How in the world can you describe the 1948 Arab-Israeli War as a US military operation?
Basically I can't describe that as US military operation - but this isn't the whole truth, either:
In the USA, they bought a number of bombardiers and aeroplanes, which allowed for the transporting of arms purchased in Europe. Operation Balak was put in place to bring these arms and munitions to Israel by the end of March
[100]. Some ships were also leased out from various European ports so that these goods could be transported by the 15 May. To finance all of this,
Golda Meir managed, by the end of December, to collect twenty-five million dollars through a fundraising campaign set about in the USA to capitalise on American sympathisers to the Zionist cause.
[101] Out of the 129 million
US dollars raised between October 1947 and March 1949 for the Zionist cause, more than 78 million dollars, over 60%, were used to buy arms and munition
[102].
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947-1948_Civil_War_in_Palestine
The decision was still contentious, however, with significant disagreement between Truman and the
State Department about how to handle the situation. Truman was a supporter of the
Zionist movement, while Secretary of State
George Marshall feared U.S. backing of a Jewish state would harm relations with the
Muslim world, limit access to Middle Eastern oil, and destabilize the region. On
May 12,
1948, in the Oval Office, Marshall told Truman he would vote against him in the next election if the U.S. recognized Israel.
1 In the end, Truman, recognized the state of Israel 11 minutes after it declared itself a nation.
De jure recognition came on
January 31,
1949.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-United_States_relations#Recognition_and_early_relationship
Of course, we can argue about the historical Backgrounds back and forth, but basically this was Americas first major partially Intervention that lead to today antipathy towards America and Israel as it is still present today.
What do you consider to be aggressive politics?
Oppression and the use of Military Forces preemptively against other countries to gain strategical advantages out of pure, selfish interests.
If this is in regard to Israel, it might interest you to know that in fact Jews were living in the land that would eventually be part of the UN partition since the 8th century BCE. The land the Jews got in the partition was selected because Jews were already living there. In fact the vast bulk of the Jewish partition was the Negev desert, a barren uninhabited wasteland. Also, don't even think of saying the UN partitioning was some US scheme. The following countries voted in favor of the partition that the Arab Coalition thought was so unreasonable:
Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukrainian SSR, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Honestly, I don't know every detail of the conflict, but it's time that Palestinians get their own Country, too - because they have no rights at all as long this isn't the case. Will this result in the ultimate Peace? I doubt it - but it would give both sides of the story the same, fair, rights. Plus America would be forced to take a neutral position.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. "Good Cop -Bad Cop" is an interrogation technique. Characterizing the LAPD as protecting the rich while "kicking the blacks" is so horrifically untrue, and out of line, I'm not sure what to say.
That was my fault - my understanding of the Phrase was misinterpreting. I used the
LAPD because, and even if this image did change in the meantime, they represented the image I mentioned. The King incident is just the most famous one but I thought you would understand what I meant anyway.
By your broader meaning of the term "imperialism" just about every country, in this world of business without borders, is imperialistic.
As for achieving a positive image. It's my firm belief that the United States could end all wars, eliminate poverty, stop all famine, cure cancer and AIDS, reverse global warming and ensure that every orphan, the whole planet over, gets a nice loving home with a cute adorable puppy and the rest of the world, Europe especially, would still hate the United States. So creating a positive image is simply impossible and therefore shouldn't be considered a priority.
I agree that Business may also be considered as imperialistic. But I disagree that Politics and Commerce is mixed - especially if it does help the rich and punish the poor.
This in context to
this is the way it happens since decades and I simply consider this as being unfair and immoral. (Where is the Church when you need them?)
Well, if the USA would use it's influence and economic vantages to stop Aids, help poor countries to have basic supplies to survive, care for their own poor people, reverses Global Warming etc, I would shut my mouth.
Quite frankly, I grew up with the picture of America as the worlds hero and never thought much about it until Iraq. I guess many here in Europe had this "Hold on, wait a second"-Moment and I after reviewing politics since 9/11, you would have a hard time to blame me for my criticism, won't you?
Do you really think the Iraqi people could have had the right to self determination without Saddam being removed by an outsider by force? Are you really that naive? Saddam had brutally crushed every challenge to his authority ever raised by the Iraqi people themselves. His success in this area is marked in his vast prison system and the huge mass graves that yielded over 300,000+ bodies.
I know about that and I also know that there was no light in sight over night, but he had things under control and much less people died because of him as it is today - plus the instability since the invasion. Let's just say it wasn't a wise decision to take the risk of the destabilization as it was
foreseeable.
The sanctions were put in place by the UN and Saddam could have had them lifted anytime he wanted if he had been willing to abide by the conditions. As for the effects on the civilians, well there was a program called Oil for Food that was supposed to help them but didn't due to corruption. Peter van Walsum, former Ambassador of the Netherlands to the United Nations, stated he encountered a number of cases in which he felt the lack of Iraqi cooperation was designed to exacerbate the suffering of its own people.
That's true - the Oil for Food Program was supposed to eliminate or at least drastically reduce the impact of the
sanctions against Iraq that were a result of the
Iraq-Kuwait conflict in the first place. Saddam was no Angel, that's for sure - but I refuse to say that any other Party involved are Angels, too. The question is: How to response in a fair way? Militarily (biased) or Diplomatic (neutral)?
Where feasible this is the case. I feel that Iran is likely to reform itself through internal reform. I would prefer that to happen. In Iraq peaceful internal reform resulting in the removal of the Baathists and the punishment of its leaders for crimes against humanity was about as likely to happen as for me to wake up tomorrow and find Jessica Alba in bed with me. Saddam's grip was too tight and the terror in the people too deeply embedded.
Guess who helped to bring the
Baathists into Power in the
first place? There is no excuse for anyone who helped them in the first place to complain about them afterwards. Don't you agree? And do you agree that the MEdia coverage in the US, declaring Baath as the "Evil" and America as the "Good ones" as, well, as being straightway dishonest and misleading?
Don't worry I am very familiar with those points.
What do you mean by "clean up their own backyard"? Do you mean account for past failures?
As for not being qualified, who is qualified to do the job? Perhaps more importantly, who is qualified, capable and willing to do the job? You might be able to argue the United States isn't the most qualified, but it is capable and willing.
By that I meant taking a neutral role and really starting to take care about the Ideals we all love in the western world instead interfering in favor of selfish interests. I guess you can imagine what I mean by that - no matter if you agree or disagree from your point of view, can you - if you're honest to yourself?
First off, Oliver, you need to keep in mind that the media in the US is a for profit business. They are not in the business of giving the people what they need to see they are giving the people what they want to see. A media concern that doesn't cater to the wishes of its consuming customers will quickly go bankrupt.
Secondly, what do they show? Well I watched the news last night and I can tell you that at least 2/3 of the coverage was on international affairs.
What's more, if you don't want the mass marketed stuff there is always PBS which I personally watch a lot. There's also the internet and many, many Americans get their news and info primarily from the internet.
That's the same way in Europe. They also are either dependent on economical interests and also to serve their "Target Groups". The difference that is obvious to me but hard to explain or to understand, is:
People in Europe want to know the Truth, no matter if it hurts.
People in the US are "Okay" to listen to lies as long they support their POV.
Now Fox is the most obvious example of that but the Media in General tends to have either a Pro-Dems or Pro-Reps POV, which is the reason why I think it may be a result of the 2-Party-System that resulted in this kind of "differences in Worldviews". I'm still studying this Issue and I would appreciate if People living outside the US could help me to find the reason for this phenomena.
If Al-Qaeda were defending a particular land, or a particular people, from a particular threat you could call it a resistance. But it is nebulous not attaching itself to any state permanently, representing a whole host of people, and attacks an enemy defined only as those that aren't Wahhabist Muslims. As such Al-Qaeda is an instrument of Jihad.
As for their intentions this is from the February 28, 1998 fatwa:
[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies- civilians and military— is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.
Now the real key in that statement is at the end. "...defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." What that amounts to, since Muslims are everywhere, is stating that so long as there are non-Muslims with weapons, and/or aren't subjugated, there will be a war. They will only stop the war, in other words, when all positions of power will be held by Muslims. That, Oliver, is not the attitude of a "resistance" organization, that is the attitude of an organization bent on ideological conquest.
You're absolutely right. Do you think Al Qaida would exist and there would be such a hate towards the US that helped AQ to gain Power if the US never would have interfered in the Middle-East, including the Support for Israel?
Sure, if everyone just gave in to them and gave them what they want they would cease to exist in their present form. I, however, am not too fond of the "surrender at will" tactic.
To give them what they want surely isn't a solution either. The best way to deal with this Issue would be to undermine the reason why they gain support in the first place. What would that be in your opinion?
My support for the war was entirely dependent on it being about freedom. If it had been about revenge, I wouldn't have supported it. If it had been about oil, I wouldn't have supported it. If it had been about installing a pro-US puppet, I wouldn't have supported it. If it was about making money, I wouldn't have supported it.
So tell me Oliver, if you know it wasn't about freedoms, what was it about? Bear in mind you will have to show evidence to back it up.
If I sum up all information so far: It was the
Neo-Cons clever infiltration of critical positions to push their policies that can be reviewed
here. And I still have no Idea how they
managed to get to this point without the help of third parties. And no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I didn't spend much time to study this Issue yet.
I agree that the Western World isn't perfect. But tell me Oliver, who had more civil liberties and basic rights guaranteed to them by their government, US citizens or Iraqi citizens under Saddam?
The US. However, that's no excuse at all to me.
I already covered the embargo issue.
When diplomacy can work, without simply conceding to the wishes of the malicious, it is preferable. But it doesn't always work. It didn't work so well in Bosnia, or in Rwanda, or in Kosovo, or in East Timor, or in Somalia, or in Darfur, or in Sri Lanka.....etc.
From what I see, any interference in foreign countries results in a backlash. So it might be a good Idea to rethink these kind of policies, especially since 9/11 - not the other way around: An even more aggressive politics.
I believe the point was to starve the country into acceding to the UN's demands.
I skip this point because it has been addressed above.
Are you implying that I do not know of or do not care about genocides in Africa? Because I am aware of them and do care about it. I care about genocide no matter who it happens to and no matter where it occurs. The wholesale massacres of Burundian Hutus, of Rwandan Tutsis, the slaughters in Freetown, the wasting of Somalia and Darfur are terrible and I do care about them.
Basically it's not about you - it's about a broad understanding concerning the world outside the US. I have no Idea how the Government manages to propagate their own view of the World into the Media, ignoring both sides and without broad resistance of people who know both sides.
I have never, and I mean NEVER, met anyone that actually thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11. This characterization seems grossly irresponsible. I've also already stated that I care about, and condemn, genocides and other human rights abuses including those committed by my fellow countryman in the name of a cause I supported.
Well, I met Bush some days ago in a
Press Conference in which he said exactly this. I mean who is he anyway - just some kind of President no one listens to anyway, wrong?
I see.
Oh well, it's all in good fun, right? 
