Blair turned down Bush offer to stay out of Iraq

Tony Blair has admitted in his interviews with David Aaronovitch for the BBC's Blair Years, that George Bush offered to keep Britain out of the Iraq war before it began. Blair turned it down.

Can somebody in government please at last explain what this was all really honestly about? Clearly it was not to help the US because they did not need it, and said so. Blair was providing political cover for Bush, in a show of a coalition which didn't really exist.

Why? What did Britain get from taking this blood price from Iraqis and paying it from our own troops? What national interest was served? Was it oil as many say? Other theories say that US neocons had the security of Israel in mind. Was that in Blair's thoughts? If it was about the security of our country, was that served by inserting ourselves into Al-Qaeda's declared war against the US?

I commend this article by Linda Colley who ponders why Britain's connection with the EU is routinely questioned, but there is no equivalent debate about our relationship with the US:

Schoolchildren in the United States are still taught that London's decision to keep 10,000 troops in the colonies after 1763 was one of the precipitants of the American revolution. Yet, according to the available statistics, over 10,500 US military personnel were stationed in the UK as late as 2005, a higher total than in any other European state, barring Germany and Italy, both defeated in the second world war. In all, well over 1.3 million US personnel have been stationed here since 1950, without - so far as I know - any consultation of the electorate.

It is not the exact number of these troops, however, but what they represent that is significant - namely London's postwar position of considerable clientage to Washington in terms of foreign policy and much else.

To refer to these subjects is to invite accusations of anti-Americanism. But I am not anti-American. I have worked in the US for 20 years. My point is not American power, but rather the double standard that characterises so much British political discourse. Sections of the media and members of both major parties have been all too eager to bang the autonomy drum when it comes to Europe. But there is a marked unwillingness to analyse the challenges to British independence from US influence; and those touching on the subject are swiftly denounced.

Read the whole thing

Comments

[Ted]

I thought it was well-documented that Blair was a supporter of 'interventionism' even before Bush came to power. He gave a speech in the US on the subject circa 1998. It's a crazy idea, and I may have said it before, but maybe Blair actually believed what he was doing would work. He wouldn't be the first. The fact that it didn't work and became a mess doesn't lead us to think this was the intention from the start. Who knows. Maybe he had messianic delusions, and perhaps still has, about 'fixing' problems all over the world. Again, he wouldn't be the first politician to have such delusions though they're usually knocked out of them in the first few months of office.

[Osama]

I agree Ted, but why Blair's burning need to get Britain embroiled when Bush could do what Bush wanted to do by himself?

[joe90]

Ted the rapist's friend who thinks he's living in North Korea or China, who knows, with his usual bar-room lawyer's defence for Blair, the blood-thirsty monster -
- Blair knew he was breaking the law, went out of his way to break the law but, according to Blair's own testimony, he didn't mean bad things to happen as a result!

Yes Ted, the rapist's champion,
how many criminal murderers get to use this defence in court - the Soham murderer used it but who repreats it time and again, like a demented moronic parrot, on his behalf?

Then again, the Soham murderer only 'accidently' murdered two children, according to his own testimony - but Blair is responsible for murdering 100s of 1,000s of Iraqi children.

Now do your usual vanishing act Ted, goodbye!

[joe90]

This is an infinitely interesting topic,
the fact that Britian has no foreign policy except the one where it follows its American orders.

A good starting point for the hilariously named 'special relationship' is during World War II, when Prime Minister Churchill was forced to hand over to the Yanks the whole of Britian's remianing gold reserves/gold bullion, if it wanted to continue receiving US help.

Churchill, in his 5 part history/memoir of World War II, shows his extreme bitterness at a bankrupt Britian being treated quite shockingly by the Yanks. The US government was implaccable over the matter!

Thus, you can see the hand-over from one empire to another of naked power - the final demise of the British Empire and the beginnings of Pax Americana!

[joe90]

The US has over 750 military bases situated in over 170 countries (pretty near every country on the globe) - not counting surface navy ships, submarines, satellites in space, you name it.

The Pentagon is reckioned to be the world's largest land owner and consumes more petrol a year than the whole of Sweden and has a budget bigger than the GDP of Holland.

The statistics for the American Empire is mind-boggling - hence the need for the invention of an effective demon or bogey-man in order for the Pentagon to have something to fight against, in order to justify its huge bloated budget.

The Pentagon used to fight 'anti-communism' now it fights 'islamic fundamentalism', or other.

I feel safer already!

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Joe 90

You said: “The statistics for the American Empire is mind-boggling - hence the need for the invention of an effective demon or bogey-man in order for the Pentagon to have something to fight against, in order to justify its huge bloated budget.”

You seem to have a dislike for America, or at least what you perceive as American imperialism and are in danger of doing exactly what you accuse The Pentagon of; creating a bogey-man as the focus of your sense of injustice in the world.

There is good and bad in every system designed by or put into practise by human beings because we are far from perfect.

American governments did some pretty despicable things in South America and in the far-east during the ‘domino effect’ period. But we also have to remember that when the Iron Curtain came down what we saw behind it was not a workers paradise, it was poo - a social and ecological nightmare. Given the choice of this side of the curtain or the other, which would you have chosen to live on?

America’s behaviour after the war in ensuring Britain’s fall from power was permenant was not necessarily a bad thing. It forced us to look into Europe and through The Marshal Plan create an EU that has delivered peace, stability and mutual dependence. Another American idea.

Can you really see Germany ever invading France again? And exactly who was it that stopped the UK and France from attempting to re-colonize Egypt during the Suez crisis?

These things are complicated, and no historical narrative has a real starting point: people seem to choose the starting point that suits their belief system.

You list the number of American bases around the world, yet ignore the fact that many are there through the choice of the people of the host country. You may object to the presence of Lakenheath, Menwith Hill and Fylingdales on UK soil but the fact remains that we chose them to be here, and you are free to campaign for their removal.

Given that this dialogue is taking place on a network designed by Americans (the internet, not the www before you get picky) on computer systems designed by Americans (whether Apple or Microsoft) using chips invented in America and the fact that had it not been for the America, the whole conversation would be taking place in German, not English, underlines the one dimensional nature of your stand-point.

Try listing the good and the bad that have come out of America: in one column you will have genocide of the native Americans, slavery and the horrendous treatment of black people but in the other there will be the Gettysburg address, the defeat of Nazism, Martin Luther King, Jazz and The Simpsons.

But then again, you may only want to see the bad, in which case you are doing exactly what you accuse America of: finding a bogey-man and telling as many people as you can about how evil and scary he is in order to build your power base against a common enemy.

But perhaps instead you could pop your glasses on and climb into your Brain Impulse Galvanoscope Record And Transfer (B.I.G.R.A.T.) and transfer some knowledge for a range of historians to give a more objective perspective:-)

http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/Joe%2090%20Intro.htm

[joe90]

Thanks Graham for that - very much appreciated!

You seem to have a dislike for America..
- Not at all Graham mate.
Some of my favourite writers and creative types are American. It is the US government and its policies I criticise, not American people or American culture etc, never!

..or at least what you perceive as American imperialism
- exactly Graham.
All imperialism is to be resisted and is by its very nature anti-democratic, despotic and unrepresentative. In fact, everything which the American Revolution itself, set its face against. How ironic!

Just to say,
that given the importance of the US foreign alien element based on British soil, which is to do with issues of sovreignty then there should be a referendum or plebiscite on the matter. In the same way it is right and appropriate to have referendums/plebiscites on the transfer of sovereignty to bodies such as the EU or splitting sovereignty between a newly formed Scottish government and the newly Anglandandwalesandnorthernireland government.

After all
foreigers, aliens, migrants, aylum seekers and what-not are a constant source of discussion for the British establishment, but never the most important aliens in our midst, the American Empire.

If you can name me the countries where referenda on having a US military presence have taken place, I'd be very interested. In fact, it is opposition to an American presence which results in so much conflict in the world. The list of places where the American military presence is resented with a passion, is endless. The Yankee government is its own worse enemy.

As to American-British relations after World War II, the Yanks aren't philanthropists. They did what they did to Britian for purely selfish interests. The fact that the US bankrolled the war-ravaged devastated econonies of western Europe was to integrate them into the newly emerged American global Empire. After all, the German-led economy of Europe was an economic rival to the US and couldn't be ignored if US global anmbitions were to be properly realised

In the same way, the US refused to allow any outside involvement in the Far East in its reconstruction and rehabilitation of a Japan-led economic sphere. The war for domination of the stategic Pacific sphere continues to this day, only it seems that the Far East will now be led by China rather than the totally dominated and supine US client, Japan.

cf Post-WWII US Blueprint for Empire -
NSC 68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security
(April 14, 1950)

You have to remember that the US rehabiliated many ex-Nazis, fascists and Japanese fascists and it wasn't nazism-fascism per se, it was fighting against, in the same way Stalin was. Stalin completely cleansed the earth of all nazis and fascists wherever he went. Whereas in the west they were re-employed, examples such as Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon, being the most famous, ex-nazi rocket scientists being another.

As for the 'West versus the Soviet Empire' question and where would I choose to live?

Well, compared to the death-squad democracies and grinding poverty that are Uncle Sam's backyard, the satellite countries of the Soviet Union, such as the old Czeckoslovakia are a Garden of Eden compared to them.

As the familiar saying goes -
"If a campesino in the American capitalist-utopia of Guatemala fell asleep and woke up in communist-occupied Poland, he'd think he'd woken up in paradise"

Just compare the quality of life of Cuban People today with any of their American-dominated neighbours - there's no comparison and that is in spite of Cuba being subjected to the world's longest running terrorist campaign against them by the US, with its safe-haven for anti-Castro terrorists in Florida.

All the best Graham!

ps
I love your name,
and thanks for reminding me of 'bigrat' - there has been a reference to this just recently by a very shady character indeedy!

I started using my 'nom de blog' years ago and am pretty much stuck with it now.

Compared to your brilliant 'handle' Graham, well there's no comparison - I'm stuck in the past, me and my wooden character, my 'bigrat' - however, no strings attached and definitley no 'loverat' etc etc cheesy corny one-liners...

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Joe 90

Thanks for replying; you made some very interesting points.
Every four or five years or so we do have a plebiscite on this and many other matters. As far as I can see there have been parties campaigning for the removal of these bases, mostly on the far-left fringe of politics, and as such have been rejected by us plebs in each plebiscite.

The nearest thing I could find to a major political party heading in this direction was the 1983 Labour Manifesto, aka the longest suicide note in history. I have just re-read it for the first time in about a quarter of a century and am amazed. Gorgeous George & Co. could adopt it wholesale. The section on International Policy makes interesting reading: “In international policy, we shall take new initiatives to promote peace and development. We will; Cancel the Trident programme, refuse to deploy Cruise missiles and begin discussions for the removal of nuclear bases from Britain, which is to be completed within the lifetime of the Labour government.”

At the same election, the Liberal SDP Alliance were in favour of negotiation as a method of disarmament and closure: “We strongly back multilateral disarmament and arms control efforts, in particular the Geneva negotiations for reduction in both sides strategic (START) and the intermediate range (INF) nuclear weapons.

Unilateralism was offered and rejected, and whilst not a referendum as you asked, it was a major issue in the election.

As to American-British relations after World War II, the Yanks aren't philanthropists. They did what they did to Britian for purely selfish interests.

Interesting one this. Scotland’s biggest philanthropist at the moment is Tom Hunter who uses his business abilities to great effect. Philanthropy and self-interest are not mutually exclusive. The Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza built their power base on welfare services, and even the Salvation Army believe that you can’t teach a man about God when his stomach is empty. Would you apply the same accusation of self-interest to Hamas?

The World Service recently did a report on the way that business is looking to tackle environmental issues, and one of the guests said: “Environmental developments in technology are not going to happen unless someone can make money out of it.”

Your choice of examples to back your argument is a little confusing. Klaus Barbie worked briefly for counter-intelligence before fleeing to South America after which he was extraordinarily rendered to Israel. Perhaps a more realistic comparison would be: “Where would you have preferred to have lived during the cold war, North or South Korea, East or West Germany, Austria or Hungary.”

As regarding Von Braun and the rest of the scientists, this underscores the point I was trying to make. Swords and plough-shears, V2s and Saturn-5s. But unfortunately also Atlas and Titan ICBMs. Sometimes the bad can be rehabilitated, but these things are rarely simple and never binary. Sometimes doing what is best means suspension of revenge as the Truth and Reconciliation inquests in South Africa exemplify.

You are also correct about Stalin, but chose to ignore the point that I was making: “What else was in Stalin’s positive list, and when you look at the whole list, good and bad, which was greater.”


Cuba, as you say is a very interesting example, but I have problems extrapolating anything from it. Benevolent despotism can be the finest form of government, and perhaps the greatest historical example of this Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar. One of the most often quoted misquotes is: “The pen is mightier than the sword.” When it should be quoted: “Beneath the rule of men entirely great, 
The pen is mightier than the sword.” The problem with despots is that while their despotism is guaranteed, their benevolence is invariably not.

But thanks for: “-
NSC 68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security
”. It makes very interesting reading.

As I have been trying to say throughout this, there is good and bad in everything, and the choice of that which we select to back our arguments is usually only evidence of our prejudice. The document above (for which I am very grateful) was cited as an example of American Empiricism. Perhaps if Bush and the other members of The Carlyle Group had read it in more detail, they may have reconsidered the invasion of Iraq.

In: “IV. The Underlying Conflict in the Realm of ideas and Values between the U.S. Purpose and the Kremlin Design” it reads:

“Compulsion is the negation of freedom, except when it is used to enforce the rights common to all. The resort to force, internally or externally, is therefore a last resort for a free society. The act is permissible only when one individual or groups of individuals within it threaten the basic rights of other individuals or when another society seeks to impose its will upon it. The free society cherishes and protects as fundamental the rights of the minority against the will of a majority, because these rights are the inalienable rights of each and every individual.”

In the wake of the current conflict the last sentence, which deals with the fallout if you get it wrong, is scary enough to be worthy of The Oracle of Delphi. It continues:

“The resort to force, to compulsion, to the imposition of its will is therefore a difficult and dangerous act for a free society, which is warranted only in the face of even greater dangers. The necessity of the act must be clear and compelling; the act must commend itself to the overwhelming majority as an inescapable exception to the basic idea of freedom; or the regenerative capacity of free men after the act has been performed will be endangered.”

America’s power has been increased constantly throughout the 20th century, and as the de-facto world leaders they have got it wrong fairly often. But they are the only ones in recent years who have had a chance to get it wrong.

It is easy to make no mistakes when you are not in a position to make any decisions.

[joe90]

Thanks Graham

You seem to have adopted my point without acknowledging it.

You said the US helped Britain and the West after WWII out of some kind of benevolance and philanthropy, but now you're agreeing with me that it is self-interest that motivates the American Establishment, and states in general. After all states aren't moral agents but vehicles of power, used by elites to further their own interests.

NSC 68 and the New World Order -
National Security Council 68 is one of the primary US government documents for understanding what it was the US planners were up to in their major reconstruction of the post-WWII world order, when the US government had a free-hand to do whatever it wished, integrating the economies of the world into a framework of power, of which, it was the arbiter.

NSC identifies two basic potential future threats to global US ambitions - a German-dominated Euorpe, and a Japan-led Far East propserity sphere. Without much change to this forecast, this is still the state of the distribution of power in the world today, althought with a Chinese-led East emerging and with the US economy, compared to its two main rivals, not as strong as it used to be - hence the use American makes of its military, where the US is dominant and unrivalled, which it employs to sort out problems where once it would have just sorted them using less overtly naked use of power and aggression to keep recalcitrant Third World upstarts in line.

Re-Using Fascists in the New World Order -
My point about the US and Britian re-using and re-installing fascists and nazis after the war was a general point, and not intended to highlight individual careers. The Japanese Emperor was never subjected to a war crimes tribunal - and Japanese forces were re-emplyed to prevent the wartime lef-wing anti-colonialist movements from setting up government before the US could instal its own right-wing puppets in the Far East. The record is quite plain about this.

Same in Europe - Britian attacked and defeated the major left-wing WWII resistence movement in Greece, after the war was over, and installed an utterly corrupt fascist dictatorship.

In Italy, the left-wing resistence movements were disarmed and fascist beaurocrats kept in place and US aid, for instance, was used as tool to help undermine the credibility of the post-war Italian resistence movement parties, and Italian democracy in general, and a major propaganda campaign against Italian deomcracy, in general, was carried on by the CIA for decades, right up into the 1980s.

As I said,
The US isn't against totalitarian regimes per se, and that should be obvious as many of its puppet clients today are anti-democratic regimes, or death squad democracies with fig-leaf constitutions, which aren't worth the paper they are printed on. The US-organised bloodbath against Guatamalan democracy in the 1980s being a good example.

As for Stalin,
I am not apologising for his crimes or anyone elses. What I am saying is that compared to his crimes our crimes, the crimes of the so-called civilised west, are far and away more horrific - it's called the Third World. A bigger ecological and social disaster zone it would be difficult to imagine.

Say what you want about some of the state repression of the Soviet system but People under the tutelage of the Soviets never had to go without decent housing, education, an income and job, career prospects, the chance of furthering oneself in a chosen profession, medical care etc etc.

In fact Russia bled itself white alomost, in order to keep its subject populations, in the ring of satellite buffer states around the Russian borders, materially happy and quiescent. The same cannot be said for Washington, which screws ever ounce of wealth it can from its defenceless Third World client puppet states.

Under the Soviet system, any hardship was to be found in Moscow, not amogst the Soviet's subject People, on the periphery or its empire. Under the American imperial system however, the US and its client puppet thugs are the ones enriching themselves, at the expence of their subject People forced to lives of grinding poverty and misery.

Compare the lifestyle and opportunities available in a Soviet-occupied Poland say, with any country in Western-created and dominated Third World, or life even in Uncle Sam's backyard - there is no comparison. If there is any threat of democracy breaking out in Uncle Sam's client states it is ruthlessly crushed using unbelievable forms of state repressions and terrorism.

Compare quality of life indicators for life in, so-called, repressive Cuba with any of the neighbouring US client states that surround Cuba - anybody in the right minds would choose to live in Cuba, rather than one of Uncle Sam's ugly puppet regimes.

British Nuclear Deterrent -
The British nuclear deterent is a useless expensive white elephent which vast majorities of the British population have consistently been against. It never detered the Argentine neo-nazi junta, nor Saddam and who it is supposed to be deterring now I have no idea.

America’s ... and as the de-facto world leaders they have got it wrong fairly often. But they are the only ones in recent years who have had a chance to get it wrong.

It is easy to make no mistakes when you are not in a position to make any decisions.
- These sentiments could be used to apologise for the crimes of any number of awful regimes, including Stalin's and Hitler's.

The lies about Saddam and his WMD is very much a case in point. The US and the UK knew they were telling lies - this wasn't a mistake, but a carefully executed plan to carry out the same crimes as Hitler, against innocent defenceless Iraqis.

The US establishment ruthlessly pursues its own interests, and as you point out, it is about being the 'de facto world leader'- and the blueprint on how the US intended to go about its anti-democratic empire building after WWII, when it had the opportunity to arrange such matters, is contained in NSC 68.

all the best!

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Thanks to you Joe.

I am enjoying our exchange of ideas, but before I reply in full, can you show me where I said: ‘ … the US helped Britain and the West after WWII out of some kind of benevolance and philanthropy,’ as at no point did I intend to state or imply this.

What I actually said regarding philanthropy was: “Interesting one this. Scotland’s biggest philanthropist at the moment is Tom Hunter who uses his business abilities to great effect.

Philanthropy and self-interest are not mutually exclusive.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza built their power base on welfare services, and even the Salvation Army believe that you can’t teach a man about God when his stomach is empty. Would you apply the same accusation of self-interest to Hamas?”

I do not see America as a great self-sacrificing philanthropic state, nor do I see is as a zionist imperialist hegemonic entity hell bent on oppressing the proletariat. I just see it as a powerful country with all the good and bad of every powerful state that went before it.

Based on what we have seen so far from China in relation to, for example Darfur, do you think they are going to be better when they have the de-facto presidency?

And I would really appreciate it if you can show me where I said:‘… the US helped Britain and the West after WWII out of some kind of benevolance and philanthropy’ as this does not represent my views, and any assistance I can get in improving clarity will be appreciated.

Best Regards,
Graham

[joe90]

Sorry Graham
I thought you had agreed that western governments weren't charities, or something similar. I got my wires crossed there.

Anyway, Western governments are always pleading that they aren't charities.

Apologies if the following is unnecessarily long!

East v West
You compared the American Empire with old Soviet Empire in order to prove that, although the US has done some bad things, it was never as bad as the Old Soviet system. In order to prove this you claimed the old Soviet Sytem was no 'workers paradise', especially compared to Western Europe.

I pointed out, however, this was the wrong comparison, the real one was to compare America's Third World Empire with Russia's satellite states (which the Kremlin constructed as a buffer between it, and the traditional lines of attack from the west, twice used by Germany, in less than half a century, resulting in over 25 million Russian dead.)

The Soviet Union may not have been a worker's utopia, and I'm not defending it, merely pointing out its characteristics.

The American Empire's Third World, however, defintely is an example of a capitalist utopia - an ecological and social disaster zone. Hence the reason the west doesn't practice free-market capitalism itself, and uses the state to intervene in domestic sectors such as education, health etc, as well as being used to insulate and protect supposedly private-capitalism from the effects of market forces such as the recent UK government bail-out of Northern Rock.

Altruism - in General
There is good and bad in every system designed by or put into practise by human beings because we are far from perfect.
As I have said, state governments aren't moral agents, and therefore, ascribing moral human attributes to them and anthropomorphic characteristics is to miss the fact that they are objects, much like any other dead object - they can be used to promote good or promote bad - but essentially state-governments are morally neutral. Humans do something with them. You can use a knife to butter your toast or use it to mug somebody. These choices have nothing to do with how perfect the knife is, and how bad human's are at designing things for use.

So, whoever controls the state-goverment uses it to further their own interests. In the same way the Salvation Army use their charity work to further their own interests. If it wasn't in their interests, the Salvation Army wouldn't be doing what they are doing. Their charity work is merely a means to an end, not an end in itself. The Salvation Army, for instance, used to force the socially-deprived recipients of its charity, to sit through sermons and christian sing-songs before they would feed them. I don't know if that is still the case.

And rich westerners are quite notorious ego-maniacs, using their wealth to promote their own self-image, as in the case of this Hunter guy. I suppose donating anonymously wouldn't have occurred to him, such is his unselfish desire to do purely good. Anyway, what is in the minds of rich individuals doesn't really interest me.

Altruism - The American Empire
It is interesting Graham, that you have provided no evidence for purely US government altruism. I know if the US government was found to be subsidising charity work out of US tax dollars, for instance, it would be considered scandal.

If 'good' came of the US helping to rehabliting western economies after World War II then, I'm sure, it wasn't a mistake but neither was it intended, except where US interests were directly involved.

'Good', as a by-product of US Foreign Policy is to be considered in much the same way as 'bad' is a by-product product of it - does or doesn't a certain policy or action promote US interests. Pure self-interest.

It is a well known phenomena that whenever the US increases its foreign aid, then human rights abuses in the recipeint country automatically increase. This isn't because the US deliberately goes around the world creating Third World hell-holes. It's just that it doesn't care.

At the moment, Columbia is the largest recipient US foreign Aid in the Americas and is currently the regions largest human rights abusers. Same with Israel in the Middle East etc

When the self-serving American propaganda is stripped away, such as about its 'noble efforts to do good' and 'spreading democracy in the Middle East', the bottom line is pure undalterated American greed and selfishness. If good comes out of it, then fine, but as long as the bottom line is followed then the US foreign policy elites don't much care whether good or bad happens, as long as the natives follow US orders, that's all that matters.

Recycled nazis and Western War Crimes etc
Graham, I noticed you think it ok to recycle Nazi scientists to work on US military rocket prorgammes, rather than having these Nazis put on trial for their crimes. I'm sure there is good and bad in everything but the best thing is to put Nazi criminals on trial, I would have thought. I am not a big fan of the benefit of the Nazi regime myself.

Hitler himself liked pets and small children, does that mean there was something good about him, we shouldn't overlook, in our assesments of his life and work?

I also notice you refer to international terrorist crimes of Israel as 'extraordinary rendition' - does this mean you think there is something good about international terrorism?

What about American concentration camps, and US international terrorist crimes of kidnapping, torturing, raping and murdering its victims without due legal process (the same as the old Gestapo) - what is the good and the bad about these particluar US crimes?

Since the demise of the old Soviet Empire there has been no 'peace dividend' to speak of, quite the reverse. The American Empire has expanded along with its military budget. The US used the excuse of the existence of a Soviet Empire and the threat of 'international communism' in order to justify its global military network. There is no more Soviet Empire. There doesn't seem to be anything that seems to justify this American military expansion, except pure naked power and ambitions to dominate the globe, much like US plans for domination of its two rivals, Japan and Western Europe after World War II, and by extension the Third World..

Of course, the absence of the Soviet Union and the brake it applied to the US fulfilling its ambitions to completely dominate the globe after WWII, is as good a reason as any, in order to explain the expansion of the American Empire since the demise of the old Soviet Union. The US has no military rivals.

The US, despite its claims of being 'the leader of the free world' and of promoting democracy, supports many despotic, authoritarian, totalitarian regimes around the world and attacks and destroys democracies whose governments doen't follow its orders. Indeed the US supported and re-used nazis after World War II.

Gaza
As for the Muslim Brotherhood, I don't believe they are particularly important in the Israeli warsaw ghetto fo Gaza.
What next for Gaza?
As for the social functions of Hamas - well they are the elected government of the Palestinian Authority and it is their responsiblity to ensure their electorate is properly looked after.

The fact that Islamic Political Parties have to fulfil a social work function within their communities is directly related to the economic circumstances of the communities out of which they themselves develop. The fact that poor communities, such as occupied Palestine and southern Lebanon (Hezbollah) are under illegal racist attack and occupation by powerful rich western governments and their allies, and have to develop self-supporting systems of self-help in order to survive, shouldn't be surprising, given the violent racist war crimes and destruction they have had to face over the decades.

The fact is that the social-work functions and social services provided by the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas is admirable indeed. And the courage and bravery and uncorruptability of their members is truly astonishing. Of course, I would not characterise their work as mainly charity or benevolance - I would characterise it as something along the lines of an anti-occupation Resistence Movements, and a survival response to outside threats trying to oppress, enslave and ethnically cleanse them.

The main influence in South Lebanon and Gaza, is of course, the violent racist Israeli state and its supporter, the US.

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Joe,

This is beginning to get tiresome. Once again you claim that I am arguing that the American government is altruistic. You said: "It is interesting Graham, that you have provided no evidence for purely US government altruism."

This is a reiteration of the same claim you made in a previous mail, and then apologized for. Will you please stop doing this. It is not what I said, it does not represent my opinion.

I also said: "Klaus Barbie worked briefly for counter-intelligence before fleeing to South America after which he was extraordinarily rendered to Israel"

You managed to turn this into: "I also notice you refer to international terrorist crimes of Israel as 'extraordinary rendition' - does this mean you think there is something good about international terrorism?"

Get a grip Joe. Read what is there, not what you want to be there. If you are this inaccurate with text that is right in front of you, what am I to make of the rest of your information?

As I read through each of your mails, I am transported back to speeches by Mick McGachie and Tam Derby in the Miners' Welfare Club in the late 70s to the point where I can actually smell the Players No 6 and the Tartan Special aging nicely in the flock wallpaper and Axminster carpets.

The cold war is over. There is nothing to be gained by trying to fight it again otherwise you might as well change your handle to Joe Quixote.

Let me try again.

If I took the same adversarial stance as you have with NSC 68 with, for example Hassan Al Banna's "Towards the Light", I would be standing on a soap box, albeit a digital one claiming that:

"This was the founding document of a Global Islamist Conspiracy to guarantee Muslim hegemony and oppress all other religions under the brutal heel of the New World Caliphate.” And if I did I would be talking b*ll*cks.

Alternatively I can look at the Islamist agenda and think, hmm:

1. These guys believe in a free market capitalist economy based on honest and honourable commerce. That sounds a bit like Adam Smith to me.

2. They believe in a system called zakhat, whereby each of the population pay a percentage of their income into a national pot to pay for poor relief, a health service, social-housing and general welfare. That sounds a bit like National Insurance to me.

3. They believe that there should be shura and 'adl, which I understand means consultation and justice through a representative body. That sounds a bit like democracy to me.

Follow this through the whole of Sharia, and you will find that there are about 8 or 10 areas where there is disagreement between Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Dawa, and four of them are open to itjihad.

If I just look just for the negative I will find it. However if I look for that which can be agreed upon, I will find that to, and that is a much better starting point for getting this whole mess sorted out.

Best Regards
Graham

PS Download 'World Business Report' from the World Service’s website. Very interesting report on the new growth economies.

[joe90]

As I keep mis-understanding your point about the US government Graham, then you should have re-stated plainly what it is you think the US government is about.

As far as I can see Graham you think there is good and bad in everything, including US Foreign Policy. That seems to be part of your belief system, viz -
I just see it as a powerful country with all the good and bad of every powerful state that went before it.
- Well does this include the Nazi regime for instance, or Stalinism or (the former US clients) Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge - was there some good these thugs were responsible for?

I say US Foreign Policy is driven by pure self-interests of the domestic American elites who have control over that policy. It isn't a charity. It doesn't do 'good' works or 'bad' works - it just carries out what it thinks furthers its own interests. Nothing more.

You also say,
There is good and bad in every system designed by or put into practise by human beings because we are far from perfect.
- I have said that US Foreign Policy isn't about perfection. It is about furthering the interests of whoever happens to be in control of US levers of domestic power, ie the American elites.

Every criminal who has ever lived can claim that their crimes were a mistake. It isn't the perfection of the tools, or the means available, to carry out a given task which count in assigning innocence or guilt to human actions - but the intentions of those who use these tools and means, and their moral culpability in the choices they make.

extra-ordinary rendition - this is international terrorism. Just becuase the terrorists who carry these henious crimes don't call it terrorism, doesn't mean to say it isn't terrorism. Hitler called his 'unprovoked aggression' humanitarian interventions.

The cold war is over. There is nothing to be gained by trying to fight it again
- A small part of the cold war is over. The part involving the old Soviet Union who just gave up and went home.

The part involving the US carries on regardless, and its cold war against the rest of the world has intesified with more military bases, more torture chambers, more concentration camps, more attacks, more wars, a bigger navy, more satellite, and abigger defence bidget than ever.

If I took the same adversarial stance as you have with NSC 68 with, for example Hassan Al Banna's "Towards the Light", I would be standing on a soap box, albeit a digital one claiming that:
- In order to understand what the most powerful government/entity in the history of the world is up to (ie the US government) it is important to read and study what it thinks it is doing and what it wants to do. This information can be found in its own internal records and archives.

Hence the reason for the importance of NSC 68 - which all the leading scholars of cold war studies (such as John Lewis Gaddis, American Dean of the history of the Cold War) consider to be the founding document of the American governments involvement a cold war.

However,
ff you have some other more important source of cold war historical documentary evidence Graham, Id be more than happy to consider it.

As for
Hassan Al Banna's "Towards the Light"
- well people can think what they like about it. It doesn't interest me much I'm afraid.

Your reference to Scottish coal miners seems quite anti-working class and snobbish to me.

As for Muslim exegesis,
I don't really take that into account much to explain western war crimes such as Bush and Blair's attacking innocent defenceless Afghanistan and Iraq - carrying out the same crime as Hitler of 'unprovoked aggression'.

You did say,
I am enjoying our exchange of ideas
but in your very next comment, you reckon
This is beginning to get tiresome.

That didn't take long.

all the best!

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Joe; you seem to be misunderstanding virtually everything I say and it is this that is tiresome, not the dialogue. This could be because you are looking for

On a personal note, you said that my 'reference to Scottish coal miners seems quite anti-working class and snobbish' yet have failed to work out that if I was 'transported back' it was because I was there in the fist place, smoking Players No 6 and drinking Tartan Special at 28p per pint. And again, I did not refer to Scottish coal-miners; I referred to ‘ the Miners’ Welfare Club’.

Furthermore, my working class credentials are not in question as I was conceived at Butlin’s on the first weekend of the trades’ holidays and nine months later was born in Leith. Any upward social mobility I may (or may not) have achieved subsequently is simply due to the fact that any downward social mobility from that starting point would have been virtually impossible.

It was Mick McGachie in the MWC who told me how the unions and management reached agreement, and it seems to apply equally well to international relations.

He said: "On one side, you have got the bosses, who want as much as possible for as little as possible. On the other side, you've got the unions, who want as much as possible for as little as possible. Somewhere in between we reach a compromise."

My point of contention with your stance is not on the importance of NSC 68; I find it a fascinating document. Neither is it the accusation of self-interest that you level at America.

It is the choice of examples you use to justify your position. They make you sound as if you have started with an opinion, and are then looking for the facts to support it rather than looking at the facts and then coming to an opinion. What leads me in thinking this other than your fondness for adjectives and superlatives are as follows:

1. You choose to use a quotation that compares Poland with Guatemala; perhaps a more valuable comparison would be between East Germany and West Germany or North Korea and South Korea.

A better comparison for Cuba would have been Jamaica, which although there are differences in size both are in the same region, have similar ethnicity and culture, climate and industry. Both had a major change in government around the same time (1959,1961) and currently have nearly identical GDP per capita. A comparison of their health services, crime statistics and wealth distribution would have made your point far better than comparing an industrialised, temperate central European Soviet client with an agrarian tropical former Spanish colony.

2. You have misquoted me several times, attributed false meaning to my statements and made inferences where there are none. NSC 68 is a very interesting document, and I am grateful for the reference. I agree that this is an important document in understanding American foreign policy.

However, you do not give the context in which NSC 68 came about. It was written in a period in history where all the Empires of the previous centuries had collapsed including the British, Japanese, Ottoman, Portuguese, Chinese and French. This had left a power vacuum that needed to be filled. At the time, there were only two power blocs that could fill it so the only realistic comparison after WWII is between these two systems. The question here is which of these alternatives was the better choice. I conclude that American hegemony was a better option that the Soviet version.

When the wall came down, the populations of The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia Bulgaria and Romania agreed. The jury is still out in the Ukraine.

3. You refer to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as ‘American clients’ whereas my understanding of Cambodia is that it was France who colonized Cambodia, and that American blame for the Khmer Rouge (as specified by John Pilger) is that the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war had contributed to the rise of the Khmer as an act against American Imperialism. I find it difficult to believe that America would have had a client called the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), which became the Party of Democratic Kampuchea, the Khmer Communist Party and the National Army of Democratic Kampuchea and eventually the Khmer Rouge. It really is all a bit ‘peoples front of Judea’ only less funny and more genocidal. If you have proof of American support for the Khmer I would be glad to see it.

The only American I am aware of who even inadvertently supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was Noam Chomsky, whose criticism of the initial press reports of the massacres as exaggerated hysterical western propaganda and his prolific and under-critical use of Khmer sources led to great deal of academic embarrassment and rationalisation for both him and Herman.

4. The bit about extraordinary rendition also seems to be giving you a great deal of difficulty, and I must take the blame for that, as it was an attempt at levity because of my love of paradox. I believe extraordinary rendition is morally wrong and is a great example of when the principle of the rule of law needs to be defended. I used the phrase specifically in relation to the way that Israel laid their hands on Klaus Barbie because this is the extreme that tests the principle. One part of me feels that he deserved it and that in his case the non-existence of due process and no protection of the law was justified. Another part of me feels guilty about feeling that. In using the term, I said nothing about Israel, terrorism or Adolf Hitler. Each time you have either misunderstood or tried to fabricate support for terrorism out of it. The fact that this has continued despite being clearly informed otherwise leads me to conclude the second option.

5.You said: “of Hassan Al Banna's "Towards the Light"
- well people can think what they like about it. It doesn't interest me much I'm afraid.” I find this very interesting that you do not. Al Banna is one of the most important figures of the last hundred years, and one of the few whose influence is still growing. Islamist movements in 78 countries are heavily influenced by his work. One of the major questions of our time is how the relationship between the west and the Islamic world will develop, and this man’s work very important in understanding it. If I am over estimating his importance, I’m sure our host will help me re-assess.

However your lack of interest in this also lends credence to the thought that you may be less interested in ideas that effect international relations than you are with those with which allow you to rant against America.

Conclusion

You said: “A small part of the cold war is over. The part involving the US carries on regardless, and its cold war against the rest of the world has intensified…”

In the few mails posted here you have clearly demonstrated a capacity to misinterpret that which is in front of you, choose unrealistic comparisons, make basic factual errors, assign opinions to others that do not exist, and when those are corrected, initially apologize but then do it again. These are all indicative of someone who has started with a belief system and looks only for the facts that support it.

This is most supported by your capacity to see that which is not there.

Best Regards, and Keep Tilting.
Graham

P.S. If you also write for print, for the sake of the environment can you and the rest of the anti-American lobby please adopt a blanket ban on adjectives.

It will make your articles about a third of the size, give readers the chance of actually finishing a piece and save at least one deciduous forest per issue of ‘Socialist Worker’ “Respect Renewal Newsletter’ and ‘Rage Against The Cruel-Zionist-Racist-Apartheid-Military-Industrial-Complex Magazine’.

[joe90]

Joe; you seem to be misunderstanding virtually everything I say and it is this that is tiresome, not the dialogue.
- George, I am not a mind reader, so I can only take what you yourself say at face value. My being 'tiresome' is in regards to my mis-understanding your views about the US government, viz
Once again you claim that I am arguing that the American government is altruistic.

Now you seem to be claiming I am 'tiresone' because of something else entirely.
You also say I rant and imply I am some kind of Don Quixote figure, but at the same time you say I am enjoying our exchange of ideas
You don't seem to know what you are about from one comment to the next.

Regarding Scottish miners
As I read through each of your mails, I am transported back to speeches by Mick McGachie ...
...The cold war is over. There is nothing to be gained by trying to fight it again otherwise you might as well change your handle to Joe Quixote.
- I took this in the personally demeaming derogatory way you have obviously intended it to be.

You seem quite eager to commit the same crime you accuse me of George, as you continue fighting the cold war yourself.

What Your Contention Is -
I suggested you re-state your position, so I take it this is it -
My point of contention with your stance is ....the choice of examples you use to justify your position.
- This is completely different from your early position, namely, that there is good and bad in everything, and human's aren't perfect and, on the whole, the US does more good than harm.

Now you are saying it is my choice of examples to justify my position which you disagree with - although in your latest reply only your points 1 and 2 seem address what you say is your main contention.

I don't accuse Amercia of anything - I have a view on the workings of the US government which maintains that it does what it does out of pure undalterated self-interest, that's it. How this self-interest is formed into policy depends on the domestic arrangements of power withing the US itself (and has very little to do with the outside world).

If the victims of US power do not follow the orders of Washington they get attacked and crushed.

1.
My choice of comparing Guatamala and Poland was based on the differing ideology of these two client regimes, as representative of the effects of the US system and the Soviet system after World War II.

The Polish economy, and quality of life for most Poles, came on in leaps and bounds under Soviet tutalage after WWII unlike Guatamala which is a total diosater zone and which suffered a genocide in the 1980s under the American Empire becuase its People wanted a systen of government and wealth distribution which Washington decided wasn't in its interests..

The effects on Jamaica of being under Uncle Sam's tutalage speak for themselves - violence, social dislocation, abject poverty for huge sections of the Jamaican population and a democracy sytematically attacked whenever Jamaican's threaten to disobey The great White Father in House in Washighton, as under Charles Manley's first attempts to carry out social reforms which would favour ordinary Jamaicans rather than the interests of US elites.

Of course, Jamaica has the advantage that it hasn't had to suffer the longest running terrorist campaign in history, as Cuba has had to suffer ever since Cubans got rid of their brutal American dictatorship in 1959.

However, Jamaica doesn't export doctors and engineers, in the way Cuba does in order to help other Global South countries improve their lot. Jamaicans are far too busy exporting their wealth into bank-accounts of western trans-national corporations and western shareholders. They can't afford luxuries such as decent housing, medical sevices, schooling etc, never mind being able to send out trained doctors to other Global South communities in order to try to help them.

2.
You have misquoted me several times, attributed false meaning to my statements and made inferences where there are none.
- Where are these misquotes and evidence of my other misdemeanours - if these are so important then evidence would be helpful otherwise these are merely unsubstantiated allegations and ca't be taken any further.

However, you do not give the context in which NSC 68 came about...
I think I have, over and over again.
A destroyed Europe and an all-powerful US - I even have a section entitled East v West.

I even talk about the demise of the old Soviet Union, the only relevant source of any real opposition to the US after WWII. Although Soviet opposition was mainly ideological rather than military, which US planners and propagandist tried their best to make out it to be.

I can't be any clearer than this, so where you get the idea that I have not been talking about the Soviet role in post-World War II global strategy and politics, I've no idea.

I conclude that American hegemony was a better option that the Soviet version.
- Of course you would, unless you lived in the American Empire ie the Global South-Third World, otherwise you would have chosen to live under the Soviet System.

It is a convenient and flattering but false dichotomy to compare the relatively rich and advanced Western Europe with the relatively poor and economically backward Eastern Europe. The proper comparison is to compare the the progress made by Eastern Europe, under Soviet tutelage after World War II, with the Global South-Third World under the tutaleage of the US system, from that time.
There is no comparison. The Third World is a basket case and getting worse - and Eastern European People began to join the Third World only once the Soviet subsidisies were withdrawn in 1989, and the Western Capitalist predators moved in to pillage Estern Europe's public assets. The standards of living in Eastern Europe took an immediate nose-dive after the Berlin Wall came down.

However George, you seem to be agreeing with me, without acknowledgement, that the US has expanded its empire into the former Eastern Europe satellites of the old Soviet Union, thus proving me correct as regards to the America's planned global expansion and also its effects on the general public wherever and whenever its infuence is felt.

The better choice for everybody concerned after World War II, however, would have been for all countries to have decided for themselves what there future was going to be, what governments to elect, and how to use their resources for their own improvement - rather than being part of anybodies empire.

3.
The only American I am aware of who even inadvertently supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was Noam Chomsky...
- I would be quite interested in finding out about Prof Chomsky's support for the Khmer Rouge. If you have any of the original sources for Prof Chomsky's own statements on this matter, I'd be glad to read them myself.

I think you'll find that this often repeated lie, regarding Chomsky and Herrman's work on the two genocides (the first genocide by Kissinger and Nixon's bombers led to the second genocide, committed by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge) that plagued Cambodia is just that, a lie. Scholars can only go on whatever sources they have to hand until such times as more info because available. Given the fact both scholars were working on Cambodia at the time the atrocities were actually taking place is in the nature of the beast. Any findings and reports are provisional given that fact there was on-going civil war and genocide still taking place. Journalism and scholarship of this nature can't wait until more sources become available given the importance of letting people know of the horrors being perpetrated and the need to stop them asap.

I think you'll find the US government began to support the Khmer Rouge the instant the newly formed government of a re-united Vietnam intervened in Cambodia in order to stop Pol Pot's atrocities. The US sponsored the Khmer Rouge, and its proxies, to represent Cambadia in the UN.

I find your potted history of the Khmer Rouge very simmilar to that given at Wikipedia -
Khmer Rouge
- Even down to the use of capitalisation where you and Wiki both say the same thing in exactly the same order and use 'CPK', and no other acronym. Strange that.

As for sources of US support for the Khmer Rouge try John Pilger
'Distant Voices' (1992) Chapter V Cambodia - 'Heroes' (1986) Chapter VII Cambodia
- and -
Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky 'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1994, Chapter 6 'The Indochina Wars: Loas and Cambodia'.

4.
I must take the blame for that...
but then you go on to blame me,
Each time you have either misunderstood or tried to fabricate support for terrorism out of it.
- I can't be held responsible for misunderstanding you if you don't tell me what it is you mean. Given your own inablity to stick to your own arguments then this is hardly my fault.

I didn't fabricate anything as there is no other way to interpret someone using the US government Orwellian term extraordinary rendition. If you use words in ways which try to hide the western crimes then you support international terrorism. Simple as that. Otherwise use the proper words rather than neoligisms designed by western government terrorists to cover up their crimes.

5.
As for Al Banna etc -
The US Empire was already established before the western propaganda system recently decided that relations with Islam were to be an important issue. Indeed, the Western powers have been fishing around for an excuse in how to explain what the ever expanding US Empire is doing with now over 750 military bases in over 170 countries and terrorities around the globe, ever since the demise of the old Soviet Union robbed Western elites of their convenient smokescreen and demonology used to subsidise the West's Welfare-Warfare State for the Rich.

This is propaganda typical of the US government and its fanatical supporters. Nothing unexpected in attempts to cover-up and use excuses for what the US Empire is doing and plans to do anyway. Especially in giving the victims of US war crimes the blame.

However your lack of interest in this also lends credence to the thought that you may be less interested in ideas that effect international relations than you are with those with which allow you to rant against America.

- I don't rant against America.
If you have any proof that Al Banna is involved in US (and UK) war crimes atrocities or is responsible for, say, the US or UK defence budgets I'd be more than happy to listen.

One of the major questions of our time is how the relationship between the west and the Islamic world will develop...
- A far more important question, given its capacity for naked aggression and violence on a global scale, is the current American Establishment's relationship with the rest of the world.

Conclusion
You use a quote of mine but then provide no evidence whatsoever for proving it wrong.
I can only conclude that if there is no evidence to disprove it, and as I have provided plenty of evidence as proof of the current trajectory of the expansion of the American Empire from its World War II beginnings (although it really had its its roots in the aftermath of World War I) then it must be correct and your accusation are groundless.

You say I 'rant' but also that you are 'enjoying our exchange of ideas' - these two positions seem incompatible to me.

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Joe.

Please re-check all your basic facts; my name is not George.

Best Regards
Graham

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Joe,

I am going to concentrate on one point, which underlines the problem with your stance.

You said: "The US Empire was already established before the western propaganda system recently decided that relations with Islam were to be an important issue." Relations with the Islamic world have been an important factor in US foreign policy for over two centuries.

On January the 4th this year Keith Ellison became the first Muslim member of Congress and took the ceremonial oath with a Qu’ran once owned by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, as Ambassador to France for the fledgling state had met with Tripoli’s envoy in an attempt to find a peaceful agreement to stop the Barbary corsairs attacking American shipping. As a result of American independence they no longer sailed under the protection of the Royal Ensign. Thomas Jefferson had got the copy of The Qu’ran (I think from Adams) in order to understand the religion of this new enemy.

Showing an interesting misunderstanding of the source of law in Islam, Congress reports: “The ambassador answered us that this was founded on the Laws of the Prophet that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.”

America initially paid the tribute, but as the demands increased eventually, under the slogan ‘"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute"’, America built a blue water navy and moved politically from a confederation to a United States of America. After the end of the second Barbary War in 1815, the Maghreb countries in particular and Islamic strength in the Mediterranean in general had entered a steep decline. The Barbary Wars were a defining factor in the creation of the United States as a global power, easing European the colonization of the Middle East and the ultimate collapse of the Ottoman Empire. History is long, complex and convoluted. Every starting point can be traced back to an earlier thread.

Your claim that: ‘The US Empire was already established before the western propaganda system recently decided that relations with Islam were to be an important issue’ is a complete fallacy. It does not fit the facts. Relations with Islam have been an important factor in US foreign policy since the declaration of independence.

Your position is just a wholesale regurgitation of Chomsky who in his denial of being a conspiracy theorist has all the surrealism of Magritte with none of the humour.

Please arrange the following phrases in order of surrealism

Chomsky: “This is not conspiracy theory, it is institutional analysis.”
Magritte: ”Ceci n'est pas une pipe.”
The Marines: "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli"

Best Regards,
Graham Mackenzie Spence.

That’s Graham. Not George. Basic facts Joe, basic facts.

[joe90]

Yes George
is it getting tiresome again for you?
I can tell, especially when you start to plaigerise.

US Empire v Soviet Empire
Your view that the US Government is a mixture of good and bad and humans aren't perfect etc, really doesn't explain anything much about the American Empire and its growth, especially since the demise of the old Soviet Union sytem, which wasn't much of a militarily threat.

The old Soviet Union was a danger to the American Empire in that the threat it posed was ideological ie it provided an alternative mode of economic and social development.

US Propaganda System and 'Islam'
I never said there were no relations between the US and the rest of the outside world - as you seem to be implying I did.

I never said there were no relations between the US and noninally Islaqmic countries, as you seem to be implying.

I said that 'Islamic extermism-terrorism', call it what you will, is the new excuse the US Government is using in order to justify having over 750 military bases in over 170 countries and terroritories worldwide. Not counting an expanding navy, satellites in space, a defence bidget of nearly a trillion dollars a year - with more concentration camps, more torture chambers, more war crimes, more wars, more illegal occupations etc etc

The previous excuse used to subsidise the Welfare State for the Rich via military Keynesian intervention by the US government was the military threat posed by the USSR, sometimes called the 'Cold War'. As I say, this was merely a vehicle used to frighten US taxpayers out of their hard-earned money in order to provide subsidies and profits to private companies and Wall St shareholders -
thus, insulating the super rich of America from the effects of the capitalist free-market which they determined everybody else shoul;d be exposed to, but not themselves, heavens-to-betsy.

Montezuma
I think you'll find George,
when that song was written, Libya/Tripoli were under western imperial occupation. So regardless of what native Libyans thought, the US would have had to have been dealing with another western power, if they went anywhere near Tripoli.

George - Liar and Plaigerist
Your position is just a wholesale regurgitation of Chomsky who in his denial of being a conspiracy theoris...
- I notice you are unable to substantiate your earlier lies about Prof Chomsky that he supported the Khmer Rouge.
The only one in denial around here is you George. You are a liar as well as a plaigerist.

By the way,
where did you plaigerise your latest comments from this time?

Nothing lower or more stupid than people who claim other people's work as there own. It means they have no idea what they are talking about, as your rambling illogical rubbish merely goes to prove.

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Hi again Joe,

Once gain I will concentrate on one issue that exemplifies your problem.

You said: "Montezuma I think you'll find George, when that song was written, Libya/Tripoli were under western imperial occupation. So regardless of what native Libyans thought, the US would have had to have been dealing with another western power, if they went anywhere near Tripoli."

The first line of Tripoli mentions Montezuma, a reference to the American Mexican War of 1846 to 1848. This means that it was written during or after that particular war, and the reference to Tripoli is specifically to the Barbary Wars and the Phillidelphia incident. As I said above The Barbary Wars were influential in allowing the colonsiation of the Middle East, but at the time of the Philladelphia, Tripoli was an Ottoman client. Again, you wilfuly miss the point.

This is the crux of the problem. You cannot even read the simplest piece of information without looking for some Western imperialist conspiracy. You see everything through the eyes of a Chomsky acolyte, and as somebody said recently: "Arguing about Chomsky with one of his disciples is like reading Plato's Republic to a Pig. You get nowhere, and you annoy the pig'"

Read Nation 1977 and the Melbourne Review of Politics.

For further information read: "The capture and destruction of the Frigate Philadelphia" published by John Towers, Washington 1850.

You can find a copy here.

http://138.147.50.20/library/online/frig_phila_1850.htm

Regarding your capacity to misunderstand, misquote and read that which is not there, just re-read the thread Joe. I have already listed them already, I am not going to do it again. It is unpleasant enough having to point out someone's errors without having to do it a second and third time at their request.

Best Regards
Graham

[joe90]

A liar and plaigerist doesn't have a point of view George.

The song became the copyright of the US Marines in 1919 when 'Libya' was a colony of Italy.

What would you know about Chomsky for instance George. You have already lied by saying he supported the Khmer Rouge when we all know it was the US Government, of which you are blind fanatical brianwashed follower of, who supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

The Barbary Wars were influential in allowing the colonsiation of the Middle East...
- Utter rubbish.
All it showed was how weak the Ottoman Empire had become when it couldn't control the piratical depredations taking place in the Meditteranean.
It also showed there was no coordination between the powers at the time to ensure the seas were safe.

What utter twaddle!
The American Empire, which began to grow after World War I but especially after World War II, is the result of some nonsense in the Meditteranian basin nearly 200 years ago. George thinks this must be so because of his clinching argument - some Muslims were involved!

Yes, I can see the connections George -
Pirates in the Meditteranian 200 years ago + Al Banna = American Empire.

And I'm the one who is supposed to be predisposed to conspiracy theories.

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Oh dear Joe, I am starting to get worried about you.

Each post you make where you stray outside the Chomskyite rubric shows your lack of understanding.

In defeating the Tripolitain Corsairs, the Americans acheived that which the Brittish and French had failed to do because they took turns at paying each the Corsairs to attack each others shipping.

Ah, the pre-entente cordiale days.

As for Chomsk's inadvereant support for the Khmer Rouge, the argument uses something called institutional analasys, which as an acolyte I'm sure you are well aware of.

Chomsky says: “Before looking more closely at Ponchaud's book and its press treatment, we would like to point out that apart from Hildebrand and Porter there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing.”

Chomsky’s own concept of propaganda leads him to be hypercritical of western sources. The problem with this as a default position is that when these sources are accurate, the skeptic ends up on the wrong side of factually correct.

I think this is what happened in this case and before you do your usual Joe, please note carefully that I said: “The only American I am aware of who even inadvertently supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was Noam Chomsky, whose criticism of the initial press reports of the massacres as exaggerated hysterical western propaganda…”

Inadvertently Joe. I say again: “Inadvertently.” I don't want you to keeop making the mis-reading mistakes you are so prone to.

Having done some searches on the net, I understand that the Economist article he referred to was nothing more than a letter, and that the Melbourne article was written by Ben Kiernan, who in a later interview said: “By early 1979, approximately 650,000 people or 25% of the Khmer ‘new people,’ and 675,000 Khmer ‘base people’ (15%), had perished from execution, starvation, overwork, disease, and denial of medical care.”

These figures are slightly larger than the ‘… have numbered at most in the thousands..’ Chomsky stated.

As a specialist in the field, Chomsky knows that one of the ways in which propaganda works is to undermine the opposition’s data, and that this lends support to the other side. The claim that he ‘inadvertently supported’ is in line with his own theoretical constructs.

Have a nice evening,
PS From the way things are going on the other thread, you have a lot of tilting to do.

Oh and one more thing. From The Marines own magazine: "The Marine Hymn memorializes the Marines’ participation in the First Barbary War (1801-1805), as well as in the Mexican War (1846-1848) and other hostilities around the globe. The origins of the song, however, are shrouded in obscurity. The lyrics were, according to tradition, written by an anonymous Marine on duty during the Mexican War."

Facts Joe. Start with the facts. Not the opinion. Tripoli refers to the barbary campaign. Fact.

[joe90]

As for Chomsk's inadvereant support for the Khmer Rouge...
- So Prof Chomsky is guilty of inadvertantly supporting the Khmer Rouge, unlike the US Government, which actually did.

This 'inadvertant support' is due to some disagreement with French scholar regarding source material and what the sources were saying. Sorry, but this sounds like a discussion between journalists/scholars about scholastic methodology, rather than proof of Prof Chosmky's support for genocidal butchers (whom the US Government supported).

I notice words like "I support the Khmer Rouge" seems to be absent from your (alleged) Prof Chomsky quotation, along with a proper reference for your source George (probably the Readers Digest no doubt). Hardly an endorsement is it?

Just because a scholar questions another scholar's sources that doesn't mean much. Is this the best you can come up with George, a scholastic dispute about sources, at a time when the sources themselves weren't definitive due top the nature of difficulty of access to a region suffering genocidal horrors. It doesn't surprise me and, in fact, I would be surprised if anybody was brave enough to go into regions controlled by the Khmer Rouge and escaped with their lives, never mind decent, facts figures and evidence.

Anyway -
Distortions at Fourth Hand
Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman
posted on Chomsky.info
The Nation,
06 June 1977

We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable.

It is a fair generalization that the larger the number of deaths attributed to the Khmer Rouge, and the more the U.S. role is set aside, the larger the audience that will be reached.

Notice the type in bold George and notice the date of the article - which makes you a stooge for repeating American government propaganda as well as a supporter of the first Cambodian genocide caused by American B52s and a supporter of those who carried out the second Cambodian genocide, the Khmer Rouge..

And if the genocide of the Khmer Rouge was such a bad thing then what about the genicode before the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge - the one caused by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's 'secret bombing' campaign of Cambodia by American B52 bombers, which resulted in the formation of the Khmer Rouge in the first place?
Bombs over Cambodia
Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan
ZNet ZMag.org
07 Dec 2006

As you are a big fan of the US Government George, care to explain why it's ok for the US Government to support the Khmer Rouge, but not ok for an American academic to 'inadvertantly support' the Khmer Rouge?

Or don't brainwashed right-wing class-conscious fanatics like you George, discuss the war crimes and genocides of your Glorious Leaders?

Remind us all again George - what were your big right-wing class heoroes, the genocidists of the US Government, doing to Laos and Vietnam around about the same time period when they were busily bombing Cambodians to pieces (then supporting the Khmer Rouge because a re-united Vietnam intervened to stop Pol Pot's genocide)?

US Foreign Policy
And as I like a good laugh as much as the next person - what exactly do you think US Foreign Policy all about then, Mr Pro-American?

Pirates
Leaving aside utter rubbish about pirates in the Mediterrranean 200 years ago....mind you, I can see the President of the time in the half-built Whitehouse amidst the swamps of DC, with his new masterplan for world domination -
"First, we'll defeat the pirates, and then, in 200 years time, the world will be ours for the taking!", and lets escape an evil megalomaniac-type cackle.

ps
The US Marines copyrighted their wee ditty in 1919 - yes or no?

As your assessments of US Foreign Policy are based on the lyrics of a song George, I think it crucial for you to acknowledge that song lyrics can be written anytime especially regarding events of the past, and proves nothing, if anything, about history.

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Oh dear Joe you just can’t stop yourself, can you?

Let me try again.

It seems you have finally realized that throughout this exchange, I have not said anything about what I think of American Foreign Policy. I treat that as progress.

Now lets see if we can manage some more.

Someone called Ted put up a reasonable comment to which Osama responded with a reasonable and non-confrontational reply. No insults, no attacks on the man’s dignity, knowledge or intelligence.

Here was an opportunity to win someone over.

What did you then do Joe? Did calling him ‘the rapists friend’ add anything to what Osama had done? Or did it undermine it? Do you think what you did advanced your cause, or did you just turn an opportunity for dialogue in to an excuse to verbally abuse?

It is as if you see this forum as your territory or institution and you need to marginalize or eliminate dissenting voices or alternative perspectives and so on because they're dysfunctional, that is they're dysfunctional to your idea of the institution itself.

So you keep excluding Joe. As long as you keep doing this, your constituency will remain small. The Establishment does not have to do anything to prevent your growth because you do their job for them.

Keep Tilting
Graham

P.S. McGahie also told me that the problem with the left is that: “We think if we are still talking when everyone else has gone home, we’ve won the argument. We need to stop that.”

P.P.S. One of the paragraphs above is plagiarized. Can you guess where from?

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Joe,

I must apologise, I did say something about American foreign policy.

I said: "American governments did some pretty despicable things in South America and in the far-east during the ‘domino effect’ period."

Best Regards
Graham

[joe90]

Completely out of your depth George, I see, as usual.

I comprehensively and thoroughly demolition your fairytales and children stories regarding Prof Chomsky, the Khmer Rouge and US Foreign Policy - and this is the best reply you can come up with?

What an intellectual wash-out you are!

It seems you have finally realized that throughout this exchange, I have not said anything about what I think of American Foreign Policy. I treat that as progress.
- Not at all.
So what would you count as progress George, you answering the question maybe?

And I think you have said quite a bit George, regarding US Foreign Policy with your support for the Khmer Rouge, your support for the genocidal mass-murders in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

- Your support for CIA terrorism.

- Your support for US propaganda regarding the importance of 'Islam' in its foreign policy.

- Your support for US war crimes and genocide.

- Your support for US influence in the Third World and its support of free-market capitalism.

- In your very first comment on this thread you said a great deal about US foreign policy - or don't you remember all this stuff you have said or plaigerised and lied about?

That's the problem when you are on an ego-trip, like you are George - having to plaigerise and lie, in order to keep up with someone who knows and cares about what they are talking about, soon shows itself in the fact you don't even know what is is you have said so far.

So, in the light of my demolition of just about every serious argument you have tried to put forward, what do you think about US Foreign Policy - it's a simple enough question?

Now lets see if we can manage some more.
- Does Prof Chomsky support the Khmer Rouge, for instance, George?

Did the US Marines copyright their ditty in 1919 George - yes or no?

This is how trivial and insignificant your views are George - you can't even face facts.

Ted finds people being raped in prison amusing and yet I am the one who is treated as the criminal!

I can just imagine the hatred and bile from you if there was even a hint that I found people being raped in prison amusing. After all George, you hold me to account for views that aren't mine and claim I support organisations which I don't - all crimes committed by me according to your empty imagination.

...your constituency will remain small.
- Says someone who hasn't got a clue how the world actually works, doesn't know what he has said to date, and can't even engage in a debate without lying and plaigerising or digressing into twaddle and flannel.

Yes, if only I could be more like George and his big heroes in the US government - popularity is all I crave, just like George and his narcissistic, clueless, fragile male-ego.