The war on "terrorism" is nothing but tilting at windmills. The mere "terrorist" concept is nothing more than an illusion, created by the US government in order to mentaly manipulate the population to go into war at these fabled enemies. It is not the first time this method is utilized by the leaders of a nations (e.g Adolf Hitler.) Very much like the US government (when they destroyed the world trade center and blamed "terrorists") Hitler burned down the Reichtag and blamed communists.
To appropriate in the sense you think means "to find," as in, "the administration appropriated funds from the endowment to build the gymnasium."
What do you George Bush said? "I appropriate you to blow up the World Trade Center buildings?" "I appropriate the destruction of the Pentagon?"
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, -- hah !!!
John Pilger clearly says here that al-Qaida attacked the United States of America. He apparently does not believe that the attacks are a secret plot of the United States against its own citizens.
"The attacks of September 11 were appropriated by a clique in the US establishment in order to further its aims around the world."
That's the closest we can get to any kind of sinister conspiracy in the US. Check out "Noam Chomsky on 9/11."
Francesco Cossiga,Italian President 1985-92 and Head of Security, told Le Corriere (Italy's equiv to The Times) 911 was run by CIA and Mossad and that he himself helped Operation Gladio (see video.google 3x1hr Timewatch docu) NATO false flag operations bombing civilians throughout Europe 60s-90s.
And what, pray tell, is the source or occasion of Francesco Cossiga's alleged knowledge of the internal workings of the United States' internal covert agencies? And how has 9/11 in any way furthered the interests of the United States national security, which would be the putative basis for such a plot? "They" are so brilliant as to manipulate such a fantastic conspiracy, but then let its consequences run our national security into the ground? It doesn't cohere.
kruddykuffar your points seem to be contradictory.You quote JP saying the US establishment used 9/11 attacks to further their aims,but then you start by saying that the attacks were a plot against its own citizens.Which surely is what JP said. ????
John Pilger is merely saying the Bush administration opportunistically exploited the situation. I quoted him. Then I recommend that other interested parties, maybe even you, check out the Noam Chomsky video where he also refutes the claim that the US government planned 9/11.
Nowhere in my comment do I say that the government is behind the attacks. There's no contradiction at all.
Ok i'm grateful to you for clarifying these points for me.
I'll certainly check out the Noam Chomsky video as he comes as highly recommended for his viewpoints as John Pilger.
The 9/11 situation is an interesting one in which there are lots of questions that still remain unanswered.This has probably not been helped by the omissions commissions,the PNAC statement made in 2000 and the draconian legislation,patriot act etc introduced since that time.
what he clearly stated was that the attacks were "appropriated by a clique in the US establishment" this was right after he mentioned privatized terrorism so clearly he does believe that it was the result of a sinister conspiracy. do you understand what appropriate means?
Yes, I do. You apparently don't. To "appropriate" means to "take." It doesn't mean to "commit," to "do," to "make," to "create," or to "conspire." My vocabulary has been thoroughly tested and my scores outcompete 99% of the US population. I'm sure it's better than yours, what with your misinterpretation of what to appropriate means.
What Pilger meant was that the attacks created an opportunity for the Bush White House to exploit the situation, Dimwit. You're a fucking idiot, you know that?
"To set apart, authorize, or legislate for some specific purpose or use: 'The legislature appropriated funds for the university.' "
So you think the Bush administration authorized it? Whom did they authorize? Boy, that's pretty slick. I'm surprised you give them so much credit as to be able to pull that one off when they could do nothing else right.
The meaning of appropriate to which you refer has to do with legislation, Idiot. Man, you're obviously a fucking moron to believe what you do.
Those with conservative minds like yours are always looking for somebody to look up to.
It leads to a very narrow world view.
Its sad that yu probably think of yourself as some kind of a free thinker and more intelligent than most. Your posts though show you to be something of the opposite.
John Pilger is the prophet of a religion called truth. There is no doubt that his work over the years has allowed consciousness to evolve at a pace that surpasses all of its oppressors will to extinct it. His courage is a motivation to every journalist with a mind and heart. He is the reminder that the inaction to corruption is not acceptable and indeed denounce able.
And who are you? How much experience and knowlege do you have of the world? Pilger is one of the most respected journalists of the 20th Century and has been making films, reporting around the world and researching for 50 years.
If anyone is arrogant and narrow minded I would put money on you.
So what if he has been a journalist for decades. Lots of people have. He has done some impressive work at times. But has spoilt it by his egomania. Like David Icke he has really lost the plot.
Pilger is incredibly arrogant and narrow minded. He has got completely obsessed by what he sees as the truth. He needs to question some of his childish views. He wants to explain all the problems in the world away easily by blaming it all on the US/UK/Israel etc etc. Pathetic really.
John Pilger has the experience to make those claims. After serving in the army overseas myself, I am inclined to believe him.
You hide behind a screen name (so do I- fair play) and fake age. have no videos of your own from which I can guage your experience so from what experience do you draw when critisizing his views?
I just judge JP on what i know of what he has said and done. And of course i base my views on \my influences and experiences. Both of which have taught me to be sceptical of people who seem incapable of taking a fully rounded view of the world.
Most peoples actions are not governed just by one idea. JP seems to believe that everything can be explained by one motivation. Makes him ICKE LIKE in my view.
If Russia invaded the US and said,"You're government is evil, and we are going to take the power from the wealthy and redistribute it amongst the poor, and we will occupy your country until the poor people figure out how to run it better than you did,"
Would you like that to happen? As an australian, it would be hard to justify myself blowing by self up against a russian army of occupation in the US, wouldnt it.
"This invasion was not about freeing Iraq or promoting democracy. This invasion was not about national security. There are a number of regimes worse than Saddam's. Why don't we go after them?"
Name me those regimes and i will give you a godd reason why the US has not invaded.
Listen, if you want to debate me, don't go into some sentimental bullshit. First of all, i doubt that russia would do that (take the power from the wealthy and redistribute it amongst the poor in a occupied america)becuase the soviet union is dead, pure socialism is virtuarly non existant in russia today. And what you are also implying is that the US government is just as bad as that of saddam husseins Iraq, which is not true. By the way, you forget that i am Australian, not American.
Well we aint living in an Orwellian society yet but the governments sure are working hard to crank up the terrorist threat.Which is normally followed by anti-terrorist legislation.They did the same thing in Germany in the 1930's actually.
Yeah until it's actually here I won't believe it. I need to feel those chains on my hands or the microchip in my skin before I believe any of this. Because I'M INTELLIGENT. And that's what intelligent people do. They wait until it's down their throat before they say "Hey who is protecting my freedom"...
Oh yes, I agree, there is a war of terror made by a bunch of criminals - so-called illuminatis -a lot of them being a part of the american government. The ones who have suffered, suffer and will still suffer are the american people self.I hope most of them will wake up at last!!!
John Pilger's bias on the United States of America runs so deep that he fails to recognize the other side of the issues. Our intentions for entering this war have been proven false, and misguided. Although we cannot forget the tyrant that Saddam Hussein was. He killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves. The amount of deaths under his regime would be far greater than the current war.
Hey ! You wanna talk about the Tyrant that Abe Lincoln was ? Killed more than 50 000 of his own people !!! America get the fukk out of other Counties !!! Solve your own problems and stop bleeding the World for your own Desires. The rest of the world is getting to hate you like Nazis !
Rancovecer has it exactly right! In fact George Washington said it also--so did Eisenhower! (I mention them only to point out that it is not just us "nuts" who get it) In fact that US has been continually at war since '41 (I say continually not continuously) check it out. In fact Ireland is a good example--the Brits wanted to "civilize" it--check out Wexford or later on bloody Churchill's efforts at "civilization" What did Ireland ever do to England to justify such butchery?
The figure of a million Iraqis killed is wrong and unsubstantiated. Furthermore the US did not do the majority of the killing. Most deaths resulted from the power struggle between Sunni/Shia. Groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq and Shia death squads are the big killers. Pilger's opinion is a minority one yet he buttresses his ego by dismissing other credible journalists as propagandists. I have been to Iraq for prolonged periods.
I believe the war was started to bring democracy to the region. However if your answer is that we simply should have left Saddam alone as he ruled Iraq with an Iron fist and through sheer brutality kept Iraq together that would suggest you have 'corrupt reasoning'. Fact remains UK and US are not resonsible for most of the killings in Iraq.I know I've been there and met many Iraqis who preferred democracy to rule by Saddam or Al Qaeada.
You believe the war was started to bring "democracy" to the region ? Man, there comes a time to stop believing Mummy when she says Santa is coming down the chimney, or DaddyBush when he says America wanted to do anything in Iraq BUT Armed Robbery for Oil by Murder. Armed Robbery & Murder, thats all.
Could you support your argument with fact and not insults? Didn't think so, I've been to Iraq unlike you and you know what they now have free elections and political parties. Furthermore Iraq's oil is state controlled (unlike America's) and if anything once exported will go to China. So the USA has not stolen anything. What they have done is spend a fortune trying to make the country function.
Ooh, so I bet that all the 4500 dead soldiers and their families, the 135000 dead Iraqi's and their families and all the unemployed and homeless thanks to this war can all forget their sorrows since Iraqi's can now vote! Democracy doesn't mean shit if you don't have your basic needs. How can you possibly believe these things you're saying. Do you think it is a coincidence that the US only interferes with resource-rich countries. Watch 'Breaking the Silence Truth and Lies in the War on Terror'
Well how many Iraqis would have been killed if we just left Saddam in place? Oh the US interferes in resource rich countries? What like Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan?
Speculating about how many people would have been killed if America did or did not start this war is stupid since no one is ever going to know.
Afghanistan is rich in oil and opium. Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo were relatively small inteventions for American standards. And if they're so helpful why didn't they interfere with the genocide of Rwanda that killed 800,000 people in 100 days, or the massacres of Paul Pot in Cambodia and the massacres in Timor?
I'm sick of people saying because they have been somewhere they think they know everything or have the right idea about something... They don't have free elections any more than we have here in America. You are looking at the surface and not what is really going on... I can't educate you in a post but you need to look at our American history for starters. It's un American to do what we are doing around the world. Our constitution doesn't allow for it. The founders supported isolationism.
Dear Robtime, I dont think mentioning Santa is really an insult. If you want to believe in your Governments brainwashing well, thats up to you. You remind me of a man saying, "Look how big the rabbits are here ! When he sees a Great Kangaroo." Next you will tell me the British Empire invaded as many countries as possible out of Benevolence not Greed. You beg for real insult ! You are either a liar or a fool- or a Patriot which is both mixed with doublethink.
EVIDENCE is, 1 million people would not have been blown to KingdomCome if Saddam had stayed in power. Country would not have become a shambles if Saddam stayed in. Todays "democracy" is a farce & a fraud- and "democracy" is WORTHLESS if the People vote for Selfishness; like 7 deadly sins.
LOL. The US went there to bring democracy??? Right, just after they overthrew about 30 democratically chosen leaders in their roll back policy. Why is it so hard for you to understand that Western governments lie. THey lie all the time. Why are you trying to stand up for them by repeating their lame excuses for war. And 130,000 killed civilians isn't really an improvement.
Look the fact remains that Iraq has an elected government, of course governemnts lie but you are lying if you deny Iraq is democratic. If you would prefer to have left Saddam in situ fair enough.
Yes but that doesn't mean that the reason they went to Iraq is to bring democracy. They just said that so that idiots like you would believe this propaganda and actually believe that this war is profitable for Iraqi people. If the US cared so much for democracy and is prepared to spend billions of dollars to bring democracy just to ONE country why did they then spend millions to overthrow over 50 democratic governments?
Funny how I'm an 'idiot' when I prove you wrong. All you can do is insult. All countries have done bad things in the past. The US has done more good than most and put democracy in Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afhanistan, South Korea, Panama. Course they have done wrong in the past everyone has but they have also done right.
You hate him ? Why ? Because he speaks the Inconvenient Truth ? Because he cares about Human Life even if those lives are not White, or lives your government told you that you could kill with glee. Of-course you hate him ! Because you are a brainwashed Swine : )
First off all, how am i a brianwashed swine? Next, i supose i dont hate im personallly, just his belifes. He has constantly shown him self to be a self obsessed, neive and misled.
Political prisoners and Unionists killed in Ireland ! What if China moved its Military into Ireland to "solve Irelands problems" and give it a "normal" Communist Government ??? SUPERPOWERS OUT OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS !!! Let each country solve its own problems- Life under Saddam was relatively GOOD, compared to Yankee Occupation.
My point is, WHAT RIGHT HAS AMERICA ??? to meddle in Iraqs politics ? NONE AT ALL.
IRAQ DIDNT KILL ANY AMERICANS, so America went in and killed a million Iraqis. Thank God the Chinese are better at minding their own business. REMEMBER- America has more of its own people behind bars, than any other country in the world !!!
How is speaking what he believes is the truth even though the msm doesn't like nor accept it, self obsessed? How is he naive for not following the lies of his government and researching things himself and looking who the real victims and aggressors are, even though the answers wouldn't make him sleep better at night? And how is he misled for pointing out that private terrorism is nothing compared to state terrorism?
First off all, Pilger has never been to iaq or Affghanistan in his life. I would say most of the things he says are said because he just wants to make a quick buck, or he's angry and dissatisfied with his own life like many leftists. Besides, this is the man who suports Hugo Chavez, and belives in many conspiricy thories.
Making a quick buck by saying what all media magnets don't want to hear? How stupid are you, how can he be making so much money if he is contradicting what most media giants say?
And about Hugo Chavez and conspiracies, I could say the same thing about you. You blindly follow your government so how can I take you seriously. What your governmetn did/tried in Venezuela was terrible.
I also support Hugo and I also believe the inconvenient truth that you and your government love to call conspiracies.
Right, How stupid am i. Well, How stupid are you to not see them what him and chavez for what they are, hard core socalist's. Now, i live in Australia, so what government are you reffering to when you talk about what they have done in venuzuala. What is good about Chavez anyway? and how are the theories true.
Chavez has made education and health care free, he has promoted rights like no other country, but I like him the most because he is one of the few who dares to stand up against the West. I should've figured you were from Australia, but your government isn't as bad as the American but it's still far from good. You should watch 'Welcome to Australia' (about the suppression of Aboriginals) and 'The Timor Conspiracy'(about the Indonesian invasion of Timor).
This is as political as it gets. In case you havent noticed, Chavez has shut down the countrys national TV station, he has nationalized nearly every big buisness in the country, and he has attempted to extend his term multiple times, and he as declared his suport for iran. I think it is the west and the free world who should be standing up against these despotic and evil dictators.
He nationalizes businesses to decrease the gap between rich and poor. The West is a perfect example of how not to decrease the gap. What is wrong about supporting Iran? Come on, hasn't Bush already lost all his credibility after IRaq? And it was the US who started all those problems over there by overthrowing the democratically chosen leader, Mossadeq.
When did he go to iraq (Sorry if i have made a mistake. Anyway, all that chavez is ever going to do is make the poor poorer and increase the gap between him and his oponents. Now, honestly, "What is wrong about supporting Iran?" surley you can do better than that. It's ruled by a madman who wants to blow Isreal off the map and belives that the Western media is a zionist conspiciry. How is bush a murderer, he has never killed anyone personally. Mindyou, i could think of a few who have...Chavez.
He went in 2000 when he made the documentaire 'The price: killing the children of Iraq'. ANd how can you support the US it is ran by a madman that is about to bomb Iran and already has bombed Iraq and Afghanistan. And I would blow the Israeli government off the map if I could. And truley you can't say the American media is unbiased, especially when reporting about Israel. So it would explain a lot. So you deny that Hitler killed millions of Jews since he didn't do it personally?
Bush isn't a madman, he is just the US president and being president of the largest nation on earth is a big ask. The fact pilger went to iraq in 2000 3 years before the invasion is thereofre a useless statement. And the reason we are in iraq and afghanistahn is to secure freedom for the iraqi and afghani people. I dont deny the holocaust, but you dont dany you want isreal blown sky high, why?
Secure freedom for Iraqi and Afghani people? THe official excuses were womd and to destroy the threat from Islamic fundamentalist, which btw, is total nonsense, stupid. I'm a talking to 8 year old because I most certainly do feel this way. You don't have to be in Iraq to see that this war is illegal and unprevoked and certainly wasn't waged for the benefit for their natives. And for Israel, well maybe because they are stealing a nation while the international community is doing nothing?
Well, after years of saddam husseins rule, i think the iraqis have more freedom now (I cant speak for the iraqi's at large) than they did before. But for thier own personel reasions, islamic fundelmentalists want to hinder the progress being made, and thats why we are in iraq. You have a point, has been interventionist since the end of the war. Listen, im australian so americas buisness is americas buisness. How am i sick for mentally ill? I dont think you are.
vivalarevolution1220 is talking a lot of sense here. For the misguided who are believing the 'official' line of bringing democracy to Iraq. You have been taking too much interest in the corporate owned mass media. John Pilger will teach you the truth and I would also highly recommend a book by Mark Curtis called Web of Deceit.
Listen, why do you all think i am somehow misguided, stupid or naive, it's pretty obvious that we are not engaged in some blood for oil war, the war in iraq is about securing freedom for the iraqi people and brining and end to islamic terrorism, by the way, i have read Mark Curtises book, however, it failed to change my mind.
Er..actually i don't think the war is about freedom.The people who are telling us that are the same people who sold Saddam Hussein weapons for use against Iran.Then apparently he must have had a fallout with his Western buddies.I did hear that he wanted to start selling oil in euros.
Actually I thought that I had made my point.You claim the war in Iraq secured freedom for the people.If that was truly the case the western powers could have arranged covert action to remove Saddam Hussein.The path they have taken means they have control of Iraqi oil.
Right, but, in case you havnet noticed, we have secured freedom of democracy for the iraqis anyway, so it is no use looking in hindsight, by the way, whats wrong with having iraqs oil in safer hands anyway so it isnt being sold to terrorists and undesirables. But still, the war was and still remains about freedom for the iraqi's, which is graduly being achived, as you can see with the us staring to draw up plans for a withdraw.
As stated previously the march into Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with freedom or democracy.On the subject of terrorists,are you aware of the school of Americas?
prove to me it was about iraqi freedom, if we all remember correctly, it was about WMD, which intelligence was fixed around the policy to back these claims, which have been proven time and time again to be false information, yet im waiting to see someone be held accountable for it, if you get yourself a history book, which im assuming by the mass idiocy from countries like australia and USA, they are very hard to find, then you will see how sadam was a fully supported dictatorship by the usa...
and why did the usa, the country that wants to quote "spread democracy and freedom" fund musharraf to overthrow a democratically elected government in pakistan, and then he declared martial law, and a dictatorship was amde, do you think they care about freedom, all they care about is control, if the dictatorship steps out of line with what the usa wants, only then do they intervene, but as long as america says jump, and they say, how high, its all fine and well...
only reason for withdrawal is because an overwhelming majority of iraqis want the usa out of iraq, and when you are equipping the sunni´s with weapons, the people you were originally fighting, and still have a strong dislike to occupying forces of iraq,it jsut shows a complete failure and lack of control, violence in iraq is unchanged, there is a growing seperation among people in iraq, all part of the grande balkanisation of iraq plan, oil wealth belongs to iraqis not exxon or BP or shell etc.
The point is not how many iraqis want the usa out of iraq, the point is that they now have freedom and democracy, now you cant deny that, cant you. Of course there is violence in iraq, but thats why the us is there is it not, trying to curb terrorism in that country, but in case you havnt noticed, more of the counter terorism operations are now being handed over the the iraqi armed forces.
The reason that there is violence in Iraq is precisely because the US is there.Incidentally they went there because they said that Iraq had WMD.Of course they knew that was a complete lie.Any WMD they had left was complete and useless sludge.
The freedom and democracy you speak of is a complete mirage.Most Iraqis view the forces there as an occupying force.If a foreign force was in Australia would you not see them as the same?
I Know i cant speak for myself, but have you been to iraq? Who cares if WMD was a lie, we needed to get rid of saddam hussein, there is now limited freedom and democracy, and hopefully, when the us withdraws, iraq can take care of its own affairs.
Saddam was installed by the CIA to kill Iraq's democracy in it's early stages. When Saddam was at his most tyrannical, he was America's favourite son. America only started hating him when he nationalized Iraq's oil. The US has pursued crippling sanctions on Iraq killing half a million Iraqi children (Unicef reports confirm this). If you support this war, you're either a psychopath or an idiot...take your pick.
Your point being, yes and no, saddam hussein's party, the Battah Party, only came to power when they overthrew the iraqi monarchy and murdered the king. Now, perhaps saddam was installed by the cia (iraqi politics isn't my forte) but that is not the point, we are not talking about the 70's and 80's (although you are quite right) we are talking about now. Now, because i dissagree with a open socialist doesnt make me a psycopath or an idiot (i asked you to justify this, you havn't)
Now, if you think you are so right and noble for going against a "War of opression", show some decoram and tolorence of other peoples view's, becuase, i would be an idiot if i critisized you simply for what you belived, wouldnt i?
Thats ok, but Saddam was a thorn in the side of the middle east, it was inevitable that the us would try to get rid of him. By the way, although iraq did not have a wmd capability at the time on invasion, it still had a capibility to manifacture sud missiles with chemical war heads, although theis capability was vary limitedd
The Inevitability of an event shouldn't justify it, the question is why do you support the invasion? Even if Iraq had a powerful conventional army, nuclear weapons and the latest technology, where's the justification for a brutal invasion when the US has that stuff? The assumption you're making is that the US is a moral vestige of power that acts altruistically. Of course Iraq had the capability to produce conventional weapons, just like a steel foundry has the capability to produce guns.
I think you know why i suport the war and thats realy a rhetorical questain, just read the other arguments below, anyway, iraq had the capibility to manafacture chemical warheads, but also WMD (ie, nuclear, biiological or chemical tipped scuds)
You support the terrorist war against Iraq because you're misinformed. Most countries have the CAPABILITY to produce such weapons and according to your pathetic argument, the US should be bombed to oblivion for having WMD's too. Fact is that the US attacked Iraq once it was confirmed by weapons inspectors that the country was completely defenseless. 1 million Iraqis have died so far, the humanitarian crisis is worsening creating millions of refugees and you think it's worth it? You're pathetic.
Listen, i don't think you understand me at all here, Iraq was an unstable dicatatorship, and the problom hear was also that becuase it controlls alot of the worlds oil supplies, alot of that oil might have ended up in the hands of amred terrorists. And iraq was not compleatly defenceless, it still had a large army, and a capable, but poorly trianed airforce, but as you saw, the iraqis did not have the will to fight, are you forrgeting the film of the iraqis tearing down saddam hussein.
By 1991 Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East. Over the past 2 decades the US has tried to terrorize Iraq into submission with santions that killed over a million people. They only invaded Iraq once they realised it was defenceless.
"alot of that oil might have ended up in the hands of amred terrorists" - there is absolutely no evidence for this you idiot.
Iraq's army was destroyed in less than a month, it was defenceless against the American military.
"By 1991 Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East" well no, that honor fell to the UAE, (If im wrong tell me). "there is absolutely no evidence for this you idiot." well saddam hussein was opanly suporting islamic terrorists in the middle east, and was covertly giving suport to al queda and the like.
The UAE is a wealthy country but was far more unequal. Saddam Hussein was a secularist who had Christians in his cabinet, he was a lot of bad things but religious fundamentalist isn't one of them. He supported the cause of Palestinian people and I commend him for that, for they too have been fighting an illegal occupation. Al-qaeda?? No, he did not support them, again you're an idiot.
Let's please leve palistine out of this, but you see, saddam hussein did give arms to islmic terrorists, thats fact not fiction. I see when you list the resistance groups, all appear to be socialists, in that case, that seems enough to judtify any occupation. And why are you honestly bringing in american corperations, the first thing is that that will undoubtly be a sad reality of this conflict, but thats not a point, thats just a sad fact. None of that justifies calljng me an idiot, does'nt it.
Socialism, the idea that workers should democratically control the means of production, why is that evil? So instigating an invasion that has killed 1.3 million people is justified because a fraction of the resistance is socialist? How old are you? Like 12?
It does not totaly justify it, not in the least, there are far more pressing issues in Iraq, Socialism is suposed to be about workers rights, but in reality, it takes away ones individualality, private property, human rights, justice, democracy and most of all, it takes away faith in the spiritual and human sense of the word.
If Socialism in reality is the opposite of what it's supposed to be, then it's obviously not Socialism is it? If I call myself a Christian and then go on a killing spree then that doesn't mean that Christianity promotes murder does it? Do you see how illogical you are? Don't worry, it comes with being 14.
I think you misunderstand me. The porblem with socialism is that it divides people. Think about it, what ti calls for is a mass revolution by the working class against the ruling class. now im a economic liberal, so i belive if we are to have a prosperous and free system, workers and bosses should work togeather, and sort out matters diplomaticly. Socialism doenst do that, i divides country's and people. Do you see now that i am not as dimwitted as you think.
Socialism didn't invent class warfare, it simply diagnosed it. It's only because of numerous struggles against the ruling class that we here in Australia enjoy a relatively high standard of living. True socialism would allow workers to democratically control production altogether which I definately agree with. I think you're fairly intelligent for a 14 year old but you need to actually understand Marxism to see where I'm coming from.
Australia is classles, it's socialists who moan on about the suposed ruling classes, but these days, the ruling class in thier mind are corperations. Now, Australia is virtuarly a classless country, but people should learn to trust the Government and the Rule of the law, despite thier mistakes. People should now there place. I think if you look into the world, it is not the suposed ruling class or working class that matter, it's those in the middle "The Forgotten People.
EVERY capitalist country is divided economically between those who own the means of production (ruling class) and those who sell their labour for a wage (working class). Australia is no different. I'll find you some videos to explain this stuff a lot better.
I see where you are coming from, but the vast majority of people are those in the middle, the middle class. But, capitalism is based wholey on the individual, you see, those people in the "Working class", at least in our country, have a chance if they so wish, to make a living of themselves, thats what is great about the capitalist system. However, not every system is perfect.
No, the "middle class" doesn't exist as it's an arbitrary measurement on income, it's used conversationally but it doesn't mean anything. The only two classes that actually exist are the ruling and working classes.
"The only two classes that actually exist are the ruling and working classes." what you are saying is that the socity is either rich or poor, which is wrong. The main class in socity are those in the middle, all thoguh they are not realy a class as such, but they are always the one that suffer in socialism's struggle for " Social justice." as well as the one's that make socity as it is today. Now i would like to see some of those videos please.
I didn't say that society is either rich or poor, you said that on behalf of me. Hehehe. Technically speaking, the "middle class" doesn't really exist.
Well, yes you did, those at the top and those at the bottom economicly would probably have been the best way for me to say that. Anyway, the middle class you exist, but they are not realy a class. Understand.
Has there ever been a socialist country? No. But even the ones that have claimed to be socialist have overseen relative improvements in social indicators such as health, literacy and employment. We here in Australia live better because workers have struggled for years against the ruling class. So why credit capitalism for the gains made AGAINST the interests of the capitalist class? Your question is wrong to begin with...
We live like we are in australia becuase ordinary people have made ago of themselves and succeded and propered. You see, what is great about capitalism is that instead of making people follow a set of rules and guidelines as to how socity works, it serves the intrests of people as individuals by letting them grow and prosper in a competitive market free from governemnt intervention. True sometinmes capitalism doent wotk like this.
You see, socialism, whilst gathering people behind the government, the government uses the system to serve it's own needs. Capitalism serves the needs of people prepared to make a go of it. I'm not very good at forming sentances, but do you undertand where i am coming from.
Pure unfettered capitalism is destructive, just look at the impoverished third world. Every gain we've made in first world countries has been AGAINST the interests of the capitalist class, think about that.
As i said, every sytem has it's downs. But think, what does the thired worldvirtuarly all have in common? Those countries were once part of EMPIRES. Now, colonial empires bought in a stable, if in some cases brutal, social system. Now, once that concrete system fell apart, anarchy insured. Take africa as an example, it realy has only been since the end of empire that most of the troubles have started.
The third world is poor because it is overexploited. Many of the colonialist regimes left in power an indigenous ruling class which is why thiose countries are still ridden with poverty.
I see, your point, the third world is exploited, but in many cases, it is not a failure of capitalism, it is the failure's of corupt governments or individuals that are to blame.
Yes, and the most corrupt governments in the world have been installed by the capitalist class of the US and Europe. Take Suharto who was the most corrupt leader in post WW2 history. He was installed by the US and his vicious rule attracted capitalist investment because he was so good at keeping the working class poor so they'd work for starvation wages. Capitalism works so well in the third world because of the rampant corruption.
Porbably some of the most evil and corupt govenrment's in the world were those installed by the USSR post war. Suharto may have been bad, but look at the monsters like Tito, Kim il sung and ceaucescu. You claim cpaitallism keeps the workers poor. Soemone once said "In capitalism, some people loose, in socialism, everybody losses." Becuase all people are made poor. Most third world countires where capitalism doent work have unstable governments or are war torn.
The average third world worker earns a much smaller fraction of the value they produce compared to us. That's what makes capitalism "work" in the third world. The only reason we're better off is because we earn a larger percent of the value we produce. Watch the videos and talk to me later.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The average third world worker earns a much smaller fraction of the value they produce compared to us." It would be stupid of you indeed to blame that on capitalism. I nnned links to those videos.
The very basis of capitalism is to pay workers only a fraction of the value they produce...it's called PROFIT. Without this fundamental relationship, you wouldn't have capitalism. Please kid, watch who you're calling stupid.
Profit is made by paying workers a small fraction of the value they produce...in response to me saying this you replied by saying that "It would be stupid of you indeed to blame that on capitalism."
Tito was not installed by the USSR, he represented an independant struggle that eventually broke with Stalin completely. He was aided by the Soviets in fighting the Nazis, but he wasn't installed by them. Anyway, I'm not going to defend the other leaders you named anyway so i don't see your point? And your're using an anecdote to prove a point which is quite weak. Fact is that capitalism works extremely well for the ruling class in third world countries.
Tito's regime was corupt because it followed a rather strange form of communism, one where the majority were forced to live in a brutal and repressive socity, whilst only a few in the governemnt enjoyed all the delights of capitalism.
"Brutal and repressive society"? Yugoslavia provided a standard of living for its citizens that was comparable to western europe. To be honest, I admire Tito.
The clip of Iraqis tearing down the Saddam statue was a staged event and that was admitted by the Marines themselves. Even if a lot of Iraqis do hate Saddam, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that they hate the American occupation even more...hence the insurgency.
You don't have a leg to stand on with your stupid argument.
My arguemnt is not stupid, your argument that the iraqi's are an opressed nation living under the yoke of US corperate imperialism, with a band of heroic freedom fighters is the misguided view here.
Those who fight the American operation are just as heroic as the Yugoslav Partisans and French resistance who fought the Nazis. Long live the Fedayeen!!
Listen, of course 1 Million iraqis have dies, it's an dengerous warzone, it is full of unelploded ammunition and armed terroroists, plus many have also sadly dies in US raids, but thats war for you. By the way, i acctuly think the US should leave iraq, they did a good job going there in the first place, but a war like that can't realy justify the costs in US lives and The cost finnancialy. Iraq, with western help, should be left to it's own affairs.
The insrugents in Iraq are fighting against the american occupation and fighting for freedom. If an army invaded your country and destroyed your life completely, then you'd fight the occupation too. What America wants is to install a puppet government that represents the interests of american corporations...not the Iraqi people.
That's a load of left wing rubbish. Listen, you know perfectly well that the people fighting the us in iraq are ialamic fundamentalist's. Why you and the left think this war is all about money and corperation's i dont know, but wouldnt you agree that having a nation allied to the west in the middle east is a good thing as it means that we have a stable source of oil. But you know perfectly well the insurgents in iraq dont represent the intrests of the iraqi people at all.
Those fighting the American occupation draw their inspiration from various sources. Some are nationalists, some are Baath party loyalists, some are Kurish socialists, some are Arab socialists and many of them do draw inspiration from religion...the question is. So what?? Their country has been brutally occupied and 1 million people have been killed.
You don't think it's about money and in the next line you admit that Iraq will now be a more stable source for Oil. Well, who owns that oil? The american taxpayers pay all the costs of this war and reap none of the benefits, the corporations pay none of the costs and reap all the benefits, thats the point of war. The insurgents in Iraq are more popular than the American military, watch a documentary called "Meeting Resistance" where they interview resistance fighters and ordinary civilians.
Its like saying that the allies post war occupatiojn of germany was evil (Forget the soviets). not every occupation is bad. Well, to that questain of austrlia, it depends, if china for example decided to invade and did, yes i would, but if the US intervined like they did in world war 2, no i wouldnt, becuase they would be there securing our freedom.
isovic,
John is excellent however i favor Noam Chomsky as World Chief Democratizer.
Marly61 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
The war on "terrorism" is nothing but tilting at windmills. The mere "terrorist" concept is nothing more than an illusion, created by the US government in order to mentaly manipulate the population to go into war at these fabled enemies. It is not the first time this method is utilized by the leaders of a nations (e.g Adolf Hitler.) Very much like the US government (when they destroyed the world trade center and blamed "terrorists") Hitler burned down the Reichtag and blamed communists.
fingtyin 2 years ago
To appropriate in the sense you think means "to find," as in, "the administration appropriated funds from the endowment to build the gymnasium."
What do you George Bush said? "I appropriate you to blow up the World Trade Center buildings?" "I appropriate the destruction of the Pentagon?"
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, -- hah !!!
IDIOT!!
kruddykuffar 2 years ago
John Pilger-complete respect. Tell it like it is. We need more of you,
shaunone 3 years ago 6
John is a brave man. He's got a good platform and he's using it for justice. I am very happy to see this criticism of the popular establishment
Donimusic 3 years ago 2
Well said. "There is a war of terror".
amdarvon 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
John Pilger - a fine example of a lunatic.
i hear his favourite pastime includes howling at the full moon while masturbating behind a tree
jdhf983y4uhu 3 years ago
John Pilger clearly says here that al-Qaida attacked the United States of America. He apparently does not believe that the attacks are a secret plot of the United States against its own citizens.
"The attacks of September 11 were appropriated by a clique in the US establishment in order to further its aims around the world."
That's the closest we can get to any kind of sinister conspiracy in the US. Check out "Noam Chomsky on 9/11."
kruddykuffar 3 years ago
Francesco Cossiga,Italian President 1985-92 and Head of Security, told Le Corriere (Italy's equiv to The Times) 911 was run by CIA and Mossad and that he himself helped Operation Gladio (see video.google 3x1hr Timewatch docu) NATO false flag operations bombing civilians throughout Europe 60s-90s.
sustaincain 3 years ago
And what, pray tell, is the source or occasion of Francesco Cossiga's alleged knowledge of the internal workings of the United States' internal covert agencies? And how has 9/11 in any way furthered the interests of the United States national security, which would be the putative basis for such a plot? "They" are so brilliant as to manipulate such a fantastic conspiracy, but then let its consequences run our national security into the ground? It doesn't cohere.
kruddykuffar 3 years ago
kruddykuffar your points seem to be contradictory.You quote JP saying the US establishment used 9/11 attacks to further their aims,but then you start by saying that the attacks were a plot against its own citizens.Which surely is what JP said. ????
peaceoman 3 years ago
You must read more carefully.
John Pilger is merely saying the Bush administration opportunistically exploited the situation. I quoted him. Then I recommend that other interested parties, maybe even you, check out the Noam Chomsky video where he also refutes the claim that the US government planned 9/11.
Nowhere in my comment do I say that the government is behind the attacks. There's no contradiction at all.
kruddykuffar 3 years ago
Ok i'm grateful to you for clarifying these points for me.
I'll certainly check out the Noam Chomsky video as he comes as highly recommended for his viewpoints as John Pilger.
The 9/11 situation is an interesting one in which there are lots of questions that still remain unanswered.This has probably not been helped by the omissions commissions,the PNAC statement made in 2000 and the draconian legislation,patriot act etc introduced since that time.
peaceoman 3 years ago
that is not what he's saying. you need to look up the word appropriate.
typical american, can barely speak his own language
TWI08 2 years ago 4
what he clearly stated was that the attacks were "appropriated by a clique in the US establishment" this was right after he mentioned privatized terrorism so clearly he does believe that it was the result of a sinister conspiracy. do you understand what appropriate means?
TWI08 2 years ago
Yes, I do. You apparently don't. To "appropriate" means to "take." It doesn't mean to "commit," to "do," to "make," to "create," or to "conspire." My vocabulary has been thoroughly tested and my scores outcompete 99% of the US population. I'm sure it's better than yours, what with your misinterpretation of what to appropriate means.
What Pilger meant was that the attacks created an opportunity for the Bush White House to exploit the situation, Dimwit. You're a fucking idiot, you know that?
kruddykuffar 2 years ago
the implication clearly is appropriated as in authorized- look it up
he has addressed this many times- look at his website fool
TWI08 2 years ago
"To set apart, authorize, or legislate for some specific purpose or use: 'The legislature appropriated funds for the university.' "
So you think the Bush administration authorized it? Whom did they authorize? Boy, that's pretty slick. I'm surprised you give them so much credit as to be able to pull that one off when they could do nothing else right.
The meaning of appropriate to which you refer has to do with legislation, Idiot. Man, you're obviously a fucking moron to believe what you do.
kruddykuffar 2 years ago
smart man, he knows what every smart open minded person knows
hudfadz 3 years ago 4
Thank you John Pilger for telling the truth. What a pity the mainstream media can not do the same!
700ocraMe7 3 years ago 6
yanikfrequencist.
Those with conservative minds like yours are always looking for somebody to look up to.
It leads to a very narrow world view.
Its sad that yu probably think of yourself as some kind of a free thinker and more intelligent than most. Your posts though show you to be something of the opposite.
rayyyyyy1 3 years ago
John Pilger is the prophet of a religion called truth. There is no doubt that his work over the years has allowed consciousness to evolve at a pace that surpasses all of its oppressors will to extinct it. His courage is a motivation to every journalist with a mind and heart. He is the reminder that the inaction to corruption is not acceptable and indeed denounce able.
yanikfrequencist 3 years ago
I wish that 14 year old Jewish boy would learn to spel...schpel....shpell...
ngunda 3 years ago
Thank you Sion and Jess for this clip.
I really wish you had only used one film, though. The jumping back and forth in a 2 minute interview is distracting, to put it politely.
Thank you though.
Research0digo 3 years ago
I think anybody who thinks actions of governments can always be simply explained is either a liar or just very narrow minded.
The charitable view of Pilger is that he is just a bit silly and narrow minded.
A bit up himself an x journalist who always wanted to make himself the story.
rayyyyyy1 3 years ago
And who are you? How much experience and knowlege do you have of the world? Pilger is one of the most respected journalists of the 20th Century and has been making films, reporting around the world and researching for 50 years.
If anyone is arrogant and narrow minded I would put money on you.
sas603bham 3 years ago
So what if he has been a journalist for decades. Lots of people have. He has done some impressive work at times. But has spoilt it by his egomania. Like David Icke he has really lost the plot.
rayyyyyy1 3 years ago
On what basis has he lost the plot?
sas603bham 3 years ago
doesn't mean he isn't right. how much money do you get sucking of illuminati dick?
LemonAndYoghurt 3 years ago
You ignorant fool!
yanikfrequencist 3 years ago
Pilger is incredibly arrogant and narrow minded. He has got completely obsessed by what he sees as the truth. He needs to question some of his childish views. He wants to explain all the problems in the world away easily by blaming it all on the US/UK/Israel etc etc. Pathetic really.
rayyyyyy1 3 years ago
John Pilger has the experience to make those claims. After serving in the army overseas myself, I am inclined to believe him.
You hide behind a screen name (so do I- fair play) and fake age. have no videos of your own from which I can guage your experience so from what experience do you draw when critisizing his views?
vne1981 3 years ago 2
I just judge JP on what i know of what he has said and done. And of course i base my views on \my influences and experiences. Both of which have taught me to be sceptical of people who seem incapable of taking a fully rounded view of the world.
Most peoples actions are not governed just by one idea. JP seems to believe that everything can be explained by one motivation. Makes him ICKE LIKE in my view.
rayyyyyy1 3 years ago
Fair call.
vne1981 3 years ago
lol narrow minded, are u for real?
hmz3000 3 years ago
If Russia invaded the US and said,"You're government is evil, and we are going to take the power from the wealthy and redistribute it amongst the poor, and we will occupy your country until the poor people figure out how to run it better than you did,"
Would you like that to happen? As an australian, it would be hard to justify myself blowing by self up against a russian army of occupation in the US, wouldnt it.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
"This invasion was not about freeing Iraq or promoting democracy. This invasion was not about national security. There are a number of regimes worse than Saddam's. Why don't we go after them?"
Name me those regimes and i will give you a godd reason why the US has not invaded.
them.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Listen, if you want to debate me, don't go into some sentimental bullshit. First of all, i doubt that russia would do that (take the power from the wealthy and redistribute it amongst the poor in a occupied america)becuase the soviet union is dead, pure socialism is virtuarly non existant in russia today. And what you are also implying is that the US government is just as bad as that of saddam husseins Iraq, which is not true. By the way, you forget that i am Australian, not American.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
do you want some more clues on terrorism, religion war, inside jobs, The New Coming, etc?
goluroo 3 years ago
Listen, honestly people, i wish you would stop kidding your selves thinking that you live in george orwells 1984.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Well we aint living in an Orwellian society yet but the governments sure are working hard to crank up the terrorist threat.Which is normally followed by anti-terrorist legislation.They did the same thing in Germany in the 1930's actually.
peaceoman 3 years ago
Yeah until it's actually here I won't believe it. I need to feel those chains on my hands or the microchip in my skin before I believe any of this. Because I'M INTELLIGENT. And that's what intelligent people do. They wait until it's down their throat before they say "Hey who is protecting my freedom"...
TheGoodnessIsGood 3 years ago
So what exactly are you accusing me of, join the club, everyone seems to want to accuse me of something.
So what ist it? Stupidity, Racsim, Naivenes, idiodicy...
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Oh yes, I agree, there is a war of terror made by a bunch of criminals - so-called illuminatis -a lot of them being a part of the american government. The ones who have suffered, suffer and will still suffer are the american people self.I hope most of them will wake up at last!!!
paixducoeur 3 years ago
John Pilger's bias on the United States of America runs so deep that he fails to recognize the other side of the issues. Our intentions for entering this war have been proven false, and misguided. Although we cannot forget the tyrant that Saddam Hussein was. He killed some 5,000 of his own people with chemical weapons at Halabjah, and stuffed another 400,000 or so of his constituents into mass graves. The amount of deaths under his regime would be far greater than the current war.
deathcab4oprah 3 years ago
Hey ! You wanna talk about the Tyrant that Abe Lincoln was ? Killed more than 50 000 of his own people !!! America get the fukk out of other Counties !!! Solve your own problems and stop bleeding the World for your own Desires. The rest of the world is getting to hate you like Nazis !
ranovecer 3 years ago
War on terror? War of terror. War is terror!
Lyserge 3 years ago
Rancovecer has it exactly right! In fact George Washington said it also--so did Eisenhower! (I mention them only to point out that it is not just us "nuts" who get it) In fact that US has been continually at war since '41 (I say continually not continuously) check it out. In fact Ireland is a good example--the Brits wanted to "civilize" it--check out Wexford or later on bloody Churchill's efforts at "civilization" What did Ireland ever do to England to justify such butchery?
482c 3 years ago
"out of sight" out of mind!!
scheung07 3 years ago
The figure of a million Iraqis killed is wrong and unsubstantiated. Furthermore the US did not do the majority of the killing. Most deaths resulted from the power struggle between Sunni/Shia. Groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq and Shia death squads are the big killers. Pilger's opinion is a minority one yet he buttresses his ego by dismissing other credible journalists as propagandists. I have been to Iraq for prolonged periods.
robtime 3 years ago
Ok, I don't know if you are right about that but I know that we anyways not going to convince each other about the figures.
But do you really believe that these wars were started to spread peace and stability?
Do you also have this corrupt reasoning that this war on terror is a solution to the problems in the Middle East?
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
I believe the war was started to bring democracy to the region. However if your answer is that we simply should have left Saddam alone as he ruled Iraq with an Iron fist and through sheer brutality kept Iraq together that would suggest you have 'corrupt reasoning'. Fact remains UK and US are not resonsible for most of the killings in Iraq.I know I've been there and met many Iraqis who preferred democracy to rule by Saddam or Al Qaeada.
robtime 3 years ago
You believe the war was started to bring "democracy" to the region ? Man, there comes a time to stop believing Mummy when she says Santa is coming down the chimney, or DaddyBush when he says America wanted to do anything in Iraq BUT Armed Robbery for Oil by Murder. Armed Robbery & Murder, thats all.
ranovecer 3 years ago
Could you support your argument with fact and not insults? Didn't think so, I've been to Iraq unlike you and you know what they now have free elections and political parties. Furthermore Iraq's oil is state controlled (unlike America's) and if anything once exported will go to China. So the USA has not stolen anything. What they have done is spend a fortune trying to make the country function.
robtime 3 years ago
Ooh, so I bet that all the 4500 dead soldiers and their families, the 135000 dead Iraqi's and their families and all the unemployed and homeless thanks to this war can all forget their sorrows since Iraqi's can now vote! Democracy doesn't mean shit if you don't have your basic needs. How can you possibly believe these things you're saying. Do you think it is a coincidence that the US only interferes with resource-rich countries. Watch 'Breaking the Silence Truth and Lies in the War on Terror'
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
Well how many Iraqis would have been killed if we just left Saddam in place? Oh the US interferes in resource rich countries? What like Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan?
robtime 3 years ago
Speculating about how many people would have been killed if America did or did not start this war is stupid since no one is ever going to know.
Afghanistan is rich in oil and opium. Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo were relatively small inteventions for American standards. And if they're so helpful why didn't they interfere with the genocide of Rwanda that killed 800,000 people in 100 days, or the massacres of Paul Pot in Cambodia and the massacres in Timor?
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
I'm sick of people saying because they have been somewhere they think they know everything or have the right idea about something... They don't have free elections any more than we have here in America. You are looking at the surface and not what is really going on... I can't educate you in a post but you need to look at our American history for starters. It's un American to do what we are doing around the world. Our constitution doesn't allow for it. The founders supported isolationism.
idareU2mov 3 years ago
Dear Robtime, I dont think mentioning Santa is really an insult. If you want to believe in your Governments brainwashing well, thats up to you. You remind me of a man saying, "Look how big the rabbits are here ! When he sees a Great Kangaroo." Next you will tell me the British Empire invaded as many countries as possible out of Benevolence not Greed. You beg for real insult ! You are either a liar or a fool- or a Patriot which is both mixed with doublethink.
ranovecer 3 years ago
Ok well thanks for backing your opinion with evidence. If you prefer Saddam's dictatorship to a democracy fair enough.
robtime 3 years ago
EVIDENCE is, 1 million people would not have been blown to KingdomCome if Saddam had stayed in power. Country would not have become a shambles if Saddam stayed in. Todays "democracy" is a farce & a fraud- and "democracy" is WORTHLESS if the People vote for Selfishness; like 7 deadly sins.
ranovecer 3 years ago
democracy isn't synonymous to good leadership; a perfect example of this is Bush. Dozens of dictators have cause less harm than Bush.
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
LOL. The US went there to bring democracy??? Right, just after they overthrew about 30 democratically chosen leaders in their roll back policy. Why is it so hard for you to understand that Western governments lie. THey lie all the time. Why are you trying to stand up for them by repeating their lame excuses for war. And 130,000 killed civilians isn't really an improvement.
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
Look the fact remains that Iraq has an elected government, of course governemnts lie but you are lying if you deny Iraq is democratic. If you would prefer to have left Saddam in situ fair enough.
robtime 3 years ago
Yes but that doesn't mean that the reason they went to Iraq is to bring democracy. They just said that so that idiots like you would believe this propaganda and actually believe that this war is profitable for Iraqi people. If the US cared so much for democracy and is prepared to spend billions of dollars to bring democracy just to ONE country why did they then spend millions to overthrow over 50 democratic governments?
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago 2
Funny how I'm an 'idiot' when I prove you wrong. All you can do is insult. All countries have done bad things in the past. The US has done more good than most and put democracy in Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afhanistan, South Korea, Panama. Course they have done wrong in the past everyone has but they have also done right.
robtime 3 years ago
Democracy is good for USA as long as people vote right.
Perussaataja 3 years ago
god i hate him.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
You hate him ? Why ? Because he speaks the Inconvenient Truth ? Because he cares about Human Life even if those lives are not White, or lives your government told you that you could kill with glee. Of-course you hate him ! Because you are a brainwashed Swine : )
ranovecer 3 years ago
First off all, how am i a brianwashed swine? Next, i supose i dont hate im personallly, just his belifes. He has constantly shown him self to be a self obsessed, neive and misled.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
1,000,000 Iraqis murdered. Get your priorities straight.
DrunkMonk1 3 years ago
Kurds and Political Prisoners murdered.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Political prisoners and Unionists killed in Ireland ! What if China moved its Military into Ireland to "solve Irelands problems" and give it a "normal" Communist Government ??? SUPERPOWERS OUT OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS !!! Let each country solve its own problems- Life under Saddam was relatively GOOD, compared to Yankee Occupation.
ranovecer 3 years ago 2
exactly my point, the minute you people hear any sort of dissent, you change the subject, what has ireland got to do with this, NOTHING!
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
My point is, WHAT RIGHT HAS AMERICA ??? to meddle in Iraqs politics ? NONE AT ALL.
IRAQ DIDNT KILL ANY AMERICANS, so America went in and killed a million Iraqis. Thank God the Chinese are better at minding their own business. REMEMBER- America has more of its own people behind bars, than any other country in the world !!!
Steveguyatrocket 3 years ago
How is speaking what he believes is the truth even though the msm doesn't like nor accept it, self obsessed? How is he naive for not following the lies of his government and researching things himself and looking who the real victims and aggressors are, even though the answers wouldn't make him sleep better at night? And how is he misled for pointing out that private terrorism is nothing compared to state terrorism?
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
First off all, Pilger has never been to iaq or Affghanistan in his life. I would say most of the things he says are said because he just wants to make a quick buck, or he's angry and dissatisfied with his own life like many leftists. Besides, this is the man who suports Hugo Chavez, and belives in many conspiricy thories.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Making a quick buck by saying what all media magnets don't want to hear? How stupid are you, how can he be making so much money if he is contradicting what most media giants say?
And about Hugo Chavez and conspiracies, I could say the same thing about you. You blindly follow your government so how can I take you seriously. What your governmetn did/tried in Venezuela was terrible.
I also support Hugo and I also believe the inconvenient truth that you and your government love to call conspiracies.
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
Right, How stupid am i. Well, How stupid are you to not see them what him and chavez for what they are, hard core socalist's. Now, i live in Australia, so what government are you reffering to when you talk about what they have done in venuzuala. What is good about Chavez anyway? and how are the theories true.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Stop politicizing everything!
Chavez has made education and health care free, he has promoted rights like no other country, but I like him the most because he is one of the few who dares to stand up against the West. I should've figured you were from Australia, but your government isn't as bad as the American but it's still far from good. You should watch 'Welcome to Australia' (about the suppression of Aboriginals) and 'The Timor Conspiracy'(about the Indonesian invasion of Timor).
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
Stop politicizing everything!
This is as political as it gets. In case you havent noticed, Chavez has shut down the countrys national TV station, he has nationalized nearly every big buisness in the country, and he has attempted to extend his term multiple times, and he as declared his suport for iran. I think it is the west and the free world who should be standing up against these despotic and evil dictators.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
He nationalizes businesses to decrease the gap between rich and poor. The West is a perfect example of how not to decrease the gap. What is wrong about supporting Iran? Come on, hasn't Bush already lost all his credibility after IRaq? And it was the US who started all those problems over there by overthrowing the democratically chosen leader, Mossadeq.
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
When did he go to iraq (Sorry if i have made a mistake. Anyway, all that chavez is ever going to do is make the poor poorer and increase the gap between him and his oponents. Now, honestly, "What is wrong about supporting Iran?" surley you can do better than that. It's ruled by a madman who wants to blow Isreal off the map and belives that the Western media is a zionist conspiciry. How is bush a murderer, he has never killed anyone personally. Mindyou, i could think of a few who have...Chavez.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
He went in 2000 when he made the documentaire 'The price: killing the children of Iraq'. ANd how can you support the US it is ran by a madman that is about to bomb Iran and already has bombed Iraq and Afghanistan. And I would blow the Israeli government off the map if I could. And truley you can't say the American media is unbiased, especially when reporting about Israel. So it would explain a lot. So you deny that Hitler killed millions of Jews since he didn't do it personally?
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
Bush isn't a madman, he is just the US president and being president of the largest nation on earth is a big ask. The fact pilger went to iraq in 2000 3 years before the invasion is thereofre a useless statement. And the reason we are in iraq and afghanistahn is to secure freedom for the iraqi and afghani people. I dont deny the holocaust, but you dont dany you want isreal blown sky high, why?
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Secure freedom for Iraqi and Afghani people? THe official excuses were womd and to destroy the threat from Islamic fundamentalist, which btw, is total nonsense, stupid. I'm a talking to 8 year old because I most certainly do feel this way. You don't have to be in Iraq to see that this war is illegal and unprevoked and certainly wasn't waged for the benefit for their natives. And for Israel, well maybe because they are stealing a nation while the international community is doing nothing?
vivalarevolution1220 3 years ago
Well, after years of saddam husseins rule, i think the iraqis have more freedom now (I cant speak for the iraqi's at large) than they did before. But for thier own personel reasions, islamic fundelmentalists want to hinder the progress being made, and thats why we are in iraq. You have a point, has been interventionist since the end of the war. Listen, im australian so americas buisness is americas buisness. How am i sick for mentally ill? I dont think you are.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
vivalarevolution1220 is talking a lot of sense here. For the misguided who are believing the 'official' line of bringing democracy to Iraq. You have been taking too much interest in the corporate owned mass media. John Pilger will teach you the truth and I would also highly recommend a book by Mark Curtis called Web of Deceit.
peaceoman 3 years ago
Listen, why do you all think i am somehow misguided, stupid or naive, it's pretty obvious that we are not engaged in some blood for oil war, the war in iraq is about securing freedom for the iraqi people and brining and end to islamic terrorism, by the way, i have read Mark Curtises book, however, it failed to change my mind.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Er..actually i don't think the war is about freedom.The people who are telling us that are the same people who sold Saddam Hussein weapons for use against Iran.Then apparently he must have had a fallout with his Western buddies.I did hear that he wanted to start selling oil in euros.
peaceoman 3 years ago
Your point being...
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Actually I thought that I had made my point.You claim the war in Iraq secured freedom for the people.If that was truly the case the western powers could have arranged covert action to remove Saddam Hussein.The path they have taken means they have control of Iraqi oil.
peaceoman 3 years ago
Right, but, in case you havnet noticed, we have secured freedom of democracy for the iraqis anyway, so it is no use looking in hindsight, by the way, whats wrong with having iraqs oil in safer hands anyway so it isnt being sold to terrorists and undesirables. But still, the war was and still remains about freedom for the iraqi's, which is graduly being achived, as you can see with the us staring to draw up plans for a withdraw.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
As stated previously the march into Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with freedom or democracy.On the subject of terrorists,are you aware of the school of Americas?
peaceoman 3 years ago
Give me a reason why it is not about iraqi freedom, prove it.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
prove to me it was about iraqi freedom, if we all remember correctly, it was about WMD, which intelligence was fixed around the policy to back these claims, which have been proven time and time again to be false information, yet im waiting to see someone be held accountable for it, if you get yourself a history book, which im assuming by the mass idiocy from countries like australia and USA, they are very hard to find, then you will see how sadam was a fully supported dictatorship by the usa...
AlexMM2008 3 years ago
and why did the usa, the country that wants to quote "spread democracy and freedom" fund musharraf to overthrow a democratically elected government in pakistan, and then he declared martial law, and a dictatorship was amde, do you think they care about freedom, all they care about is control, if the dictatorship steps out of line with what the usa wants, only then do they intervene, but as long as america says jump, and they say, how high, its all fine and well...
AlexMM2008 3 years ago
Are you talking to me? Sorry if its a late reply.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
only reason for withdrawal is because an overwhelming majority of iraqis want the usa out of iraq, and when you are equipping the sunni´s with weapons, the people you were originally fighting, and still have a strong dislike to occupying forces of iraq,it jsut shows a complete failure and lack of control, violence in iraq is unchanged, there is a growing seperation among people in iraq, all part of the grande balkanisation of iraq plan, oil wealth belongs to iraqis not exxon or BP or shell etc.
AlexMM2008 3 years ago
The point is not how many iraqis want the usa out of iraq, the point is that they now have freedom and democracy, now you cant deny that, cant you. Of course there is violence in iraq, but thats why the us is there is it not, trying to curb terrorism in that country, but in case you havnt noticed, more of the counter terorism operations are now being handed over the the iraqi armed forces.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
The reason that there is violence in Iraq is precisely because the US is there.Incidentally they went there because they said that Iraq had WMD.Of course they knew that was a complete lie.Any WMD they had left was complete and useless sludge.
The freedom and democracy you speak of is a complete mirage.Most Iraqis view the forces there as an occupying force.If a foreign force was in Australia would you not see them as the same?
peaceoman 3 years ago
I Know i cant speak for myself, but have you been to iraq? Who cares if WMD was a lie, we needed to get rid of saddam hussein, there is now limited freedom and democracy, and hopefully, when the us withdraws, iraq can take care of its own affairs.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
shut up idiot.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Why and how am i an idiot. (i am of course refering to the john pilger clip).
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Saddam was installed by the CIA to kill Iraq's democracy in it's early stages. When Saddam was at his most tyrannical, he was America's favourite son. America only started hating him when he nationalized Iraq's oil. The US has pursued crippling sanctions on Iraq killing half a million Iraqi children (Unicef reports confirm this). If you support this war, you're either a psychopath or an idiot...take your pick.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Your point being, yes and no, saddam hussein's party, the Battah Party, only came to power when they overthrew the iraqi monarchy and murdered the king. Now, perhaps saddam was installed by the cia (iraqi politics isn't my forte) but that is not the point, we are not talking about the 70's and 80's (although you are quite right) we are talking about now. Now, because i dissagree with a open socialist doesnt make me a psycopath or an idiot (i asked you to justify this, you havn't)
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
You speak of getting rid of Saddam as if he was some sort of imminent threat when he clearly wasn't. Your justification for the war is pretty weak.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Now, if you think you are so right and noble for going against a "War of opression", show some decoram and tolorence of other peoples view's, becuase, i would be an idiot if i critisized you simply for what you belived, wouldnt i?
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Ok i'm sorry.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Thats ok, but Saddam was a thorn in the side of the middle east, it was inevitable that the us would try to get rid of him. By the way, although iraq did not have a wmd capability at the time on invasion, it still had a capibility to manifacture sud missiles with chemical war heads, although theis capability was vary limitedd
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
The Inevitability of an event shouldn't justify it, the question is why do you support the invasion? Even if Iraq had a powerful conventional army, nuclear weapons and the latest technology, where's the justification for a brutal invasion when the US has that stuff? The assumption you're making is that the US is a moral vestige of power that acts altruistically. Of course Iraq had the capability to produce conventional weapons, just like a steel foundry has the capability to produce guns.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
I think you know why i suport the war and thats realy a rhetorical questain, just read the other arguments below, anyway, iraq had the capibility to manafacture chemical warheads, but also WMD (ie, nuclear, biiological or chemical tipped scuds)
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
You support the terrorist war against Iraq because you're misinformed. Most countries have the CAPABILITY to produce such weapons and according to your pathetic argument, the US should be bombed to oblivion for having WMD's too. Fact is that the US attacked Iraq once it was confirmed by weapons inspectors that the country was completely defenseless. 1 million Iraqis have died so far, the humanitarian crisis is worsening creating millions of refugees and you think it's worth it? You're pathetic.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Listen, i don't think you understand me at all here, Iraq was an unstable dicatatorship, and the problom hear was also that becuase it controlls alot of the worlds oil supplies, alot of that oil might have ended up in the hands of amred terrorists. And iraq was not compleatly defenceless, it still had a large army, and a capable, but poorly trianed airforce, but as you saw, the iraqis did not have the will to fight, are you forrgeting the film of the iraqis tearing down saddam hussein.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Bust if the Us left today, the killing wouldnt stop.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
By 1991 Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East. Over the past 2 decades the US has tried to terrorize Iraq into submission with santions that killed over a million people. They only invaded Iraq once they realised it was defenceless.
"alot of that oil might have ended up in the hands of amred terrorists" - there is absolutely no evidence for this you idiot.
Iraq's army was destroyed in less than a month, it was defenceless against the American military.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
"By 1991 Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East" well no, that honor fell to the UAE, (If im wrong tell me). "there is absolutely no evidence for this you idiot." well saddam hussein was opanly suporting islamic terrorists in the middle east, and was covertly giving suport to al queda and the like.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
The UAE is a wealthy country but was far more unequal. Saddam Hussein was a secularist who had Christians in his cabinet, he was a lot of bad things but religious fundamentalist isn't one of them. He supported the cause of Palestinian people and I commend him for that, for they too have been fighting an illegal occupation. Al-qaeda?? No, he did not support them, again you're an idiot.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Let's please leve palistine out of this, but you see, saddam hussein did give arms to islmic terrorists, thats fact not fiction. I see when you list the resistance groups, all appear to be socialists, in that case, that seems enough to judtify any occupation. And why are you honestly bringing in american corperations, the first thing is that that will undoubtly be a sad reality of this conflict, but thats not a point, thats just a sad fact. None of that justifies calljng me an idiot, does'nt it.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
So what if they're socialist? How does that justify occupation? No, you are an idiot.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
It justifies occupation becuase socialism is evil.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Socialism, the idea that workers should democratically control the means of production, why is that evil? So instigating an invasion that has killed 1.3 million people is justified because a fraction of the resistance is socialist? How old are you? Like 12?
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
It does not totaly justify it, not in the least, there are far more pressing issues in Iraq, Socialism is suposed to be about workers rights, but in reality, it takes away ones individualality, private property, human rights, justice, democracy and most of all, it takes away faith in the spiritual and human sense of the word.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
If Socialism in reality is the opposite of what it's supposed to be, then it's obviously not Socialism is it? If I call myself a Christian and then go on a killing spree then that doesn't mean that Christianity promotes murder does it? Do you see how illogical you are? Don't worry, it comes with being 14.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
I think you misunderstand me. The porblem with socialism is that it divides people. Think about it, what ti calls for is a mass revolution by the working class against the ruling class. now im a economic liberal, so i belive if we are to have a prosperous and free system, workers and bosses should work togeather, and sort out matters diplomaticly. Socialism doenst do that, i divides country's and people. Do you see now that i am not as dimwitted as you think.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Socialism didn't invent class warfare, it simply diagnosed it. It's only because of numerous struggles against the ruling class that we here in Australia enjoy a relatively high standard of living. True socialism would allow workers to democratically control production altogether which I definately agree with. I think you're fairly intelligent for a 14 year old but you need to actually understand Marxism to see where I'm coming from.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Australia is classles, it's socialists who moan on about the suposed ruling classes, but these days, the ruling class in thier mind are corperations. Now, Australia is virtuarly a classless country, but people should learn to trust the Government and the Rule of the law, despite thier mistakes. People should now there place. I think if you look into the world, it is not the suposed ruling class or working class that matter, it's those in the middle "The Forgotten People.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
EVERY capitalist country is divided economically between those who own the means of production (ruling class) and those who sell their labour for a wage (working class). Australia is no different. I'll find you some videos to explain this stuff a lot better.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
I see where you are coming from, but the vast majority of people are those in the middle, the middle class. But, capitalism is based wholey on the individual, you see, those people in the "Working class", at least in our country, have a chance if they so wish, to make a living of themselves, thats what is great about the capitalist system. However, not every system is perfect.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
No, the "middle class" doesn't exist as it's an arbitrary measurement on income, it's used conversationally but it doesn't mean anything. The only two classes that actually exist are the ruling and working classes.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
"The only two classes that actually exist are the ruling and working classes." what you are saying is that the socity is either rich or poor, which is wrong. The main class in socity are those in the middle, all thoguh they are not realy a class as such, but they are always the one that suffer in socialism's struggle for " Social justice." as well as the one's that make socity as it is today. Now i would like to see some of those videos please.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
I didn't say that society is either rich or poor, you said that on behalf of me. Hehehe. Technically speaking, the "middle class" doesn't really exist.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Well, yes you did, those at the top and those at the bottom economicly would probably have been the best way for me to say that. Anyway, the middle class you exist, but they are not realy a class. Understand.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Name one socialist country that has worked or works.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Has there ever been a socialist country? No. But even the ones that have claimed to be socialist have overseen relative improvements in social indicators such as health, literacy and employment. We here in Australia live better because workers have struggled for years against the ruling class. So why credit capitalism for the gains made AGAINST the interests of the capitalist class? Your question is wrong to begin with...
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
We live like we are in australia becuase ordinary people have made ago of themselves and succeded and propered. You see, what is great about capitalism is that instead of making people follow a set of rules and guidelines as to how socity works, it serves the intrests of people as individuals by letting them grow and prosper in a competitive market free from governemnt intervention. True sometinmes capitalism doent wotk like this.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
You see, socialism, whilst gathering people behind the government, the government uses the system to serve it's own needs. Capitalism serves the needs of people prepared to make a go of it. I'm not very good at forming sentances, but do you undertand where i am coming from.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
I know where your coming from.
Pure unfettered capitalism is destructive, just look at the impoverished third world. Every gain we've made in first world countries has been AGAINST the interests of the capitalist class, think about that.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
As i said, every sytem has it's downs. But think, what does the thired worldvirtuarly all have in common? Those countries were once part of EMPIRES. Now, colonial empires bought in a stable, if in some cases brutal, social system. Now, once that concrete system fell apart, anarchy insured. Take africa as an example, it realy has only been since the end of empire that most of the troubles have started.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
The third world is poor because it is overexploited. Many of the colonialist regimes left in power an indigenous ruling class which is why thiose countries are still ridden with poverty.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
I see, your point, the third world is exploited, but in many cases, it is not a failure of capitalism, it is the failure's of corupt governments or individuals that are to blame.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Yes, and the most corrupt governments in the world have been installed by the capitalist class of the US and Europe. Take Suharto who was the most corrupt leader in post WW2 history. He was installed by the US and his vicious rule attracted capitalist investment because he was so good at keeping the working class poor so they'd work for starvation wages. Capitalism works so well in the third world because of the rampant corruption.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Porbably some of the most evil and corupt govenrment's in the world were those installed by the USSR post war. Suharto may have been bad, but look at the monsters like Tito, Kim il sung and ceaucescu. You claim cpaitallism keeps the workers poor. Soemone once said "In capitalism, some people loose, in socialism, everybody losses." Becuase all people are made poor. Most third world countires where capitalism doent work have unstable governments or are war torn.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Capitalism cant be blamed for third world poverty. Capitalism is what will save the third world, give it time.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
The average third world worker earns a much smaller fraction of the value they produce compared to us. That's what makes capitalism "work" in the third world. The only reason we're better off is because we earn a larger percent of the value we produce. Watch the videos and talk to me later.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The average third world worker earns a much smaller fraction of the value they produce compared to us." It would be stupid of you indeed to blame that on capitalism. I nnned links to those videos.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
The very basis of capitalism is to pay workers only a fraction of the value they produce...it's called PROFIT. Without this fundamental relationship, you wouldn't have capitalism. Please kid, watch who you're calling stupid.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
I did not call you stupid. By the way, isnt profit and succes what drives socity anyway.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Profit is made by paying workers a small fraction of the value they produce...in response to me saying this you replied by saying that "It would be stupid of you indeed to blame that on capitalism."
Ummm...that is capitalism dude.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Tito was not installed by the USSR, he represented an independant struggle that eventually broke with Stalin completely. He was aided by the Soviets in fighting the Nazis, but he wasn't installed by them. Anyway, I'm not going to defend the other leaders you named anyway so i don't see your point? And your're using an anecdote to prove a point which is quite weak. Fact is that capitalism works extremely well for the ruling class in third world countries.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
I know Tito's story, but his governmet was corupt and violent all the same.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Yugoslavia improved significantly under Marshall Tito which is why he's still hugely resepcted. Tito's "corruption" was relatively minor anyway.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago 2
Tito's regime was corupt because it followed a rather strange form of communism, one where the majority were forced to live in a brutal and repressive socity, whilst only a few in the governemnt enjoyed all the delights of capitalism.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
"Brutal and repressive society"? Yugoslavia provided a standard of living for its citizens that was comparable to western europe. To be honest, I admire Tito.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago 2
If you must know, im 14, but that should be no barrier to my poltical and social views of the world.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
The clip of Iraqis tearing down the Saddam statue was a staged event and that was admitted by the Marines themselves. Even if a lot of Iraqis do hate Saddam, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that they hate the American occupation even more...hence the insurgency.
You don't have a leg to stand on with your stupid argument.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
My arguemnt is not stupid, your argument that the iraqi's are an opressed nation living under the yoke of US corperate imperialism, with a band of heroic freedom fighters is the misguided view here.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Those who fight the American operation are just as heroic as the Yugoslav Partisans and French resistance who fought the Nazis. Long live the Fedayeen!!
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Listen, of course 1 Million iraqis have dies, it's an dengerous warzone, it is full of unelploded ammunition and armed terroroists, plus many have also sadly dies in US raids, but thats war for you. By the way, i acctuly think the US should leave iraq, they did a good job going there in the first place, but a war like that can't realy justify the costs in US lives and The cost finnancialy. Iraq, with western help, should be left to it's own affairs.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
The insrugents in Iraq are fighting against the american occupation and fighting for freedom. If an army invaded your country and destroyed your life completely, then you'd fight the occupation too. What America wants is to install a puppet government that represents the interests of american corporations...not the Iraqi people.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
That's a load of left wing rubbish. Listen, you know perfectly well that the people fighting the us in iraq are ialamic fundamentalist's. Why you and the left think this war is all about money and corperation's i dont know, but wouldnt you agree that having a nation allied to the west in the middle east is a good thing as it means that we have a stable source of oil. But you know perfectly well the insurgents in iraq dont represent the intrests of the iraqi people at all.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
Those fighting the American occupation draw their inspiration from various sources. Some are nationalists, some are Baath party loyalists, some are Kurish socialists, some are Arab socialists and many of them do draw inspiration from religion...the question is. So what?? Their country has been brutally occupied and 1 million people have been killed.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
You don't think it's about money and in the next line you admit that Iraq will now be a more stable source for Oil. Well, who owns that oil? The american taxpayers pay all the costs of this war and reap none of the benefits, the corporations pay none of the costs and reap all the benefits, thats the point of war. The insurgents in Iraq are more popular than the American military, watch a documentary called "Meeting Resistance" where they interview resistance fighters and ordinary civilians.
jumpnjza2 3 years ago
Its like saying that the allies post war occupatiojn of germany was evil (Forget the soviets). not every occupation is bad. Well, to that questain of austrlia, it depends, if china for example decided to invade and did, yes i would, but if the US intervined like they did in world war 2, no i wouldnt, becuase they would be there securing our freedom.
hmasmelbourne 3 years ago
securing freedom?, perhaps you are unaware of