Nazi Weaponized Virus
01-08-2004, 07:44
When studying America and its foreign policy you first have to take into account that American Liberals as a group are either ostracized or marginalized – even by The ‘Democrats’ (the other side of the corporate coin); They are the bastard children of the American method of indoctrinating the populace at an early age to believe that the act of being patriotic is more important than the act of telling the truth. They are the failures of this system, the ones who refused to crack.
On the other hand grass-roots far right are those who have been successfully indoctrinated into ‘Uncles Sam’s way of thinking,’ they are oblivious or choose not to believe the 'unpatriotic stories' about their countries provocative and aggressive foreign policy, which props up illegal, despotic regimes (Diem - S. Vietnam, Nicaragua) - While tearing down others in the interests of 'humanitarian intervention' (a term invented in the 60's but mostly used in the 90’s to justify American Wars, also used in the 80’s to justify America’s “International Terrorism” [ICJ Ruling 1987] in the case of Nicaragua) if the state displays any tendencies to not obey and respect the “World’s Police Force” - George Bush 2000, a chilling reference to America’s attempts in the years that were to follow.
Vietnam is a perfect example of this flawed and misunderstood term, used to convince the ignorant; that you (as a Government) were intervening to ‘save the people from communism’, yet to achieve this ‘noble end’ as McNamara put it, you need to bomb South Vietnam (the very nation you are supposed to be ‘saving’) into oblivion killing over a million in the process, destroy the environment and surrounding farmland with chemical agents that are illegal under the Geneva Convention and which have a horrifying effect on the populace for years to come not to mention the countless massacres of South Vietnamese civilians, records of which were held back for years by the ‘free media’ so the US could prolong the War without giving the Anti-War movement ammunition, all the while propping up Diem’s reign of terror in the interests of the ‘people’ – a reign which was despised even by those who were fiercely anti communist.
Or take Serbia, The KLA-UCK (The ‘Kosovan Liberation Army’) was listed as a terrorist organisation under the state department's official listings before the Serbian War, as its stated aims were to kill Serbian civilians in Kosovo to elicit a response from The Serbian Mainland itself so as to draw NATO into the conflict; those were its stated aims. Not only that, but George Robertson (Former Secretary Gen. of NATO) said that the KLA-UCK had been responsible for “more civilian deaths in Kosovo than the Serbian Army had been.” But what happened during the War?
The KLA-UCK underwent a metamorphosis to become 'freedom fighters' (this method of metamorphosis by media can also be compared to the ‘Northern Alliance’ group in Afghanistan – who have been linked to several massacres in the ‘Poppy Fields’ drugs producing regions – yet suddenly became the people’s ‘saviour’ from the Taliban), the media control (completely alike to propaganda – yet not defined as propaganda) enforced on us by the Right Wing Corporate Media such as FOX News made out that the KLA were some kind of 'honourable' group of people, who were fighting for freedom, ignoring the facts (purposefully of course – the media never studied the KLA’s actions before the War, and the awful methods that they employed when killing Serbians in Kosovo) that their methods had been looked upon in disgust by even UN Human Rights Inspectors in the country who had long been advocates of Mr. Milosevic’s overthrow for a long time.
But lets take the US' word for that particular War, lets assume that they didn't attack Serbia to halt it becoming a major power in the Balkans, and that they didn't use the term 'humanitarian intervention' as an excuse to further their own aggressive foreign policy for their own ends, lets assume that it was all in the interests of goodwill and “stopping a despot, who is a clear representation of evil” as Clinton put it.
Why don’t the same standards apply to Israel (in relation to the illegal occupation of both Palestine and Lebanese territories) as they do to Serbia – Why does International law only apply to certain states on a selective basis? There are many parralels that you can draw between the two states and their respective situations, both occupied at one point, both states responsible for grievous breaches of human rights and both in breach of countless UN Resolutions and International Laws – yet only one state had action taken against it, and it could be argued this states actions paled in comparison to Israel’s actions over a long term period.
Just like The Monroe Doctrine's reintroduction into basic Foreign Policy arrangements post '45 (which has provided the false pretext for War after War - Until the 'Huamnitarian Intervention' excuse was thoroughlly developed), or the naturally inflamtory sentiment of the Truman Doctrine and its clear aims of not wanting peace with The Soviet Union mostly because of ideological hatred (on the part of Truman). American Foreign Policy has always looked after its own interests - by either propping up despotic regimes, tearing them down when they are no longer of any use, attempting to support subversive groups whose ideological aims mirrored thier own political and military aims (at the time) - The Afghanistan Trap, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are perfect examples of this - and doubtless there will be more.
On the other hand grass-roots far right are those who have been successfully indoctrinated into ‘Uncles Sam’s way of thinking,’ they are oblivious or choose not to believe the 'unpatriotic stories' about their countries provocative and aggressive foreign policy, which props up illegal, despotic regimes (Diem - S. Vietnam, Nicaragua) - While tearing down others in the interests of 'humanitarian intervention' (a term invented in the 60's but mostly used in the 90’s to justify American Wars, also used in the 80’s to justify America’s “International Terrorism” [ICJ Ruling 1987] in the case of Nicaragua) if the state displays any tendencies to not obey and respect the “World’s Police Force” - George Bush 2000, a chilling reference to America’s attempts in the years that were to follow.
Vietnam is a perfect example of this flawed and misunderstood term, used to convince the ignorant; that you (as a Government) were intervening to ‘save the people from communism’, yet to achieve this ‘noble end’ as McNamara put it, you need to bomb South Vietnam (the very nation you are supposed to be ‘saving’) into oblivion killing over a million in the process, destroy the environment and surrounding farmland with chemical agents that are illegal under the Geneva Convention and which have a horrifying effect on the populace for years to come not to mention the countless massacres of South Vietnamese civilians, records of which were held back for years by the ‘free media’ so the US could prolong the War without giving the Anti-War movement ammunition, all the while propping up Diem’s reign of terror in the interests of the ‘people’ – a reign which was despised even by those who were fiercely anti communist.
Or take Serbia, The KLA-UCK (The ‘Kosovan Liberation Army’) was listed as a terrorist organisation under the state department's official listings before the Serbian War, as its stated aims were to kill Serbian civilians in Kosovo to elicit a response from The Serbian Mainland itself so as to draw NATO into the conflict; those were its stated aims. Not only that, but George Robertson (Former Secretary Gen. of NATO) said that the KLA-UCK had been responsible for “more civilian deaths in Kosovo than the Serbian Army had been.” But what happened during the War?
The KLA-UCK underwent a metamorphosis to become 'freedom fighters' (this method of metamorphosis by media can also be compared to the ‘Northern Alliance’ group in Afghanistan – who have been linked to several massacres in the ‘Poppy Fields’ drugs producing regions – yet suddenly became the people’s ‘saviour’ from the Taliban), the media control (completely alike to propaganda – yet not defined as propaganda) enforced on us by the Right Wing Corporate Media such as FOX News made out that the KLA were some kind of 'honourable' group of people, who were fighting for freedom, ignoring the facts (purposefully of course – the media never studied the KLA’s actions before the War, and the awful methods that they employed when killing Serbians in Kosovo) that their methods had been looked upon in disgust by even UN Human Rights Inspectors in the country who had long been advocates of Mr. Milosevic’s overthrow for a long time.
But lets take the US' word for that particular War, lets assume that they didn't attack Serbia to halt it becoming a major power in the Balkans, and that they didn't use the term 'humanitarian intervention' as an excuse to further their own aggressive foreign policy for their own ends, lets assume that it was all in the interests of goodwill and “stopping a despot, who is a clear representation of evil” as Clinton put it.
Why don’t the same standards apply to Israel (in relation to the illegal occupation of both Palestine and Lebanese territories) as they do to Serbia – Why does International law only apply to certain states on a selective basis? There are many parralels that you can draw between the two states and their respective situations, both occupied at one point, both states responsible for grievous breaches of human rights and both in breach of countless UN Resolutions and International Laws – yet only one state had action taken against it, and it could be argued this states actions paled in comparison to Israel’s actions over a long term period.
Just like The Monroe Doctrine's reintroduction into basic Foreign Policy arrangements post '45 (which has provided the false pretext for War after War - Until the 'Huamnitarian Intervention' excuse was thoroughlly developed), or the naturally inflamtory sentiment of the Truman Doctrine and its clear aims of not wanting peace with The Soviet Union mostly because of ideological hatred (on the part of Truman). American Foreign Policy has always looked after its own interests - by either propping up despotic regimes, tearing them down when they are no longer of any use, attempting to support subversive groups whose ideological aims mirrored thier own political and military aims (at the time) - The Afghanistan Trap, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are perfect examples of this - and doubtless there will be more.