Press release On The US military Bullying Canadian Civilians
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Connie Fogal, Leader of the Canadian Action Party, says, “So much for conspiracy theories! Now we have the ugly truth fully exposed. The US military really does now run Canada. “
The US military is on Canadian soil forbidding the Municipality of Papineauville from renting a hall to the Council of Canadians who planned a public meeting to be held the day before the Three Amigos meet in Montebello, Quebec, Canada August 20, 21 2007 to plan their next moves in the dismantling of their respective countries of
Canada, USA and Mexico.
CAP’s leader said,”Bad enough that our RCMP and the Quebec provincial police force would apply offensive Canadian law to prevent a legitimate meeting of dissenting citizens. Totally untenable that a foreign army assumes jurisdiction on our land. But this we knew from the Binational Planning Agreement begun in 2002 that saw Canada crawl
on its belly and permit the USA military to enter our land whenever it deems necessary. “
“Does anyone still believe that our federal leaders have not thrown away our sovereignty ? That from Chretien (Liberal) to Martin (Liberal) to Harper (Conservative), the Prime Ministers of our land have not been committing treason behind closed doors? How otherwise would it be possible that a proud, sovereign, and free nation would see a foreign army on its soil interfering with the right of Canadians to assemble and to speak?”
“And , Canada’s silent loyal opposition has meanwhile been neither loyal nor an opposition ! US military on Canadian soil ordering Canadians did not happen overnight!”
Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action Party, urges all
Canadians to say NO to the criminalization of dissent on our land.
She pointed out,”So they put up a fence! So they impose a 25
kilometer no go zone! So they halt vehicles with five or more
people in them! So we be on the edge propelling the power of our inner energy to stare at them through their barriers! We can just stand and stare! There is something very ludicrous about three leaders of alleged free countries hiding from their citizens.”
Connie Fogal , leader of the Canadian Action Party, encourages all liberty loving Americans, and Mexicans, as well as Canadians to protest this third annual meeting of national leaders who are bent on destroying our constitutional and civil rights. She urges,”Let us join hands in peaceful right of protest, standing firm and tall, determined and strong in acknowledgement that our nations belong to us the people, and that no shadow government, no military, no treacherous politicians or officials are going to take them away from us. “
Contact Connie Fogal at 604 708 3372 or cell 778 891 4919
-30-
July 15, 2007 at 1:47 am
OK, it’s official now, Connie Fogal is a complete BARKING MOONBAT! The US Military isn’t “bullying” anyone, much less forbidding anyone from doing anything, it’s the CANADIAN gov’t who elected to hold the conference on their soil, and it is the CANADIAN gov’t who elected to abide by our security requirements for President Bush to attend the conference. Anyone who doesn’t comprehend the concept of security for national leaders, especially when more than one are in the same place, at the same time, isn’t intelligent enough to be the leader of a group of tree squirrels, much less a PAC!
July 15, 2007 at 2:32 am
That’s CAP, not PAC.
July 15, 2007 at 10:34 pm
10-4. That makes it official. GWB requires no oversight.
July 16, 2007 at 12:22 am
Indeed, Opit, indeed…
Thanks for the comment and for putting me on your blogroll. Just checked out your site. Very informative! Cheers, annamarie
July 16, 2007 at 3:35 am
verbena19, it IS a PAC, as in Political Action Committee, and it still stands, she’s enitely too stupid to be running anything more complicated than frying pan.
July 16, 2007 at 4:31 am
And that’s the Council of Canadians they are ‘defending’ Bush from : in this case as “ip’s”
That’s a term for ‘native’ people I’ve taken from Anne McCaffrey - Inconvenient People. Politically aware students of realpoltiik are terribly scary to Master Bushit.
July 16, 2007 at 4:46 am
Well said, Opit!
str8shooter, you must be an American, or an expat at the very least. No sane Canadian who cares about his/her country would make such idiotic pronouncements.
July 16, 2007 at 11:01 am
Well verbena19, I am an American, but more importantly to this particular discussion, I’m a retired professional security specialist, and have worked with the Presidential Protective Detail in the past, so I KNOW what they’re doing, and WHY. The measures being taken for the conference are no different than those taken in many others, the only difference this time is the number of conspiracy freaks and nut job obliviots running around screaming about things they know nothing about.
As far as the sanity of ’some’ Canadians, well, that’s a topic for an entirely different discussion, but since “ignorance is bliss” you really should be a lot happier than you appear to be!
July 16, 2007 at 11:04 am
opit, isn’t the phrase “Politically aware students of realpoltiik (sic)” just another way of saying SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST?
July 16, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Don’t forget that broad brush to tar people with when you leave the thread !
July 16, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Would that be the same ‘broad brush’ some people seem to have no problem applying to President Bush, or anyone else who isn’t interested in being a gutless cheese-eating surrender monkey? Would that also be the same one that allows barking moonbats like Fogal (and others) to outright LIE about what is going on in any particular instance just to stir up the ignorant sheeple and foment discord among them for their own political ends?
Don’t you just hate it when people throw your trash right back at you?
July 16, 2007 at 10:32 pm
str8shooter: now I better understand from where you are coming — a “retired professional security specialist, eh?… While I understand that there are necessary security measures for a presidential visit, I still fail to see how a bunch of Council of Canadians academics pose a threat to your revered GWB.
Obviously, we are on opposite sides politically. You think Bush is doing a wonderful job, I think he’s a total disaster. And you seem to use a very wide brush to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with your neocon views a ’socialist/communist’. Btw, the two labels are not the same. Socialists are not necessarily communists, and anyone who disagrees with you or GWB is not automatically one of that group…
July 17, 2007 at 1:01 am
GROAN, Far Right Meets Far Left>…plan their next moves in the dismantling of their respective countries of
Canada, USA and Mexico.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/54184/
>…Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 15, 2007.
The North American Union, an increasingly popular conspiracy theory about a group of shadowy international “elites” who are planning to “replace the United States” with a transnational government, is a manifestation of xenophobia that would do the John Birch Society proud.
Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
401 COMMENTS
Share & save this story:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! icon
Also in ForeignPolicy
Benchmark Boogie: A Guide to the Struggle Over Iraq’s Oil
Antonia Juhasz
Are Israel and Syria Headed Towards Peace, or Will Tel Aviv Have Another “Accidental” Summer War?
Khody Akhavi
Opposition to American Oil Grab is Unifying Iraqis
Ben Lando
Bush’s Pakistan Paradox
Robert Scheer
U.S. Failing to Help Iraqi Translator and Family Targeted for Execution
Maura Stephens
Reflections of a Vietnam War Widow: It Doesn’t End When They Come Home
Penny Coleman
More stories by Joshua Holland
RSS icon ForeignPolicy RSS Feed
RSS icon Main AlterNet RSS Feed
Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!
Advertisement
Just what is the North American Union (NAU)?
There are several ways to answer that question. First, the NAU is an increasingly popular conspiracy theory about a group of shadowy and mostly nameless international “elites” who are planning to “replace the United States” — in the words of Jerome Corsi, a key figure in the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth project and a leading NAU conspiracist — with a transnational government. The theory holds that the borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States are in the process of being erased, covertly, by a group of “globalists” whose ultimate goal is to replace national governments in D.C., Ottawa and Mexico City with a European-style political union and a bloated EU-style bureaucracy.
The North American Union story is an offspring of the John Birch Society right, with its attendant xenophobia and paranoia. It comes complete with a shadowy international cabal intent on stabbing decent, hard-working Americans in the back — Dolchstoss! Articles and websites condemning the NAU flourish in that political space where right- and left-wing populism become indistinguishable, along with a dozen other fundamentally reactionary theories of what’s really going on with our contemporary political economy.
To fully understand the growing fascination with the NAU in various corners of the internet, one has to view it also as a cultural phenomenon; it’s an entirely logical reaction to a process of corporate-driven global integration that feeds into Americans’ very real and wholly valid economic anxieties. As David Moberg recently noted, Americans, “by a margin of 46 percent to 28 percent, [believe] that trade deals have harmed the United States,” and four times as many people surveyed by Pew said U.S. trade deals had lowered wages than the number who believed the deals had raised them. According to Public Citizen, opponents of NAFTA-style trade deals picked up 37 seats over defenders of the status quo during last year’s midterms.
But, despite that political landscape, one of the first things the new Democratic majority did when it got into power was cut a new “Grand Bargain” with the White House to push through more of the same kind of trade deals. As David Sirota pointed out, the Democratic leadership did it in secret, behind closed doors. And it did it over the objections of many of the freshman lawmakers that gave them their majority in the first place.
With that as a backdrop, it should come as no surprise that people tend to look for a wizard working behind the curtain. The idea that shadowy forces beyond our perception are really in charge of steering the most powerful country in the world is reinforced every time a bipartisan “trade” deal with little or no support gets jammed through Congress.
Ultimately, though, the answer to the question “What is the NAU?” is this: It is absolutely nothing. The NAU exists only as a proposal contained in one of a thousand academic and/or wonky papers published each year that advocate all manner of idealistic but ultimately unrealistic approaches to social, economic and political problems. Most of these get passed around in their own circles and eventually filed away and forgotten by junior staffers in congressional offices. Some of these papers, however, become touchstones for the conspiracy-minded and form the basis of all kinds of unfounded fears.
Such is the case with the monograph, “Building a North American Community,” which was produced by a group of eggheads at the Council on Foreign Relations and their counterparts in Mexico and Canada. It calls for a North American economic union to stretch from Canada’s northern border to Mexico’s southernmost point. It would basically be a customs union — similar to the old European Community before it became the European Union — with expedited travel between countries, a single market with standardized external tariffs, etc.
July 17, 2007 at 1:03 am
OOPS, sorry about that bad cut and paste, again, here ’tis>…Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 15, 2007.
The North American Union, an increasingly popular conspiracy theory about a group of shadowy international “elites” who are planning to “replace the United States” with a transnational government, is a manifestation of xenophobia that would do the John Birch Society proud.
Just what is the North American Union (NAU)?
There are several ways to answer that question. First, the NAU is an increasingly popular conspiracy theory about a group of shadowy and mostly nameless international “elites” who are planning to “replace the United States” — in the words of Jerome Corsi, a key figure in the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth project and a leading NAU conspiracist — with a transnational government. The theory holds that the borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States are in the process of being erased, covertly, by a group of “globalists” whose ultimate goal is to replace national governments in D.C., Ottawa and Mexico City with a European-style political union and a bloated EU-style bureaucracy.
The North American Union story is an offspring of the John Birch Society right, with its attendant xenophobia and paranoia. It comes complete with a shadowy international cabal intent on stabbing decent, hard-working Americans in the back — Dolchstoss! Articles and websites condemning the NAU flourish in that political space where right- and left-wing populism become indistinguishable, along with a dozen other fundamentally reactionary theories of what’s really going on with our contemporary political economy.
To fully understand the growing fascination with the NAU in various corners of the internet, one has to view it also as a cultural phenomenon; it’s an entirely logical reaction to a process of corporate-driven global integration that feeds into Americans’ very real and wholly valid economic anxieties. As David Moberg recently noted, Americans, “by a margin of 46 percent to 28 percent, [believe] that trade deals have harmed the United States,” and four times as many people surveyed by Pew said U.S. trade deals had lowered wages than the number who believed the deals had raised them. According to Public Citizen, opponents of NAFTA-style trade deals picked up 37 seats over defenders of the status quo during last year’s midterms.
But, despite that political landscape, one of the first things the new Democratic majority did when it got into power was cut a new “Grand Bargain” with the White House to push through more of the same kind of trade deals. As David Sirota pointed out, the Democratic leadership did it in secret, behind closed doors. And it did it over the objections of many of the freshman lawmakers that gave them their majority in the first place.
With that as a backdrop, it should come as no surprise that people tend to look for a wizard working behind the curtain. The idea that shadowy forces beyond our perception are really in charge of steering the most powerful country in the world is reinforced every time a bipartisan “trade” deal with little or no support gets jammed through Congress.
Ultimately, though, the answer to the question “What is the NAU?” is this: It is absolutely nothing. The NAU exists only as a proposal contained in one of a thousand academic and/or wonky papers published each year that advocate all manner of idealistic but ultimately unrealistic approaches to social, economic and political problems. Most of these get passed around in their own circles and eventually filed away and forgotten by junior staffers in congressional offices. Some of these papers, however, become touchstones for the conspiracy-minded and form the basis of all kinds of unfounded fears.
Such is the case with the monograph, “Building a North American Community,” which was produced by a group of eggheads at the Council on Foreign Relations and their counterparts in Mexico and Canada. It calls for a North American economic union to stretch from Canada’s northern border to Mexico’s southernmost point. It would basically be a customs union — similar to the old European Community before it became the European Union — with expedited travel between countries, a single market with standardized external tariffs, etc.
July 17, 2007 at 1:04 am
(CONT.) http://www.alternet.org/audits/54184/ >…One should never say “never,” but barring a remarkable change in all three countries’ political cultures (but most importantly that of the United States), the kind of formal North American political union described by the theory’s proponents has zero chances of getting off the ground any time in the foreseeable future.
A kernel of truth
I am the last person in the world to argue that there’s no reason to worry about the push for more and more regional economic and security integration. At its heart, as is always the case with these kind of dark plots, are some real dots. The analyses go off the rails when those dots are connected.
For those of us who have spent years trying to raise awareness of what’s really going on in the movement to blanket the earth in “free trade” deals — geared as they are more towards compelling countries to deregulate and protecting investors than by any genuine desire to free up trade — it’s somewhat satisfying to see new interest being paid to an issue that gets far too little attention. Like other conspiracies, the problem with the North American Union is that it is a distraction; it represents a massive energy drain.
The NAU monograph explicitly rejects an EU-style political union and the kind of supernational institutions that have grown up like mushrooms in Brussels. One of the principles that guided the committee that drafted the proposal was that the NAU would not resemble the EU:
North America is different from other regions of the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new North American community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other’s national sovereignty.
Despite that rather clear statement of principle — and the fact that the paper lays out a series of recommendations that do not include the creation of some new continental supergovernment — it does call for new “dispute” resolution mechanisms, the free flow of people between the United States and Canada (but not between Mexico and its northern neighbors as long as a large disparity between workers’ incomes remains) and a unionwide regulatory framework.
Another “dot” that makes up the supposed NAU is the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), a chat-shop for American, Canadian and Mexican leaders to meet annually and discuss common security and economic issues.
And then there’s NAFTA, and the so-called “NAFTA Highway.” These are not one but several truck “transit corridors” that backers hope will eventually connect Mexican, American and Canadian markets more effectively and facilitate trade. With construction funds authorized by Congress in dribs and drabs since 1997, and very little work completed south of the Mississippi, it’s unclear whether the roads will ever be more than a waste of a few hundred million in taxpayer funds.
Robert Pastor, an academic specializing in elections at American University and one of the authors of the NAU proposal, also suggested the adoption of a common currency, like the Euro. That suggestion, however, wasn’t included in the NAU “recommendations.”
The context in which these marginally related dots emerged is an important reason why they’ve taken on a sinister air in many people’s minds. NAFTA was part of a larger push for legal and regulatory “harmonization” between the three countries of North America. Business groups and other “trade” lobbyists have in fact advocated greater consistency in North America’s regulatory environment, and that always means decreasing, not increasing, labor, environmental, workplace and other standards. It is not the highest common denominator that backers want to see spread far and wide.
Make no mistake, I’ve shed blood opposing corporate trade deals like NAFTA and the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and there are very real and very significant problems with the push toward harmonization and the relentless assault on national sovereignty represented by the arm-twisting that goes into forcing a trade “consensus.” Construction of key parts of the “NAFTA highway” have raised serious environmental concerns. We don’t need to expand NAFTA or the other institutions of international commerce; we need a pause in the march towards global (or in this case, regional) economic integration, not more of the same.
And Canadian activists like Maude Barlow of the Council for Canadians have warned for some time that the SPP is part of a push, financed by Canadian and U.S. corporate think tanks, to essentially bring an end to Canada’s social welfare state through regional integration. (More detail can be found in this PDF posted by the Council of Canadians.)
The right stuff
These, and a number of other concerns, are entirely valid. But the NAU story is a creature of the far right, and, as such, those who have “connected the dots” have done so according to their ideological preferences. The North American Union they’ve conjured up comes with the assumptions embraced by the coterie of wing-nuts who have promoted it.
Chief among them is World Net Daily, the “archconservative news site” responsible for such hard-hitting journalism as its recent exposé, “Soy is making kids ‘gay’” (no, I’m not making that up). In addition to SwiftBoat vet Corsi, right-wing talk radio hosts like Sean Hannity and CNN’s reliably nativist Lou Dobbs have featured stories on the imminent arrival of the NAU. Reactionary talker (and now CNN host) Glenn Beck lists it on his website as one of a dozen things that the un-named elites against whom he rails are using to stab good, hard-working Americans in the back.
While there are exceptions, most essays about the NAU are, like Corsi’s now-famous treatise in the hard-right Human Events, intended to reinforce some of the most cherished right-wing narratives:
* Multilateral diplomacy is inherently bad; dangerous
* Americans’ economic insecurity results from the machinations of “liberal elites” and corporate America has no responsibility whatsoever
* Foreigners are always competitors and can never be trusted — working on common issues is inherently bad; dangerous
While the word “agenda” appears three times in Corsi’s essay, you won’t find the words “corporate,” “corporation” or “lobbyist.” Only murkily identified “elites” are to blame, not the actors — the K Street influence peddlers and Chamber of Commerce types; the smooth pundits with those cushy think tank sinecures and the corporate execs who get stacked up in their Gulf Stream jets circling Washington every time a new trade deal comes up for a vote — who are really pushing the corporate “trade” agenda. That’s consistent with the central deception of right-wing populism: it’s not Big Business and the politicians in their pockets that are responsible for gaming a system in which upward mobility no longer exists; the world is actually run by tweed-jacketed college professors and the “useful idiots” in the human rights and environmental communities.
And, recently, the NAU myth has become tangled up in the already acrimonious immigration debate in the United States, although not in any coherent way (they are completely unrelated, but the NAU mythology appeals to immigration hardliners for obvious reasons).
A bright, shiny distraction
What is the difference, then, between the kinds of analysis of corporate-led globalization offered by progressives and what I describe as a conspiracy theory? After all, both share the basic premise that deep-pocketed elites are threatening to run roughshod over the democratic institutions enjoyed in most nation-states, and both posit that the process is at least somewhat stealthy. Both hold that global economic integration along the lines of what we’ve seen so far have redistributed wealth upward, from workers to investors (although those on the right tend not to express that in so many words).
The differences are fairly straightforward. First, while there’s no question that business elites in all three countries have long pushed for greater economic integration, central to the NAU theory is that there are forces working behind the scenes to build a political union. Those are two very different things; it’s more than a semantic point.
Second, there is a NAFTA treaty and there are institutions like the WTO, but there is no North American Union and, because of a political culture that still cherishes political (if not economic) self-determination, especially in the United States, the chance of a North American Union that resembles the conspiracy theories becoming a reality anytime in the foreseeable future are about as likely as my being named Miss Universe.
Ultimately, that’s also because nobody is calling for a political union like the EU. Whereas critics of corporate globalization can “follow the money” and name the specific registered lobbyists pushing a trade deal, the NAU’s alleged supporters are always abstract (except for those in the wonky world of academic and think tank circles where these ideas are at least discussed seriously). That’s because they don’t exist. Progressive critics of corporate globalization take issue with the product of the diplomacy that takes place in venues like the WTO; for NAU theorists, representatives of the three North American governments sitting down and discussing regional issues is cause for alarm — never mind that nothing substantive has come of those talks.
Finally, creating an NAU would require piles of legislation: billions of dollars in new budget allocations, the creation of new agencies and new institutions and the revision (or enactment) of literally hundreds of laws governing all sorts of activities in the political economy. The NAU conspiracy theorists would have you believe the impossible: that all of that will be done under cover of the metaphorical dead of night, while Americans are sleeping, and nobody will notice until it’s too late. That is, nobody but those who are “wide awake” enough to embrace their conspiratorial worldview.
Consider how Jerome Corsi describes the White House’s role in the NAU:
“President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda” … a “hidden agenda” that explains “the Bush administration’s true open borders policy.” “Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically” …”What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada” … “President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the president is quietly forming.” “Secretly,” “quietly,” “hidden agenda,” “true …policy” — all are markers of what the political scientist Richard Hofstadter called The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
The truth is that none of the three governments on the continent have endorsed the idea of an NAU and none of the NPP’s discussions are binding on the countries in any way. If there were a real movement to create an NAU in the form envisioned by the reactionary oddballs at WorldNetDaily — there isn’t — it would quickly be rejected not only by most Americans, but also by every member of Congress who likes the idea of serving another term.
In the meantime, in the real world, those corporate Gulf Streams are about to circle D.C. again, as Congress debates giving Bush “fast-track” trade authority and the Chamber of Commerce looks to seal trade deals with South Korea, Colombia, Peru and Panama. And, as always, only a very small group of activists will be watching those deals progress. They’re not as sexy as a secretive cabal of covert globalists trying to destroy America from within, but they are far bigger issues because they are real.
Pity that the NAU crowd won’t be paying attention.
Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/54184/
July 17, 2007 at 2:53 am
Michael, thanks for the article. I read Alternet fairly regularly, but seem to have missed that one…
My concern is about the SPP as illuminated by Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadians. (a sovereignty group of which I am a member) I do not consider myself one of the moonbats who are part of the convergence of ‘far right-far left’ as mentioned above.
While some aspects of the NAU may be a myth, the SPP is not, and it is not something that would be beneficial to Canadians. Quite the contrary. Just visit the Council of Canadians website to know what I mean. You’ll find their link in my sidebar…
btw, I was against NAFTA and feel that it grossly tipped the scales against Canada in fairness… Remember the softwood lumber dispute? We still have not received all the money owed us by the US and I doubt we ever will… Our Bush-lite PM Harper jubilantly signed off on an amount several millions less than what is rightly owed us according to the World Court.
So yes, I certainly am against anything that will further integrate us into the US empire, for I know that we will get royally screwed. If that qualifies me as a ‘moonbat’, so be it.
best regards,
Annamarie
July 17, 2007 at 6:34 am
verbena, you make a hell of a lot of assumptions without bothering to ascertain any facts beforehand, but given the fact that you would even attempt to defend Fogal after her insane pronouncements, it seems that you’re two peas in a pod. Nobody considers Canadians to be much of a threat to anyone (when was the last time anyone took a shot at one of your leaders?), it’s INFILTRATORS that we’re worried about, and given the present level of terrorism in the world today, excluding large groups from the area is only PRUDENT.
As to your lame attempt at a personal attack, what makes you think I “revere” the President, or even agree with him on anything? Just because I point out the FACT that Fogal is a tin-foil hatted barking moonbat doesn’t reveal anything about my own political beliefs, only that she doesn’t have the first clue in the world how Presidential security works (and no, it doesn’t change based upon that Presidents political party). She accused the US military of being involved in some denial of Canadians Rights, which is an outright lie, as any activity our military undertakes while on Canadian soil is done so with the PERMISSION, and under the AUTHORITY, of the Canadian government. Simply put, she’s not even bright enough to comprehend the fact that it’s her OWN government who is keeping people out, so she wants to blame the US military.
In conclusion, if pointing out the simple TRUTH makes me a “neocon” in your eyes, so be it, at least I actually KNOW what I’m talking about. As for your concern about making distinctions between Socialism and Communism, don’t bother, Socialism is merely Communism Lite, and everyone with an IQ higher than room temperature readily acknowledge that fact. Did you ever go to the former East Germany, or Chekolosvakia, or any of the other countries of the former Soviet Union DURING the Cold War? Been there, seen that, and the only people who refuse to acknowledge that Socialism IS Communism Lite are the ones that have been ‘educated’ beyond their intelligence level, and their Communist masters.
July 17, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Edit for above, I mis-spelled “Czechoslovakia”
July 17, 2007 at 9:15 pm
str8shooter: I do not agree with everything Fogal says, I merely printed the Press Release I received. I do not necessarily — wholly — agree with everything in a piece I put up that is sent by others, however, I put it up anyway for info of those who may be interested. Sometimes I even put up very contrary pieces, mainly to show a different viewpoint, and to provoke some thought…
As for my assumptions about your political leanings, you are correct. I should not have done that, so please accept my apology. Sometimes in my haste, I ’say’ things that go against my usually fair-minded grain. My bad!
Regarding living in the former Eastern Bloc: I have been there and done that. I was born in Hungary and lived there during the height of the Stalinists reign of terror. Family members were imprisoned for speaking the TRUTH… Although I was a little girl back then, I remember much…
Consequently, although I consider myself a Democratic-Socialist/Social-Democrat/Humanist, I am far from being a Stalinist-Communist. I believe in the struggles of the working people and the down-trodden, and that hard-core capitalism benefits only the ruling elites and their minions, to the great detriment of the rest of us. (And no, I do not come from a ‘poor’ background. My family owned businesses before the Stalinists took them away. We were the only ones in our neighbourhood to even have a telephone. But that did not keep me from trying to help my poor classmates, and it does not keep me from fighting for the cause of workers and the poor now.)
Finally: Yes, I know that it was the Canadian Government that allowed the US Army to dictate security measures. It still does not make it right, imo….
best regards,
annamarie
July 17, 2007 at 9:23 pm
P.S. to Michael: While I like the stuff on Alternet, I disagree with them on this one. The NAU and SPP are indeed valid issues about which we should be very concerned. NAFTA was not a good, equitable trade deal for any other country but the US. Mexico got shafted too, their corn being just one prime example. Americans sell this Mexican staple far cheaper than the Mexican farmers are able to, hence cutting them out of the equation. Of course, this means that even more desperate, hungry Mexicans are risking life and limb to cross the US border… What would you do if you were unable to feed your children? You’d go look for work wherever you could, no??
July 17, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Verbana, fair enough, we all err from time to time. As to posting articles from others, perhaps a bit of commentary on your behalf as to your thoughts on the article would be helpful in avoiding ‘misunderstandings’.
My experience in Eastern Europe was merely as that of a ‘tourist’ while I was in the US military, working to bring down Communism, but what I DID see was enough to convince me that Socialism of ANY stripe is completely antithetical to basic Human Rights, period, end of discussion. I find your observation that “hard-core capitalism benefits only the ruling elites and their minions” to be more than a bit erronious. From my own experience coming from humble beginnings and having built my own business over the past 30 years, Capitalism is the only real way for anyone to achieve true freedom, and it benefits far more than any “ruling elites”. If you really do care about the little guys then try promoting them owning their OWN business’s rather than working for someone else! I’ve personally trained literally dozens of people over the years that now own thier own business’s, and THEY are now training THEIR employees so that some day THEY can own THEIR own business’s. When someone is an employee, they are worth, precisely and exactly, no more and no less, what it will cost to replace them, period, so it is up to the employee to pay attention, learn as much about their craft, trade, and business as they can, so that they too can join the “ruling elite” by starting THEIR own business. The simple fact is that too many people lack the drive and intelligence to do so, and find it far easier to depend on someone else for their subsistance and then spend their time complaining about being held down by ‘the man’, WHAT HYPOCRACY! They’re too fat, dumb and lazy to do the hard work of being responsible for themselves, but then all they want to do is bitch about it, well, if they want to be broke their whole lives, that’s on them, but don’t ask me to waste MY hard earned money taking care of their sorry butts when they get too old or sickly to work any more.
As for your observations to Michael, the problem with the market in Mexico isn’t due to NAFTA, it’s due to so much of the corn crops being converted to ‘bio-fuels’ that the average Mexican is having a difficult time affording that basic staple of their diet. Combined with the extreme corruption in Mexico, the extreme disparity in their ‘classes’ and that joke of a gov’t down there, it’s little wonder that their poorer are coming North in droves.
As to the last part, what aspect of the situation “isn’t right”? That a group of people with so little grasp of the current geo-political situation that one of their ‘leadership’ would author as much drivel as Fogel did (and the fact that she actually signed her name to it absolutely astounds me) should be ‘excluded’ from speaking their piece? Listening to the constant volumnous bleating of sheep never served anyone any good. Perhaps if they actually had something intelligent to say, their own political leaders would take the time to listen, but the conference is neither the time, nor the place for so many people to publically demonstrate their incredible lack of intelligence for the whole world to see.
July 18, 2007 at 12:50 am
str8shooter: Thank you for your intelligent reply. Yes, I agree with you that people should be helped to work for themselves. I’ve always been an avid proponent of small businesses, and do my best to support them here in my city, whenever possible. I also encourage people to do likewise, and help others start their own enterprises however small they may be. But there are people in society that are not fat & lazy, but their circumstances require a ‘helping hand’. Some of them are ill, severely handicapped; some are struggling with circumstances beyond their control. For these people, a caring society should provide basic ’safety nets’… (In my opinion, one of the measures of a society is how it treats its less fortunate citizens…
It is not enough for a society to have material goods, it must also have a collective conscience… To function, a society needs workers who are its backbone. It is ludicrous to say that everyone should be in business for him/herself. We would all be much better served if business-owners would not merely look at their bottom-line profit margins, but also look at how their workers (who carry out necessary tasks) are faring. If you treat workers well, they will perform better, making your company function more optimally… It’s a symbiotic relationship. One can’t function without the other. So do not denigrate the ‘workers’. They are a vital part of a functioning society.
Does this make me a Socialist or Communist?
I have seen too much tragedy, and have witnessed exploitation in the work-place by some of the large corporations and/or unscrupulous employers. And there are those whose intelligence/capability level precludes them from ever going into business for themselves. However, this does not make them lesser human beings.
This issue is very complex, and time does not permit me to be more detailed right now. Suffice it to say, that while I agree with much of what you say, I still think there are many factors and variables. Societies have been dealing with these issues since humankind left the safety of their clans to join other clans and form larger communities. Rulers were elected or appointed or they simply usurped power by force. After that, all is history…
Mexico’s problems are many, I agree. Not least of which is caused by corrupt officials: the ‘elected’ or the usurpers… But NAFTA did have a negative effect, according to many articles I’ve read on the subject. The bio-diesel use of corn is but one problem…
I can understand Fogel’s concern too. The very fact that the SPP was being held in ’secret’ puts up the antennae of many people. If our government was not so damn secretive about the whole thing — and actually invited representatives from some of the groups to attend — it would have likely made a lot of difference. You see, our Stephen Harper already has a reputation for being secretive, selective, and downright disdainful of anyone who doesn’t fully agree with him to the point of nastiness, even those of his own Cabinet He eschews debate on any issue. He acts totally unaccountable, yet during his election campaign, this very ‘accountability and transparency’ is what he promised Canadian voters who were fed up with the Liberals’ corruption & cronyism. As well, Harper’s closeness to the Bush Administration is not supported by most Canadians. So when the US Army is thrown into the equation, well, you see what happens….
You can’t blame people for being alarmed, even Fogel. The Three Amigos and invited Corporate CEO’s knew about this meeting for awhile. So why not let people know, be up front, and let the Municipality of Papineauville know in advance of the extensive security measures and that they should not take any reservations during the SPP meeting? This way, the Council of Canadians academics would not have booked there in the first place. (And I still think my suggestion of inviting reps of this group of citizens should have been done. It would have quelled much of the dissent, I think.) What they’ve accomplished by all their secrecy is to alienate more people and sound alarm bells. We Canadians cherish our distinctiveness from our US neighbours while at the same time, enjoy our similarities. We are fierce about our sovereignty, especially in light of more and more of our traditional institutions being bought up (or gobbled up via ‘hostile takeovers’
by US conglomerates (Hudson’s Bay Co. : The Bay, etc.) …
Those are some of the aspects of the situation that aren’t right…
I shall try to remember your advice about putting up a little something before I post items from elsewhere on which I may not be in full agreement… Often I try to do this, but sometimes, in my haste….. (you already know the rest… )
regards,
annamarie
July 19, 2007 at 2:37 am
There are those, who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in need of assistance, and it is our duty to provide what help is needed; where the rub comes in is when systems and programs are implemented that are as easily abused as the current systems and programs are. There are entirely too many people with no ‘infirmity’ other than sheer laziness who have become professional “welfare junkies”, and in fact, in the inner cities, our benevolence has created entire generations of a permanant underclass who have become incapable of caring for themselves due to our “help”.
Mexicos problems are precisely that, MEXICO’s problems. NAFTA gave them the opportunity to access the markets throughout the region and they failed to capitalize on that opportunity. At this point, since so many of their people are already here, I’m beginning to wonder if it wouldn’t be in all of our best interests for the US to simply take over and make Mexico our 51st State!
As for your Mr. Harper, I can understand why he is so disdainful of your activists, especially if they’re anywhere near as ignorant and annoying as ours (and from what I’ve seen, your’s are MUCH worse). Take the current situation in Iraq for instance, we’ve got US Senators and Congressmen standing at their lecturns telling the world that we’ve somehow ‘lost’ the war on terrorism when we’ve taken fewer casualties in the past 6 years than in almost any single major battle of WWII, and to what purpose do these traitors make their pronouncements, to satisfy their quite vocal, blithering idiot constituancy! I learned a very long time ago that most people are entirely too stupid to realize how stupid they really are, unfortunately though, they have the same “freedom of speech” as everyone else, and take every opportunity to “speak to power” even when what they’re saying doesn’t make a DAMN BIT OF SENSE!
As far as the “take overs” of Canadian business by US corporations, what difference does it make who owns the company? If it was such a great company to begin with, and it was such an “institution”, the why didn’t a Canadian buy it? Sentimentality is all well and good, but it doesn’t feed the wife and kids. So many of our own US ‘institutions’ have been lost to overseas competition simply because of all of the protectionism and bad management, and now they’re being overshadowed by foreign competition. When Detroits auto makers bowed to the demands of the Unions, they themselves opened the door for Japanese auto makers to come in and take over the market share that had traditionally been ours and ours alone. This is another example of “helping” people to the point that they can no longer take care of themselves. Their own greed has put them out of a job and now they’re on welfare and all the rest, all on our, MY, tax dollars!
July 19, 2007 at 3:26 am
str8shooter: you’ve made some good points, even though I tend to disagree on some of them. I won’t go into the Iraq War now, as it’s another long story. The US invaded a country on manufactured ‘evidence’, then kept changing the story: ie, Saddam’s WMDs, then when that didn’t pan out, equating him with the terrorists of 9/11 (most of whom were Saudis!!), then when that would no longer wash ‘regime change’ became the reason. I happen to think that the reasons were entirely different… And yes, it did add fuel to ‘terrorism’, and no, the GWOT can not be won by decimating Iraq, or any other country for that matter…
You and I seem to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum. However, that does not preclude us from having a discussion. (I actually have acquaintances whose opinions are similar to yours. So whenever we get together, we keep the political topics light, focussing instead on our similarities. That is the way we get along…
I welcome your comments anytime, whether or not you disagree/agree with me. As long as the tone is civil, exchange of ideas is good. It helps us see another viewpoint and make us think. We are not mirror images of one another. It’s our diversity that enhances dialogue, opens up discussions, keeps things interesting, helps us learn and understand. This diversity of views and ideologies should not divide people. Rather, it should be our common ground as human beings…
Take care and have a good night.
Annamarie
July 21, 2007 at 7:16 am
I’m just passing by and won’t have time to contribute much as I’m mostly offline these days. One thought.
Canada is stretched out along the U.S. border in a thin ribbon of population. The first forty years of our establishment as a country there was a constant fight to keep a tariff wall for one over-riding reason. Leaving it open would have mean geography would be free to be the most important factor in trade - in which case north-south movement of goods would predominate and we could kiss our country goodbye.
The determination to institute ‘free trade’ with Canada - suitably jimmied so it would not be equitable- was on the CIA agenda in 1945. Almost 50 years later the Progressive Conservative government fell when the election platform of Free Trade and Government Sales Tax was the election platform. The opposition won handily - and instituted the policies they were elected to defeat.
The U.S. is not Canada’s friend - neither is the C.I.A. It’s really not that hard to figure out.
July 23, 2007 at 12:25 am
Opit, thanks for stopping by and for commenting. Well said, as always!
best regards, annamarie
July 24, 2007 at 1:32 am
Verbana,
If I may be so bold to suggest, you really need to quit getting your (dis)information from the lamestream media and left wing groups who’s only agenda is discrediting President Bush (as opposed to telling the TRUTH), and start looking at primary documentation if you’re serious about understanding OEF and OIF. Nothing was “manufactured” except for all of the biological and chemical weapons that Saddam had, in his possession, after Desert Storm, including the ones that he used against his own people, right under the noses of those completely incompetent UN ‘inspectors’ (you know, the ones that couldn’t find those same said weapons before he DID use them). Also, let’s not forget the fact that Saddam not only allowed Al Qaeda to train in Iraq, before OIF, but that he also funded and supplied them with arms and expert military instructors to train them. All of this has been very clearly documented repeatedly, and is undisputed since before, and following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There’s also that funny little sticking point about Saddams people not only having direct contact with the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, but funding and supplying them long before they even arrived in the US, this is also undisputed by any but the most ardent Kool-Aide swillers or the willfully ignorant.
As far as the GWOT, and how to win it, fighting them whenever and where ever they happen to be is how that’s done, just like it was in fighting the Baider Meinhoff Gang, Red Brigade, Red Army Faction, Action Directe, Black September, and any number of other terrorist groups that we were dealing with back in the 70’s. If they want to go to Iraq to fight us, and attempt to prevent the Iraqi people from being able to determine for themselves what type of government they wish to have, and who will run that government, then by all means we welcome them to go, especially since it means we WON’T be having to fight them on the streets of Chicago, Atlanta, New York, San Francisco, Ontario, Toronto, Calgary, or Vancouver. It’s also much easier to kill them outright in the open terrain of Iraq than in the heavily wooded terrain of North America which is one of the reasons that contrary to all of the BS from the lamestream media, our casualties have been so light over the past 4 years. Our mission is not now, nor was it ever to decimate Iraq, it was to remove Saddam from power, assist the people of Iraq to establish their own government in whatever shape they chose to craft it, and provide security for that government until their Police and military are able to do it for themselves (Marshall Plan anyone?), and that mission, to date, has been more or less successful (not always pretty or necessarily the most efficient, but successful none the less). Let us not forget that it took our own (US) government 11 years, AFTER the Declaration of Independence, AFTER fighting an 8 year war FOR that independence (which when one considers the infighting between the Colonials and the Loyalists wasn’t that dissimilar from the present day situation in Iraq), before we had a Constitution that all 13 Colonies could agree to and adopt (and the fact that we shipped all of the Loyalists out of our new country after the war was over too, which is where a lot of your fellow citizens came from!).
I agree that a civil discussion if far more advantageous to understanding than the constant vitriolic epithets that is so prevelent today, but I find that discussing contrary view points is generally the best way to acquire that understanding as not much can be gleaned by ‘preaching to the choir’. The thing that bothers me the most though is when people espouse a viewpoint by regurgitating what the talking heads on the idiot box say without attempting to ascertain the validity of those talking points. Such inane parroting is all well and good for cocktail parties and mindless office gossip, but it merely serves to amplify ones lack of serious intellectual curiosity, especially when attempting to discuss those issues with someone who HAS bothered to ‘do their homework’.
Here’s hoping you have a good evening.
July 24, 2007 at 1:42 am
Opit,
The main reason that your population is strung out along OUR northern border is so that they could avail themselves of OUR goods and services while attempting to delude themselves that they really were a proper ‘territory’, and later, a ’soveriegn nation’. If it weren’t for our largess throughout the late 18th and early to mid 19th centuries, Canada, as a country, would have folded like a cheap suit and it’s citizenry been forced to return to Mother England. Your entire country exists only due to our good will and financial support (and our intention to maintain good relations with Great Britain despite the Revolutionary War and the conflict in 1812), so if you’re under the impression that WE’RE the problem, I would suggest that you take a much longer, and harder, look in the mirror. The United States can exist quite nicely, and easily, without Canada thank you very much, but the converse cannot be said.
July 24, 2007 at 3:29 am
str8shooter, I really must disagree with all your statements about Saddam, Iraq, Bush and the War, including GWOT. OIF was not started for the reasons you say. I read much, diverse material, not just the ‘lamestream’ media which I consider to be mainly obtuse and indeed ‘lame’. I suggest you read Tom Engelhardt’s material on Tomdispatch.com (http://www.tomdispatch.com) among others. Dahr Jamail also has lots of ‘reality’ on his MidEast Dispatches (http://dahrjamailiraq.com) website. He is an independent American journalist who travels extensively to Iraq and the Middle East, and has firsthand, unembedded accounts of the situation.
And yes, although we seem to be on diametrically opposite sides, we still manage to carry on a civil discourse. That is good.
You have a good evening too.
Annamarie
July 25, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Dont let history repeat itself. We need to protest this NORTH AMERICAN UNION. It is design to give up your land and freedom to a world gov. Then the amero will come in and it will be a total scam to our economy. Same thing that did happen in europe with the euro. WAKE UP PEOPLE BEFORE ITS TO LATE. THE BUSH DOCTRINE IS AT OUR DOOR!
July 25, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Thanks, Frank! Please help spread the word by telling everyone you know about the SPP. Otherwise, it will be further implemented before we realise what happened.
As far as I know, so far only BC (Burnaby-New Westminster) MP Peter Julian of the NDP is doing something about it. He has a Motion to be debated in Parl’t this fall. Check out his website for more info, download the Motion, and print out & sign his petition. Wherever you go this summer, try to get people to add their signatures so that Peter has something more to take back with him in the fall…. Our government must know that we, the Canadian people, do NOT approve of this insidious ‘partnership’. They were trying to hold the Montebello planning meeting in SECRET, but the Council of Canadians — and a few others — got wind of it.
~annamarie
July 25, 2007 at 11:53 pm
str8shooter, YOUR A MORONIC SHEEPLE! And don’t know what the HELL is REALLY GOING ON! Fact, TREASONOUS BUSH got us into NAU, SECRETLY in 2005, without our’s or Congress’s consent! IT WILL WIPE AMERICA AND OUR PRECIOUS FREEDOM’S OUT, YOU MORONS! FACTS! We would NO longer be called American’s but North Americanists! We would NO longer have our precious Constitution, you idiots! NO longer would Canada and U.S. nor Mexico have their soverighty! FACTS! IT WOULD WIPE AMERICA OUT! AND F*CKING BUSH AND OTHERS IN CONGRESS WHO SUPPORT NAU AND SPP ARE OUT AND OUT TRAITORS, FACTS! And IF you still support Bush after him getting U.S. into NAU and SPP YOUR A F*CKING TRAITOR TOO! FACT! Go to http://www.stopthenau.org and read up on how it will WIPE OUT AMERICA, YOU STUPID ASSES! And Bush is using our troops like Hitler used his! As pawns in needless wars and to suppress other citizens in other nations! WE MUST EDUCATE OUR TROOPS AND NOW HOW BAD NAU IS AND HOW IT WILL DESTROY AMERICA FROM WITHIN AND ALSO TO HAVE THEM REFUSE TO BE POLICE TO TYRANNY,OPPRESSION AND TREASON! AND NOW! And to my fellow protester’s in Canada against NAU and SPP, I am soo very sorry for treasonous Bush doing this! How can I help you out?
July 25, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Right ON Frank! Spread the word FAST IN CANADA AND U.S. TOO! And right letters to editor’s in BOTH COUNTRIES ON THIS! STOP THE NAU AND NOW BEFORE THEY WIPE OUT U.S., CANADA AND MEXICO AND IT IS PURE EVIL NEW WORLD ORDER AGENDA DOING THIS FOR ONE WORLD GOV’T WHICH IS TYRANNY, OPPRESSION AND TREASON! PERIOD! AND ANYONE SUPPORTING BUSH’S AGENDA OR ANY FOREIGN LEADER’S AGENDA THAT IS PRO-NAU IS A TREASONOUS TRAITORS, FACT! Spread the word widely and FAST! WE MUST GET THE WORD OUT AND NOW! Go to http://www.stopthenua.org and get DVD’s and bumpersticke’rs too and NOW! Write letters to editors and like and NOW! GET UP OFF YOUR LAZY ASSES IN AMERICA AND DEFEND AMERICA FROM TREASONOUS BUSH AND COHORTS IN BOTH PARTIES AND NOW BEFORE THEY DESTROY AMERICA AND OUR PRECIOUS FREEDOMS FROM WITHIN! And just so you know too, and need to wake up to also, that 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB TOO! FACTS! ALL TRUE!
July 26, 2007 at 12:03 am
Verbana,
If you would care to expoud a bit further on exactly what it is you don’t ‘agree’ with concerning Saddam, OIF, and GWOT, I will be more than happy to provide you with any and all information to support what I have previously stated, not only from the ‘lamestream’ media, but also from un-, and declassified gov’t sources. Simply put, we went into Iraq because Saddam not only was still in possession of WMD, but had planned on reconstituting the programs the UN had managed to disband and disable the minute they left the country, and this has been evidenced by the transcrips of his own recorded conversations with his sons! There is also the fact of the convoys of suspected (I use the word suspected advisedly since satellites cannot ‘prove’ what was in those convoys) WMD’s that were spirited across the border into Syria, and later into Lebanon, on the eve of the invasion, and we still know where ‘whatever’ was in those trucks is in Syria and Lebanon. Also, as an aside, do you dispute that Saddam used Biological and Chemical weapons against his own people?
As for the sources you provided, I will check them out later this evening, but the vast majority of information I’ve been getting about Iraq and Afghanistan since 9-11 has been coming from the first hand accounts of Soldiers and Airmen (both Officers and Enlisted) who have returned from tours in those fetid parts of the world (I live near a major military installations and have many friends and associates who are on Active Duty in the Army and Air Force), and I give their assessments of the situations there much more credence than the vast majority of what’s coming out of the liberal controlled “news” agencies who are attempting to use the GWOT as a cudgel against the President.
July 26, 2007 at 1:04 am
str8shooter, i hope you rott in HELL. Your a globalist. One day the Mexican army could be patroling your AMERICAN streets (all in the name if terrorism). You are one ignorant man.
July 26, 2007 at 4:13 pm
[...] as many as 10,000 people could assemble in Quebec to demonstrate. One particular activist group, Canadian Action Party , has taken issue with US troops coordinating operations for the confab on Canadian soil while [...]
July 26, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Verbena19 I am also an American but believe that U.S. Military should not be on Canadian soil against Canadian citizenry anymore than they should be on U.S. soil against their own people. Unfortunately Posse Comitatus is no longer honored here. Also unfortunate is the fact that we have German, Belgian soldiers already within our borders to do exactly what our military is doing in your country. The Mexican army crosses our Southern border with great regularity and has been seen armed several hundred miles past the border in Texas. The Mexican army has also killed American citizens but you never hear about it on mainstream media. This is not a unique problem to any country anymore - and will not stop until citizens everywhere wake up and stand up. Good luck to you and others that think like you. Stay safe.
July 26, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Amen Big Billy Bob you must be a fellow Texan!
July 26, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Cedarsprig, thank you so much for your input. I was not aware that the situation is as bad as it is. Indeed, people everywhere need to wake up and take actions before we lose our countries entirely. Please help get the information out… and let others know… You stay safe too.
best regards, annamarie
July 26, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I think there is a common bond between many countries these days. A favorite quote of mine summarizes what GWB has used the war in Iraq for — “Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword, it both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.” This was also done by Adolf Hitler. There are older naturalized citizens I know that came from Poland, and Argentina that recognize what happened to their country is happening here. Our constitution is so neutered by “executive orders” that we are warned about talking against GWB, the war in Iraq, the government as being unpatriotic and under The Patriot Act (HAHA) and we can be taken into custody. When patriotism is just that - the freedom to be able to say “You are not doing things in the best interest of our country” Our Republic (and that is what America is, not a Democracy which is just two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner) which is a system of checks and balances is being destroyed by our leaders lying to us, sending our military into places they have no right to be, and the incremental destruction of our constituion, our laws, our honor and our way of life. It is dark in America but there is an honest, patriotic belief growing and hopefully it will grow quickly to reinstate America back to its people where it belongs.
July 26, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Also, str8shooter - My son was in Iraq and the story that he and others are bringing back are not the ones that you are being told. You are being misinformed. Either your sources are blindly following the lies or they are part of the problem. I suggest you broaden your information base. And look with your fresh eyes at the problem. You love Americ no doubt, but as it once was; take the time “just in case” to see what is happening today. Prove me wrong.
July 27, 2007 at 2:33 am
Cedarsprig, your honest, heartfelt words show that there are many good, true Americans who love their country and for what it used to stand. People like you give hope that perhaps it may still not be too late to turn back the tide… The power is in the people. The ruling oligarchs fear the common people if they stand united. History has shown this. But the people must awaken to realities, instead of believing what their corrupt leaders brainwash into them, aided and abetted by a neutered, compliant media… The corporate rulers care not about their country and its citizens. They care only about power which furthers their hegemonic agenda, their insatiable ‘appetites’, their quest for power for its own sake … They feel that the entire globe is theirs to do with as they wish… It is easy to feed the egos of corrupt, power-hungry politicians in order to advance these interests… To brainwash the citizenry is the easiest part. Divide and conquer, then play the ‘fear’ and ‘patriotism’ card. Instead of people, you now have ’sheeple’ who will blindly follow any outrageous edict… But the power is in the people by their sheer numbers, if only they put differences aside and UNITE FOR THE COMMON GOOD!!!
str8shooter — I have heard completely different stories back from Iraq too, told by soldiers who were there. I agree with Cedarsprig that you are misinformed. Please listen to your countryman/woman and broaden your information. As for what you say about Saddam: yes, he was a no-good sob, but he posed no threat to us. He forcibly kept the various factions of his country together. He committed heinous acts against his own people. He was also being aided by the US for a while, until he started getting too cocky and making too many waves. (Remember the chummy meeting between Saddam and Rummy a few years back? The ‘lamestream’ media described him as “avuncular” and “friendly” back then….) May I suggest you read a very illuminating book by Greg Palast called “Armed Madhouse”. You will find a link to it on my sidebar… btw, it has been proven that those WMD’s you’re talking about that were supposedly shipped to Syria in convoys were nothing. They were not WMD’s. Saddam really did not have them. When the truth finally came out about this, the official stance was changed to ‘we are in Iraq to stop al-Queda before they attack us again”…. but Saddam had NO CONNECTION TO AL-QUEDA!! He was a controlling despot and a secular Sunni!! He would allow NO DISSENT, let alone a group so fundamentalist as al-Queda. If you want al-Queda’s leader Usama bin Laden, why not go after him in the hills of Tora Bora where he was allegedly already cornered????? Why invade Iraq???? Ask yourself some questions, then seek to find the truth. Do not blindly believe. Your leaders are NOT ABOVE THE LAW!! DO NOT IDOLIZE or WORSHIP THEM!! THEY ARE NOT GODS, THEY ARE MERE MORTALS, and often VERY CORRUPT MORTALS, as evidenced by the present regime. (Not that there weren’t corrupt leaders/regimes in your country before, but this one is the WORST, most overtly corrupt! This administration doesn’t even try to hide the fact that it is corrupt. The regime’s mouthpieces shamelessly subvert facts, while it’s main puppet issues one insane Executive Order after another, all the while robbing you blind of everything, including your self respect… )
Sadly, my country will not fare much better if we allow the present regime here to grow more powerful — unabated, unchecked. I am hoping that by the time the next federal election comes around, Canadians will have awakened from their stupor (if they can tear themselves away from ‘reality-tv’ and ipods long enough) and tune into the ‘true reality’ of what is taking place around us…
July 27, 2007 at 2:36 am
Cedarsprig: btw, I really like that quote you put up. Thanks for bringing it back to my mind.
July 27, 2007 at 4:21 am
Kudos to you on trying to maintain a civilized dialogue with an initially hostile str8shooter. And to his credit, he seems to have countered in kind for the most part, though I disagree with most of what he said.
However, what he said about Saddam is a whitewash. Saddam was a monster to his own people it is true, especially in earlier years when he was friends with Rummy, but in the time leading up to the US of invasion of 2003, it is well known that he was NOT a threat to any other country, he had NO wmds, he did NOT have a relationship with Al Qaeda (in fact he detested them). If any of this were in fact true, we all know full well that they White House, and Fox News for that matter, would spare no effort in spouting it.
July 27, 2007 at 5:07 am
Oil and Water
If the US does not get lucky in Iraq, then they will be paddling up river to see if Canada has any.
Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green parties need to force discussion on SPP in the House of Commons.
It is not more complex than this. There are no many words. We have a government it should be used.
July 27, 2007 at 5:09 am
Hmm… darn, keybooard… spelling…
It is not more complex than this. There are too many words. We have a government it should be used.
July 27, 2007 at 5:27 am
Thanks, Stephen! Yes, I agree with you about Saddam… Indeed, he was a monster to his own people but he was not a serious threat to anyone else (unless you consider his manipulation of the oil bourse a ’serious threat’). As bad as he was, most Iraqis agree that life under his despotic reign was still MUCH BETTER than now under the US/Coalition occupation. In their haste to advance their agenda when political manueuvring and voting fraud gave them the gullible, swaggering Texan puppet, the American neo-cons failed to do their homework. They know very little about the history of Iraq and even less about the factions and complexities that make up Iraqi society — or the complex history of the Middle East, for that matter…
I also disagree with most of what str8shooter said but he seems like a good person, albeit a misinformed one…. His heart is in the right place and he is very patriotic, loves his country. Sadly, despotic governments unscrupulously conflate this patriotism with blind obedience. With help from the obeisant media, the traitor-leaders saturate their citizenry with misinformation campaigns and outright lies — which work best on those who consider themselves most patriotic for they tend to view their Chief as infallible… The more cynical a person is, the harder the work of turning him/her into a ‘believer-follower’. If misinformation takes too long to achieve the desired effect, then subjugate them by fear, edicts, executive orders, decrees, shocks, divisions, etc. This usually works so well that they don’t even have use the last resort: bringing in the military, hence a bloodless coup against Democracy…. That’s in a nutshell how tyrannical governments seize power before the hapless people know what happened.
We in Canada can’t sit back on our laurels either. If the present neoCon regime continues unchecked, we will soon be facing the same fate as our southern neighbours. We can kiss our sovereignty, civil liberties, health-care, social programs and freedoms good-bye. We, too, must wake up. APATHY IS NOT AN OPTION!
best regards to you, Annamarie
July 27, 2007 at 6:16 am
JDSmith: You hit the nail on the head. Oil and Water is what’s at the root of it all.
Up to now, only the NDP’s Peter Julian (MP Burnaby-New Westminster) is showing concern about the SPP. He has a motion for debate at the Standing Committee on International Trade in the fall session of Parliament, He also has a petition to the Government of Canada from the Citizens of Canada. It is: “A CALL TO SUSPEND THE SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA (SPP) ON CONTINENTAL INTEGRATION”.
The Petition is for downloading, getting as many signatures as we can during what’s left of our summer, then send them back to Peter in the ppaid envelope (included with the download). You can find it all on his website: http://www.peterjulian.ca/category/id/16/all
~ Stop the Sellout of Canada: TAKE ACTION ~ Help Stop Deep Integration ~ Support the NDP motion and sign the petition!
I strongly URGE ALL CANADIANS TO SIGN THIS PETITION AND GET AS MANY SIGNATURES AS YOU CAN!! Then remember to send them back to Peter Julian before the fall session of Parliament.
July 27, 2007 at 6:22 am
PS to Stephen: I meant to add the piece about Peter Julian’s motion and his petition, but left it off my earlier comment by mistake. Hit the wrong button without realizing it… seems like JDSmith isn’t the only one with keyboard problems…
July 27, 2007 at 8:53 pm
…{Big Billy Bob Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 1:04 am
str8shooter, i hope you rott in HELL. Your a globalist. One day the Mexican army could be patroling your AMERICAN streets (all in the name if terrorism). You are one ignorant man.}…
Billy Bob, your tin foil hat has slipped off! I am no more a “globalist” than you are, but perhaps the polysyllabic collocation confused you. Each of our nations is entitled to is’s own sovereignty PROVIDED that they don’t interfere with the affairs of any other nation WITHOUT their consent. Our troops are in Canada at the INVITATION of the Canadian gov’t, and strictly to provide security for our President during his visit there, PERIOD!
As far as your assertion concerning my alleged ignorance, perhaps if your own intelligence quotient were larger than your boot size (which, BTW, you appear to have on the wrong feet!), you would have been able to elucidate your specific objections to my expressed stance on the particular issue you seem to have taken umbrage.
Also, BTDT, but was released because the SOB was afraid I was going to TAKE OVER!
July 27, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Cedarsprig Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Also, str8shooter - My son was in Iraq and the story that he and others are bringing back are not the ones that you are being told. You are being misinformed. Either your sources are blindly following the lies or they are part of the problem. I suggest you broaden your information base. And look with your fresh eyes at the problem. You love Americ no doubt, but as it once was; take the time “just in case” to see what is happening today. Prove me wrong.
Cedarsprig,
I completely trust the men I get my information from, primarily as they are men whom I have known for years (many from long before 9-11), and each of them are members of the 82nd Airborne Division, Special Forces, or AFSOC. They are ALL out on the sharp end of the spear (several of them have MULTIPLE Purple Hearts for their trouble), so lacking your sons Bona Fides, I will continue to accept what my brothers are telling me. It would appear that you have fallen victim to the lamestream medias coverage, or should I say lack thereof, of all of the good that has been, and continues to be done over there including schools that are now operating in Iraq and Afghanistan (with, for the first time EVER, female students attending), the hospitals that are fully operational, the electricity that is now in towns and villiages that never had it before, CLEAN running water in towns and villiages that until our invasion were still getting their water from hand drawn wells, and the list goes on.
As to your challenge to “prove me wrong”, perhaps if you could provide something specific TO prove wrong I might be able to do so, or perhaps I’d be readily willing to acknowledge that something is in fact wrong and in need of attention. I eagerly await your reply.
July 27, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Verbana,
I must say that after reading some of the replies in this thread, my suspicion that most Liberals are incapable of intelligently elucidating anything even closely resembling a cogent thought has been, once again, proven correct. Add to that, their propensity to resort to hurling invectives rather than facts or pertainant intelligent thought only serves to further convince me of my previous conclusions, I’m only grateful that even though we disagree on certain issues that you have been able to engage in thoughtful contemplative discourse (maybe you can suggest that some of your other ‘guests’ might follow your lead?).
July 27, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Verbana,
Perhaps you will find the following infomation helpful in understanding the FACTS about Saddam, which contradict what you’ve been spoonfed by the lamestream media (and the funny thing is that ALL of this is from that same-said lamestream media!).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml
Saddam’s WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm
U.S. transferred uranium from Iraq without U.N. authorization
OTHER TIES BETWEEN SADDAM AND TERRORISM, INCLUDING DIRECTLY BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA AND THE 9-11 ATTACKS (Each of these came from ‘Major’ news agencies and not the ‘fringe’ junk “news” sources)
Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, the ringleader of the 1993 WTC attacks, entered the US before the attack on an Iraqi passport.
Evidence recovered in Tikrit by US Forces clearly show that Indiana born, Iraqi raised and Al Qaeda member Mr. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who had mixed the explosives for the 1993 WTC attack that killed 6 and injured another 1,042 Americans, had not only been allowed to travel freely in Iraq and visit his father’s home almost daily, but that Saddam gave him sanctuary, a home and a monthly stipend as reward for his role in the attack.
January 5, 2000 – Iraqi VIP facilitator Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was dispatched from Baghdad’s Embassy in Malaysia to meet Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at the airport in Kuala Lampur where he was ‘employed’. He then took them to their hotel where these soon-to-be 9-11 hijackers met with their fellow conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later Shakir went missing until his arrest in Qatar on September 17, 2001, where documents both on his person at the time of his arrest, and located in his apartment in the subsequent investigation indicated that he was not only involved in the 1993 WTC attacks, but also in the 1995 Al Qaeda plan entitled “Operation Bojinka” which was to simultaneously destroy 12 airliners over the Pacific.
The Czech government maintains the veracity of it’s intelligence that on April 22, 2001, 9-11 terrorist Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi Diplomat/Intelligence Officer Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir al Ani in Prague, a meeting that resulted in his expulsion due to his activities not being compatible with his diplomatic status.
March 11, 2002- Tariq Aziz announces that Saddam has increased the bounties to be paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers from $10,000.00 to up to $25,000.00
March 13, 2002- Carol Ritter of Knight Ritter, reporting from Gaza City said “In a graduation-style ceremony Wednesday, the families of 22 Palestinians killed fighting Israelis received checks for $10,000 or more, certificates of appreciation and a kiss on each cheek- compliments of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.” She added: “The certificates declared the gift from President Saddam Hussein; the checks were cut at a Gaza branch of the Cairo-Amman bank.”
Between March 11, 2002 when Saddam announced the increase in the “bounty”, and the March 20, 2003 start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 suicide bombers killed 223, and wounded 1,209 people, including 12 Americans.
Following his capture on April 25, 2002 Iraq’s former Ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison between Iraq and Al Qaeda admitted that he had met with senior Al Qaeda leaders in 1994 at Saddam Hussein’s request.
April 14, 2002, Special Forces teams operating outside Baghdad captured Abu Abbas, the mastermind behing the Achille Lauro hijacking, where he had been living under the protection of Saddam Hussein since 2000.
April 18, 2002, Khala Khadr al Salahat of the ANO surrendered to members of the First MARDIV. The Sunday Times of London quoted a Palestinian source as saying that al Salahat and Nidal had furnished the Libyans with the Semtex used to bring down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, killing all 259 on board (including 189 Americans) and another 11 on the ground
According to the May 21, 2002 report entitled Patterns of Global Terrorism, published by the US State Department, Abu Nidal Organization, Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, Kurdistan Workers’ Party, Muhahedin-e-Khalq Organization, and the PLO all operated offices or bases inside Iraq in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687.
In testimony before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 31, 2002, former Iraqi nuclear weapons chief Khidir Hamza testified that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States had received training in terrorist tactics at the camp at Salman Pak which included training in assassination, explosives and hijacking. This testimony was corroborated an interview of former Iraqi Captain Sabah Khodada in an October 14, 2001 interview on PBS’s Frontline, in which Khodada, who had worked at Salman Pak stated that the training included kidnapping, hijacking of aircraft, trains, and public buses as well as use and concealment of explosives and suicide operations.
Before killing himself rather than be taken alive by US forces in August of 2002, Abu Nidal had been a guest of Saddam Hussein since at least 1999. Nidal, was responsible for attacks in at least 20 countries dating back to the early 1970’s, killing 407 people and wounding another 788.
The October 2002 assassination of US diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman Jordan was arranged by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former director of Al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan, who had fled to Iraq after being wounded during the fall of the Taliban and recovered from his injuries before starting an Ansar al Islam terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq.
The November 14, 2002 edition of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper, which was published by none other than Uday Hussein, published it’s “List of Honor” in which it listed the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis including “Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, Intelligence Officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama Bin Laden group at the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan.” Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod was the Iraqi Ambassador to Islamabad in November of 2002. This edition of the paper was found in Baghdad by Federal Court of Appeals Judge Gilbert S. Merritt while assisting in the rebuilding of the Iraqi legal system, and noted in an article in the June 25 edition of the Tennessean that two of his Iraqi associates remembered Iraqi Secret Police going to great lengths to remove the publication from newsstands and homes as it was feared that it could be used as evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda following the 9-11 attacks.
February 13, 2003 – The government of the Philippines expels Hisham al Hussein, the Second Secretary at the Iraqi Embassy in Manila after discovering through his cell phone records that he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, the leaders of Abu Sayyaf immediately before and shortly after their Al Qaeda sponsored group attack in Zamboanga City which resulted in the deaths of two Filipinos and US Special Forces SFC Mark Wayne Jackson.
Manhattan Federal Judge, Harold Baer (a Clinton appointee) has held that Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and others to pay the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, who were killed in the 9-11 WTC terrorist attack, $104 Million dollars after hearing evidence “satisfactory to the court” that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and a Federal Judgment has been secured against them.
=============================================================
Now, if you have evidence to contradict any of this, from equally ‘accepted’ sources, I will be MORE than happy to consider it.
Take care and God bless.
July 27, 2007 at 10:07 pm
One last thing for this evening if I may be so bold, do ANY of you have ANY concept of historical perspective? President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld (then President and CEO of a private pharmeceutical company) as a Special Envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein, who was, by default, our “ally” in the region. It was nothing more than a case of the age old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Following the release of our hostages from Iran in 1980, the year after Saddam officially came to power in Iraq, our relations with Iran were strained to say the least, and Iraq was at that time involved in open hostilities against Iran, so officially meeting with the relatively new leader of Iraq was only prudent.
Suffice it to say, all of this “Rummy met with Saddam” ranting is intellictually bankrupt moral cowardess and a clear indication of the fatuity of anyone who attempts to broker such drivel in a serious discussion.
July 28, 2007 at 12:06 am
Str8shooter:
You have given me much to ponder… I had not seen those articles to which you refer. However, ‘FoxNews’ is one that I do not take seriously. I’ve seen too much biased, logorrheic diatribe which passes for discourse, commentary or news on there… (I tend to refer to it as ‘faux news’).
However, I will search around for more pertinent info and will post anything contradictory, as time permits…
Your comment to Cedarsprig indicates that there are divergent views on the same issue. Cedarsprig’s son and his fellow soldiers are right in telling of things that they have seen (and perhaps done), and your fellow soldiers are also right in telling their stories. Different people, different perspectives. One does not necessarily negate the other. It just shows the complexities of a divisive, brutal war — as indeed are most wars. Personally, I am a proponent of peaceful, diplomatic negotiations and solutions. I feel that wars mostly offer band-aid ‘fixes’ to deeper issues, which simmer, only to resurface later with even worse consequences… Also, it has been shown throughout our turbulent history, that civilians pay the much higher casualty costs of wars. (I know that this likely will not be agreeable to you, being a military man, but there I go again, ‘assuming’…
As hard as it sometimes is, I do try my utmost to comprehend all sides of a situation, and to at least try to understand anothers’ views… None of us are entirely unbiased, for we all are products of our upbringing, schooling, circumstances, the community in which we live and the personal experiences that shape our lives. Our experiences and learning are ongoing and these shape our views. Humans are sentient beings, not static. We can not say with absolute certainty that the way we feel today, we will feel tomorrow…. Two people can witness the same event, yet their reporting of that event may paint a rather different picture…. (But I seem to have digressed…
Anyway, I’ll let you know when I find those contradictory articles, ok?
Until then, take care and best regards,
Annamarie
July 28, 2007 at 12:54 am
“Suffice it to say, all of this “Rummy met with Saddam” ranting is intellictually bankrupt moral cowardess and a clear indication of the fatuity of anyone who attempts to broker such drivel in a serious discussion.”
I’m going to take that as an insult directed at me.
It is absolutely relevant. My enemy of my enemy is my friend is a copout, especially when you know that your enemy of your enemy is partaking in grave human rights violations. The intellectually bankruptcy is rather apparent on the part of those who ignored rave human rights violations in the 80s, and then condemned later on when it was convenient for them. I am transcribing the following from the Great War for Civilization by Rober Fisk.
“Throughout the early years of Saddam’s rule, there were journalists who told the truth about his regime while governments — for financial, trade and economic reasons — preferred to remain largely silent. Yet those of us who opposed the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 were quickly accused of being Saddam’s ’spokesman’ or, in my case, ’supporting the maintenance of the Baathis regime’ — this from, of all people, Richard Perle, one of the prime instigators of the whole disastrous war, whose friend Donald Rumsfeld was befirneding Saddam in 1983. Two years later Rumsfeld’s initial approach to the Iraqi leader — followed up within months by a meeting with Tariq Aziz — I was reporting on Saddam’s gang-rape and torture in Iraq prisons. On 31 July, Wahbi Al-Qaraghuli, the Iraqi ambassador in London, complained to William Rees-Mogg, the Times Editor, that:
Robert Fisks’s extremely one-sided article ignores the tremendous advances made by Iraq in the fields of social welfare, education, agricultural development, urban improvement and women’s suffrage;and he claims, without presenting any evidence to support such an accusation, that ‘Saddam himself imposes a truly terrorist regimeon his own people.’ Especially outrageous is the statement that: ‘Suspected critics of the regime have been imprisoned at Abu Ghoraib (sic) jail and forced to watch their wives being gang-raped by Saddam’s security me. Some prisoner’s have had to witness their children being tortured in from of them.’ It is utterly reprehensible that some journalists are quite prepared, without any supporting collaboration, to repeat wild, unfounded allegations about countries, such as Iraq…
‘Extremely one-sided,’ ‘without presenting any evidence,’ ‘outrageous,’ ‘utterly reprehensible,’ ‘wild, unfounded allegatioons’: these were the very same expressions used by the Americans and the British almost twenty years later about reports by myself or my colleagues which catalogued the illegal invasion of Iraq and its disastrous consequences. In February 1986, I was refused a visa to Baghadad on the grounds that ‘another visit by Mr. Fisk to Iraq would lend undue credibility to his reports.’ Indeed it would.
Sofor all these years — until his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 — we in the West tolerated Saddam’s cruelty, his oppression and torture, his war crimes and mass murder. After allo, we helped to create him. The CIA gave locations of communist cadres to the first Baathist government, information that was used to arrest, torture and execute hundreds of Iraqi men. And the closer Saddam camre to war with Iraq, the greater his fear of his own Shia opoulation, the more we helped him. In the pageant of hate figures that Western governments and journalists have helped to stage in the middle East — peopled by Nasser, Ghadafi, Abu Nidal and, at one point, Yassir Arafat — Ayatollah Khiomeini was our bogeyman of the early 1980s, the troublesome priest who wanted to Islamicise the world, whose stated intention was to spread his revolution. Saddam, far from being a dictator, thus became, on the Associated Press news wires, for example — ‘a strongman.’ He was our bastion — and the Arab world’s bastion — against Islamic ‘extremism.’ Even after the Israelis bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, our support for Saddam did on waver. Nor did we respond to Saddam’s clear intention of driving his country to war with Iran. The signs of impending conflict were everywhere. Even Shapour Bakhitiar, the Shah’s last prime minister, was helping to stoke opposition to Khomeni from Iraq, as I discovered when I visited him in his wealthy — but dangerous — Paris exile in August 1980.” (pp. 207-9)
Here is another passage from Fisk’s book:
“What we had to forget if we were to support this madness, needless to say, was that President Ronald Reason dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It was essential to forget this for three reasons. First, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians –which was one of the reasons we were now supposed to go to war with him. Second, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US embassy — in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghad. And third, because the envoy was Donald Rumsfeld. One might have thought it strange, in the course of his folksy press conference, that Rumsfeld hadn’t chatted to use about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would wish to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no. Until questioned much later about whether he warned Saddam against the use of gas — he claimed he did, but this proved to be untrue — Rumsfeld was silent. As he was about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz — which just happened to take place on the day in March 1984 that the UN released its damning report on Saddam’s use of poison gas against Iran.” (pp. 1115-6)
July 28, 2007 at 1:37 am
Stephen, thanks for your elucidating comment. Goes to show that many people’s hands were dirty with Saddam’s crimes. As we know, politics indeed makes strange bedfellows: enemies one day, ‘friends’ the next. It is a dirty, nasty, dangerous ‘game’ being played out on the world’s stage. Key players make decisions that affect the common people, often devastatingly. The common people are expendable to these ‘key players’ whose agenda are far more important to them than mere human lives. Tragic but true.
And it thoroughly disgusts me, as does the subsequent self-righteous pontificating of these very same key players/leaders….
Str8shooter: In your comment above to Big Billy Bob’s, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this: “Also, BTDT, but was released because the SOB was afraid I was going to TAKE OVER!”
Please explain. thanks!
annamarie
July 28, 2007 at 1:51 am
Stephen,
If you interpret my admonition as a personal insult, that’s entirely up to you, but it was not intended as such (mayhaps it merely hit a bit too close to the mark though?).
You may consider “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to be