[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The Soviet Union. [/quote]
What Soviet Union?
Newsflash: It’s 2008!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
The Soviet Union.
What Soviet Union?
Newsflash: It’s 2008![/quote]
You would do well to remember your own questions.
There is no newsflash in being able to look in the past and see the bigger picture.
You asked who killed the more foreigners since WWII and I gave you the answer.
If it is not the one you like, deal with it.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
There is no newsflash in being able to look in the past and see the bigger picture.
You asked who killed the more foreigners since WWII and I gave you the answer.
If it is not the one you like, deal with it. [/quote]
Read the original post. There is a good reason I wrote “than any other nation on earth”. It was to specify that I’m thinking in terms of geography and NOT history.
Anything else?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
There is no newsflash in being able to look in the past and see the bigger picture.
You asked who killed the more foreigners since WWII and I gave you the answer.
If it is not the one you like, deal with it.
Read the original post. There is a good reason I wrote “than any other nation on earth”. It was to specify that I’m thinking in terms of geography and NOT history.
Anything else?[/quote]
Just admit you got proved wrong and stop acting like an ass.
The Soviet Union point is definitely solid. The USSR was fucking awful. The worst Allied atrocities in WW2 were committed by the USSR. The French colonial troops’ crimes in Italy pale in comparison. They used the same brutal tactics in Afghanistan as well.
I think your question is what current nation has killed more people in the last century? On that point I think you may be correct, except that Russia still exists and the USSR was essentially controlled by ethnic Russians.
So Russia (and their satellite communist states), with America in second place (along with their satellite right-wing dictators put in power during the Cold War).
ElbowStrike
[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
I’d quite like the European Union if they weren’t experiencing a massive crime wave from their Muslim immigrant population.[/quote]
There´s a crime wave?
How long does it have to go on before we reach US numbers?
20-30 years?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
Only once you realize that the world is not black and white can you challenge the (ludicrous?) idea that the US is the most noble nation on Earth.
Which nation would be? (Please don’t mention some insignificant little country – like Austria – that has little impact in the real world; I’d like to know which country THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT AND TRUE impact on things is “the most noble.”)
Relatedly: Which country in the world best exemplifies your ideals (edit: or comes closest)? In fact, how about a “Top 5” of Lixy Approved Nations?
Lixy,
Perhaps you missed this? I am genuinely interested in knowing your thoughts on these questions.
Depends on what you mean by “a significant and true impact on things”. As far as I know, every country has a noticeable impact within its own sphere of influence. And you can also make the case that every other country is insignificant compared to the impact the US has on the world.
Can I pick the European Union?
Ok, legitimate questions. I realize it’s tough to draw a line. Let me try to make it clearer with an extreme example. Austria’s policies, no matter WHAT they are, are very very unlikely to have any effect on the big picture of world events. Most non-Austrians could not possibly care less about what it does. On the other hand, as you point out, just about everyone is affected by US policy. So I’m asking about those countries in between, whose actions DO matter to a significant degree.
Let me cut to the chase here. You and your friends are quite open about your hatred for US policy. I’m wondering if there are ANY countries that “count” (in real terms) that you approve of. Put another way, where is the “model” country, the “most noble nation on Earth” (your words) that should be emulated by the US? I add the “countries that have an impact” clause because it’s a very different situation if the country is INCAPABLE of doing significant “good” vs.“evil.”
And no, the EU is NOT a country.
[/quote]
And here I thought that we have the headquarters of the UN and the OPEC, had more than our share of influence in the ME under Kreisky, were the ones to help along the fall of the Berlin Wall by providing asylum for the east Germans in the west German embassies and by finally opening the borders for all Germans that wanted to flee.
Or that we had quite an influence when we recognized Slowenia and Croatia as independent states or helped the refugees of the Prague spring or Hungarian revolt.
And it seems to me that my countries role in WWIIs history is not forgotten and not just as a me-too country like Bulgaria.
So what is it?
Can we have an influence, even when we do not hold the EU presidency, or the EU commissar for agriculture or foreign relations?
Just asking.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The Soviet Union. They and their allies caused more deaths by exporting communism globally.
Here’s some notes for you to look at:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
example: the exportation of communism by the Soviet Union to China cost the Chinese 40 million lives, to Cambodia 1,650 thousand, to Korea less than 400 thousand…[/quote]
That is an interesting stretch.
If they exported it with guns, maybe.
China imported it all on her own.
[quote]John S. wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
There is no newsflash in being able to look in the past and see the bigger picture.
You asked who killed the more foreigners since WWII and I gave you the answer.
If it is not the one you like, deal with it.
Read the original post. There is a good reason I wrote “than any other nation on earth”. It was to specify that I’m thinking in terms of geography and NOT history.
Anything else?
Just admit you got proved wrong and stop acting like an ass.[/quote]
He has been proven wrong?
When and where?
Of course if you count all communist revolutions as SU victims the US looks good in comparison but that would of course be complete BS.
If not, the US “wins”.
But do not worry they died for freedom and democracy. Not their own, they are dead now, but someone, somewhere someone is freer now because of it.
Not in the US because of the patriot act, illegal wiretapping and “executive privilege” (the correct translation of l´état cést moi in American English) but someone, somewhere.
How many people did islamic terrorists kill worldwide post WWII? (and in which countries?)
The soviets backed their share of Islamic dictators, but never are attacked for this. We are constantly attacked (verbally on this site) for backing 3. Over the years, the SU backed many many more. Once some of these became our allies, they were demonized by the islamists, but not while they were backed by the anti-Israeli, anti-US USSR.
Hell, Russia once OWNED Iran and you never hear a word about this. (the post WWII marking point is to blame once again)
And what the hell does geography have to do with any of this? There were Cubans in South Africa, Soviets running Migs in Vietnam. Yet this is just fine with the US bashers.
And one more thing, which countries are responcible for more border incursions, and skirmishes since the fall of the SU?
Which nations are in a civil war with terrorists or victims of terrorism since the fall of the SU?
I would be willing to bet that the majority of civil wars or acts of terrorism between close bordered nations are caused by Muslim extremists.
[quote] I’m afraid we’re fighting for more then Oil. We also liberated the South Koreans in the Korean war, and I will agree with you on the fact that Vietnam was very trivial, and can be viewed as an almost pointless war, but to the soldiers it’s not.
[/quote]
You can’t call Korea a liberation war and then go ahead and call Vietnam pointless. They were both wars fought to stop the apparent threat of Communism. Although I never did understand what was so threatening about a bunch of Asians working on rice paddies instead of selling electronics in a mall…
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The only reason to use WWII as a marking point is because if you go back any further, you might have to implicate people like Europeans and maybe some Muslims, and we couldn’t have that now, could we?
That would be against “the agenda” wouldn’t it? [/quote]
No, you clod! WWII marked the beginning of the world as we know it.
I can’t believe I’m even replying to this.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
And one more thing, which countries are responcible for more border incursions, and skirmishes since the fall of the SU? [/quote]
I don’t know. I think we can safely assume that most of them would probably be fairly “recent” and/or “artificial” countries.
Well the list is quite long. Out of the top of my head, Algeria, Colombia, France, Spain…
My first guess would be that the common denominator of that particular “majority” is nationalism.
I fail to see the point you’re trying to make though. If it’s a tu quoque you’re going for, let me tell you right away that it’s not going to work.
Jesus Christ!
US media control in Iraq and elsewhere
by Roger Bybee
October 22, 2007
[i]The practice of literally corrupting the free press --at home or abroad-- is at odds with everything our nation stands for, but it has become a common practice.
So we have examples like conservative columnist Armstrong Williams being paid to write pieces favorable about school choice (heavily promoted by the ultra-rightist, Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation as a means of undermining public education and undermining teacher unions.)
On one hand, we have Pentagon personnel writing articles for Iraqi newspapers that give a positive spin on US military activities. On the other, former US proconsul for Iraq Paul Bremer shut down about a dozen non-approved newspapers, as Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen reported in “Iraqi Liberation: Bush Style” in Z magazine (9/2003) :
[quote]
�?�the Coalition Provisional Authority chief, Paul Bremer, gave himself the power to squelch Iraqi media engaged in “incitement,” which in practice means clamping down on those who oppose the occupation. Under the headline “Bremer is a Baathist,” one paper editorialized, “We’ve waited a long time to be free. Now you want us to be slaves.”[/quote]
In a more lethal attempt at controlling the press, Al-Jazeera TV offices in Kabul, Afghanistan and Baghdad have been bombed by the US military. The Kabul bombing was particularly enlightening about the US high command’s regard for press freedom, because the US military had earlier checked on the precise location of the Al-Jazeera studio supposedly to avoid hitting it, according an Al-Jazeera staffer interviewed on National Public Radio. (A more complete account of US military attacks on journalists appears in the new book End Times: Death of the Fourth Estate edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair). An Al-Jazeera cameraman has been imprisoned at Guanantanamo for 5 1/2 years because he has refused to act as an informant for the US military, reported Amy Goodman recently on her “Democracy Now!” TV program. Most shockingly, George W. Bush reportedly suggested to Tony Blair the idea of bombing Al-Jazeera’s headquarters in Qatar and was talked out of it by Blair. According to the British Mirror 11/22/05:
[quote]
"President Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a “Top Secret” No 10 memo reveals.
"But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash. A source said: “There’s no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn’t want him to do it.” Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency.
“The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.”[/quote]
However, as with many outrages connected with the Iraq War (e.g., the disappearance of more than $8 billion in cash and some 180,000 AK-47’s and other weapons provided by the US), this stunning revelation about Bush’s impulses has disappeared down the Memory Hole for the media.
But the most popular tactic by US military planners has simply to buy off the local media. It’s relatively easily done, since most poor nations have one dominant paper and these publications tend to be sympathetic to members of the local elite which own them and advertise in them.
Few people were shocked when the Pentagon found nothing wrong in allowing a US-based PR firm to pay Iraqi media to run positive articles about the US occupation.
Still, a handful of na?ve Americans might think it unseemly for our government to hire a PR firm to bribe Iraqi media into carrying US-written propaganda. The US hardly appears to be teaching the Iraqis that democracy is dependent on a free and independent press, unshackled from financial pressures on its news and editorial content.
But the latest white-washing of high-level US conduct in Iraq should not be surprising, both because of the Bush administration�??s unwillingness to punish high-level wrongdoing at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and the central role that paid propaganda has long played in US interventions.
In Iraq, the Pentagon paid $5.4 million to a PR firm called the Lincoln Group to, among other things, pass along money to Iraqi media outlets so that they would carry articles written by US “information operations” personnel. The articles were designed to creative a positive image for the role of the US occupiers and convey a sense of growing stability, even amidst critical electrical, healthcare and water shortages coupled with mounting violence, both random and organized. According to John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in their book The Best War Ever, the articles were normally drafted by Pentagon staffers and then planted by the Lincoln firm:
[quote]
“When delivering the stories to media outlets in Baghdad, Lincoln’s staff and subcontractors sometimes posted as freelance reported or advertising executives. The amounts paid ranged from $50 to $2,000 per story placed. All told, the Lincoln Group had planted more than 1,000 stories in the Iraqi and Arab press.”[/quote]
HUGE PENTAGON PROPAGANDA OPERATION
Moreover, Stauber and Rampton report, the work of Lincoln and another PR firm, the Rendon Group, “was closely coordinated with the Pentagon’s psychological operations unit, a 1, 2000 person based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.” The enormous staff and well-equipped media center would be “the envy of any global communications company,” the New York Times reported.
The total Pentagon allocation of $57.6 million to the Rendon Group and Lincoln Group “is more than the annual newsroom budget to most American newsrooms to cover all news from everywhere for an entire year,” stated Paul McLeary of the Columbia Journalism Review.
But US military officials seemed to be less worried by the divergence between the articles and reality than the possibility that they might be reined in by American law. �??The results of the investigation have been awaited with apprehension across the military and within the Bush administration, where officials have been struggling to find a way to improve the American image around the globe in the face of particular hostility in the Muslim world,�?? the New York Times reported 3/22/07. Clearly, the notion that media reports written by PR experts in Washington will somehow override the daily perceptions of ordinary Iraqis, winning their hearts and minds, is a preposterous one.
In this operation in Iraq, the US was following a pattern used repeatedly around the globe to alter local public opinion and international perceptions by gaining influence with the dominant news outlets In repeated instances, the US has used under-the-table payments to newspaper owners and journalists to turn leading publications against nationalist leaders who were democratically elected but whose economic policies clashed with the interests of US-based multinational corporations.
Notable examples of this have occurred in Iran in the early 1950�??s before the 1953 US-British coup against democratically elected President Mohammed Mossadegh; in Chile where El Mercurio was used as a weapon by the US against democratic socialist President Salvador Allende; in Jamaica in the 1970�??s where The Daily Gleaner waged a relentless campaign against another democratic socialist, Prime Minister Michael Manley; and in Nicaragua, where La Prensa was an incessant source of attacks on the Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega, democratically elected in 1984.
These papers relentlessly promoted false “news” aimed at undermining the governments’ public standing, reported non-existent shortages to create a “run” on a particular item and thus induce an actual shortage as people hoarded it, defended hostile actions both economic and military by the US, and generally served as a central front against democratic leaders who offended powerful US interests.
No doubt further releases from the CIA files will turn up more interesting episodes. For example, the question of the Venezuelan media’s role in the unsuccessful military coup against Huge Chavez in 2002 will be fascinating to examine.
Thus far, the most complete account of US interference in foreign media to undermine democracy appears to be about Iran. In his book All the Shah’s Men, Steven Kinzer reports that the CIA not only succeeded in regularly planting false stories about Prime Minister Mossadegh in most of the leading newspapers, but also sought to play upon anti-Semitic feelings.
(Ironically, one of the most potent and incendiary charges against current Premier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is that he denies the existence of the Holocaust.) As Kinzer explains:
[quote]
"Press attacks on Mossadegh reached new levels of virulence. Articles accused him not just of communist leanings and designs on the throne, but also of Jewish parentage and even secret sympathy for the British. Although Mossadegh did not know it, most of the tirades were either inspired by the CIA or written by CIA propagandists in Washington. One of the propagandists, Richard Cottam, estimated that four-fifths of the leading newspapers in Tehran were under CIA influence.
“Any article I would write–it gave you something of a sense of power–would appear about instantly,” Cottam recalled later. “They were designed to show Mossadegh as a Communist collaborator and a fanatic.”[/quote]
DEMOCRACY PROMOTION BY CONTROLLING MEDIA
The current US media operation in Iraq has dropped from the media radar screen as the military situation has shown troubling signs ( declining numbers of combat-ready Iraqi troops and increasing mortar and rocket attacks on the supposedly invulnerable Green Zone) despite the claims about the success of the US “surge” and the success just around the corner if the US extends its military presence.
However, the US media/propaganda operation–built upon crushing dissident messages and secretly disseminating pro-US messages into the new Iraqi media-- will continue to represent the utter hollowness of the Bush administration claim that the war and occupation are aimed at “democracy promotion.”[/i]
[quote]fatcat wrote:
and we have every right to set up military bases where we please. Nobody’s stopping us, nobody can.
Jesus Christ! [/quote]
Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the US foreign policy.
And there are people stopping the US: Iraqi insurgents.
They’re bleeding the US treasury dry just like the Mujahadeen (then US allies) did to the USSR in the 80’s.
They’ll draw out the occupation for decades and the US will keep taking out loans to pay for it.
Meanwhile, the Taliban are going strong in Afghanistan…
ElbowStrike