Has the US gone mad?
 

This is an interesting article that I got via email and wanted to share with you all. What do you think?

> The Times (UK)
> January 15, 2003
>
> The United States of America has gone mad
>
> By John le Carre
>
> America has entered one of its periods of historical
> madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse
> than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the
> long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam
> War.
>
> The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden
> could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in
> McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the
> envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The
> combination of compliant US media and vested corporate
> interests is once more ensuring that a debate that
> should be ringing out in every town square is confined
> to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.
>
> The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden
> struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin
> Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain
> such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the
> first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the
> already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the
> world's poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally
> abrogated international treaties. They might also have
> to be telling us why they support Israel in its
> continuing disregard for UN resolutions. But bin Laden
> conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The
> Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans
> want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has
> been raised by another $ 60 billion to around $ 360
> billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons
> is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite
> what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are
> supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long,
> please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to
> the American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost -because
> most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and
> humane people -in Iraqi lives?
>
> How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting
> America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one
> of the great public relations conjuring tricks of
> history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that
> one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible
> for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the
> American public is not merely being misled. It is being
> browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear.
> The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush
> and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next
> election.
>
> Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse,
> they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I'm dead
> against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's downfall
> -just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And
> not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.
>
> The religious cant that will send American troops into
> battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this
> surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God
> has very particular political opinions. God appointed
> America to save the world in any way that suits
> America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of
> America's Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants
> to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-
> American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.
>
> God also has pretty scary connections. In America,
> where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one
> another's, the Bush family numbers one President, one
> ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of
> Florida and the ex Governor of Texas.
>
> Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84:
> senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an
> oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken
> oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of
> the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice,
> 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil
> company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so
> on. But none of these trifling associations affects the
> integrity of God's work.
>
> In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting
> the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks
> for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The
> CIA believes that "somebody" was Saddam. Hence Bush
> Jr's cry: "That man tried to kill my Daddy." But it's
> still not personal, this war. It's still necessary.
> It's still God's work. It's still about bringing
> freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people.
>
> To be a member of the team you must also believe in
> Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot
> of help from his friends, family and God, is there to
> tell us which is which. What Bush won't tell us is the
> truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is
> not an Axis of Evil -but oil, money and people's lives.
> Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest
> oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him
> get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who
> doesn't, won't.
>
> If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his
> citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it
> every day -think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think
> Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.
>
> Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its
> neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's
> weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them,
> will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or
> America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What
> is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist
> threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What
> is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its
> military power to all of us -to Europe and Russia and
> China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the
> Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who
> is to be ruled by America abroad.
>
> The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part
> in all this is that he believed that, by riding the
> tiger, he could steer it. He can't. Instead, he gave it
> a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear,
> the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he
> can't get out.
>
> It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has
> talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's
> opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that's
> Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our
> Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the
> electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way.
> Blair's best chance of personal survival must be that,
> at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably
> emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in
> his holster unfired. But what happens when the world's
> greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant's
> head to wave at the boys?
>
> Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN,
> he will drag us into a war that, if the will to
> negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have
> been avoided; a war that has been no more
> democratically debated in Britain than it has in
> America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set
> back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for
> decades to come. He will have helped to provoke
> unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and
> regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party
> of the ethical foreign policy.
>
> There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives
> in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank.
> Goodbye to the special relationship.
>
> I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head
> prefect's sophistries to this colonialist adventure.
> His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all
> sane men. What he can't explain is how he reconciles a
> global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault
> on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to
> secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to
> grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all
> the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David,
> Blair has to show up at the altar.
>
> "But will we win, Daddy?"
>
> "Of course, child. It will all be over while you're
> still in bed."
>
> "Why?"
>
> "Because otherwise Mr Bush's voters will get terribly
> impatient and may decide not to vote for him."
>
> "But will people be killed, Daddy?"
>
> "Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people."
>
> "Can I watch it on television?"
>
> "Only if Mr Bush says you can."
>
> "And afterwards, will everything be normal again?
> Nobody will do anything horrid any more?"
>
> "Hush child, and go to sleep."
>
> Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his
> local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying:
> "Peace is also Patriotic". It was gone by the time he'd
> finished shopping.
>
> The author has also contributed to an openDemocracy
> debate on Iraq at www.openDemocracy.net >>
>
> 0010764.1608220741.1622235530.006.0....g.topica .com
>
> #############################################
> this is e-drum, a listserv providing information of interests to
> black writers and diverse supporters worldwide. e-drum is
> moderated by kalamu ya salaam (kalamu@aol.com).
> ----------------------------------
> to subscribe to e-drum send a blank email to:
> e-drum-subscribe@topica.com
> ---------------------------------------------
> to read past messages or search the archives, go to:
> http://www.topica.com/lists/e-drum

BRAVO!!
 

AN AWESOME ARTICLE.

Great piece!!! I think I will present this to my honors class tommorow. Bush is crazy but we knew that.:mad:

Brilliant Piece! It's nice to see that some people have made their way out of the darkness and into the light.

FYI
 

Good piece, but LeCarre's British, not American. Wonder if any American writer's done something like this?
:confused:

Thanks for posting this incredible article. It was well written and thorough. Balancing the cookie cutter news that's presented by the American media is crucial. It's a shame you have to balance it with foreign news.

Re: Has the US gone mad?
 

Man, this is so true. My daddy always told me that in order to predict the outcome of a situation, look at the way it began. In other words, if you begin something in deceit, it is inevitable that it will end in deceit.


*sigh* The old bait and switch routine. Is anyone even pissed at bin Laden anymore? It amazes me how apathetic the American public is when it comes to its political views. If Bush says that Saddam is evil, then dammit, he must be evil and if you're not willing to risk your life to go get said evil man, then you're unpatriotic :rolleyes:. I'm with Muhammed Ali on this one.... no Arab ever called me a n*gger.


Dang, I didn't know Condoleezza's hands were covered in oil, too! :eek: Very interesting facts.


LOL!


I do believe that Blair is in over his head on this one. If he was never a praying man before, I bet he is now.

Wonderful!!
 

I don't post too often, but this article was well written and factual. It exposes the Bush administration for what it really is.

Thank you for posting this article!! :-)

Ok, I'm lazy! I didin't read the article, but just skipped to the replies to see if I could figure out what the article was about. Since I see that it has gotten such RAVE reviews, I am going back to read it. I'll post a real reply later! ;) :p :D

Here's another one for y'all...
 

When America Attacks Iraq

Ghanaian Chronicle (Accra)
OPINION
January 13, 2003
Posted to the web January 13, 2003

By With I. K. Gyasi


When I write or think about the United States of America, one character that keeps creeping into my mind is Mr. Holroyd, an American businessman in Joseph Conrad's novel, NOSTROMO, first published in 1904.

Mr. Holroyd makes an uncanny prediction about what the United States would become today.

He states with supreme confidence: "We in this country know just about enough to keep indoors when it rains. We can sit and wait. Of course, some day, we shall step in. We are bound to. But there is no hurry. Time itself has got to wait on the greatest country in the whole of God's universe."

He continues: "We shall be giving the word for eyerything: industry, trade, law, journalism, art, politics, and religion, from Cape Horn clear over to Smith's Sound, and beyond too, if anything worth taking hold of turns up at the North Pole. And then we shall have the leisure to take in hand the outlying islands and continents of the earth."

Mr. Holroyd ends with a flourish: "We shall run the world's business, whether the world likes it or not. The world can't help it - neither can we, I guess." Years later, an American President, the late Lyndon B. Johnson, would say, "We cannot and will not withdraw from this world...We are too rich, too powerful and too important."

The chauvinistic arrogance in the words of Mr. Holroyd and Mr. Johnson is too plain to be missed or to need commenting upon.

Today, of course, the dominant economic, political and military power in the world is the United States of America.

Great Britain, once the dominant colonial and imperial power, has played out its role and is now in the shadow of the United States. Great Britain, that was wont to make a conquest of others, has made a shameful conquest of itself.

Today, Great Britain has found a new role as the ventriloquist's dummy of the United States.

Great Britain, whose lion-like roar could once be heard throughout the world, now bleats pathetically like that eunuch, the Pardoner in Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales,' to the accompaniment of the bull-like bellow of the United States, the modern day Summoner of Chaucer.

Great Britain, that prided itself on its observance of the rule of law and Christian morality, has thrown these virtues to the dogs in her determination to please her new master, the United States, and to pursue her own interests.

The former Soviet Union, that once acted as a countervailing force to check the excesses of the West, is now no more. Russia is not the Soviet Union.

For all her huge population, the people's Republic of China does not have the superior military, economic and technological capability of the United States.

Consequently, when America attacks Iraq, she will do so with unchecked impunity.

Even those countries like Russia, China, Canada and France, to mention but a few, that are said to be opposed to a unilateral war against Iraq not sanctioned by the United Nations, will make weak and even hypocritical noises of concern without attempting to stop the aggressor.

As for the Arabs, their contemptible lack of unity, their mutual suspicion and antagonism towards one another, their military weakness and lack of purpose, as well as lack of leadership, will ensure that they play no part or probably get bludgeoned into supporting the United States. At least, they will be too willing to allow their territory to be used as bases for American and British forces. Some of them, anyway.

Why does the United States of America and neutered Britain want to go to war against Iraq?

The ostensible reasons include the following:

*Iraq is accused of having acquired or of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological.

*Iraq has consistently refused to comply with United Nations resolutions on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

*Iraq is a threat to the national interests of the United States of America.

*Iraq possesses a poor human rights record as Saddam Hussein executes Iraqi dissidents.

*Saddam Hussein wanted to kill George Bush, Snr., whose son, having also risen, feels that he must avenge all wrongs against his father. *Saddam Hussein's Iraq either harbours terrorists or supports them worldwide.

I have had occasion to explode the shaky grounds on which George Bush and Britain's Tony Blair stand.

As I write this article (Tuesday, January 7, 2003), the UN weapons inspectors combing Iraq have so far failed to turn up evidence that contradicts Iraq's assertion that it has no weapons of mass destruction.

Bush insists that the onus is on Iraq to prove that she has no weapons of mass destruction, instead of Bush proving his case, in line with natural justice and common sense.

In any case, such countries as the United States herself, Israel, Britain, France, Russia, China and others also possess these weapons. What moral or legal justification does America have for planning a war against Iraq?

As for human rights, America supports countries with shocking human rights records. Why does she support them?

One must look at the real reasons why George Bush wants to attack Iraq.

First, Bush has messed up the American economy and his administration has witnessed shocking scandals in industry, with particular reference to oil, communications and accounting practices.

It is an age-old practice for Governments in trouble at home to divert attention by coming up with an internal or external enemy. Bush has found his 'enemy' is Iraq.

Secondly, Jews across the world in general and Israel in particular, would like nothing better than to see the destruction not only of Saddam Hussein but Iraq itself. Bush is doing the bidding of Israel and the Jews in his Cabinet.

Bush and Blair want their countries to be less dependent on Middle East oil, even as, at the same time, they seek to control it.

Ghana's 'Daily Dispatch' of Monday, January 6, 2002 reproduces a 'Newsweek' special issue. Part of it reads, "It (Iraq) has known oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia's and its prospects are so enticing that oil companies are already jockeying for post-Saddam contracts." Control Middle East oil and the West will be safe.

America has always had a policy of regime change in which she destabilises 'enemy' states and even kills their leaders. Ghana, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Chile, to mention but a few, are examples of American murderous interference as the self-appointed World Policeman.

Iraq is an easy target, and beating her will send signals to other 'enemy' nations to beware. After all, beating up weak nations has been another specialty of the United States. You beat a defenceless dog to frighten an imperial lion, as Shakespeare observes.

So George W. Bush will attack Iraq, whether he has an excuse or not.

He will have the opportunity to test new weapons. Many Iraqi civilians will be deliberately targeted and Bush will cold-bloodedly dismiss the civilian deaths as "collateral damage."

Of course, American military ineptitude will result in more American and allied soldiers being killed by American fire power than enemy fire from Iraq. The record shows that it has always been like that.

Onward, George W. Bush, Onward, America. Your God-ordained destiny is to control the rest of the world. So go ahead. Iraq is there to be raped.

When you have finished, there are such other countries as Iran, North Korea, Russia, the People's Republic of China, Cuba and others waiting to be gobbled up.

Perhaps, when you have done that, your insatiable appetite for State-sponsored terrorism can abate somewhat.

America, Shakespeare says that it is great to have a giant's strength but that it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. Empires have come and gone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2002 Ghanaian Chronicle. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).

Re: Re: Has the US gone mad?
 

I only knew about Dubya's oily hands. I didn't know about the others. Very interesting facts, indeed!

ttt
 

Mandela: Bush Arrogant on Iraq
by Japan Mathebula, .c The Associated Press

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (Jan. 30) - Former President Nelson Mandela called President Bush arrogant and shortsighted and implied that he was racist for ignoring the United Nations in his zeal to attack Iraq.

In a speech Thursday, Mandela urged the people of the United States to join massive protests against Bush. Mandela called on world leaders, especially those with vetoes in the U.N. Security Council, to oppose him.

''One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust,'' Mandela told the International Women's Forum.

Mandela also criticized Iraq for not cooperating fully with the weapons inspectors and said South Africa would support any action against Iraq that was supported by the United Nations.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer responded to Mandela's criticism by pointing to a letter by eight European leaders reiterating their support of Bush.

''The president expresses his gratitude to the many leaders of Europe who obviously feel differently'' than Mandela, Fleischer said. ''He understands there are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust.''

A Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mandela has repeatedly condemned U.S. behavior toward Iraq in recent months and demanded Bush respect the authority of the United Nations. His comments Thursday, though, were far more critical and his attack on Bush far more personal than in the past.

''Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?'' he asked. ''All that (Bush) wants is Iraqi oil,'' he said.

He accused Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of undermining the United Nations and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana.

''Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man? They never did that when secretary-generals were white,'' he said.

Mandela said the United Nations was the main reason there has been no World War III and it should make the decisions on how to deal with Iraq.

He said that the United States, which callously dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has no moral authority to police the world.

''If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings,'' he said.

''Who are they now to pretend that they are the policemen of the world, the ones that should decide for the people of Iraq what should be done with their government and their leadership?'' he said.

He said Bush was ''trying to bring about carnage'' and appealed to the American people to vote him out of office and demonstrate against his policies.

He also condemned Blair for his strong support of the United States.

''He is the foreign minister of the United States. He is no longer prime minister of Britain,'' he said.

AP-NY-01-30-03 1308EST

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

TO THE TOP
 

GC gets on my nerves sometimes.

Why..........
 

Why is this man-------->http://cagle.slate.msn.com/media/1/1...30307_Bush.jpg

running our country?

Why are we (the US) Israel's pimp?

Why are we going to war with Iraq who has no weapons of mass destruction instead of handling the situation with North Korea, who HAS weapons of mass destruction AND are currently doing test missle launches over Japan?

Why the madness? :mad: