate solider, not a terrorist. Even though in both cases, innocent lives are taken, the Israeli way of taking a life is justified. This is the difference people see, and it is this difference that portrays the Isralis as the innocent ones, and Palestinians as the guilty ones. Now that Hamas came along, they just gave Israel another reason to claim it's innocence, because people were ignorant from the start, so how can they see the truth at this point? And because of this the terror acts of Israel go unnoticed, while any act from the Palestinians is echcing through out the ears of these ignorant people.
You, I, and some others may see the clear truth but things like these darken the minds of those people who don't see. Because they look for the needle in the hay, and a hair in the egg, just to find the small fault to support their false misconceptions.
Have any of you seen this? Israel allows shipment of arms to PA
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=272788
Or this? Abbas gives Hamas 10 days to accept plan that recognizes Israel http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0526/dailyUpdate.html
Or this? Israel rethinks embargo to Palestinians http://washingtontimes.com/world/20060523-111935-4205r.htm
Muslimah you said none of this has been in the news. Well, I don't know exactly where you are but you're right as far as any of the mainstream media here in the US goes. One surprise to me, Bush was against the bill. My GOD in heaven, he finally has a correct opinion on something!
Re: Arms to PA… they're for the presidential guard. Israel wants to see Abbas' guards kill some more Hamas members so that the IOF doesn't have to waste so many bullets and mortar shells.
Re: 10 days… or else Hamas and the rest of the Palestinians will be severely punished. Wait… that's already been happening for the last 58 years. Arafat and the PLO recognised Israel at Oslo, and all they got was this lousy t-shirt.
Re: Olmert… amazing how Israel sticks a knife in the Palestinians and receives a standing ovation when they remove the knife.
Re: Bush… if true, I'm sure he had written "Neato" at the bottom of the bill, but his sloppy handwriting was taken to read "Veto".
Hey everyone, I am a bit confused here. We are discussing this House Bill, HR4681. Is there a Senate bill concerning the same issue? Basic government 101: A bill can be introduced by either chamber of Congress. It is voted upon. It is NOT law yet. It then goes to the other chamber where they discuss it in committee, and vote either to not introduce the bill, amend the bill, or come up with a similar bill. It then goes to a vote in that chamber. There is often joint conference pertaining to a bill between the two chambers. To make a long story short, if the bill passes BOTH houses then it goes to the President.
That this bill passed the House is BAD, but it 'aint over till the fat lady sings. Is anyone aware if this has been proposed to the Senate or if they have passed a bill of their own? Raymond?
Any other Americans or other friends know?
For those who want a better explanation than the one I gave here it is http://www.vote-smart.org/resource_govt101_02.php
I don't know why I didn't think of this before. (probably to ticked to think straight!!)
Good point, Robin. Haven't heard of same in Senate.
There is one clincher, I found: Sending funds to aid Palestinians with distribution handled by Hamas. For obvious reasons, Hamas cannot be trusted to that end. Now, I opposed the bill (and wrote my congressman who, unfortunately, voted "Yea"), because it ended all diplomacy. That is foolishness. How can the US influence them without diplomatic relations? Obviously, Bush comprehends this. Unfortunately, the various Democrat and Republican members of the House of Representatives either did not or wanted their name attached to an "anti-terrorism" bill. A better drafting would have continued diplomatic relations with Hamas, clarifying a strong opposition to terrorism. Then aid to Palestinians would be handles entirely by an NGO, perhaps the Red Crescent, stipulating that the Hamas government may not interfere with the handling of these funds. I do agree, though, that those voting for Hamas should have realized what a foolish move it was. I mean, after all, is the US obligated to send aid to the Palestinians (or anyone else)? It's like saying, "Please, please help me out (you SOB), because I am terribly needy (stupid motherf***er)!"
Robin, I am going to have to argue with you on your 3 points regarding neocon myths:
1)Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast (BAH!!)
I've never heard this.
2)US style democracy is good for the Mideast
Freedom and liberty are good. Other Middle Eastern countries have done it (ref statement #1)
3)Give them elections and everything will work out.
A little simplistic, yes, but it's a start. The American democracy experiment was less than smooth, too, and the nation nearly split less than 100 years into it. Issues vary from nation to nation, region to region, but the right of humans to be free is universal, and it burns in the hearts of many (and threatens many others).
Philip,
Here you go again comparing everyone else in the world to the US. Heavens to betsy, as my grandmother always said, the Mideast is NOT the US. I am not in any way suggesting that your dreams are not noble, but given the current state in the rise of extremism, I am afraid the US missed the boat. Or put it this way, we have so much blood on our hands in the Mideast it is for all purposes impossible for democracy to be given them as a gift from us. The democracy WE want for them goes well beyond elections. What we ultimately want is open markets and control. What if they want a more socialistic system? We see how far that got our neighbors to the south. Once again, I reiterate, you CANNOT force democracy by the barrel of a machine gun. Do you have ANY idea the degree of hatred for the US around the world? Thank god that most foreigners can distinguish between hating our policy and hating individuals. We may very well be a place that legions flock to. But we are also a nation that has been using our military industrial complex to benefit our big corporations that have raped the natural resources of those nations. Philip, we are fellow Americans, we both love our country, albeit, for very different reasons. For years and years we have been supporting Israel in it's atrocities against the Palestinians. For years and years we have supported despotic Mideast rulers who have squandered the wealth of their countries and murdered their citizens. These despots we have supported ruled their people with iron fists. Philip, I said over on another link, L-I-S-T-E-N to what you can here. Some may be vitriolic, but listen to the facts as they see them and listen for the tone. Have you travelled to the Mideast? Have you lived there? Are you more of an expert than they are? They hate us FOR A REASON!!!!! At least try to find out why. I would LOVE for the Mideast to be awash in a sea of freedom. But how can my wishes outweigh their sovereignty? And guess what, their idea of freedom is VERY different than yours and mine. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Please Philip, stop telling everyone here how to think and instead take the opportunity to learn.
I am not telling people how to think; I am offering an alternative that appears to be largely misunderstood. US foreign policy has caused a rift. Yes, it is true. It has been a flawed policy to support scoundrels who are against our enemies.
BUT…
That does not make the American ideal (I use the term "American" only for clarification; many other nations obviously do the same) a bad fit for other nations. I was just on an Iranian Voices website/blog that has Iranians screaming for western-style democracy. The mullahs, of course, don't feel the same, but that's more or less the point! The US isn't trying to enforce free market capitalism. We barely have that here. The Iraqi government is only being swayed to provide the essential liberties, one of which is religious freedom (uncommon in the Middle East, especially considering that nations that "allow" Christianity only allow certain practices, the Great Commission being one that will get you imprisoned). The US is simply trying to get them to democratically elect leaders and create a checks-and-balances system. The constitution drafting had very little US involvement. While I am a die hard capitalist, I see no need to force that on other nations, and apparently the administration doesn't either. But forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun is a faulty analogy. We forced a tyrant OUT by the barrel of a gun. Bang bang, out goes the disease. The gun barrel is being used as well to try to eliminate the cancer as it attempts re-infect the recently liberated nation. If the insurgents and the terrorists would shed their tails and grow some humanity like the rest of the Iraqi people, and let the by far mostly GOOD people of Iraq determine their own destiny, 90% of our troops would be gone before you could say, "Ahmadinejad." How many Iraqi civilians would have died since the fall of Saddam had the terrorists and insurgents not begun their nefarious acts? Would ANY have (by wartime means)? The sad thing is, the US will take the blame, although the very destabilizing forces in the nation are THE source of the violence.
The final question is this: Can we remove Middle Easterners' sovereignty by insisting that they be free? No, but we can (and should) recognize tyrants and their goals and eliminate or otherwise neutralize them in the most efficient possible way (not to say Iraq has been efficient, but that's a whole other story). Then we should provide freedom…at least offer it, and don't let armed thugs rob people of that chance when it arrives. The real reason, as it is, for promoting freedom and democracy is that such systems typically do not lead to true tyranny and radicalism (references to Bush in these terms is hyperbole, so I wouldn't waste effort applying them to him), and when such characters arise, the more democratic systems are in place, the more quickly they will fall. I know we can't one by one pick off every Saddam Hussein, every Fidel Castro, every Kim Jong IL..but the more freedom there is around them, the harder it is for them to stay in power. And I do believe that freedom and liberty are human rights. I just can't shake it!
Let's start with this statement of yours: "The US is simply trying to get them to democratically elect leaders and create a checks-and-balances system". Please explain to me what your definition of democracy is? You say we want them to elect their leaders. Philip, I hate to disavow you of your ideals, but if these countries all over the Middle East hold elections tomorrow, you just might not like the outcome. What you want, what the US wants, if for them to overwhelmingly want what we want. Why did Hamas win? There was an election, Hamas won. Simple. Extremism has taken over because it is an answer to years of US meddling. Simple axiom: for every action there is a reaction. Until you personally become a citizen of one of these countries it is not your darn business as a US citizen to tell them what to do. These countries did not elect GB, we did. Somewhere here you said you are more Libertarian. Libertarians do NOT think in this fashion. How can you possibly say that federal government should have no role in education for the individual states and on the other hand suggest that we should be spending our money (in this case going into irretrievable debt) to promote democracy (you are so very naive on this one) around the globe? First off, millions are dying in various civil wars in Africa, four million alone in the Congo since 1998, and the US isn't sending in thousands of troops to help them out. Our interests are selfish strategic ones, pure and simple. We have supported dictators for years, INCLUDING Saddam in the war against Iran, and then we wake up one morning and say, "Shit, they don't seem to like us very much. We better give them democracy so they learn to appreciate us more." How many Iraqis do you actually think thought this boon-doggle would work. Oh I forgot, according to you they all did and for some reason they just are un-grateful sons of bitches. If anything unites the Iraqis it is their desire for us to be gone. But here we are in a catch 22. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't Philip, it was the most ill-thought out war ever planned. Besides that, your dear president was also the one who said, "We're going to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here". Which is it? We were using Iraq to smoke out the terrorists or we were there just to give them the gift of democracy? You CANNOT have it both ways. We could stay there for 20 more years and it is only going to get worse unless we send in enough troops to get every single nook and cranny under control. We bit off more than we can chew and the facts speak for themselves.
Apologies for getting off on this tangent because the link is about the anti-Palestinian act, someone please help us get back to the subject.
Philip,
You said: "The final question is this: Can we remove Middle Easterners’ sovereignty by insisting that they be free? No, but we can (and should) recognize tyrants and their goals and eliminate or otherwise neutralize them in the most efficient possible way (not to say Iraq has been efficient, but that’s a whole other story)."
No you should not! You should step back and let people deal with their own problems.
It is not a "whole other story". It IS the story!
The 'story' of your government is that it creates a monster and supplies it with weapons, training in murder and torture, and financial and technological backing. When the day comes that you can no longer control the monster you have created then you say "Ooops!" and then you create a new monster to compensate for the old one that got out of hands. Creating a bigger and 'better' monster is not, and has never been, an efficient way to 'neutralize' anything!
You said: "Then we should provide freedom…at least offer it…"
No you should not! Nobody can provide freedom - only the opposite!
The problem is not that some people have freedom while other people do not. Everybody has freedom, but some people live under dictators who do everything they can to suppress freedom. Without suppression in any form people have full unrestricted freedom. You cannot provide freedom, but you can stop providing monsters who restrict freedom. Freedom is already there, but sometimes it is so restricted that it is damn hard to see it!
You said: "I know we can’t one by one pick off every Saddam Hussein, every Fidel Castro, every Kim Jong IL..but the more freedom there is around them, the harder it is for them to stay in power."
Sorry, but this is complete nonsense!
Monsters are completely unaffected by 'freedom around them' as that does not prevent them from staying in power. Freedom of others is something they will abuse as much as they are able to. If you do not feed the monsters then they will be less able to abuse freedom and it will allow those people whose freedom is at stake to 'pick them off' as soon as they start thinking about turning into monsters in the first place.
If your Saddam-monster had not been fed in the first place, then Iraqis would have had the chance to stop him before he could establish his decades long dictarship. I do not necessarily agree with their methods, but a very large part of those people you call 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' are Iraqis who are really really pissed about you helping your Saddam-monster to restrict their freedom and who do not want to thank you for removing the monster that you created yourself. If I step on your right foot are you going to thank me for not stepping on your left foot - even if I step on your right foot again?
And, don't tell me that there were justifications for supporting the Saddam Hussein-monster in the war between Iraq and Iran, because that war was a result of that the Ayatollah Khomeini-monster replaced the Shah Pahlavi-monster that you created in Iran as replacement for the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in the coup of 1953. Does 'Operation Ajax' ring a bell? In order for fair to be fair, the British were the ones to come up with the idea of the operation.
The USA has NEVER been the international propagator of freedom. Why should anybody believe you now? Because you ousted the monster you created and bombed the country to rubble in the process?
Robin,
I didn't see your post until after I posted.
Well, the USA government making decisions on how to meddle with other countries regardless of what the people of those countries desire is 'on the topic'. Not smack in the middle, but sort of on
Robin and Thomas,
What you are talking about is as much to the point as discussing HR4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. What is comes down to the US determining first what is good for US interests and then passing legislation and/or going to war to to realise their world vision. George Bush senior's "New World Order" is being brought to fruition through the son, by hook and/or crook. As you both pointed out, this strategy was not born of the latest administration, nor that of George Bush senior, but decades (if not centuries) ago in the US's expansionist enterprise.
Lest we forget, here are some of the US's deplorable acts, meant not to spread democracy, but to colonise:
Inside US:
Slaughter and subsequent oppression (ongoing) of the Native Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears (and much before this)
Slavery (also affecting African nations), legacy denied by US absence from Durbin 2001
Segregation
Hawaii
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/21/132247
Outside US (Military and CIA):
Panama 1904
Iran 1953
Guatamala 1954
Vietnam 1962
Iraq 1963
El Salvador 1980
Nicaragua 1985
Libya 1986
Iraq 1991
Iraq - trade sanctions responsible for the starvation deaths of hundreds of thousands
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 2001 - ?
Iraq 2003 - ?
More comprehensive list here:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Philip,
Please reference this site with all the available information:
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=18 concerning the cost of the Iraq war.
Next, please reference this site concerning US aid to Israel:
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=753&CategoryId=4
Next, please reference this site concerning our current administration's neocon agenda: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm. This document you will read about on this site was produced by a think tank called Project for the New American Century, PNAC for short. You can do more research on this illustious entity and please feel free to cross-check membership with other Zionist organizations.
Next, read the following concerning US military aid to Israel
http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html
Next, read about the use of depleted uranium in US bombs being dropped on Iraq: http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml If you don't trust this source I give, do a little research on your own.
After you have done all of the above, maybe you could answer this question for me: You do not believe in federal funding of education. Should our federal funds be going to build schools in Iraq given the premise that axis to education is one of the bullwarks of democracy?
Above post: "axis" to education should be "access to education" OOPS! I agree Raymond, it is all part and parcel of the same horrendous policy, but I feel a little guilty for going off the subject of HR4681, but then again, it's all part of the big picture.
Don't feel guilty. You haven't committed any of the acts in discussion. At least, I hope not.
As for Philip, rest assured that he will only see the literature on the links you provided as propaganda. Don't upset his utopia.
PS - that's Evil Axis to Education
Raymond,
You forgot one in your list above of CIA overthrows, Allende in Chile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol47no3/article03.html
And least we forget who then became president of Chile, our wonderful puppet Pinochet. http://www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html.
Now I'm REALLY off the