Comments on THE US OUTSOURCES KIDNAPPING & TORTURE

Go to STOP THE WARS!! - Add a comment - Go to THE US OUTSOURCES KIDNAPPING & TORTURE

I have faith in them when they are actually used.

Most of the mainstream press is very deferential to the assumptions and pronouncements of U.S. leaders, which really reduces the press's watchdog effect.

Never on the major American networks -- not even the most liberal ones such as PBS (public television) and ABC -- will you hear or see anything about Israel's illegal nuclear program, for example.

However, as for Iran and Hamas, I would imagine that the destruction of the Israeli state would involve the deaths of many Israelis, Jewish and Arab.

The way the Israeli state was begun and expanded may have been brutal, but there is no way that a viable peace process will involve the abolition of Israel. Hamas will have to accept that -- if only by default -- if the U.S. and E.U. are to seriously negotiate with them.

posted by Dylan24 on January 26, 2006 at 9:55 AM | link to this | reply

You Have...

...a lot more faith in the press and in the rule of law in checking these assholes on their imperial path than I do. The more I see, and the more I hear, and the more people I speak to, the more afraid and angry I become.

Thanks for stopping by.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on January 26, 2006 at 12:50 AM | link to this | reply

I think that these days, the outright takeover of a country is more tricky.

We have things like a free press, relative transparency and notions of racial equality that make naked imperialism unfeasible. So instead we must look for plausible-sounding excuses to entrench military and economic power abroad.

What better way than a continued security threat emanating from an oil-rich region? Were there no credible security threat, what pretext would U.S. leaders have for keeping troops stationed there, propping up friendly regimes and scoring the resulting economic gains?

So the argument is... "We've gotta fight the terr'ists to keep Amurrica safe."

And (unstated): "If we get some cheap oil on the side, so much the better!"

But we need there to be a credible terr'ist threat in order to justify what is primarily an economically-motivated (greedy) policy.  

posted by Dylan24 on January 25, 2006 at 6:51 PM | link to this | reply