MORMONS ARE HERETICS,THEY BELIEVE AFTER DEATH THEY WILL POPULATE PLANETS IN SPACE,how can you "breed" when you are spirit,jesus said,"neither male/female in heaven,neither marriage,MORMONS ARE HERETICS,NOT ONE COIN,CITY,EVIDENCE OF THEIR "RACES" IN THEIR "BOOK OF MORON",BIBLE TELLS "FLEE FROM FALSE PROPHETS",BRIGHAM YOUNG,56 WIVES,ADULTEROUS WHOREMONGER KING OF WHORES",whether u believe,jerusalem,herod,golgatha,ect,THEY EXISTED,AND EXIST,NAME ONE THING FROM BOOK OF MORON,THAT EXISTED
@alezander666 Lucifer calm down,every religion has stupid ways of teaching, Muslims teach, strap a bomb to yourself and try to kill an American you will be given 72 virgins, why are you wasting your time about caring what other religions believe, if Mormons are wrong then they ("we" yes i am one) will burn in hell because we are heretics,adulterers,so shut up, im taught different from others just like your taught different from others. there are 40k different religions all teach different things
Why so secretive on all his past records.All other Presidents have come forth about their personal information.But President Obama has put a seal on his records,why?If this were a Republican president, the liberal media would have gone for the jugular.I do believe he is a Muslim,because he himself inadvertently admitted to this to George Stephanoplous.You can't make a mistake about something like this.Yes, you might make a mistake about what color shoes you wore the day before, not your religion
@122651Lil If he's a Muslim why was he pictured eating during Ramadan? If he's a Muslim why has he never been to Mecca? If he's a Muslim why has no one ever seen him praying at a mosque? If he's a Muslim how come he knows no Arabic? If he's a Muslim why does he eat pork? If he's a Muslim why does he drink alcohol?
And why does he keep saying he's a Christian? In Islam proclaiming you're of another religion is called apostasy and is specifically forbidden in the Koran.
@bigbowlowrong Look, I'm only taking it at what he himself has said.Read Dreams of my Father.Both his father and step father were Muslims, so you know that there is an influence.Pictures are just that, anything can be distorted. We don't know whether he did, or not.Most everything about him has become so secretive.So he may have already gone to Mecca, or he still has many more years left to him.He's been to a mosque already, but they not going to tell you whether he's praying there or not.
@bigbowlowrong He has spoken Arabic, he did so at some Muslim gathering, check you tube.We don't know whether he eats pork or not,Are you with himm when he eats his meals.Again we don't know whether he's drinking alcohol or not.He could be drinking apple joiuce for all we know.The first think out of his mouth when George S. asked him about his religion.He said Muslim.One doesn't forget what religion they belong to.He didn't either, because the first thing he said was Muslim.
@bigbowlowrongFromJune 12,2010 Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed About Gheit said he had a one on one mtg. with Pres.Obama,in which the Pres.told him that he was still a Muslim,the son of a Muslim father,the stepson of a Muslim stepfather,that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims,and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.
@bigbowlowrong If he is a Christian, then he's keeping that a very big secret.In the time he's been president he hasn't choosen a church to attend.Rationalizes the reason.But still does not have any formal place he goes on Sunday.$6% of the people think he's a Muslim.
In formal state affairs, he's bowed down to the Saudi King.Queen Elizabeth didn't even garner such a response.No president has ever bowed down to a Saudi King.He goes into Mosque to visit, but I've not seen in Christian church.
@122651Lil Reagan almost NEVER attended church during his years in office. Bush HELD HANDS with the Saudi king and was even photographed receiving a peck on the cheek from him. Don't believe me? Google it and see for yourself.
Look Pores. Barack Obama said he was a Muslim himself. Check out they exchange between the President and George Stephanopolous. George asked what is religion was, he said Muslim. Then George said didn't you mean Christian. Pres. Obama nods, but never actually said Christian. Plus he attends a Black Liberation Theology church, and the Rev.Wright only spews out hate speech. Maybe spend at least a week watching G.B.'s shows, before you make a comment.
1. You're REALLY taking facts from Glenn Beck? That shatters all credibility you may have once had.
2. I'm positive Obama is NOT a Muslim. There is thousands of clips of evidence against obama being Muslim, but he makes one slip up and suddenly he's a Muslim?
3. Even if he IS a Muslim, why does it matter? This is America, our president can be whatever the hell religion he wants, so long as it doesn't influence his policies. This includes homophobe Christians.
YOU ALL, CAN'T DISCUSS THE FACTS CAN YOU?TRY IT SOME TIME, IT REALLY WORKS.MAYBE SPEND SOME TIME LISTENING TO GLENN BECK, HE IS THE TRUTH DETECTOR YOU KNOW!
@122651Lil i have wached glenn beck and after 30 min i thought my head was gona explode from the stupid he was spoutin out his hole.if you mean facts like he thinks oboma is a muslim and a racist ? and how he constently contradicts himself? if you think he's a truth detector then you bullshit detector is broken. ..
I HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF PROOF TO SHOW YOU, BUT I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO SAY EVERYTHING. THOSE OF YOU WHO NEGATIVELY COMMENT ARE THE DIEHARD LIBERALS. THIS GROUP NEEDS TO GET IN TUNE WITH REALITY!GLENN BECK HAS DONE SEVERAL SHOWS WITHIN THE PAST MONTHS TALKING ABOUT THE FOUNDING FATHERES OF THIS NATION, EXCELLENT SHOWS ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF BLACK PEOPLE IN OUR AMERICAN HISTORY(BIGOT HE'S NOT). GLENN HAD DR. ALVEDA KING, MLK'S NIECE, SHE'S PRO LIFE! SHOW ON CALVIN COOLEDGE ETC.
@122651Lil It's hard to take you seriously when you can't even reach your pinky finger half a centimeter to turn off the caps lock button. Try speaking logically and calmly and then maybe we'll actually give two shits about what you have to say.
A little meltdown? Beck had a freaking epileptic seizure induced by paranoid delusions and drug abuse, prompting him to scream like a fucking nutball....jesus flipping christ!
Welcome to the real America, where when people win elections, they get to govern. If you don't like it, get ready to vote again and we'll see who wins. It's called democracy. If you love it when you win, you've got to accept it when you lose. Get organized, vote and do the whole citizen thing if you're smart enough to read a ballot. However, don't count on winning because you are deluding yourselves that the majority agrees with the tea baggers. They don't. America, love it or leave it.
I love the luxury of sitting back & watching Beck, Limbaugh and RadarGuidedVermin get worked up while my folks in congress and the White House are getting the job done. How nicely the tables have turned. Welcome to democracy dumbassess. Did you forget when you crammed war down our throats without paying for it that there would be payback? Did think when you were walking out of Kyoto and thumbing your nose at environmentalists that the pendulum wouldn't swing back? Guess you were stupid.
Dude. You've lost. Unfortunately for you, the actually intelligent people can understand this. Which is why we kind of think it's funny you're actually fighting back against the obvious: you know absolutely nothing about politics, history, and especially.... math. Haha. So..... how 'bout you shut the fuck up now? Huh? What's that you say? You're a poor loser who is just going to try to insult me by calling me a gay, retarded liberal. Gee... you're getting pretty predictable. Bye now douchebag!!!
@RadarGuidedVermin why dont you look into the ACORN scandal now that the full unedited version is now out .... Looks like FOX was telling liesabout that too and they knew it was all a big LIE to begin with!
RadarGuidedVermin: HOLY SHIT YOU'RE DUMB. Ok, not to bring up anything old and beaten to death, but you seriously have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about on the WWII troops thing. Look at SparwoodApple's claim. Do the math. Then get back to me. He was never claiming that Canada sent more troops. He said that Canada simply sent more troops in proportion to it's population than the U.S. did. But I'm sure your conservative nut job brain can't handle that realization.
Whenever someone gets caught fucking a farm animal or someone in their family, that is a Republican thing to do! Whenever some fat hairy dude picks goop out of his belly button at the beach, and then smells his finger, YOU KNOW that is a Republican for sure. Dried hardened food caught in your handlebar moustache, Republican. Picking your nose and or ears in line at the bank, Republican. Tint the windows in your Chrysler LeBaron, Republican. Sniff the toilet seats in the ladies room, Republican!
aww, how cute RadarGuidedVermin has been watching cartoons again! Do you think your pathetic comment does anything but show how Retarded Republicans really are? "gay man in front of school children" , simply pathetic! This is how Coward Republican Pussies comment. Nice try to piss me off, but sadly, you don't have the intellect to make a dent. Your unintelligent blather might work on like minded Republican knuckle draggers, but not on me Champ! Keep reaching for that rainbow, Mongoloid!
109 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him?..I think not
109 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him?..I think not
109 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him?..I think not
108 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him?..I think not
Lets see a third world financial system, second rate health care system, a poor education system, millions upon millions dead civilians dead from your foriegn policy....etc.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
107 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
106 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
of supply for the worlds most vicious ethnic conflicts. So the real question for U.S. policy towards African conflicts has more to do with responsibility than it does with statistics on who may hold the dubious distinction of being the leading arms supplier to the continent. If the United States is to play a credible role in resolving and preventing wars in Africa, it should be reducing its military role in the region
109 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
As Clinton administration officials talk more and more of promoting peace and stability, consolidating democracy, and encouraging sustainable growth in Africa, they should also take a closer look at the long-term impacts of past and current policy toward the region. The ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is only the latest example of how the U.S.s Cold War legacy continues to wreak havoc in the developing world.
On August 2, 1998, violent conflict erupted in the recently formed Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC or Congo). Within months, the civil war had unfolded into a complex international crisis engulfing Central Africa in what some have called Africas First World War. In the early months of the war, the U.S. led intense diplomatic efforts to help contain the conflict, shuttling Deputy Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan
On August 2, 1998, violent conflict erupted in the recently formed Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC or Congo). Within months, the civil war had unfolded into a complex international crisis engulfing Central Africa in what some have called Africas First World War. In the early months of the war, the U.S. led intense diplomatic efforts to help contain the conflict, shuttling Deputy Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan
Despite the signing of an African-brokered peace agreement in Lusaka in July 1999, peace and stability remain distant dreams for the people of Central Africa. Fighting continues in the Congo, and at least nine neighboring countries have become directly involved over the course of the conflict. The historical and political complexity of the war leaves
Bordering nine other countries and rich in natural resources, Zaire has been the economic and strategic heart of Africa since it gained its independence nearly 40 years ago. In 1965, after five years of political and military scuffling, Mobutu Sese Soko pushed his way into the presidency with the help of external backing from the CIA. Determined to maintain a foothold on the continent, the U.S. provided political and military
Despite continued reports of widespread corruption and human rights abuses in Zaire, the U.S. helped build Mobutus arsenal with a fleet of C-130 transport aircraft and a steady supply of rifles, ammunition, trucks, jeeps, patrol boats, and communications equipment. By the time the dictator was ousted in 1997, the U.S. had delivered more than $300 million (measured in constant 1998 dollars) in military hardware to Mobutus regime
Through the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, the U.S. also trained 1,350 of Mobutus soldiers at a cost of more than $100 million.[8] Although Zairian forces gained a reputation for violence and repression against civilians, the State Department continued to claim IMET training served to "safeguard Zaires internal stability
"The U.S. has an interest in having a stable and responsible government in Kinshasa," the 1986 State Department Congressional Presentation reads, "which influences the stability, as well as the foreign and domestic policies, of its nine bordering states."[10] How Mobutus human rights abuses, political oppression, siphoning of government money, and use of a lawless military elite
Moreover, even after the Cold War ended, the U.S. continued to provide military support to the Mobutu dictatorship. In 1991, the U.S. delivered more than $4.5 million in military hardware to Mobutus government.[11] That same year, Congress suspended its economic assistance to Congo not on human rights
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Either the U.S. policy for promoting peace and democracy through a steady supply of military hardware and training to an undemocratic regime had failed miserably, or stated rationales masked other agendas. In either case, after three decades of oppressive rule Zaire hung ripe for violent upheaval, and U.S. policy reform was badly needed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In 1996-97, Laurent Desiré Kabila and his Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo swept through the country and ousted President Mobutu, calling for democratic freedom under a new government. Uncertain whether democratic reforms would actually be implemented under Kabilas self-installed government, but still hoping for a quiet end to the civil strife of the past few years, the U.S. chose to officially back the new government
In 1996-97, Laurent Desiré Kabila and his Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo swept through the country and ousted President Mobutu, calling for democratic freedom under a new government. Uncertain whether democratic reforms would actually be implemented under Kabilas self-installed government, but still hoping for a quiet end to the civil strife of the past few years, the U.S. chose to officially back the new government
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Aww did the poor yank from big bad me again? Don't worry as I will be back on here again tommorow noting how terroristic your country is.....and of course how you cannot even cite a single source for your allegations
108 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
Defenders of the Clinton administrations policy toward the provision of arms and training to African military forces point out that the United States is not the primary supplier of weaponry to the region, and that in any case U.S. military programs in Africa are designed to promote peacekeeping and professionalism, not proliferation and war. As we discuss below, whatever their intention may be, skills and equipment provided by the U.S.
have strengthened the military capabilities of combatants involved in some of Africas most violent and intractable conflicts. As to the relative importance of U.S. arms transfers to Africa, data from the most recent edition of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agencys publication, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, ranks the U.S. as the second leading arms supplier to both Central Africa (behind China and ahead of France) and Southern Africa (behind Russia
Any assessment of the arms flow to Africa must take account of the substantial transfers of light weaponry that are carried out beyond normal government-to-government channels. For example, as Brian Wood and Johan Peleman point out in their recent report The Arms Fixers: Controlling the Brokers and Shipping Agents, the weapons suppliers to the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda included brokers and shippers
the United Kingdom, South Africa, and France, working with collaborators in Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Egypt, Italy, Israel, the Seychelles, and the former Zaire.[7] While the United States was not a major player in this traffic, many of its closest allies were. And the U.S. history of overt and covert weapons trafficking to the region helped nourish the informal networks which are now often the main source
U.S. policy toward Mobutu was rationalized on the grounds of fighting "communism" and Soviet influence in Africa, but the U.S. was clearly more concerned with securing its own interests in the region than helping foster a stable, secure, and peaceful future for the people of Central Africa. Lying at the center of the continent, Zaire could provide the U.S. with access to important
resources, transportation routes, and political favors. Over the years, U.S. rhetoric changed slightly, placing greater emphasis on democratic reform of the regime and increased attention to human rights, but in reality policy continued to focus on promoting narrowly defined U.S. economic and strategic interests.
"The U.S. has an interest in having a stable and responsible government in Kinshasa," the 1986 State Department Congressional Presentation reads, "which influences the stability, as well as the foreign and domestic policies, of its nine bordering states."[10] How Mobutus human rights abuses, political oppression, siphoning of government money, and use of a lawless military elite
have been fueled in part by a legacy of U.S. involvement in the region. Moreover, the solutions being proposed by the Clinton administration remain grounded in the counter-productive Cold-War policies that have defined U.S.-Africa relations for far too long.
107 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
Finding 1 Due to the continuing legacies of its Cold War policies toward Africa, the U.S. bears some responsibility for the cycles of violence and economic problems plaguing the continent.
Finding 2 The ongoing civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) is a prime example of the devastating legacy of U.S. arms sales policy on Africa.
Finding 2 The ongoing civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) is a prime example of the devastating legacy of U.S. arms sales policy on Africa.
Although the Clinton administration has been quick to criticize the governments involved in the Congo War, decades of U.S. weapons transfers and continued military training to both sides of the conflict have helped fuel the fighting. The U.S. has
Finding 4 Despite the failure of U.S. polices in the region, the current administration continues to respond to Africas woes by helping to strengthen African militaries.
Finding 5 Even as it fuels military build-up, the U.S. continues cutting development assistance to Africa and remains unable (or unwilling) to promote alternative non-violent forms of engagement.
Often, the U.S. offered weapons and military assistance to a repressive government with one hand while raising the other in the name of securing democracy and promoting stability. Inevitably, somewhere down the line the regime collapses, and U.S. policy-makers are left struggling to re-write their lines. Once a new government takes power, the cycle reemerges with the same old offers of U.S. military training to help "secure democracy."
Despite the astounding regularity with which the policy of arming African governments has failed, U.S. policy-makers have been unable (or unwilling) to develop effective non-military forms of engagement.
Moreover, the U.S. has failed to acknowledge its own role in fueling conflict and undermining democratic development in Africa. A July 1999 Report by the U.S. Bureau of Intelligence and Research states clearly that "Arms transfers and trafficking and the conflicts they feed are having a devastating impact on Sub-Saharan Africa." Yet, the authors fail to attribute responsibility to the U.S. for either its past or current military weapons
and training exports to Africa, explicitly leaving the U.S. out of the picture: "Arms suppliers in Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, North America, Latin America, and Asia have sold arms to African clients."[4] In fact, nowhere does the report mention U.S. arms transfers to the region, although more than $20 million worth of U.S. weapons and training were delivered to Africa in 1998 alone.[
Nor is there any recognition that the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of U.S. equipment transferred to the Mobutu regime in Zaire and Jonas Savimbis UNITA movement in Angola since the 1970s are still being utilized in current African conflicts.
In brief, in journals that regard democracy as a significant value, headlines would have read that Old Europe in fact included the vast majority of Europeans, East and West, while New Europe consisted of a few leaders who chose to line up (ambiguously) with Washington, disregarding the overwhelming opinion of their own populations.
But actual reporting was mostly scattered and oblique, depicting opposition to the war as a marketing problem for Washington.
107 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
Toward the liberal end of the spectrum, Richard Holbrooke stressed the "very important point [that] if you add up the population of [the eight countries of the original New Europe], it was larger than the population of those countries not signing the letter." True enough, though something is omitted: the populations were overwhelmingly opposed to the war, mostly even more so than in those countries dismissed as Old Europe.
At the other extreme of the spectrum, the editors of the Wall Street Journal applauded the statement of the eight original signers for "exposing as fraudulent the conventional wisdom that France and Germany speak for all of Europe, and that all of Europe is now anti-American."
The eight honorable New European leaders showed that "the views of the Continent's pro-American majority weren't being heard," apart from the editorial pages of the Journal, now vindicated. The editors blasted the media to their "left" -- a rather substantial segment -- which "peddled as , when they were clearly a pitiful minority, and peddled these lies "because they served the political purposes of those, both in Europe and America, who oppose President Bush on Iraq."
have reinforced the idea of a new partnership with the continent based on promoting "African solutions to African problems." The reality, however, is that the problems facing Africa and her people violent conflict, political instability, and the lowest regional rate of economic growth
106 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
Recall that the self-appointed rulers of the world -- Bush, Powell, and the rest -- had declared forthrightly that they intended to carry out their war whether or not the United Nations (UN) or anyone else "catches up" and "becomes relevant." Old Europe, mired in irrelevance, did not catch up. Neither did New Europe, at least if people are part of their countries.
Recall that the self-appointed rulers of the world -- Bush, Powell, and the rest -- had declared forthrightly that they intended to carry out their war whether or not the United Nations (UN) or anyone else "catches up" and "becomes relevant." Old Europe, mired in irrelevance, did not catch up. Neither did New Europe, at least if people are part of their countries.
Recall that the self-appointed rulers of the world -- Bush, Powell, and the rest -- had declared forthrightly that they intended to carry out their war whether or not the United Nations (UN) or anyone else "catches up" and "becomes relevant." Old Europe, mired in irrelevance, did not catch up. Neither did New Europe, at least if people are part of their countries.
Their announcement threatened "to isolate the Germans and French," the press reported triumphantly, though the positions of New and Old Europe were in fact scarcely different. To ensure that Germany and France would be "isolated," they were not invited to sign the bold pronouncement of New Europe -- apparently for fear that they would do so, it was later quietly indicated.
The standard interpretation is that the exciting and promising New Europe stood behind Washington, thus demonstrating that "many Europeans supported the United States' view, even if France and Germany did not."
Who were these "many Europeans"? Checking polls, we find that in New Europe, opposition to "the United States' view" was for the most part even higher than in France and Germany, particularly in Italy and Spain, which were singled out for praise for their leadership of New Europe.
Happily for Washington, former communist countries too joined New Europe. Within them, support for the "United States' view," as defined by Powell -- namely, war by the "coalition of the willing" without UN authorization -- ranged from 4 percent (Macedonia) to 11 percent (Romania).
Support for a war even with a UN mandate was also very low. Latvia's former foreign minister explained that we have to "salute and shout, 'Yes sir.' . . . We have to please America no matter what the cost."
105 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
104posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
Within the "coalition of the willing," the US public was at least partially controlled by the propaganda campaign unleashed in September. In Britain, the population was split roughly fifty-fifty on the war, but the government maintained the stance of "junior partner" it had accepted reluctantly after World War II and had kept to even in the face of the contemptuous dismissal of British concerns by US leaders at moments when the country's very survival was at stake.
Outside the two full members of the coalition, problems were more serious. In the two major European countries, Germany and France, the official government stands corresponded to the views of the large majority of their populations, which unequivocally opposed the war. That led to bitter condemnation by Washington and many commentators.
Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the offending nations as just the "Old Europe," of no concern because of their reluctance to toe Washington's line. The "New Europe" is symbolized by Italy, whose prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was visiting the White House. It was, evidently, unproblematic that public opinion in Italy was overwhelmingly opposed to the war.
The governments of Old and New Europe were distinguished by a simple criterion: a government joined Old Europe in its iniquity if and only if it took the same position as the vast majority of its population and refused to follow orders from Washington.
At the time, the incumbents' British allies were in the opposition and therefore more free than the Thatcherites to speak out against Saddam's British-backed crimes. Their names are noteworthy by their absence from the parliamentary record of protests against these crimes, including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, and other leading figures of New Labour.
In December 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign minister, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes. It was drawn almost entirely from the period of firm US-UK support, a fact overlooked with the usual display of moral integrity. The timing and quality of the dossier raised many questions, but those aside, Straw failed to provide an explanation for his very recent conversion to skepticism about Saddam Hussein's good character and behavior.
When Straw was home secretary in 2001, an Iraqi who fled to England after detention and torture requested asylum. Straw denied his request. The Home Office explained that Straw "is aware that Iraq, and in particular the Iraqi security forces, would only convict and sentence a person in the courts with the provision of proper jurisdiction," so that "you could expect to receive a fair trial under an independent and properly constituted judiciary
Straw's conversion must, then, have been rather similar to President Clinton's discovery, sometime between September 8 and 11, 1999, that Indonesia had done some unpleasant things in East Timor in the past twenty-five years when it enjoyed decisive support from the US and Britain.
Attitudes toward democracy were revealed with unusual clarity during the mobilization for war in the fall of 2002, as it became necessary to deal somehow with the overwhelming popular opposition
103 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
The reason, perhaps, is that they recognized that lofty rhetoric is the obligatory accompaniment of virtually any resort to force and therefore carries no information. The rhetoric is doubly hard to take seriously in the light of the display of contempt for democracy that accompanied it, not to speak of the past record and current practices.
Funny
butchermachine 6 months ago
Every body that says it's lame never watches the news.
AKEdify 7 months ago
More rock-bottom garbage from headzup, the failed comedian.
RadarGuidedVermin 8 months ago
Are they lovers?
jckfmsincty 9 months ago
MORMONS ARE HERETICS,THEY BELIEVE AFTER DEATH THEY WILL POPULATE PLANETS IN SPACE,how can you "breed" when you are spirit,jesus said,"neither male/female in heaven,neither marriage,MORMONS ARE HERETICS,NOT ONE COIN,CITY,EVIDENCE OF THEIR "RACES" IN THEIR "BOOK OF MORON",BIBLE TELLS "FLEE FROM FALSE PROPHETS",BRIGHAM YOUNG,56 WIVES,ADULTEROUS WHOREMONGER KING OF WHORES",whether u believe,jerusalem,herod,golgatha,ect,THEY EXISTED,AND EXIST,NAME ONE THING FROM BOOK OF MORON,THAT EXISTED
alezander666 9 months ago
@alezander666 Lucifer calm down,every religion has stupid ways of teaching, Muslims teach, strap a bomb to yourself and try to kill an American you will be given 72 virgins, why are you wasting your time about caring what other religions believe, if Mormons are wrong then they ("we" yes i am one) will burn in hell because we are heretics,adulterers,so shut up, im taught different from others just like your taught different from others. there are 40k different religions all teach different things
shadowhellhound 8 months ago
boring
mrhippoo 10 months ago
check out FOX NEWS THE AMERICAN TERRORISTS on you tube
kennyddd1 11 months ago
I don't disagree with you at all.
But.
This video still sucked.
Thanks for wasting 48 seconds
harmonic42 11 months ago
wat?
HaThAcOn 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google...Debt Free America Act
H.R. 4646
Coming 11/23/10
Govt. will take 1% out of your bank account
johnnybagofdonets 1 year ago
Headzup...i think i might love you haha
WakingTheDemon04 1 year ago
I don't like Beck at all but this is just ...LAME.... SRY, BUT IT IS :(
svagrod 1 year ago
lololol
tibherius 1 year ago
Why so secretive on all his past records.All other Presidents have come forth about their personal information.But President Obama has put a seal on his records,why?If this were a Republican president, the liberal media would have gone for the jugular.I do believe he is a Muslim,because he himself inadvertently admitted to this to George Stephanoplous.You can't make a mistake about something like this.Yes, you might make a mistake about what color shoes you wore the day before, not your religion
122651Lil 1 year ago 3
@122651Lil If he's a Muslim why was he pictured eating during Ramadan? If he's a Muslim why has he never been to Mecca? If he's a Muslim why has no one ever seen him praying at a mosque? If he's a Muslim how come he knows no Arabic? If he's a Muslim why does he eat pork? If he's a Muslim why does he drink alcohol?
And why does he keep saying he's a Christian? In Islam proclaiming you're of another religion is called apostasy and is specifically forbidden in the Koran.
You don't know shit.
bigbowlowrong 1 year ago
@bigbowlowrong Look, I'm only taking it at what he himself has said.Read Dreams of my Father.Both his father and step father were Muslims, so you know that there is an influence.Pictures are just that, anything can be distorted. We don't know whether he did, or not.Most everything about him has become so secretive.So he may have already gone to Mecca, or he still has many more years left to him.He's been to a mosque already, but they not going to tell you whether he's praying there or not.
122651Lil 1 year ago
@bigbowlowrong He has spoken Arabic, he did so at some Muslim gathering, check you tube.We don't know whether he eats pork or not,Are you with himm when he eats his meals.Again we don't know whether he's drinking alcohol or not.He could be drinking apple joiuce for all we know.The first think out of his mouth when George S. asked him about his religion.He said Muslim.One doesn't forget what religion they belong to.He didn't either, because the first thing he said was Muslim.
122651Lil 1 year ago
@bigbowlowrongFromJune 12,2010 Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed About Gheit said he had a one on one mtg. with Pres.Obama,in which the Pres.told him that he was still a Muslim,the son of a Muslim father,the stepson of a Muslim stepfather,that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims,and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.
122651Lil 1 year ago
@bigbowlowrong If he is a Christian, then he's keeping that a very big secret.In the time he's been president he hasn't choosen a church to attend.Rationalizes the reason.But still does not have any formal place he goes on Sunday.$6% of the people think he's a Muslim.
In formal state affairs, he's bowed down to the Saudi King.Queen Elizabeth didn't even garner such a response.No president has ever bowed down to a Saudi King.He goes into Mosque to visit, but I've not seen in Christian church.
122651Lil 1 year ago
@122651Lil Reagan almost NEVER attended church during his years in office. Bush HELD HANDS with the Saudi king and was even photographed receiving a peck on the cheek from him. Don't believe me? Google it and see for yourself.
GeorgiaKev 1 year ago
totally lame
shortthemkts 1 year ago
This is so gay and stupid but I laughed my ass off. Awesome.
CENSOREDFORSEX 1 year ago
Look Pores. Barack Obama said he was a Muslim himself. Check out they exchange between the President and George Stephanopolous. George asked what is religion was, he said Muslim. Then George said didn't you mean Christian. Pres. Obama nods, but never actually said Christian. Plus he attends a Black Liberation Theology church, and the Rev.Wright only spews out hate speech. Maybe spend at least a week watching G.B.'s shows, before you make a comment.
122651Lil 1 year ago
@122651Lil God you're stupid.
1. You're REALLY taking facts from Glenn Beck? That shatters all credibility you may have once had.
2. I'm positive Obama is NOT a Muslim. There is thousands of clips of evidence against obama being Muslim, but he makes one slip up and suddenly he's a Muslim?
3. Even if he IS a Muslim, why does it matter? This is America, our president can be whatever the hell religion he wants, so long as it doesn't influence his policies. This includes homophobe Christians.
DauntlessScourge 1 year ago
YOU ALL, CAN'T DISCUSS THE FACTS CAN YOU?TRY IT SOME TIME, IT REALLY WORKS.MAYBE SPEND SOME TIME LISTENING TO GLENN BECK, HE IS THE TRUTH DETECTOR YOU KNOW!
122651Lil 1 year ago
@122651Lil i have wached glenn beck and after 30 min i thought my head was gona explode from the stupid he was spoutin out his hole.if you mean facts like he thinks oboma is a muslim and a racist ? and how he constently contradicts himself? if you think he's a truth detector then you bullshit detector is broken. ..
ArkonBlade 1 year ago
I HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF PROOF TO SHOW YOU, BUT I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO SAY EVERYTHING. THOSE OF YOU WHO NEGATIVELY COMMENT ARE THE DIEHARD LIBERALS. THIS GROUP NEEDS TO GET IN TUNE WITH REALITY!GLENN BECK HAS DONE SEVERAL SHOWS WITHIN THE PAST MONTHS TALKING ABOUT THE FOUNDING FATHERES OF THIS NATION, EXCELLENT SHOWS ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF BLACK PEOPLE IN OUR AMERICAN HISTORY(BIGOT HE'S NOT). GLENN HAD DR. ALVEDA KING, MLK'S NIECE, SHE'S PRO LIFE! SHOW ON CALVIN COOLEDGE ETC.
122651Lil 1 year ago
@122651Lil It's hard to take you seriously when you can't even reach your pinky finger half a centimeter to turn off the caps lock button. Try speaking logically and calmly and then maybe we'll actually give two shits about what you have to say.
DangerouslySavvy 1 year ago
Stupid is stupid does! These distortions of Glenn Beck, only demonstrates the idiocy of the liberal media. Glenn Beck RULES, get used to it!
122651Lil 1 year ago
@122651Lil lol please provide some proof of his intelligence. I've only seen idiocy.
HatemailMagnet 1 year ago
A little meltdown? Beck had a freaking epileptic seizure induced by paranoid delusions and drug abuse, prompting him to scream like a fucking nutball....jesus flipping christ!
RedNymph234 1 year ago
"fucking thing sucks" LOL
rosenberg011 1 year ago
lmaoooooo
crazyspyder213 1 year ago
wow that may have been the gayest thing i have ever seen
jack9339nnn 1 year ago 28
@jack9339nnn lol
WilAzzamEdison 1 year ago
@jack9339nnn
You know that you're in bad hands when the poster can't even spell "heads up".
THEVETERAN7 9 months ago
oh a dayts it we'll do it live
BigEvan96 1 year ago
I would pay to see this
Raptor302 1 year ago
Haha! "Get off my foot!"
ReesesChannel 1 year ago
what part of this is funny?
1ach0neus 1 year ago
@1ach0neus All of it
Raptor302 1 year ago
@1ach0neus all of it retard
crazyspyder213 1 year ago
LMAO! that was great!
Zentz29 1 year ago
YOU ARE SO TALENTED
nicknackolous 1 year ago
Lying Obama's game plan:
(1) Strip citizens of their civil liberties
(2) Encourage Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon
(3) Bankrupt America
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
@RadarGuidedVermin What liberties are you talking about specifically?
CzeciStan1 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
Comment removed
CzeciStan1 1 year ago
@RadarGuidedVermin Are you related to a guy named Rollie Sakers?
CzeciStan1 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
@RadarGuidedVermin I think it's time for your thorazine shot buddy,push the little button and the nurse will be there shortly...
CzeciStan1 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
nice video like this makes FUCKING sense
elgranto88 1 year ago
Welcome to the real America, where when people win elections, they get to govern. If you don't like it, get ready to vote again and we'll see who wins. It's called democracy. If you love it when you win, you've got to accept it when you lose. Get organized, vote and do the whole citizen thing if you're smart enough to read a ballot. However, don't count on winning because you are deluding yourselves that the majority agrees with the tea baggers. They don't. America, love it or leave it.
kujayhawkjim 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
@RadarGuidedVermin
you're obviously insane...
Zentz29 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
I love the luxury of sitting back & watching Beck, Limbaugh and RadarGuidedVermin get worked up while my folks in congress and the White House are getting the job done. How nicely the tables have turned. Welcome to democracy dumbassess. Did you forget when you crammed war down our throats without paying for it that there would be payback? Did think when you were walking out of Kyoto and thumbing your nose at environmentalists that the pendulum wouldn't swing back? Guess you were stupid.
kujayhawkjim 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
Dude. You've lost. Unfortunately for you, the actually intelligent people can understand this. Which is why we kind of think it's funny you're actually fighting back against the obvious: you know absolutely nothing about politics, history, and especially.... math. Haha. So..... how 'bout you shut the fuck up now? Huh? What's that you say? You're a poor loser who is just going to try to insult me by calling me a gay, retarded liberal. Gee... you're getting pretty predictable. Bye now douchebag!!!
217SaintJimmy 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
@RadarGuidedVermin why dont you look into the ACORN scandal now that the full unedited version is now out .... Looks like FOX was telling liesabout that too and they knew it was all a big LIE to begin with!
CzeciStan1 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
How about them summer games?
DrewwzaPalooza 1 year ago
P.S. Ummmm..... I'm an American and all.... but Canada totally destroyed the U.S. in the Olympics.
217SaintJimmy 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
RadarGuidedVermin: HOLY SHIT YOU'RE DUMB. Ok, not to bring up anything old and beaten to death, but you seriously have no idea whatsoever of what you're talking about on the WWII troops thing. Look at SparwoodApple's claim. Do the math. Then get back to me. He was never claiming that Canada sent more troops. He said that Canada simply sent more troops in proportion to it's population than the U.S. did. But I'm sure your conservative nut job brain can't handle that realization.
217SaintJimmy 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
@RadarGuidedVermin Per capita you are wrong fool!
CzeciStan1 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
@RadarGuidedVermin WTF are you talking about you fuckin moron?
CzeciStan1 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
searching for funny....
searching for funny....
funny not found
please try another video
Ryukachoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You need a job
Lcollins1208 2 years ago
Whenever someone gets caught fucking a farm animal or someone in their family, that is a Republican thing to do! Whenever some fat hairy dude picks goop out of his belly button at the beach, and then smells his finger, YOU KNOW that is a Republican for sure. Dried hardened food caught in your handlebar moustache, Republican. Picking your nose and or ears in line at the bank, Republican. Tint the windows in your Chrysler LeBaron, Republican. Sniff the toilet seats in the ladies room, Republican!
IamSARAHPALINtheDOLT 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
aww, how cute RadarGuidedVermin has been watching cartoons again! Do you think your pathetic comment does anything but show how Retarded Republicans really are? "gay man in front of school children" , simply pathetic! This is how Coward Republican Pussies comment. Nice try to piss me off, but sadly, you don't have the intellect to make a dent. Your unintelligent blather might work on like minded Republican knuckle draggers, but not on me Champ! Keep reaching for that rainbow, Mongoloid!
IamSARAHPALINtheDOLT 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 1 year ago
109 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him?..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago 10
GET OFF MY FOOT !!!!!!!!!
peterlaz1 2 years ago
Fox news is so stupid. Anyone that watches fox news is stupid, want the facts watch cnn.
mortabis 2 years ago
i agree..fox news are not even news
protectamerica100 2 years ago 2
@mortabis -
CNN is Fox lite. All of the mainstream media are.
GayTexanCommunist 2 years ago
hahahaha
marzutraII 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
fun fun fun
azteckike 2 years ago
109 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him?..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
109 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him?..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
108 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him?..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
why can't provide any? busy proping a failed country I suppose........takes a lot of time to find anything positive about your country I guess
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Lets see a third world financial system, second rate health care system, a poor education system, millions upon millions dead civilians dead from your foriegn policy....etc.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
107 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
come Radar just even one single source.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
106 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Hey when did I claim it as my own and what book are you talking about? as for the so called loon........beats supporting a failed nation
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Well over 200 plagiarized cut-and-paste posts by RoadApple, and he's been completely unable to defend himself.
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
of supply for the worlds most vicious ethnic conflicts. So the real question for U.S. policy towards African conflicts has more to do with responsibility than it does with statistics on who may hold the dubious distinction of being the leading arms supplier to the continent. If the United States is to play a credible role in resolving and preventing wars in Africa, it should be reducing its military role in the region
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
109 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
As Clinton administration officials talk more and more of promoting peace and stability, consolidating democracy, and encouraging sustainable growth in Africa, they should also take a closer look at the long-term impacts of past and current policy toward the region. The ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is only the latest example of how the U.S.s Cold War legacy continues to wreak havoc in the developing world.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
On August 2, 1998, violent conflict erupted in the recently formed Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC or Congo). Within months, the civil war had unfolded into a complex international crisis engulfing Central Africa in what some have called Africas First World War. In the early months of the war, the U.S. led intense diplomatic efforts to help contain the conflict, shuttling Deputy Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On August 2, 1998, violent conflict erupted in the recently formed Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC or Congo). Within months, the civil war had unfolded into a complex international crisis engulfing Central Africa in what some have called Africas First World War. In the early months of the war, the U.S. led intense diplomatic efforts to help contain the conflict, shuttling Deputy Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Despite the signing of an African-brokered peace agreement in Lusaka in July 1999, peace and stability remain distant dreams for the people of Central Africa. Fighting continues in the Congo, and at least nine neighboring countries have become directly involved over the course of the conflict. The historical and political complexity of the war leaves
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Bordering nine other countries and rich in natural resources, Zaire has been the economic and strategic heart of Africa since it gained its independence nearly 40 years ago. In 1965, after five years of political and military scuffling, Mobutu Sese Soko pushed his way into the presidency with the help of external backing from the CIA. Determined to maintain a foothold on the continent, the U.S. provided political and military
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Despite continued reports of widespread corruption and human rights abuses in Zaire, the U.S. helped build Mobutus arsenal with a fleet of C-130 transport aircraft and a steady supply of rifles, ammunition, trucks, jeeps, patrol boats, and communications equipment. By the time the dictator was ousted in 1997, the U.S. had delivered more than $300 million (measured in constant 1998 dollars) in military hardware to Mobutus regime
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Through the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, the U.S. also trained 1,350 of Mobutus soldiers at a cost of more than $100 million.[8] Although Zairian forces gained a reputation for violence and repression against civilians, the State Department continued to claim IMET training served to "safeguard Zaires internal stability
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The U.S. has an interest in having a stable and responsible government in Kinshasa," the 1986 State Department Congressional Presentation reads, "which influences the stability, as well as the foreign and domestic policies, of its nine bordering states."[10] How Mobutus human rights abuses, political oppression, siphoning of government money, and use of a lawless military elite
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Moreover, even after the Cold War ended, the U.S. continued to provide military support to the Mobutu dictatorship. In 1991, the U.S. delivered more than $4.5 million in military hardware to Mobutus government.[11] That same year, Congress suspended its economic assistance to Congo not on human rights
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Either the U.S. policy for promoting peace and democracy through a steady supply of military hardware and training to an undemocratic regime had failed miserably, or stated rationales masked other agendas. In either case, after three decades of oppressive rule Zaire hung ripe for violent upheaval, and U.S. policy reform was badly needed.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In 1996-97, Laurent Desiré Kabila and his Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo swept through the country and ousted President Mobutu, calling for democratic freedom under a new government. Uncertain whether democratic reforms would actually be implemented under Kabilas self-installed government, but still hoping for a quiet end to the civil strife of the past few years, the U.S. chose to officially back the new government
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 1996-97, Laurent Desiré Kabila and his Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo swept through the country and ousted President Mobutu, calling for democratic freedom under a new government. Uncertain whether democratic reforms would actually be implemented under Kabilas self-installed government, but still hoping for a quiet end to the civil strife of the past few years, the U.S. chose to officially back the new government
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Aww did the poor yank from big bad me again? Don't worry as I will be back on here again tommorow noting how terroristic your country is.....and of course how you cannot even cite a single source for your allegations
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
108 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Defenders of the Clinton administrations policy toward the provision of arms and training to African military forces point out that the United States is not the primary supplier of weaponry to the region, and that in any case U.S. military programs in Africa are designed to promote peacekeeping and professionalism, not proliferation and war. As we discuss below, whatever their intention may be, skills and equipment provided by the U.S.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
have strengthened the military capabilities of combatants involved in some of Africas most violent and intractable conflicts. As to the relative importance of U.S. arms transfers to Africa, data from the most recent edition of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agencys publication, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, ranks the U.S. as the second leading arms supplier to both Central Africa (behind China and ahead of France) and Southern Africa (behind Russia
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Any assessment of the arms flow to Africa must take account of the substantial transfers of light weaponry that are carried out beyond normal government-to-government channels. For example, as Brian Wood and Johan Peleman point out in their recent report The Arms Fixers: Controlling the Brokers and Shipping Agents, the weapons suppliers to the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda included brokers and shippers
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
the United Kingdom, South Africa, and France, working with collaborators in Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Egypt, Italy, Israel, the Seychelles, and the former Zaire.[7] While the United States was not a major player in this traffic, many of its closest allies were. And the U.S. history of overt and covert weapons trafficking to the region helped nourish the informal networks which are now often the main source
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
U.S. policy toward Mobutu was rationalized on the grounds of fighting "communism" and Soviet influence in Africa, but the U.S. was clearly more concerned with securing its own interests in the region than helping foster a stable, secure, and peaceful future for the people of Central Africa. Lying at the center of the continent, Zaire could provide the U.S. with access to important
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
resources, transportation routes, and political favors. Over the years, U.S. rhetoric changed slightly, placing greater emphasis on democratic reform of the regime and increased attention to human rights, but in reality policy continued to focus on promoting narrowly defined U.S. economic and strategic interests.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
"The U.S. has an interest in having a stable and responsible government in Kinshasa," the 1986 State Department Congressional Presentation reads, "which influences the stability, as well as the foreign and domestic policies, of its nine bordering states."[10] How Mobutus human rights abuses, political oppression, siphoning of government money, and use of a lawless military elite
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
have been fueled in part by a legacy of U.S. involvement in the region. Moreover, the solutions being proposed by the Clinton administration remain grounded in the counter-productive Cold-War policies that have defined U.S.-Africa relations for far too long.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
107 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Finding 1 Due to the continuing legacies of its Cold War policies toward Africa, the U.S. bears some responsibility for the cycles of violence and economic problems plaguing the continent.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Finding 2 The ongoing civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) is a prime example of the devastating legacy of U.S. arms sales policy on Africa.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Finding 2 The ongoing civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) is a prime example of the devastating legacy of U.S. arms sales policy on Africa.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Although the Clinton administration has been quick to criticize the governments involved in the Congo War, decades of U.S. weapons transfers and continued military training to both sides of the conflict have helped fuel the fighting. The U.S. has
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Finding 4 Despite the failure of U.S. polices in the region, the current administration continues to respond to Africas woes by helping to strengthen African militaries.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Finding 5 Even as it fuels military build-up, the U.S. continues cutting development assistance to Africa and remains unable (or unwilling) to promote alternative non-violent forms of engagement.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Often, the U.S. offered weapons and military assistance to a repressive government with one hand while raising the other in the name of securing democracy and promoting stability. Inevitably, somewhere down the line the regime collapses, and U.S. policy-makers are left struggling to re-write their lines. Once a new government takes power, the cycle reemerges with the same old offers of U.S. military training to help "secure democracy."
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Despite the astounding regularity with which the policy of arming African governments has failed, U.S. policy-makers have been unable (or unwilling) to develop effective non-military forms of engagement.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Moreover, the U.S. has failed to acknowledge its own role in fueling conflict and undermining democratic development in Africa. A July 1999 Report by the U.S. Bureau of Intelligence and Research states clearly that "Arms transfers and trafficking and the conflicts they feed are having a devastating impact on Sub-Saharan Africa." Yet, the authors fail to attribute responsibility to the U.S. for either its past or current military weapons
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
and training exports to Africa, explicitly leaving the U.S. out of the picture: "Arms suppliers in Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, North America, Latin America, and Asia have sold arms to African clients."[4] In fact, nowhere does the report mention U.S. arms transfers to the region, although more than $20 million worth of U.S. weapons and training were delivered to Africa in 1998 alone.[
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Nor is there any recognition that the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of U.S. equipment transferred to the Mobutu regime in Zaire and Jonas Savimbis UNITA movement in Angola since the 1970s are still being utilized in current African conflicts.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
In brief, in journals that regard democracy as a significant value, headlines would have read that Old Europe in fact included the vast majority of Europeans, East and West, while New Europe consisted of a few leaders who chose to line up (ambiguously) with Washington, disregarding the overwhelming opinion of their own populations.
But actual reporting was mostly scattered and oblique, depicting opposition to the war as a marketing problem for Washington.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
107 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Toward the liberal end of the spectrum, Richard Holbrooke stressed the "very important point [that] if you add up the population of [the eight countries of the original New Europe], it was larger than the population of those countries not signing the letter." True enough, though something is omitted: the populations were overwhelmingly opposed to the war, mostly even more so than in those countries dismissed as Old Europe.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
At the other extreme of the spectrum, the editors of the Wall Street Journal applauded the statement of the eight original signers for "exposing as fraudulent the conventional wisdom that France and Germany speak for all of Europe, and that all of Europe is now anti-American."
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
The eight honorable New European leaders showed that "the views of the Continent's pro-American majority weren't being heard," apart from the editorial pages of the Journal, now vindicated. The editors blasted the media to their "left" -- a rather substantial segment -- which "peddled as , when they were clearly a pitiful minority, and peddled these lies "because they served the political purposes of those, both in Europe and America, who oppose President Bush on Iraq."
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
have reinforced the idea of a new partnership with the continent based on promoting "African solutions to African problems." The reality, however, is that the problems facing Africa and her people violent conflict, political instability, and the lowest regional rate of economic growth
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
106 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Recall that the self-appointed rulers of the world -- Bush, Powell, and the rest -- had declared forthrightly that they intended to carry out their war whether or not the United Nations (UN) or anyone else "catches up" and "becomes relevant." Old Europe, mired in irrelevance, did not catch up. Neither did New Europe, at least if people are part of their countries.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Recall that the self-appointed rulers of the world -- Bush, Powell, and the rest -- had declared forthrightly that they intended to carry out their war whether or not the United Nations (UN) or anyone else "catches up" and "becomes relevant." Old Europe, mired in irrelevance, did not catch up. Neither did New Europe, at least if people are part of their countries.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Recall that the self-appointed rulers of the world -- Bush, Powell, and the rest -- had declared forthrightly that they intended to carry out their war whether or not the United Nations (UN) or anyone else "catches up" and "becomes relevant." Old Europe, mired in irrelevance, did not catch up. Neither did New Europe, at least if people are part of their countries.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Their announcement threatened "to isolate the Germans and French," the press reported triumphantly, though the positions of New and Old Europe were in fact scarcely different. To ensure that Germany and France would be "isolated," they were not invited to sign the bold pronouncement of New Europe -- apparently for fear that they would do so, it was later quietly indicated.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
The standard interpretation is that the exciting and promising New Europe stood behind Washington, thus demonstrating that "many Europeans supported the United States' view, even if France and Germany did not."
Who were these "many Europeans"? Checking polls, we find that in New Europe, opposition to "the United States' view" was for the most part even higher than in France and Germany, particularly in Italy and Spain, which were singled out for praise for their leadership of New Europe.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Happily for Washington, former communist countries too joined New Europe. Within them, support for the "United States' view," as defined by Powell -- namely, war by the "coalition of the willing" without UN authorization -- ranged from 4 percent (Macedonia) to 11 percent (Romania).
Support for a war even with a UN mandate was also very low. Latvia's former foreign minister explained that we have to "salute and shout, 'Yes sir.' . . . We have to please America no matter what the cost."
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
105 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
104posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Within the "coalition of the willing," the US public was at least partially controlled by the propaganda campaign unleashed in September. In Britain, the population was split roughly fifty-fifty on the war, but the government maintained the stance of "junior partner" it had accepted reluctantly after World War II and had kept to even in the face of the contemptuous dismissal of British concerns by US leaders at moments when the country's very survival was at stake.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Outside the two full members of the coalition, problems were more serious. In the two major European countries, Germany and France, the official government stands corresponded to the views of the large majority of their populations, which unequivocally opposed the war. That led to bitter condemnation by Washington and many commentators.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the offending nations as just the "Old Europe," of no concern because of their reluctance to toe Washington's line. The "New Europe" is symbolized by Italy, whose prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was visiting the White House. It was, evidently, unproblematic that public opinion in Italy was overwhelmingly opposed to the war.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
The governments of Old and New Europe were distinguished by a simple criterion: a government joined Old Europe in its iniquity if and only if it took the same position as the vast majority of its population and refused to follow orders from Washington.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
At the time, the incumbents' British allies were in the opposition and therefore more free than the Thatcherites to speak out against Saddam's British-backed crimes. Their names are noteworthy by their absence from the parliamentary record of protests against these crimes, including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, and other leading figures of New Labour.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
In December 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign minister, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes. It was drawn almost entirely from the period of firm US-UK support, a fact overlooked with the usual display of moral integrity. The timing and quality of the dossier raised many questions, but those aside, Straw failed to provide an explanation for his very recent conversion to skepticism about Saddam Hussein's good character and behavior.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
When Straw was home secretary in 2001, an Iraqi who fled to England after detention and torture requested asylum. Straw denied his request. The Home Office explained that Straw "is aware that Iraq, and in particular the Iraqi security forces, would only convict and sentence a person in the courts with the provision of proper jurisdiction," so that "you could expect to receive a fair trial under an independent and properly constituted judiciary
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Straw's conversion must, then, have been rather similar to President Clinton's discovery, sometime between September 8 and 11, 1999, that Indonesia had done some unpleasant things in East Timor in the past twenty-five years when it enjoyed decisive support from the US and Britain.
Attitudes toward democracy were revealed with unusual clarity during the mobilization for war in the fall of 2002, as it became necessary to deal somehow with the overwhelming popular opposition
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
Comment removed
RadarGuidedVermin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
103 posts by RadarGuidedVermin since my first request for proof and RadarIdiot has yet to provide even one source proving his completely baseless allegations regarding our role in WW2.
Think it is mere coincidence that not a single historian agrees with him..I think not
SparwoodApple 2 years ago
The reason, perhaps, is that they recognized that lofty rhetoric is the obligatory accompaniment of virtually any resort to force and therefore carries no information. The rhetoric is doubly hard to take seriously in the light of the display of contempt for democracy that accompanied it, not to speak of the past record and current practices.
SparwoodApple 2 years ago