Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Out with the Neo-Con We Say!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    ^^^
    Hostility toward the united states is more likely a product of our history of meddling in their affairs and unconditional support of Israel.
    Osama bin Laden and Saddam are largely products of our intervention.

    "Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act

    Document 61: United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.

    Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.

    This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related items to Iraq. (In this case, a Teledyne affiliate was charged will illegally selling zirconium, used in the manufacture of explosives, to the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Industries, which used the material to manufacture cluster bombs sold to Iraq.) Many of these firms tried to defend themselves by establishing that providing military materiel to Iraq had been the actual, if covert, policy of the U.S. government. This was a difficult case to make, especially considering the rules of evidence governing investigations involving national security matters."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by "liar_on_high
      the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.
      Bin Laden is another creature of US foreign policy - the semi-official jargon is "blowback"; it's a dangerous game to play.

      If "The EmpEror's New Clothes" is to be believed, the US government is still willing to do deals with Islamic extremists when it suits them. It certainly was revealing that the terrorist / criminal KLA was chosen to represent the Kosovans rather than the moderate and democratic factions. It is also revealing that in 96 days of bombing Serbia, 164 state-owned factories were destroyed, but not a single one owned by a foreign firm. It's all about opening up markets. If we want the world to be serious about democracy and human rights, how we can we let them behave in such a cynical way?

      Obviously the Islamic extremists were happy with 9/11. It's all about engineering confrontation - sucking more and more people into the conflict. From that point of view, Bush's reaction must be suiting them just fine. Everything's working according to plan. The losers are the sane, normal people of the world who have no taste for Armageddon. That means us, plus the average person in Iraq, Israel, wherever. We mustn't get sucked into the fear and hatred that the feeds the fundamentalists' schemes. (I mean the the market fundamentalists as well as the religious ones).
      \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by liar_on_high
        ^^^
        Hostility toward the united states is more likely a product of our history of meddling in their affairs and unconditional support of Israel.
        Osama bin Laden and Saddam are largely products of our intervention.

        "Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act

        Document 61: United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.

        Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.

        This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related items to Iraq. (In this case, a Teledyne affiliate was charged will illegally selling zirconium, used in the manufacture of explosives, to the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Industries, which used the material to manufacture cluster bombs sold to Iraq.) Many of these firms tried to defend themselves by establishing that providing military materiel to Iraq had been the actual, if covert, policy of the U.S. government. This was a difficult case to make, especially considering the rules of evidence governing investigations involving national security matters."
        \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

        Comment


        • #34
          Dunno what went wrong with my posts back there... :oops:

          My recollection is that the Afghan government invited the Soviets in, who were keen to oblige as they weren't too happy about being hemmed in by Islamic fundamentalists. The Afghan gov. went wrong by going to far in trying to reform things and improve the lives of these people. Land was taken off of the feudal warlords and handed to the peasants, who gave it back and took up arms because it was "against the will of Allah". Makes me wonder when I see sections of the British left now cosying up to the Islamicists. Bad mistake.

          Brezhinski (bad spelling..) has now admitted that US intervention in Afghanistan was all about giving the USSR a "Vietnam experience" - which certainly worked (shame about the "blowback"), in the "graveyard of empires".

          Is all this conspiracy or is it just realpolitik? Same difference, perhaps.
          \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

          Comment


          • #35
            Dunno what went wrong with my posts back there... :oops:

            My recollection is that the Afghan government invited the Soviets in, who were keen to oblige as they weren't too happy about being hemmed in by Islamic fundamentalists. The Afghan gov. went wrong by going to far in trying to reform things and improve the lives of these people. Land was taken off of the feudal warlords and handed to the peasants, who gave it back and took up arms because it was "against the will of Allah". Makes me wonder when I see sections of the British left now cosying up to the Islamicists. Bad mistake.

            Brezhinski (bad spelling..) has now admitted that US intervention in Afghanistan was all about giving the USSR a "Vietnam experience" - which certainly worked (shame about the "blowback"), in the "graveyard of empires".

            Is all this conspiracy or is it just realpolitik? Same difference, perhaps.
            \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
              I must say that part of my constant harping on Islam has to do with my shock that liberals would ever defend the true believing segment. As I said before I think that it is a bit of the mass Stockholm Syndrome, or it’s just ignorance.
              For my own part -- and I am a very liberal individual -- it's not so much defending their belief as their right to believe it. If they want to believe I am an infidel, so be it; that's their right. So what?

              Stockholm Syndrome my ass.

              Ignorance regarding Islam? Not this liberal, my friend.

              I personally believe the mantra spouted by Confucius, then Hillel, then Jesus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's really that simple. I wouldn't want anyone telling me I can't follow my personally found beliefs, so I won't impose that idea on anyone else and what's more, I'll contest anyone who would.

              Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely and our world leaders have reached Machiavellian levels of leadership because they have no view of the Golden Rule. It eludes them completely. They simply do not care how those under their fat thumbs feel.

              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
              I think morality frequently takes a back seat to the giant chess game.
              Absolutely. Of course, the analogy of a "Chess Game" only works if both sides have the same pieces.
              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                Mikey, I like your idea about market fundamentalists. That’s a great way to put it. Are you starting a cult soon and may I join up first? Just kidding, but you do have some very interesting insights.

                Anyway, I do not regard the idea that we gave weapons to any country that turned on us as meaningful. Initially, Iraq looked good because it appeared to be going after a secular model for it’s society and was in a war with our enemy Iran. As it turned out their model for society was a lot like Germany’s national socialism. Who could have guessed?

                I can recall seeing stories about Afghanistan when they were invaded by the soviets. Dan Rather went over and ran around with the rebels. At the time their hit-and-run techniques and shoulder missiles seemed extremely cool and we were all cheering for them. In one story I recall hearing that they had a culture of revenge (with Mohamed setting the tone I later found out), but anyway the reporter went to a revenge weapon shop. There were weapons of all variety. The majority were trick weapons that included a cane gun, spring loaded knives/guns, and a variety of other weapons right out of James Bond. I recall being totally amazed by this and think that the soviets picked the wrong country to mess with this time! I remember thinking, damn get them more stinger missiles!

                On a micro level, I could be giving money to a homeless guy that is secretly saving up for a gun that he will be able to kill people with. Should I know this.

                The thing is, I don’t care for post hoc analysis of personal or international actions. The only time that is valid is if there is a direct conspiracy to be seen.
                The point is that we had no problem with Saddams human rights abuses as long as he was helping further our aims.
                Someone like bin Laden can be explained as a desperate reaction to our unconditional support of Israel. It probably would have happened regardless of whether we supported him in Afghanistan or not.

                With as openly violent, aggressive and homicidal as our culture is, your obsession with pointing the finger at Muslims baffles me.
                Our predominant religion is no less sullied. See the spanish inquisition, the crusades etc.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                  Any liberal that backs that is both ignorant and frankly quite thoughtless.
                  On the contrary, the ignorance is yours. Muslim women are PROUD of their beliefs. They wear the burka and practice their role as Muslim women happily, voluntarily. They would have it no other way because they believe with all their hearts that their God, Allah, wants it that way. By trying to impose your values upon them, you reveal yourself to be the most ignorant of all.

                  Your very username's namesake, Alfred Adler, once said, "There is a law that man should love his neighbor as himself. In a few hundred years it should be as natural to mankind as breathing or the upright gait; but if he does not learn it he must perish."

                  What part of that confuses you?

                  You would call me thoughtless, but it is quite evident that you could spend a lot more time meditating, Adlerian. At the very least, you could try to learn to express yourself without revealing your huge reserve of hatred.

                  Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                  Happy holidays.
                  You, too!
                  "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                  --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                    Well if the Spanish inquisition were happening now I would be very much against it. Would you defend there right to their culture?

                    In Islam women do not have the right to determine their own culture. It is imposed on them by men and they can be killed for violating it. Any liberal that backs that is both ignorant and frankly quite thoughtless.

                    Happy holidays.
                    I'm not backing them, just suggesting that perhaps we should work on the glaring flaws in our own culture if we are going to take such offense with another.

                    If you think this is a holy war only on the part of Muslims, think again:

                    BUSH TELLS PALESTINIAN PM GOD MADE HIM ATTACK IRAQ..."God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." --Ha'aretz, 06.25.03
                    http://bushwatch.org/evangelist.htm

                    This is a modern Crusade for oil and revenge, and we, our troops and countless innocent civillians are suffering for it.

                    http://www.aneki.com/muslim.html
                    Rank Country Muslim Population
                    1 Indonesia 182,570,000
                    2 Pakistan 134,480,000
                    3 India 121,000,000
                    4 Bangladesh 114,080,000
                    5 Turkey 65,510,000
                    6 Iran 62,430,000
                    7 Egypt 58,630,000
                    8 Nigeria 53,000,000
                    9 Algeria 30,530,000
                    10 Morocco 28,780,000


                    What do you suggest we do next, attack Indonesia?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                      In Islam women do not have the right to determine their own culture.
                      Do you mean YOU have chosen yours? - and though you happen to be satisfied with it, do you believe it oppresses no-one?
                      Do you mean W's crusade is feminist activism?
                      Do you think irak and irakian women will be better off when it's over?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Interesting point, Adlerian. I also often feel that it would have been in the interest of all should the U.S. have been killed in its infancy. It's pretty disgusting to me that a country founded on the worst mass genocide and some of the most despicable slavery practices in all of human history can label itself the 'defender of freedom' and as a country founded on liberty and justice for all. It's a bald-faced lie and it makes me feel sick to think of myself as part of it. But I guess I am.

                        Anyway in regard to countries under strict Islamic rule- I am personally not a fan of religion. I tend to feel that any beneficial aspects of religion are better served by other means and that the dangers of religion outweigh the benefits. At the same time, I realize that I would be a fool to think that it's my job to convince anyone else to abandon their beliefs. But one thing I do feel very strongly is that theocracies are by nature a threat to civilization. The plight of women (I'm not so convinced of their complicity as PWV) in areas subjected to state imposed Islamic rule is horrible. I am not afraid to label a people 'backward' and 'uncivilized' when to me it is justified by the subhuman status imposed upon large sections of their citizenry. In my own opinion it is a crime against humanity that these circumstances are allowed to continue. I view such systems in the same way I would view any of the religious wacko colonies here in the U.S. in their armed compounds with their bevy of 13 year old 'wives' and whatnot. The fact that they are widespread and institutionalized gives them in my eyes no special legitimacy.

                        These are my beliefs. But I'm no activist or crusader. I don't even like to talk about all this too much. Mainly because I don't feel that I am in much of a position to do anything about it. And I don't think that the U.S. is either. I certainly don't think that the U.S. is currently in any position to 'rescue' anyone. We're drowning in our own ideologies at the moment while the religio-corporate nobility runs amok taking advantage of our paralysis. And so far as a 'holy war' is concerned, we're sure ready to give them what they want, aren't we?

                        Anyway it's all so much bullshit to me. I can't help but have an opinion about it all, but I don't believe in the pursuit of politics. Not for me anyway. I don't really believe that individuals have the power to alter the course of social movement in the grand scheme of things. There has been oppression and there has been freedom, and there have been societies embodying each idea, and countless others throughout the history of humankind on this planet. And each of these, the good and the bad, have been born, lived, and died in their proper time. Through human agency, yes, but I am of the opinion that when the evolution of society deems the job necessary, the vacancy will be filled one way or another. I expect to remain here for perhaps another 30 years or so. So far I've had no indication that I'm destined to be tugged into a pivotal role in the macrocosm of human existence. Which pleases me to no end. Thus the life and death of nations is of little interest to me. God what a load of rambling mess I'm capable of when I feel like talking. Thankfully it doesn't happen too often.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          erm...i'm french :lol: . doesn't leave me with an immaculate past either.
                          maybe my posts are a bit...dry. i don't trust my english that much.
                          i agree with almost everything you said...i just think you're missing the point.
                          War is made, in the best of cases, in the country/state/nation's interest.
                          Or what the current leaders think that is. It may well produce "collateral benefits", like more freedom for women, but these are obviously not its main purpose.
                          The neo-cons may well not be cynical liars. They may well believe their ideas are the best for America, or the world. It's just the same. What they'll do is increase by all means their economical and political power to enforce the application of these ideas. One more puppet state, more oil money into neo-con pockets, more political and economical weight for the market fundamentalists - and the christian, too.
                          Al-Qaeda may well kill some more thousands, but they can't do much harm to democracy where it exists, inside or outside the US. The neo-cons can. And they're working at it.
                          An islamist world would probably be worse than an ultra-capitalist, repressive, bigoted one. But there is no serious threat that the world may become islamist.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Well said, monsieur! Muchas gracias para tus palabras!

                            I'm an American, and I'm not to proud of my knowledge of languages!

                            :oops:
                            \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                            Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              Any liberal that backs that is both ignorant and frankly quite thoughtless.
                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              I was using reasoning not insults and accusations.
                              WTF? If the first quote is what you call reasoning and not what you'd call insults, then your thought processes are more F'd up than I at first imagined.

                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              Normally, PWV you have interesting things to say...
                              Don't placate me. That psych crap doesn't work on everyone, Adlerian.

                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              ...however, it is clear to me that you have never picked up a source book on Islam (be honest)...
                              Being completely honest, I have not read every word of the Qur'an, but I have studied world religions very extensively.

                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              ...nor have you studied Adler.
                              Not to the extent that someone who majored in Psychology has, no, but I am as well-versed in his psychology as I am Freud's, Jung's and Skinner's. Believe it or not, you're not the only one who went to school.

                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              Your statement reminded me a that kind of liberal racism that I hate.
                              Huh!? Is anyone else reading this crap? Now I'm a racist? I defend a person's right to worship as they see fit (even though I personally find their methods ludicrous) and I'm the racist? Whatever, Adlerian, you're losing me here.

                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              I hate to be harsh but...
                              Again with the patronizing. Quit it, already.

                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              No one has the right to be left alone as we all share the planet.
                              Translation: No one has the right to not have TheAdlerian's views and values crammed down their throats.

                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              Also we all share the human race so we are allowed to be concerned about how others are living.
                              Absolutely, but we must be careful we don't help those who do not feel they are in need of help. If a woman feels oppressed by her government, she deserves freedom from that oppression. If she feels she is serving her God, the freedom you give her might not be seen that way by her, especially if it is forced upon her.

                              Islam is the youngest of the major world religions, but the oldest, Hindu, treats woment just as poorly. Should we march through India next? What about Judaism? Have you ever read the Torah? Old Testament? Women aren't well-treated in those texts, either. Don't hear you railing on Jews, there Adlerian. Wouldn't be PC, would it? But bashing Muslims, well, that's widely accepted, right?

                              I know you get what I'm saying, whether you agree or not, so I'm not going to beat a dead horse.

                              I'm nothing if not sympathetic to the feelings of others -- obviously too much so in some cases -- so when you insinuate that I am some kind of unfeeling fascist who wants to enslave women, well, you cause me to resort to the horrible kind of post which I have posted here and I don't like that. You're the Muslim-hating racist, Adlerian, not me.

                              Originally posted by Omaru
                              The plight of women (I'm not so convinced of their complicity as PWV) in areas subjected to state imposed Islamic rule is horrible.
                              My, what a civilized way to state you disagree with me. Refreshingly different. Thanks, Omaru, for showing us how to politely and intelligently disagree with someone. I wish I had read your post first.

                              Anyway, ladies and gents, I think I'm done with these political boards. Who needs this sh*t? Seriously.
                              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I have a lot to say about what I just read, but I'll hold my tongue (figuratively, of course). I agree with you PWV. I read the post to which you refer and was a little dumbfounded by the attack.

                                I hope you're just a little upset, though, when you said you were done with political talk. I would miss your insights a great deal--maybe I need more liberal backslapping here. :D After you cool down a little, I hope you reconsider.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X