As the American media continues to revel in another anniversary of the day that the tragic loss of 2,800 American lives mandated the violent end of 20,000 non-American ones, the detention of countless other thousands, the decimation of US credibility and international relations, and the freefall of national equity, my country needs to stop and think (and will not). Learning and thinking is nearly taboo and impossible in the cacaphony of propaganda.

Why are we compounding tragedy? Because it is Americans are unprepared to look at the true causes of this expanding epidemic of killing, especially when many clear and easily understood causes are found embarrassing to American leadership and the collective rabble.

As flags wave, bells toll, rhetoric flares, and flesh and treasure are earmarked for killing, it is rarely explored in public discourse where this whole sickness began. Underlying problems are continually ignored, while the costs of the ignorance accelerate and gain mass.

For example: Al-Qaeda clearly communicated the 3 main objectives in their 9-11 murders:

1. Mobilizing the Muslim world toward a new centralized Islamic era.

2. Antagonizing United States, by exposing and undermining support for secular governments especially in Saudi, Egypt, and Israel, physically attacking symbols of American power, rhetorically attacking American "decadence" with the objectives of inducing the US to overreact, which reinforces objective 1.

3. Establishment of a fundamentalist stronghold led not by Shiites but Sunnis.

Al-Qaeda and others are in clear opposition to US troop garrisons in the Middle East. The continued garrisoning of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the first rout of Iraqi forces was their stated breaking point. The more US occupation forces resemble colonialist and Israeli occupation forces (as they increasingly do) the greater will be the blowback.

In American discourse it is critical that we realize unconscionable methods ("terrorism") do not render all motives unworthy of consideration and understanding. It is critical to understand that military response to assymetrical attack can often be counterproductive to say the least.

In the Middle East, ethnic, cultural, religious issues will never be resolved through the display and loosing of Western firepower. Rather, such interventions will tend to focus frustration and wrath upon the outsider in unconventional and paradigm-shifting ways. This would also be the case if an outside power were to invade and intervene today in any continental American dispute or disputes.

A simplistic world view combined with hubris invites disaster. The world's greatest consumer economy must learn and achieve better situational awareness in order to maintain some sense of their present standing in the world. When enough friends are lost, and enough enemies recruited, we will become unable to live in nearly as open and prosperous a society.

Learn. Think. Speak. It's the most patriotic thing a U.S. citizen can do, and I believe it is the crux of life and death in the not distant future for These (presently) United States.

So what would your response have been, to kiss Osama's butt and give him what he wants? You know the Middle East has had totalitarian governments before the US was even a pipe dream. It is always the US causing oppression, huh? The actions of the governments in Middle East are the responsibility of themselves and their people.

"So what would your response have been?"

Follow the money. Expose those individuals truly responsible, all the way to dissidents within the Saudi Royal Family if necessary. In the early wake of 9-11, the US enjoyed unprecedented international sympathy and support. Cooperation in apprehensions and yes killing of those responsible may have been very effective, and would certainly have been more effective than the immense bungle we are now faced with.

This would not be appeasement by any stretch.

"You know the Middle East has had totalitarian governments before the US was even a pipe dream."

Yes, I know that. your point?

"It is always the US causing oppression, huh?"

No, not always. But often, we continue to position ourselves on the side of oppressors. I can provide you with many credible examples involving Iraq and the any region of the world if you sincerely wish to know.

"The actions of the governments in Middle East are the responsibility of themselves and their people.

I agree. Let's leave them to it, and use our influence honorably and effectively.

I believe the Saudi Royal family is up to their necks in it. They should be gone after too, forget the implications, they should be held responsible as well.

My point as to Middle Eastern totalitorianism is they create the problems themselves and use the US as a scapegoat. If the House of Saud actually cared about their people, they would use that vast wealth to improve the peoples' lives, loosen up the religious strictures and let people choose and think for themselves.

Other than the Shah in Iran, I don't believe, though I might be mistaken, but the US has not set up any governments in the Mid East. They have worked with what is there. Most were set up or heavily influenced by either the Brits or USSR. The US has worked with whats there, I guess the US could topple them all, obviously fairly quickly done.

Originally posted by hypewaders
As the American media continues to revel in another anniversary.... Learn. Think. Speak. It's the most patriotic thing a U.S. citizen can do, and I believe it is the crux of life and death in the not distant future for These (presently) United States. Extraordinary point of view and a pleasure reading.

But…. Are you’re qualifying every thinker as a patriot?

I believe that everyone understands themselves, others, and geopolitical challenges by approaching a clearer understanding of reality. In following the rhetoric of demagogues, there is always ready abandonment of reason. So yes, every person who attempts to learn truth is a patriot, even as imperfect but improving a patriot as I. When George W. Bush looks uncomfortable and conflicted stumbling through his scripted speeches, avoids questions and interaction with the public, I suspect there is a stunted Patriot trapped within him, if not wanting to learn what the hell is going on, at least embodying a troubled kernel of Patriotic realization that his own and his controllers' ignorance may be causing events to unfold unpleasantly.

Thinking is the single Patriot Act we need the most.

"So what would your response have been?"

as a thinking patriot.. i would like to answer that with
1. do not do anything that would increase Osama binladens recruitment.. if its one thing that Bush and crew have done successfully its INCREASE hatred for America.. thus increased recruitment for Alqaeda. this seems to be what they want though for it insures perpetual military contracts and increases the likelyhood of a military state for america and decreases democratic freedoms as we continue to reduce security by increasing our enemies numbers.

2. we could have strengthened the UN and worked with security forces to find binladen and wmd's which would have had more success than a large military force. empoying the war machine to fight alqaeda is like using a bulldozer to find a needle in a haystack.

3. we could have reduced finances for the middle east by getting the frick off of oil! damn, theres now so many reasons for this its not funny. oil subsidies make the price per gallon close to $14 dollars a gallon with our taxes paying the first $12 on each gallon(and that doesnt include health deficits from air pollution).. if even a fraction of that was used to subsidize alternatives we could grow jobs in america, clean the air, and pull troops out of the oil basin in the middle east.

Originally posted by ranxer
"So what would your response have been?"

as a thinking patriot.. i would like to answer that with
1. do not do anything that would increase Osama binladens recruitment.. if its one thing that Bush and crew have done successfully its INCREASE hatred for America.. thus increased recruitment for Alqaeda. this seems to be what they want though for it insures perpetual military contracts and increases the likelyhood of a military state for america and decreases democratic freedoms as we continue to reduce security by increasing our enemies numbers.

2. we could have strengthened the UN and worked with security forces to find binladen and wmd's which would have had more success than a large military force. empoying the war machine to fight alqaeda is like using a bulldozer to find a needle in a haystack.

3. we could have reduced finances for the middle east by getting the frick off of oil! damn, theres now so many reasons for this its not funny. oil subsidies make the price per gallon close to $14 dollars a gallon with our taxes paying the first $12 on each gallon(and that doesnt include health deficits from air pollution).. if even a fraction of that was used to subsidize alternatives we could grow jobs in america, clean the air, and pull troops out of the oil basin in the middle east.

1. I guess killing 3,000 Americans is not enough hate. Appeasement worked well for Europe in the 1930s.

2. The UN is a joke, the US funds most of it anyway and then sends its own troops out too. Exactly what security forces are you talking about? The inspectors found little, did nothing, were kicked out.

3. It would be nice to get off oil, but to my knowledge that is not a real viable option right now. But if that does happen, what do you think will happen to all these oil revenue dependent countries? The problem will be even worse because they will have nothing. You think they have problems now, wait till then.

Hype :

2. Antagonizing United States, by exposing and undermining support for secular governments especially in Saudi, Egypt, and Israel

Saudi Arabia doesnt have secular government the House of Saud practices nationally Salafi Fiqh of Sharia which is one of the most strict interpertations .

Israels problem , even according to UBL , is zionism , before there is any talk of secular or religious state .

Establishment of a fundamentalist stronghold led not by Shiites but Sunnis.

UBL & his movement is Sunni and the groups they fight for are Sunni as well in the logic that Sunni is the great majority of Muslims worldwide .

Truth : so what would your response have been, to kiss Osama's butt and give him what he wants?

It isnt about what Osama want it is about what the peoples are entitled to . They are entitled in a life free of zionist violence and US occupation , free of US puppet leaders that sell them out and treat them bad .

It is always the US causing oppression, huh?

No before the US it was Brittish-French colonialism .

The actions of the governments in Middle East are the responsibility of themselves and their people.

Not these ones

They should be gone after too, forget the implications, they should be held responsible as well.

They are USA's best friends

If the House of Saud actually cared about their people, they would use that vast wealth to improve the peoples' lives, loosen up the religious strictures and let people choose and think for themselves.

Who gives Saud the power to reign as they do ? And no its not religion thats the issue there , its the 24.000 relatives of Saud that sell out the peoples independant of their religious practicing . As peoples there are very religious , religion is the biggest + in the eyes of the peoples and the Saud has misused that to keep the peoples powerless and stupid .

Other than the Shah in Iran, I don't believe, though I might be mistaken, but the US has not set up any governments in the Mid East. They have worked with what is there.

How is that any better that they were there ? Should the rpesident have been Amerikan himself to be of any matter ? What is this crap ?

Saddam Hussain has been installed by the CIA , Taliban has been given the opportunity to rule because of USA's assistance for the Mujahiddeen with UBL , Saudi's is USA's beloved business-partner , how about all those oil-states ?

I guess killing 3,000 Americans is not enough hate.

Its a laugh compared to the deaths Amerika caused in the Islamic world .

The UN is a joke

But when they please you Israel can be a state because of them no ?

"1. I guess killing 3,000 Americans is not enough hate. Appeasement worked well for Europe in the 1930s. "
revenge will bring us no peace.. i agree with gandhi 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave us all blind and toothless.. there's just nothing good about revenge.. do afghanis get to have revenge now for all our collateral damage?

"2. The UN is a joke, the US funds most of it anyway and then sends its own troops out too. Exactly what security forces are you talking about? The inspectors found little, did nothing, were kicked out. "
the UN is partly a joke becuase of our bullying.. i'm suggesting that instead of being a bully we work with the world toward peace.. then if it doesnt succeed as quickly as people would like or it backfires for some reason we are not solely to blame as is the case now. the iraqi inspections WERE working.. all we needed to do was beef up the support with UN troops and the last 1% of the wmd's would have been found.. but NOOO we couldnt wait for that 1% and they left the country as we were creating a humanitarian crisis.. they probly left the country in carts with the refugees.. again the analogy of finding a needle in a haystack with a bulldozer.

3. It would be nice to get off oil, but to my knowledge that is not a real viable option right now. But if that does happen, what do you think will happen to all these oil revenue dependent countries? The problem will be even worse because they will have nothing. You think they have problems now, wait till then.

haha.. that's rediculous.. you think bombing them back to the stone age and putting in our corps to control thier oil is better than a 40 to 60% reduction of reliance on the oil? sheesh that's pathetic.. there's almost no way we could move to 100% no oil in 30 years.. its a slow process.. they are going to run out eventually anyway.. are you suggesting that we will be responsible for thier economy when they don't have any more oil!!?? we can run diesel engines on vegetable oil RIGHT FUGGIN NOW! electric cars and busses for around town are available right now.. hydrogen for public transit(busses) is available right now.. chicago is one city in the midwest proving this a success.
true .. electric is best for short distances only at this point.. but it IS reliable. damn.. better bike lanes would reduce our oil consumption by thousands of barrels as well. think about it.

Ghassan,

Research the history of other countries that the USA has occupied they are not colonies of the USA today. Germany and Japan are doing very well and are most definitely independant.

You cannot even dare to compare Japan and Germany to Iraq for many reasons:

i) Both countires were westernized prior to WWII (yes even Japan).
ii) Both had a history of home grown democracy.
ii) The political phil. of both states were throughly routed, Bath'ism is not.
iii) There leaders killed themselves, or were killed. *thus resolution.
iv) In Japan there was a authority higher then the US the emperor who in return for amensty would accept American occupation.
v) Both countries were completely and utterly destroyed.
vi) They started their wars and they knew they wraught them on themselves.
vii) There was a PLAN to leave these countries! *scandalous.
viii) There was polticial will on the part of the home countries to re-build these countries.
ix) The US wasn't the only one to "rebuild" nations.
x) There religions don't speak of Jihad, or Fatwah against infidel's on there lands.
xi) Most political opponants were killed in purges in the 30's and 40's, thus there was one line which most followed.

So I think Ghassan has a grasp on history u seem to lack. ;)

The best patriots are blind sheep. When someone starts to think, learn, and analyze, he judges his government based on learned facts and his ideals. If a person does not agree with his government’s policies, how can he be a “patriot”?

Nico,

Yes I can compare them. Neither Germany nor Japan had republics when the war started. Germany's short lived republic was subverted by Nazification. Japan never actually had a republic. Today both do. Americans really do love to export freedom. We are ocassionally high-handed about it but we really do have the best of intentions. Our national concensus for the world is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; we do not however regard this as a suicide mission.

Since when does Republic matter? Democracy does, and both had indegenious democracy prior to 1931 - 33. Japan is still not a republic what does it make it? A warmongering state? Give me a break, Iraq never had indegenious democracy. And Democracy is the worst thing for Iraq keep your freedoms we don't need them.

Americans really do love to export freedom.

That's so sick, I can so easily compare that to Nazi ideology. Just beacause you think it's right dosen't mean it is. Understand?

We are ocassionally high-handed about it but we really do have the best of intentions.

ocassionally LFMAO

Our national concensus for the world is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; we do not however regard this as a suicide mission.

Stop with the value judgements and make a real argument please. And to clearify America's part in WWII was not to spread democracy like this crock of B.S. So you comparison ends there.

Nico,

There are no true democracies. Republics are the best we have.

As EI would say Switzerland is a good example, and also Japan and Canada are not republics neither is the UK are we warmongering, and un-civilized. Please get out of the Amero-centric view of what is best, because it's wrong.

Nico,

The countries you cited have republican forms of government. Would suggest you do a little homework.

Omg this is too much:

#1 how can Canada have a republic if our soverign is still the queen?
#2 Look for yuorself:

Canada (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#Govt)

Government type:
confederation with parliamentary democracy

Japan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html#Govt)

Government type:
constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government

UK
Government type constitutional monarchy

So what are u talking about? Me go study, ok Mr. Iraq is the same as Japan. LMFAO! :rolleyes: Ignorance.

dsds "If a person does not agree with his government’s policies, how can he be a “patriot”?"

I believe in the constitution of america.. as stated at the start of the formation of the united states ..once the government ceases to represent the people, the people have the right to a revolution.. built right into the founding of the country.. so..
patriotically speaking as the founding fathers suggested.. a true patriot should speak up when the government no longer represents them. the problem is that most people don't speak up. a true patriot does not go along with whatever the government says.. a true patriot asks WHY!? I for one cannot wait for elections.. i want to see Bush II IMPEACHED.. waiting for the elections will just get us the lesser of two evils again.. yes, im freaking pissed.. bush wasnt even really elected for pete's sake :/

Nico,

I will try yet again to explain this to you. The governments you cite are representative forms of governments not true democracies. Representative governments are republics or hybrids of republics.

Thanks for your reply ranxer to dsds. It is untrue that patriots, or even conservatives, need be ignorant. What I find annoyingly ignorant is when debate wanders from the real issues into demarcation of what camp each participant either claims, or is pigeonholed into.

Ghassan, you are correct in pointing out that the Saudi government is not strictly secular, but especially in application of sharia in their nepotistic caste system, it is far from the fundamentalist paradise some zealots dream of. Also, I think if you read my original post again you will notice I understand the Sunni distinction regarding Qaeda.

It appears that Americans only think when they are invited to do so through selective media representation of situations and people (often demonized) that otherwise none would have given a second thought to.

Minds are blank pages ready and willing to accept the next "thought agenda", and accept it as true because, previously uninterested and uncaring, they lack the prior knowledge to do otherwise.

Consequently, much seems new and suddenly urgent to many an American mind, when in fact it is simply new to their minds. After all, it's not as if Islamic fundamentalism is a new thing, or terrorism, or dictatorships or any number of "ills" around the world.

But when the US Govt decides it's time for people to care, suddenly people do, suddenly they're "knowledgeable". They can't find the country on the map but they sure know all about what's wrong with it.

MacZ,

USA's current interest in world affairs was not created by the media but by the events of 9-11. For the most part the majority of Americans take a bit of an isolationist view of world involvement. When the news shows us natural disasters in other parts of the world we have always made private charitable efforts to help. Very often this aid does not get where it is needed because of local political corruption. Iraq is a case in point food aid was hoarded in warehouses by the Saddam government and not given to the people it was meant for. We did not create all the evil in the world. We tend to take a live and let live philosophy but we were attacked and when you rouse a sleeping giant it can be very cranky. Perhaps it is time the rest of the world thinks about how to placate an angry giant instead of futher aggravating it. We have become very tired of being abused and taken advantage of.

The world has moved past placating the angry giant. If he continues to be cranky, he will be brought down.

Lawful Lilliputians have the means to tie down the Great Consumer with economic strings: The behemoth has forgotten how to cloth himself or repair his machines, has overvalued his own worth, and he needs the acquiescence of the world, far more than the converse.

Violent, angry Davids can sling a rock to the head of Goliath: This delivers not a mortal, but a disorienting wound bringing recklessness.

Davids and Lilliputians have more than sufficient motivations, methods, and numbers to humble the Giant. Unless the giant humbles himself first, he will very likely begin a noticeable decline now.

Candy: "We have become very tired of being abused and taken advantage of.'

If you will look at US history in less than an extremely skewed way, you will learn to understand that Americans ar far less abused, and far less taken advantage of, than are other nationalities whose majorities take issue with US foreign policy.

If you will look at how Americans come to enjoy cheap products without owning the necessary resources, and without paying fair wages to those who produce them, you will learn to understand that American consumerism, the most in-your-face and expanding expression of "gimme-gimme" in world history, is having a tangible negative impact on scores of millions: We can not raise up "developing" countries, nor can we claim to be the beacon of hope and democracy, by bribing and corrupting foreign leaders and trapping their workers in poverty.

If you will look at how the US' "rugged individualist" self-reliant persona is giving way to increasingly status-conscious, status-defining professional and social obsessions, causing a depletion of skilled and respected workers in both physical and social infrastructures, you will begin to understand that a downturn will be very problematic for Americans. We are forgetting how to take care of ourselves- what will happen if we continue to place ourselves at odds with the world majority?

American citizens have choices in every purchase, every conversation, every relationship, every trip (or choice not to travel and see), every 15 minutes of fame, and every vote.

Learn. Think. Speak out.

-Because this nation, conceived in liberty, can be re-dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, so that it shall not perish from the earth.

It all comes back to the media. So far the media as a whole has given its tentative endorsement to Howard Dean, for whatever nefarious reason, while at the same time only potraying the democratic candidates as being Bush bashers. There seems to be no mainstream criticism of how Bush rarely speaks to the public directly, also, how long has it been since the man has been shown interacting with normal people? I can't remember seeing him even at a school or walking on a street shaking people's hands as far back as when he gave that speech at Ground Zero. Where the hell is he? Although he was elected by a minority, the man is still our representative.

As far as patriotism goes, I think that patriotism in any form is folly. It is no more than a tool for the elite to incur the populace, and too powerful a tool, at that. While I like what you said, hypewaders, that "Thinking is Patriotism," thinking is an incredibly relative term, and there are many people out there who think and believe that what the country is doing now is the right thing to do. Of course they've thought about it, or discussed it when watching one of FNC's several talkshows that should be put on Comedy Central. They think, and they are patriots, but they are wrong.

Because, I think, Patriotism is little more than a tool to keep people from thinking, I'm very wary of using Patriotism in any regard to get political or social points across at all. By doing this, how am I better than the fat white guys running the country? Patriotism is like the ring of power--no matter what it is used for, it is inherently evil, and causes evil. I love where I live and how I live but I do not love the government. America and the United States are two very separate entities, the first is the America made up of people, many of them probably pretty nice and intelligent, while the latter is just the government and the elite trying to get the former to make it more money. While governments pass and fads fade to black, the people go on forever. How many people can remember the date that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, eh? Was it December 4, 1941? I'm not sure.

So, Patriotism, for better or for worse, is stupidity. I don't fear individuals, but I do fear groups, and Patriotism is designed not to appeal to the individual but to the group, and in doing so forces people to forgoe their individuality and their humanity. It is a weak argument, to say someone or something is bad because it is unpatriotic, instead of using a different reason. He is bad because he is anti-establishment is better than He is bad because he is unpatriotic. I guess my point is, if you use patriotism even to try to get what you feel is good across, you will still be doing evil, because Patriotism confuses people with love of the government with love of the land, for better or for worse

the propaganda in america is so thick.. the lies so blantant it never ceases to amaze me.. rumsfeld said the other day on the national press club.. 'don't quote me.. i cannot respond to that because i'm not sure i said that.. people are always saying things that i didnt say.. sometimes i say things i shouldnt say.. so i won't respond to that' he repeated stuff like this several times.. even correcting himself in mid sentence at one point.. 'that's not what i meant to say' (30 seconds ago) lies and spin.. spin and lies.. i need to listen again.. but at one point he even said.. 'governments never help the people.. governments help business help the people!!' not exact quote.. but that was the gist.. what the hell is that??!!
so our "leaders" spew lies and propaganda and the TV repeats it..

case in point... here's one the 'right' has been repeated over and over...

(candy this time)
"Iraq is a case in point food aid was hoarded in warehouses by the Saddam government "

ive read several reports from humanitarian organizations.. this fellow sums it up: "Four successive UN Humanitarian Coordinators for the Oil For Food programme assess:
Iraq's food distribution system is "second to none" (Tun Myat, Oct 2000), "totally satisfactory" (von Sponeck, March 1, 2000), "probably one of the most efficient I have ever witnessed on this globe - in spite of [...] the embargo" (Burghardt, Aug. 2001), and "extremely efficient" (Halliday, Jan 16, 2001)."

I am seriously thinking of comparing the NK ppl to the normal American. Like the NK's they (americans) are extremely militaristic, and willing to use it as a tool to get what they want. The NK's are a ppl who are ultra-nationalistic and overly patriotic, the US is no difference, where dissent is literally omitted. In NK you have two channels on the tube, both glorify Kimmie kins, in the US you have over 500 + but the news channels for the most part glorify Bush, and the neo-con take over the media shows this. FOX "news" is a good example, they are neo-con, and they are glorifing Bush at everyturn. And funnily enough it is the most watch new channel in the US. The patriot acts and the globalization of the US is socializing the US to the emph degree. Also for instance when a US military soldier dies it's a great disaster, but when ohh the US bombs a market place it's "collateral" damage. Which desensitizes the American public to "heathen" deaths. The Jessica lynch story would remind me exactly of a story of a NK heroine. Considering that no one was firing at the Americans (shooting like drunken red necks), and negating that fact. Then they tried to villianize the Iraqi's. But the real fact is that the Iraqi's offered Jessica and her friends very good care. Only a NK styled indoctrination could accomplish this. The American people as clearly shown by candy believe just like the NK ppl that their system of governance is the best and that there is no other. They (Americans) don't realize that they sound like NK, like Nazi Germany, the USSR did and does. What the hell do u think WWII was for? The American education system is a joke in all respects. Considering that about 75% of all Americans cannot point there own home town on a map, nevermind Iraq. I think NK's have some competition here for the most brainwashed and ignorant (of this fact) ppl on earth.

Nico,

I will try yet again to explain this to you. The governments you cite are representative forms of governments not true democracies. Representative governments are republics or hybrids of republics.

Republican governments you said, please don't backtrack. Parliamentary and republican governments are not one in the same so please get your facts straight. Me go study... LMFAO!


re·pub·lic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.

Thus please spare me your further juched remarks.

If the food had been distributed to the people British forces would not have found it. The food items were there and not given to the people. This kind of behavior is what is turning off the American public to giving aid.

Nico,

My Webster's defines a republic as n. representative type government.

Republic is a government without a monarch at it's head. And that definition should be under democracy IMO. Your arguing that Democracy not republicanism is the best so please.

when are you talking about candy?
do you have a source?

I'm not saying that Saddam was a Good guy.. i'm simply saying that there are many stories that are repeated by polititians and thier supporters that are simply not true.. the source i gave was from humanitarian groups.
here's a bbc report on food stockpiles.. surely you meant some other story..

Iraq stockpiles food for war..

"Iraq is helping its citizens stockpile food in case of a US-led attack, Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mehdi Saleh said on Thursday. dec 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2607179.stm

are these the stockpiles they 'found' ??

Most probably they were the items found. But it still means that the food was there and not given out as it should have been to needy people. USA did not stop food from getting into Iraq as some want to claim.

The Security Council adopted this program in 1995 after widespread criticisms of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq under comprehensive economic sanctions. After delays, humanitarian supplies began to arrive in 1997. Though the program lessened the crisis, it did not end it. Under its rules, the UN controlled all revenues from Iraq's oil sales and contracts within the program were subject to oversight. The US and the UK often imposed political blockages on legitimate humanitarian contracts, claiming "dual-use" as military items. Procedures were slow, monies were withheld for war reparations, and Iraq's oil industry could not obtain either investments or adequate spare parts. Beginning in late 2001, the US-UK throttled Iraq's oil sales through abusive control over the contract price, drastically reducing funds available for the program.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilindex.htm

US and UK were the authors of approx. 99% of the contracts under oil for food.. while almost no contracts for food were specifically blocked.. spare parts for electricity and sanitation were the most blocked under the argument of dual-use.. BUT the US slowed the process down with questions on things like pencils, eggs and penicillin!! why would we question items like that? babies have been dieing of diariah without very basic medications that were blocked.. blocking humanitarian aid is nothing less than criminal in my opinion.
take a look at this video for lots more on the US duplicity in Iraq.
realmedia stream (http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/gulfwarhidden.rmb12078.ram)

found here (http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/1543741.php)

Have you cited any sources regarding this food hoarding that you've mentioned? I haven't heard about it, but if there's information out there that I've missed I'd be happy to read it.

Pollux: "...if you use patriotism even to try to get what you feel is good across, you will still be doing evil, because Patriotism confuses people with love of the government with love of the land, for better or for worse"

It is more efficacious to build up than to tear down. Reform is clearer, more controllable, and more constructive than entropy and revolution.

Though I hesitate to use the collective "we", here are some observations on us (Homo Sapiens): We have survival instincts involving collective co-operation, tribalism, competition, security, and nationalism. To deny or dismiss these persistent influences is fraught with vulnerability in my opinion. I seek ways of making positive influence while taking this ancient programming so evident in current events into consideration.

I feel patriotism. I care about my country. I believe my country can overcome both the ghosts of the past and the scurrying covert manipulators, and the apathy of the present. I believe my country can rise above its own ignorance. I believe the internal struggles and transgressions of my country are no different than those other peoples would experience in the same position (because Americans just lucky, spoiled, people like everyone else). I am patriotic about the potential of the United States.

If events take a darker course, I will die if that is all that is left to me, opposing anyone, including the majority, who would divert this nation headlong into supremacism, fascism, or any related national disease. This, I believe, is patriotism that will not be manipulated into something horrible.

I watch my country's actions, sometimes firsthand, sometimes through secondary means, and I speak out when, in my understanding, my country is wrong. Usually I base knowledge that my country is wrong on situations when large numbers of people are being killed, are suffering, or when the land that supports us is being scourged.

I am a proud American. I feel love and pride for other places I have lived as well, but because I hold a US Passport, my responsibility to influence world politics in whatever small way I can begins there.

I am a proud, thinking, American Patriot, I speak out (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17125), and I am not alone (http://www.thegully.com/essays/iraq/030216_antiwar_demos_world.html). My country is in trouble, and though it scares me (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20288), I want to be part of the solutions and not the problems-- a thinking patriot.

I mostly agree with you hypewaders. Patriotism is not following the lead just because its the status quo. It is not putting a dozen flags in front of your house. It IS doing whatever you can to help your country.

This country was founded questioning the status quo... why change now

The thing is that Patriotism unto itself is a form of ignorance. I am aware that most humans recognize there being as being in tune with patriotism. But Patriotism is not nationalism which I think is being confused here.

pa·tri·ot·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr--tzm)
n.
Love of and devotion to one's country

na·tion·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nsh-n-lzm, nshn-)
n.
-Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
-The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
-Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

Which is what Hype was primarily talking about, to be a patriot you devote yourself to the state. Not it's future potential that is nationalism. To be a patriot there sadly has to be a certain amount of ignorance. Mostly it is the mistaken belief in the government. Patriotism is to keep the status quo not to change it.

There is no reason that you can not be devoted to a country which you recognize has flaws. This I believe does still refer to patriotism... especially since some of these motions are away from nationlism, and towards international cooperation.

Simply, patrotism is not ignorance. In being ignorant, you harm your country.

Of course I am trying to get rid of nationalism myself, and it's not easy. But it will eventually become a reality, the nation-state is just a state in time, it will disappear as globalization comes in and takes over. So essentially enjoy it now.

I'm not quite so optomistic that nationalism will die. It directly helps those in power of almost all nations.

I am not for disolving countries, but including them in a worldwide power that has it's own taxes, military, and resources. Unfortunately, there is NO reason for the big nations to join... as they end up losing power and wealth. Even if the US was to crumble, whatever nation became the strongest would still not join.

The largest version of this so far, the EU, seems to be having some growing pains.

Join what? Globalization is something u can't join, it;s forced upon you. Also With Globalization the jurisdiction of the courts and governments mean nothing when corporations could under the new free trade laws do whatever they want. Nationalism is really masked corporatism already. The state of today defends her interests which are corporate interests. I believe that Nationalism will be replaced with corporatism. At least then the facade of today's pseudo-nationalism fails. :D

Originally posted by nico
Globalization is something u can't join, it;s forced upon you. Courts and governments still mean quite a bit. Saying "you can't sell here" goes a long way. The only reason governments avoid doing this is that they value the products more.

Thus which means corporatism, what u said was the importance of the corporation over the nation. Thus nationalism is a farce.

Sorry it I wasn't clear. I wasn't promoting corporations over nations, but limited world government over nations.

Corporations have nothing to do with this thread.

Are you that stupid seriously, are u imcapable of linking one thing to another? Nationalism is the protection of corporatism, and thus nationalism is patriotism. It's just masked, and the ignorance you show is the perfect example of it's success. Give me a fucking break man, don't be so freaking blind by your ego. :rolleyes:

Hey ]Persol
Sorry to butt in but you said...
Courts and governments still mean quite a bit. Saying "you can't sell here" goes a long way
Doesn't seem to work for Europe. GW says we're bad and evil people for not buying US GM products.
The political pressure is well and truly on and trying to tell GW that Europes consumers won't buy GM is proving to be err.. problematic.

The link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3050855.stm

Dee Cee

Register as an American patriot! (http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp)

Originally posted by nico
Nationalism is the protection of corporatism, and thus nationalism is patriotism.
No, patriotism, nationalism, and corporate protection can overlap... but they are not always one in the same. You can be patriotic without pushing for corporate protection, and you can be patriotic without believing that it's better for your country to stand by itself(nationalism).

DeeCee
Doesn't seem to work for Europe. GW says we're bad and evil people for not buying US GM products.
The political pressure is well and truly on and trying to tell GW that Europes consumers won't buy GM is proving to be err.. problematic.
Interesting. I heard about this a few months ago... but have heard nothing since. I still think that the choice finally rests with the country (or in this case, a group of countries). This is a perfect case of the (global) courts having the final say. The real issue is to ask what their decision is based on.

Patriotism is the love of one's country and the love of one's government. Thus nationalism ensues on the worldwide scale. Now what do u think nations say by "interests" economic interests, thus corporatism. Most ppl work for corporations, and they are interested in seeing the corporation do well. No matter how much you rationalize the end result is obvious, your intentions may not be corporatism, but it is.

Person A =Patriotism= nationalism= corporatism= globalization= death of nationalism.

Intentions may be sweet, but end result is not.
:D

Sorry, but no.

Originally posted by nico
Patriotism is the love of one's country and the love of one's government.
Ok so far.

Thus nationalism ensues on the worldwide scale.
No... using YOUR definition nationalism is 'the belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively'. Being patriotic, does not mean you believe in nationalism.

Now what do u think nations say by "interests" economic interests, thus corporatism.
Wrong again. Interests CAN mean economic. This can also be extended to corporations. However, interests could extend to MANY things having nothing to do with corporations.

Your biggest error is in saying that patriotism becons nationalism. Hell, the original post in this thread went against that.

Think about outside the box man!

No... using YOUR definition nationalism is 'the belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively'. Being patriotic, does not mean you believe in nationalism.


Patriotism is a individual belief in a nation, nationalism is internationalized. Against other nations, I see that definition a nation working against other nations, not working with other nations. The survival of the fittest mentality here is at play. Nationalism is egoist, a ethical egoist. Me against the world mentality. That is why the UN is seen as a threat to nation-states.
Nation pitted against nation. (Very darwinist), listen we are both right just looking at two different perspective.

Wrong again. Interests CAN mean economic. This can also be extended to corporations. However, interests could extend to MANY things having nothing to do with corporations.

Maybe in the Napeolanic era, or WWI, II. Not today, economics play the first role. Maybe in the Cold War when ideology reigned supreme, but since gloablization and "democracy" are the head. What's left to deal with? Economic wars, and corporate heads. I.e. Iraq.

Your biggest error is in saying that patriotism becons nationalism. Hell, the original post in this thread went against that.

Fuck the thread.

This is really very simple.

Feeling patriotic for your country does not mean you want it to go it alone. As such, being patriotic need not lead to nationalism.

Feeling patriotic for your country does not mean you want it to go it alone. As such, being patriotic need not lead to nationalism.

I don't nessecarily disagree, but in the end game I see little difference. Patriotism is love for country, nationalism is devotion to country. But my argument is not really about this, it's about corporatism. The eventual decline of the nation-state is already happening. Mercosur, EU, CIS, NAFTA, FTAA,ASEAN. Are all in existance for what? Free Trade which benefits who? The corporation, not the normal person. Sweat shop workers for instance. USA, UK,Russia, etc will cease to exist. As These free trade zones come into existance, and with the Euro being a hallmark for further abandonment of nationalism it is only a matter of time.

Originally posted by nico
Patriotism is love for country, nationalism is devotion to country.
I disagree with you here... but it really is a small point. I fail to see how devotion of country, leads to corporatism.

While I agree corporatism is likely the end case, it isn't caused by love/devotion to country. It is caused by greed.

Because it's devtion to the countries well being is it not. And the country's well being is through (at least in today's world) the well being (profit) of the corporation. That's capitalism, now in communism nationalism and patriotism would cease to exist.

While I agree corporatism is likely the end case, it isn't caused by love/devotion to country. It is caused by greed.

Well actually according to communist doctrine nationalism in a sense is greed also. It's all a matter of perspective. :)

According to this editorial (http://www.liberator.net/articles/ClarkGary/AmericanPatriot.html) , there are no actual “American” Patriots today. Any true patriots are for a future government and constitution which will overthrow and replace the current American one. Interesting. I retract my earlier statement of all patriots being blind sheep (I was actually referring to LOYALISTS).

Actually, according to that editorial (http://www.liberator.net/articles/ClarkGary/AmericanPatriot.html) there are indeed actual American patriots today, who: (parphrasing in tense only)

1. Speak and write profusely and publish their beliefs and opinions clearly stating the truth, that their government is tyrannical and guilty of crimes against the liberty of the common man. They openly denounce the government and its agents, not only in print but in public speeches and gatherings. They do this despite great personal risk for doing so. This will continue for some time before a change becomes apparent to most people.

2. Conspire, both in secret and openly, to overthrow and revolt against their government with the aim of throwing it out and establishing a new and different governmental system. In doing this, they are branded as traitors, seditionists, and terrorists by their government... but they do it anyway, despite the risk.

3. Take up arms against their government and kill it's policing agents, who are the armed force enforcing the oppressive dictates of their government.

(end of paraphrase)

This opinion you linked to promotes the idea that only violence brings decisive change. I do not ascribe to this view. Nevertheless I believe I am a patriot.

Very often violence creates more difficult problems than the original grievance. In human history, the less we communicated across cultural, economic, and geographic barriers, the more we have killed each other in organized mutual mass-murders.

We're getting smarter by listening and talking in wider circles. As we do, we learn how to more effectively keep government in its place: Serving the people responsibly.

Which is what any true patriot demands.

minute 29 national press club (http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?mediaURL=/npc/20030910_npc_drumsfeld&mediaType=RM)

rumsfeld says governments in my view never help the people.. investment helps the people.. business helps the people, business creates the jobs government doesn't create jobs etc.

i still can't believe how easily he can say crap like that... i guess he's saying governments job is to promote business. seems to be corporatism to me.

imo patriotism at this point should be protesting this administration.. anything else is corporatism.

Corporations only 'help' the citizens/employees as much as they do because the feds make them. The only other real motivation is unions... but even they would probably fail without government support.

Most corps. now are headed in tax free areas, like Enron had who knows how many "companies" in other states for tax breaks? If anything corporations depise the fed. and they fed. has the dreaded R. word.... REGULATION! In capitalism a corporation should flourish under it's own guidance not that of a government. So reall the fed.argument is old "New Deal" era thinking.

The only other real motivation is unions... but even they would probably fail without government support.

It's those Unions that are essentially pushing out work into cheaper markets.

I agree that corps don't like federal regulation, and that unions drove wage costs up and productivity down (I charge extra to consult for union shops:) )

Without any regulation however, I think we'd just have a different problem. You'd end up with overcharging monopolies, low wages/benefits, etc... not that we don't have that now, but it would get worse.

I think we'd just have a different problem. You'd end up with overcharging monopolies, low wages/benefits, etc... not that we don't have that now, but it would get worse.

Per.. that is exactly what Globalizations goal is, to create a monotheistic-esqe monopoly economicly over the world. No states, not regulations nothing but the thirst for profit at any cost. You think the corps. really care about you and me? Muhahaha! In the end you'll end up with a WAl-mart super everything.

Well, that may be one group's globalization goal... but that osn't how I define it.

That;s nice, but that's globalization.