Nice video.

So jaakko, you are for the invasion of Iran or no? We all know iran is run by crazy fundamentalists, the issue at hand is should we nation build in IRan. Given the US and UK's past experiences, I would say no.

 

You think they are a success? You are easy to impress. I wish you were my accounting teacher.

 

Since when do we sit down with citizens and actually ask for a show of hands "Who wants to be liberated???" "Who wants to be bombed and propelled into chaos???"
Please.

 

"Elections and a the constitution are "imperial lies" and conspiracy to profit the jews?"


I don't quite know what you are taking about. It is a myth to say people on the left are anti-semitic. The old if you criticize the US you are anti-american or Israel you are anti-Jew argument is stupid and should be put to rest

 

Are the links on this piece broken, or is it just my browser?

 

Given the topic is one of correct creditation and use of such important words, Jaako I think you should be much more particular when bandying about the word "anti-semitic". Anti semitism is a misunderstood term and is almost always misused. I don't condone any excuse such as it being understood in popular usage as meaning anti-jewish. Anti zionism is the term that should be used in its stead more often than not.

The time to worry about Islamic fundamentalism was when the Taliban was being courted and entrenched in Afghanistan by the USA. Now is the time to worry about the deluge of misinformation on ALL sides, not least in the west.

 

jaakko - i want you to imagine some hypothetical countries, A, B and C. countries A and B have ELECTED authoritarian governments that most of the rest of the world wishes were not in power.

Country A has started several wars in the last few years and had been known to use chemical, and nuclear (DU) weapons in these wars. especially against country C. through its actions it is known to have killed more than 100,000 people. It has an enormous arsenal of weapons, a truly incredible amount. if you spent 26 million dollars a day since the birth of christ you still haven't spent as much as this country has on weapons since the end of the second world war.

Now, country B has not been involved in a war for about 20 years, and that war began when it was attacked by country C after country C was encouraged to attack it by country A. it has no plans to attack anyone.

here is the question... which country appears to be the problem in this situation?

 

oh and the links should work now

 

you didn't answer my question. i will answer yours. the resistance have killed many, yes. it is not pleasant at all. but the amount the resistance have killed is far far less than the occupiers.

Did you also know that a recent MoD poll said that 82% of iraqis want us out and out now?

100,000 is probably far less than have been killed.

the lancet survey....

"It was a household survey – of 988 homes in 33 randomly selected districts – and it suggested, on the basis of the mortality those households reported before and after the invasion, that the risk of death in Iraq had risen by a factor of 1.5. Somewhere between 8000 and 194,000 extra people had died, with the most probable figure being 98,000(6). Around half the deaths, if Falluja was included, or 15% if it was not, were caused by violence, and the great majority of those by attacks on the part of US forces.

In the US and the UK, the study was either ignored or torn to bits. The media described it as “inflated”, “overstated”, “politicised” and “out of proportion”. Just about every possible misunderstanding and distortion of its statistics was published, of which the most remarkable was the Observer’s claim that “The report’s authors admit it drew heavily on the rebel stronghold of Falluja, which has been plagued by fierce fighting. Strip out Falluja, as the study itself acknowledged, and the mortality rate is reduced dramatically.” In fact, as they made clear on page one, the authors had stripped out Falluja: their estimate of 98,000 deaths would otherwise have been much higher"

everything you have said here reminds me of this...

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

 

have to go

there is a little update to the post

 

Most of the civilian deaths caused by 'the resistance' should be correctly attributed to the agents provocateurs POSING as resistance fighters.
The very definition of the word resistance should tell you something too.

 

Here's an answer to your points about Iran that make it the closest to a fascist state.

1) Nuclear weapons: In case you hadn't noticed the US and UK already HAVE nuclear weapons and the US is the only country to have ever used an atomic bomb in warfare(as well as the US/UK still using depleted uranium shells as Michael pointed out as well).

2)Rejection of human rights : Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, rendition, patriot act / spying on it's own citizens, using chemical and nuclear weapons, starting illegal wars on false evidence - some recent examples of the US respect for such matters. Let's not forget that the US is one of a handful of countries that executes it's own citizens (including minors and the mentally retarded) and has the largest per capita jail population in the world. Here in Britain we think nothing of unloading a load of bullets into an innocent man's head who we suspect of being a terrorist.

3) Anti-semitism: The US seems anti-semitic too in the broader sense of the term (i.e. it is against the semitic peoples of the region - except it's friends in Israel). It went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq on false grounds killing many people in the process and destabilising the whole region. It has called Syria and Iran "evil do-ers" and part of an "axis of evil".

Get a grip on yourself if you think the US is not the biggest danger to peace and stability and human rights.

Of course I am not a fan of authoritarian regimes in any form. Islamic fundamentalism should be discouraged, but if the people of a nation elect or seem happy with such a government then there is little we can or should do. It seems to me that the countries in that region now want autonomy and are not interested in waging wars or imposing their own idelogy around the world.

But the US does constantly through economic pressure (world bank / IMF) and if all else fails their old friends warfare and subterfuge / toppling of democratically elected governments. Look at their pronouncements recently about Venezuela and the rise of "radical left wing" governments. Why don't they mind their own fucking business.

I leave you with this quote:
(Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives, June 27, 2002)

"Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate...as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties"

I'd advise you to read the full statement here: http://tinyurl.com/cpsa8

 

"We must remember that some of the most prominent critiques of the US, like Chomsky that you value, originate from that very culture. That alone proves for the pluralism involved." Are you saying that if flowers are growing in it, it's not a pile of shit?

"I have not discussed with Iranian people enough about it." You imply that you have discussed with them. When? Where? Or perhaps you consider those who left Iran in the Seventies to be the Iranian people.

"Secondly, now we can count the casulties, rather than be guessing the numbers should Saddam be still in power." Right, so if Saddam kills people it's bad, but if we do it it's OK.

 

"30000, is alot , too much. But I ask you Michael, how many are killed by the "resistance"?"

Please. How many Iraqi civilians would have been killed by the "Resistance" had no one invaded and occupied their country? Add that tally to the total. The Bush administration can accept the responsibility.

 

Jaakko - I for one do not hate western democracy, nor do I even remotely admire totalitarianism. But I consider myself to be a pacifist.

One of the ideals on which western democracy is founded upon is accountability of those who lead us. I do not agree that the course of action taken by our leaders over Iraq was correct, nor do I believe that the desires of our leaders over Iran are any more justified.

This does not mean that I wish to embrace the way of life enforced on the peoples of these countries by their own rulers, I just do not believe that replacing one forced set of values with another forced set of values is either right or beneficial to the people of these nations in large.

I condemn violence, out and out. But I believe that I should be most vociferous in condemning that perpetrated by my own country, as I in part am responsible for it. I also consider myself a patriot of my country in the truest sense - someone who loves and cherishes their homeland but is not blinded to its faults and is prepared to speak out against those who he feels drags it down by their actions.

You can disagree with my personal beliefs as much as you want, but please do not assume that every left-leaning anti-war individual like myself is anti-UK/US.

And in response to your earlier post - I am Scottish. Do I seem hysterical to you?

 

Jaakko-
I believe that Orwell was talking about pacifists in a country that was defending itself. It is a far different story when your own country is the aggressor. Would he have said the same about pacifists in Germany or Japan?

To invade or bomb Iran would be an act of aggression. As for Iran's hostility, we only know what the various propaganda sources tell us. The people in the Iranian government surely realize that they are in no position to act aggressively toward any their neighbors. A "preemptive" Invasion is therefore not necessary.

 

i would suggest that whoever did that to the little girl did the disgusting thing. telling people about it is not. are you so upset by seeing the consequences of an action that you appear to support?

hi paul and Binty - all scots together. lets get hysterical. AAAAAAARRRGGGHHHH

Justin, your spot on

 

Incidentally, speaking of Orwell is that a picture of Barnhill on Jura at the top of your page - the place where he wrote 1984?

 

it is barnhill yeah. i went there once. 6 miles after the ROAD finishes. he wasn't joking about getting away from it all!