and I don't recall us sitting back and allowing slaughter of bosnian muslims.
Tell that to the people of Srebrenica and Tuzla.
http://www.identitytheory.com/interviews/fink_interview.html
'The U.S. undoubtedly shares the responsibility. We are bound by our signature on the Genocide Convention to "prevent and punish" the crime of genocide. As if that weren't enough, we owed Srebrenica a special debt of protection because in 1993, two years before the genocide, we and the other members of the United Nations Security Council designated the town a "safe area" and largely disarmed its inhabitants. In his 1999 report on the fall of Srebrenica, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called on all governments "which contributed to the delay in the use of force" to accept their share of responsibility for allowing the genocide in Srebrenica to occur, and for each government to investigate its role in the fall of the town. The U.S. has not yet conducted such an investigation, and I believe that it is time for a congressional inquiry into what the U.S. knew about the Bosnian Serb attack and when it knew it. Intelligence experts believe that the U.S. has critical imagery and signals intelligence that it has not released, not even to the war crimes tribunal in the Hague.
What should our government have done? Many historians believe that the wars in former Yugoslavia could have been prevented with early, concerted diplomatic efforts by United States and European negotiators...even after the wars began, there were many missed opportunities for the international community to intervene. The proof, it seems, is in the pudding. Weeks after the fall of Srebrenica, more than three years into the Bosnian war, NATO began a concerted bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb military targets, Operation Deliberate Force. Two weeks later, the campaign ended, followed by a ceasefire and peace talks in Dayton, Ohio. The war was over.'
prior to 9/11, no I do not think america was in a position that warranted an attack. the only reason would be, and its the reason I hear most from muslim extremist, is our support for Israel and for having a base in saudi arabia.
then you do not know your history if you think any attack on the US wasnt warranted by someone at some time. when georgie said the US is a peaceful nation did you actually believe him?
what the hell makes you think the US can do what it feels like doing around the world and not think they are a target?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
have you read up on the atrocities of other countries around the world throughout history? do they deserve attacks on their citizens as well?
According to a handful of violent western governments, yes, they do. They're commonly refered to as 'collateral damage', 'human shields' (placed in the way by the enemy), or 'enemy sympathisers'.
You don't? So then what exactly did the 'international community' do to help the Bosnian genocide between 1992 and August 1995?
I really don't understand why you are using this as an example for justification of 9/11. why was the US responsible for stopping the bosnian genocide?
Kind of like how you were three years too late in assisting Britain in WW11 - you only got involved after the German army became bogged down on the Eastern Front.
I guess next you're going to tell me the US did nothing to stop hitler.
According to a handful of violent western governments, yes, they do. They're commonly refered to as 'collateral damage', 'human shields' (placed in the way by the enemy), or 'enemy sympathisers'.
why just western? how about african, asian, or middle eastern? are some or their governments not violent? have some of those countries not committed genocide in the last 50 years?
then you do not know your history if you think any attack on the US wasnt warranted by someone at some time. when georgie said the US is a peaceful nation did you actually believe him?
what the hell makes you think the US can do what it feels like doing around the world and not think they are a target?
thanks cate, I do know my history very well. what the hell makes you think innocent americans should ever be targets? don't answer that, I'm not interested in debating with you.
thanks cate, I do know my history very well. what the hell makes you think innocent americans should ever be targets? don't answer that, I'm not interested in debating with you.
I'm pretty sure no one here wants Americans to be targets. And I think they don't want any other people to be targets. But your government does target innocent people and by doing so, they're painting a big bull's eye on the US.
The determining factor on retaliation is intra v.s. inter.
Keep it in the family v.s. broadcast it up and down the street...
do the math...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
why just western? how about african, asian, or middle eastern? are some or their governments not violent? have some of those countries not committed genocide in the last 50 years?
Because we're discussing the U.S government in this thread. And because your previous post asked the question: 'have you read up on the atrocities of other countries around the world throughout history? do they deserve attacks on their citizens as well?'
Like I said above, you're just playing word games again Jlew. It's boring.
I'm pretty sure no one here wants Americans to be targets. And I think they don't want any other people to be targets. But your government does target innocent people and by doing so, they're painting a big bull's eye on the US.
again, prior to 9/11, I don't think this argument holds much water.
nothing is being done about it. would you like the US to go into darfur? would you support bush for doing so?
Yeah, I would. As long as they went in solely to save lives, instead of going in for any questionable political reasons, and/or to steal whatever valuable natural resources the Sudanese may have.
so we do come in to help stop it, but that still wasn't good enough.
Correct. Three years too late wasn't good enough. Western governments did all they could to avoid doing anything to stop the slaughter in Yugoslavia until the incident at a market place in Sarejevo caused public outcry to reach such a level that they could no longer make excuses. All western governments were a fucking disgrace as regards Yugoslavia - and the U.S, being the country with the most clout, aswell as holding the power of automatic veto at the U.N - which it used countless times to prevent any action being taken to stop the Bosnian genocide - should be doubly ashamed.
But then someone like yourself, Jlew, will make apologies for the crimes - including criminal inaction - of their governments until the cows come home.[/quote]
'Prosecutors say that US marines indiscriminately killed 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, in the incident...
Five of the eight men initially accused have now had all charges dismissed....
The investigator overseeing L/Cpl Tatum's pre-trial hearing had recommended the dropping of all charges on the grounds that he shot at the children because another marine, Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich, was already firing.'
Yeah, I would. As long as they went in solely to save lives, instead of going in for any questionable political reasons, and/or to steal whatever valuable natural resources the Sudanese may have.
Correct. Three years too late wasn't good enough. Western governments did all they could to avoid doing anything to stop the slaughter in Yugoslavia until the incident at a market place in Sarejevo caused public outcry to reach such a level that they could no longer make excuses. All western governments were a fucking disgrace as regards Yugoslavia - and the U.S, being the country with the most clout, aswell as holding the power of automatic veto at the U.N - which it used countless times to prevent any action being taken to stop the Bosnian genocide - should be doubly ashamed.
But then someone like yourself, Jlew, will make apologies for the crimes - including criminal inaction - of their governments until the cows come home.
[/quote]can we please debate world issues without constantly mentioning Jlew?
ugh, no but we were in a relatively peaceful time. wouldn't you say? the US wasn't involved in anything significant at the time.
No, I wouldn't agree. The situation in the occupied territories was deteriorating. The U.S had just given Israel a further $3 billion. It was also bombing Iraq on a daily basis. Aslo, if you'll remember, there was a serious incident with China in which a U.S spy plane knocked a Chinese jet out of the sky.
These are just a few obvious examples. I'm sure there were more. Remember, these were the early days of Bush's Presidency. He was causing trouble all over the place. And don't forget that he engineered an extensive bombing campaign over Baghdad just two weeks after taking office.
I wouldn't say that things were particulary peaceful, would you?
No, I wouldn't agree. The situation in the occupied territories was deteriorating. The U.S had just given Israel a further $3 billion. It was also bombing Iraq on a daily basis. Aslo, if you'll remember, there was a serious incident with China in which a U.S spy plane knocked a Chinese jet out of the sky.
These are just a few obvious examples. I'm sure there were more. Remember, these were the early days of Bush's Presidency. He was causing trouble all over the place. And don't forget that he engineered an extensive bombing campaign over Baghdad just two weeks after taking office.
I wouldn't say that things were particulary peaceful, would you?
bin laden has always used our support for Israel as reason to attack and hate us, no question. but I don't think he (bin laden) cared too much that we were involved in Iraq, from what I understand he didn't even like saddam. but overall, I would say we were in a relatively peaceful period. not one that warranted such an attack on innocent civilians going to work. I digress however, we support Israel and bin laden has said all along thats why he will attack us.
and chinese spy plane incident? thats kind of a stretch to claim as something "serious", from what I recall, no one died?
thanks cate, I do know my history very well. what the hell makes you think innocent americans should ever be targets? don't answer that, I'm not interested in debating with you.
did i say innocent americans should ever be targets?
what i said was, and i quote: then you do not know your history if you think any attack on the US wasnt warranted by someone at some time.
never have i said that the event of 9/11 weren't heinous. im not some apologist for terrorism. not when it's carried out against palestinians and jews and not when its carried out against americans. whether it be by a state or by an organisation or individual. but to think that the actions of the US government around the world don't warrant some sort of retaliation is just blissful ignorance. in some people's minds the only question is/was when. my wish is for mankind to rise above such violence but unfortunately i can't see that happening anytime soon.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
ugh, no but we were in a relatively peaceful time. wouldn't you say? the US wasn't involved in anything significant at the time.
2001
January 20 - George W. Bush is sworn in as the 43rd President of the United States.
# February 16 - Iraq disarmament crisis: British and U.S. forces carry out bombing raids, attempting to disable Iraq's air defense network.
# February 16 - US and UK war planes bomb a Baghdad suburb; 3 people are killed.
April 1 - U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident: A Chinese fighter jet bumps into a U.S. EP-3E surveillance aircraft which is forced to make an emergency landing in Hainan, China. The U.S. crew is detained for 10 days and the F-8 Chinese pilot, Wang Wei, goes missing and is presumed dead.
une 19 - An American missile hits a soccer field in northern Iraq (Tel Afr County), killing 23 and wounding 11.
Between September 2000, and September 2001, 165 Israelis were killed by Palestinians and at least 549 Palestinians were killed by Israelis.
2001
January 20 - George W. Bush is sworn in as the 43rd President of the United States.
# February 16 - Iraq disarmament crisis: British and U.S. forces carry out bombing raids, attempting to disable Iraq's air defense network.
# February 16 - US and UK war planes bomb a Baghdad suburb; 3 people are killed.
April 1 - U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident: A Chinese fighter jet bumps into a U.S. EP-3E surveillance aircraft which is forced to make an emergency landing in Hainan, China. The U.S. crew is detained for 10 days and the F-8 Chinese pilot, Wang Wei, goes missing and is presumed dead.
une 19 - An American missile hits a soccer field in northern Iraq (Tel Afr County), killing 23 and wounding 11.
Between September 2000, and September 2001, 165 Israelis were killed by Palestinians and at least 549 Palestinians were killed by Israelis.
our troubles with Iraq were happening long before bush....91 war...no fly zones...etc etc
prior to 9/11, no I do not think america was in a position that warranted an attack. the only reason would be, and its the reason I hear most from muslim extremist, is our support for Israel and for having a base in saudi arabia.
bin laden has always used our support for Israel as reason to attack and hate us, no question....we support Israel and bin laden has said all along thats why he will attack us.
Since Sept. 11, Americans have thought of themselves as the target of terrorists, emanating mainly from the Middle East. It may thus surprise them to learn that their own actions are in large part responsible for their problems and resentment in the Middle East. In particular, we argue that the massive aid flows and armaments transfers to Israel are largely responsible for the problems between Israelis and Palestinians today. The repercussions of this conflict reverberate everywhere in the region to the great detriment of the rights of the people in the area, but remarkably, also to the detriment of the US's long-term interests.
Americans by nature tend to look closely at their government's expenditures, to trim the fat wherever they can find it--welfare, social security, health care, education 85 all except when it comes to Israel. A valuable exercise for any American would be to examine the huge handouts given to Israel, which may reveal shocking facts and motivate them to a take closer look at what is done in their name. Here is a quick overview of US aid flows to Israel.
There are open and upfront economic and military handouts, and the table below lists the official numbers. Economists say that in the presence of inflation, a dollar yesterday is worth more than a dollar today, and an adjustment must be made to obtain meaningful comparable figures over time. It is highly desirable to express the aid flows in constant 2001 dollars, so that these figures mean something to us today. Inexplicably, this simple and standard transformation is never done pertaining aid flows to Israel--an omission that understates the aid flows. Now, adjusting the data and expressing it in 2001 constant dollars shows that the visible aid flows to Israel were $35.7bn over the past decade, and $143bn since 1967 [note 1]--the date after which US aid to Israel really took off. The latter stands in stark contrast with the unadjusted $83bn US aid since 1967 that is usually quoted.
Now, one must put that into perspective. Take the Jewish population of Israel (5.24m)--the primary beneficiaries of the aid, and one obtains a $540 per capita benefit just for 2001--four times as much as the touted Tax Cut of 2001 to Americans! [Note 3] Now, if the hard-working American families ever find this out, what can one suppose they would think of it? NB: The calculable aid flows to Israel constitute about 40% of the US's foreign aid budget (depending on how loans are accounted).
Up to now we have only dealt with the aid flows that are visible to all Americans--the government's audit agency, the GAO, will have no problem computing such numbers. But in addition, one must now account for the long list of hidden subsidies.
The biggest unofficial additional subsidy comes in the form of US loans to Israel subsequently forgiven by an act of Congress. That is, every year Congressmen engage in an ingratiation-frenzy to show that they are "friends of Israel," and this often entails forgiving loans. It is difficult to determine the sums involved, but this practice explains why Israel is overjoyed to obtain loans--these will eventually be forgiven in any case. As Stephen Zunes stated, " 85all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan." [note 2]
A few years ago Israelis bombed Lebanon with American-made F16 fighters. What was remarkable about this is that the bombs used were "on loan from the US." It is rather odd to lend anyone a bomb. There are deeply disturbing implications that an American owned bomb is thrown on Lebanese people by a third party, but we'll avoid this discussion. The explanation for this odd arrangement is that the Pentagon budget is being used to subsidize Israel. Thus, the Pentagon procures the bombs, and then they are shipped on loan to Israel. This amounts to a clear additional subsidy, especially if those bombs are never seen again. The extent of this underhand subsidy can't be calculated. There are also questions about the "pre-positioned" armaments to be used by the US military; Israelis can use these at any time.
The Pentagon budget often includes programs developed by Israeli defense contractors. Once again, this is a direct subsidy of Israeli industry. While one may ask whether the Pentagon obtains any benefit from, an even more pertinent question is whether US defense technology is compromised by this practice.
In fact, Israel receives all the latest military gadgets. Usually these weapons don't carry a price tag, and it is difficult to determine how much was spent on the military transfers. It is easy for the US government to manipulate these figures to "under invoice" military transfers to Israel--again, hiding the true cost from the US taxpayer. Certainly, Israelis won't accept the $10,000 military toilet seat, but maybe will take it for $0.50.
Egypt, the second largest US foreign aid beneficiary, receives the disbursements on a quarterly basis, and hundreds of American bureaucrats oversee the use of the funds. In contrast, the disbursement of aid to Israel is done in a lump sum once a year, and the funds disappear into the general kitty with no American auditor in sight. The additional cost to American taxpayers of disbursing the aid once a year equates to $250m per year.
Every so often, an American president will state that aid to Israel will be made conditional on it not being spent in the Occupied Territories. However, once the aid is handed over to Israel, then there is absolutely no control over it. Israelis can always disingenuously claim that the funds for the settlements come from other accounts--American's gullibility is always taken for granted.
Countries in Northern Africa have on occasion requested USAID technicians for various projects. Sometimes the technician showing up for the project is an Israeli contractor, or the aid recipient is asked to contact the Israeli company directly. This is an odd practice, and no other nationals are used in a similar fashion. Once again, what is at play is an indirect subsidy to Israel using the foreign aid budget.
Israel has on several occasions obtained "US loan guarantees" on huge loans that Israel placed in various markets. If Israel doesn't default on those loans, then the cost to the taxpayer will be zero. However, the general accounting practice is to allot for the possibility of default, and thus costing a portion of those loan guarantees. In the case of Israel, such a standard practice isn't implemented.
The implications of the loan guarantees are also enormous. In the early 1990s, Israel received guarantees on loans of $10bn, and it is currently lobbying for another batch of $10bn loans guaranteed by the US taxpayer. If in the future the US decides to become more assertive and perhaps reduce its economic aid to Israel, then Israel could default on its loans--a likely possibility. The US would be left with massive bills to cover the loan guarantees. The loan guarantees further tie in US policy to Israeli whims, and therefore they should be rejected.
For the same reasons one has to be wary of the loan guarantees one also has to be wary of the huge issuance of "Israel bonds" in American markets. Often such bonds enter the pension funds of ordinary Americans, and thus future of Israeli and US policy impinge on the welfare of ordinary Americans. Scrutiny of the policy pertaining to the inclusion of such bonds in pension funds is something ordinary Americans should be concerned about.
One often hears that Irving Moskowitz, the "bingo parlor" magnate, transfers funds from his California operations to pay for the development of illegal settlements. In the process, he obtains various US tax advantages because the funds putatively go to humanitarian projects. Why should such funds disappear in Israel without paying the requisite US taxes? At a time when the US gov't is clamping down on numerous humanitarian organizations operating in the region, it would seem that projects in the illegally occupied territories should also be off limits. Once again, it isn't possible to verify the extent of this abuse.
Jordan recently obtained a preferential trade agreement with the US. However, the agreement is often conditional on products being produced in partnership with Israeli companies. This equates to a low value added assembly in Jordan, and Israeli companies reaping the bulk of the benefits. Nowhere else has such a conditionality been applied to US aid or trade agreements. It costs the US because even more cheap products pour into the US with lower tariffs. Although the agreement is meant to aid Jordan, it also benefits Israel. The cost in terms of Jordanian resentment is always ignored.
On several occasions, the disbursement of funds to Israel has been delayed. As soon as this happens, Israelis will clamor to receive the interest due for the days that the funds weren't in their possession, a preposterous situation. Assume that you promise someone a handout on a certain date, and if you delayed, would you pay interest on the handout?
Cuckoos make nice cooing sounds in the forests. They also deposit their eggs amidst the nests of sparrows. The cuckoo chick is about three times larger than the sparrow chicks, and will often drive them from the nest or starve them out. The mother cowbird will nearly exhaust herself attempting to feed the demands of the cuckoo in its nest--a parasite that it doesn't recognize as an alien in its midst, even when it is bigger than the mother sparrow herself! The parasite gains control not only of the nest, but also of the mother sparrow that frantically seeks to feed the parasite.
Israel is America's cuckoo. Massive aid flows go in ever increasing quantities to the cuckoo, and the negative aspects of this are evident for all to see. It is increasingly dangerous for Americans to set foot in the Middle East, the hostility directed at them originates primarily from Israeli actions in the area. Few people forget that the bomb dropped on them was US-made (maybe even US-owned), dropped by a US-made F16, piloted by an Israeli pilot, and the whole thing made possible by US funds. We all know that some Middle Eastern hostility has hit America's home soil. Why Americans should subject themselves to the whims and demands of the cuckoo remains as one of today's greatest mysteries. All the justifications proffered for the aid flows ring increasingly hollow, and raise significant questions on why this detrimental relationship continues.
It is only when Americans start adding up all the handouts and adjusting them to inflation that perhaps they will realize that its relationship with Israel is truly harmful. Americans may also start costing the resentment and hatred that Israel has engendered to themselves. A simple step to change the situation is to determine who is boss, who really controls the US budget and its foreign policy. The nature of democracy in America--and elsewhere--depends on this. The peace of the region, and alas, peace in the rest of the world, depend on it too.
Paul de Rooij is an economist living in London. He can be reached at proox@hotmail.com
Comments
Tell that to the people of Srebrenica and Tuzla.
http://www.identitytheory.com/interviews/fink_interview.html
'The U.S. undoubtedly shares the responsibility. We are bound by our signature on the Genocide Convention to "prevent and punish" the crime of genocide. As if that weren't enough, we owed Srebrenica a special debt of protection because in 1993, two years before the genocide, we and the other members of the United Nations Security Council designated the town a "safe area" and largely disarmed its inhabitants. In his 1999 report on the fall of Srebrenica, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called on all governments "which contributed to the delay in the use of force" to accept their share of responsibility for allowing the genocide in Srebrenica to occur, and for each government to investigate its role in the fall of the town. The U.S. has not yet conducted such an investigation, and I believe that it is time for a congressional inquiry into what the U.S. knew about the Bosnian Serb attack and when it knew it. Intelligence experts believe that the U.S. has critical imagery and signals intelligence that it has not released, not even to the war crimes tribunal in the Hague.
What should our government have done? Many historians believe that the wars in former Yugoslavia could have been prevented with early, concerted diplomatic efforts by United States and European negotiators...even after the wars began, there were many missed opportunities for the international community to intervene. The proof, it seems, is in the pudding. Weeks after the fall of Srebrenica, more than three years into the Bosnian war, NATO began a concerted bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb military targets, Operation Deliberate Force. Two weeks later, the campaign ended, followed by a ceasefire and peace talks in Dayton, Ohio. The war was over.'
then you do not know your history if you think any attack on the US wasnt warranted by someone at some time. when georgie said the US is a peaceful nation did you actually believe him?
what the hell makes you think the US can do what it feels like doing around the world and not think they are a target?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
According to a handful of violent western governments, yes, they do. They're commonly refered to as 'collateral damage', 'human shields' (placed in the way by the enemy), or 'enemy sympathisers'.
I really don't understand why you are using this as an example for justification of 9/11. why was the US responsible for stopping the bosnian genocide?
so we do come in to help stop it, but that still wasn't good enough.
I guess next you're going to tell me the US did nothing to stop hitler.
why just western? how about african, asian, or middle eastern? are some or their governments not violent? have some of those countries not committed genocide in the last 50 years?
thanks cate, I do know my history very well. what the hell makes you think innocent americans should ever be targets? don't answer that, I'm not interested in debating with you.
I'm pretty sure no one here wants Americans to be targets. And I think they don't want any other people to be targets. But your government does target innocent people and by doing so, they're painting a big bull's eye on the US.
naděje umírá poslední
Keep it in the family v.s. broadcast it up and down the street...
do the math...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Because we're discussing the U.S government in this thread. And because your previous post asked the question: 'have you read up on the atrocities of other countries around the world throughout history? do they deserve attacks on their citizens as well?'
Like I said above, you're just playing word games again Jlew. It's boring.
Yeah, I would. As long as they went in solely to save lives, instead of going in for any questionable political reasons, and/or to steal whatever valuable natural resources the Sudanese may have.
I'm not. You said that. I've simply pointed out why certain Muslims may have felt hard done by in 2001.
Because the U.S signed up to the U.N charter, and is also a key member of NATO. Therefore it has responsibilities. That's why.
Correct. Three years too late wasn't good enough. Western governments did all they could to avoid doing anything to stop the slaughter in Yugoslavia until the incident at a market place in Sarejevo caused public outcry to reach such a level that they could no longer make excuses. All western governments were a fucking disgrace as regards Yugoslavia - and the U.S, being the country with the most clout, aswell as holding the power of automatic veto at the U.N - which it used countless times to prevent any action being taken to stop the Bosnian genocide - should be doubly ashamed.
But then someone like yourself, Jlew, will make apologies for the crimes - including criminal inaction - of their governments until the cows come home.[/quote]
Because 9/11 was year zero, right?
Apparently so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7319708.stm
'Prosecutors say that US marines indiscriminately killed 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, in the incident...
Five of the eight men initially accused have now had all charges dismissed....
The investigator overseeing L/Cpl Tatum's pre-trial hearing had recommended the dropping of all charges on the grounds that he shot at the children because another marine, Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich, was already firing.'
[/quote]can we please debate world issues without constantly mentioning Jlew?
No, I wouldn't agree. The situation in the occupied territories was deteriorating. The U.S had just given Israel a further $3 billion. It was also bombing Iraq on a daily basis. Aslo, if you'll remember, there was a serious incident with China in which a U.S spy plane knocked a Chinese jet out of the sky.
These are just a few obvious examples. I'm sure there were more. Remember, these were the early days of Bush's Presidency. He was causing trouble all over the place. And don't forget that he engineered an extensive bombing campaign over Baghdad just two weeks after taking office.
I wouldn't say that things were particulary peaceful, would you?
bin laden has always used our support for Israel as reason to attack and hate us, no question. but I don't think he (bin laden) cared too much that we were involved in Iraq, from what I understand he didn't even like saddam. but overall, I would say we were in a relatively peaceful period. not one that warranted such an attack on innocent civilians going to work. I digress however, we support Israel and bin laden has said all along thats why he will attack us.
and chinese spy plane incident? thats kind of a stretch to claim as something "serious", from what I recall, no one died?
Because the U.N is unable to function when the U.S applies it's veto.
Britain was just as guilty in the case of Yugoslavia.
That and other things...such as bases in Saudi Arabia e.t.c.
It was considered serious at the time. It was obvious to everyone that Bush was looking for a war somewhere. 9/11 gave him what he wanted.
did i say innocent americans should ever be targets?
what i said was, and i quote:
then you do not know your history if you think any attack on the US wasnt warranted by someone at some time.
never have i said that the event of 9/11 weren't heinous. im not some apologist for terrorism. not when it's carried out against palestinians and jews and not when its carried out against americans. whether it be by a state or by an organisation or individual. but to think that the actions of the US government around the world don't warrant some sort of retaliation is just blissful ignorance. in some people's minds the only question is/was when. my wish is for mankind to rise above such violence but unfortunately i can't see that happening anytime soon.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I listed a bunch of reasons above why Muslims had reason to be hateful towards America. That's where the 'e.t.c' comes in.
So, now I'll ask you a question: Why do you think America was attacked on 9/11?
Even bin Laden says he's right about why we're losing this "war on terror".
naděje umírá poslední
2001
January 20 - George W. Bush is sworn in as the 43rd President of the United States.
# February 16 - Iraq disarmament crisis: British and U.S. forces carry out bombing raids, attempting to disable Iraq's air defense network.
# February 16 - US and UK war planes bomb a Baghdad suburb; 3 people are killed.
April 1 - U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident: A Chinese fighter jet bumps into a U.S. EP-3E surveillance aircraft which is forced to make an emergency landing in Hainan, China. The U.S. crew is detained for 10 days and the F-8 Chinese pilot, Wang Wei, goes missing and is presumed dead.
une 19 - An American missile hits a soccer field in northern Iraq (Tel Afr County), killing 23 and wounding 11.
Between September 2000, and September 2001, 165 Israelis were killed by Palestinians and at least 549 Palestinians were killed by Israelis.
our troubles with Iraq were happening long before bush....91 war...no fly zones...etc etc
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.html
US Aid to Israel
Feeding the Cuckoo
by PAUL de ROOIJ
Since Sept. 11, Americans have thought of themselves as the target of terrorists, emanating mainly from the Middle East. It may thus surprise them to learn that their own actions are in large part responsible for their problems and resentment in the Middle East. In particular, we argue that the massive aid flows and armaments transfers to Israel are largely responsible for the problems between Israelis and Palestinians today. The repercussions of this conflict reverberate everywhere in the region to the great detriment of the rights of the people in the area, but remarkably, also to the detriment of the US's long-term interests.
Americans by nature tend to look closely at their government's expenditures, to trim the fat wherever they can find it--welfare, social security, health care, education 85 all except when it comes to Israel. A valuable exercise for any American would be to examine the huge handouts given to Israel, which may reveal shocking facts and motivate them to a take closer look at what is done in their name. Here is a quick overview of US aid flows to Israel.
There are open and upfront economic and military handouts, and the table below lists the official numbers. Economists say that in the presence of inflation, a dollar yesterday is worth more than a dollar today, and an adjustment must be made to obtain meaningful comparable figures over time. It is highly desirable to express the aid flows in constant 2001 dollars, so that these figures mean something to us today. Inexplicably, this simple and standard transformation is never done pertaining aid flows to Israel--an omission that understates the aid flows. Now, adjusting the data and expressing it in 2001 constant dollars shows that the visible aid flows to Israel were $35.7bn over the past decade, and $143bn since 1967 [note 1]--the date after which US aid to Israel really took off. The latter stands in stark contrast with the unadjusted $83bn US aid since 1967 that is usually quoted.
Now, one must put that into perspective. Take the Jewish population of Israel (5.24m)--the primary beneficiaries of the aid, and one obtains a $540 per capita benefit just for 2001--four times as much as the touted Tax Cut of 2001 to Americans! [Note 3] Now, if the hard-working American families ever find this out, what can one suppose they would think of it? NB: The calculable aid flows to Israel constitute about 40% of the US's foreign aid budget (depending on how loans are accounted).
Up to now we have only dealt with the aid flows that are visible to all Americans--the government's audit agency, the GAO, will have no problem computing such numbers. But in addition, one must now account for the long list of hidden subsidies.
The biggest unofficial additional subsidy comes in the form of US loans to Israel subsequently forgiven by an act of Congress. That is, every year Congressmen engage in an ingratiation-frenzy to show that they are "friends of Israel," and this often entails forgiving loans. It is difficult to determine the sums involved, but this practice explains why Israel is overjoyed to obtain loans--these will eventually be forgiven in any case. As Stephen Zunes stated, " 85all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan." [note 2]
A few years ago Israelis bombed Lebanon with American-made F16 fighters. What was remarkable about this is that the bombs used were "on loan from the US." It is rather odd to lend anyone a bomb. There are deeply disturbing implications that an American owned bomb is thrown on Lebanese people by a third party, but we'll avoid this discussion. The explanation for this odd arrangement is that the Pentagon budget is being used to subsidize Israel. Thus, the Pentagon procures the bombs, and then they are shipped on loan to Israel. This amounts to a clear additional subsidy, especially if those bombs are never seen again. The extent of this underhand subsidy can't be calculated. There are also questions about the "pre-positioned" armaments to be used by the US military; Israelis can use these at any time.
The Pentagon budget often includes programs developed by Israeli defense contractors. Once again, this is a direct subsidy of Israeli industry. While one may ask whether the Pentagon obtains any benefit from, an even more pertinent question is whether US defense technology is compromised by this practice.
In fact, Israel receives all the latest military gadgets. Usually these weapons don't carry a price tag, and it is difficult to determine how much was spent on the military transfers. It is easy for the US government to manipulate these figures to "under invoice" military transfers to Israel--again, hiding the true cost from the US taxpayer. Certainly, Israelis won't accept the $10,000 military toilet seat, but maybe will take it for $0.50.
Egypt, the second largest US foreign aid beneficiary, receives the disbursements on a quarterly basis, and hundreds of American bureaucrats oversee the use of the funds. In contrast, the disbursement of aid to Israel is done in a lump sum once a year, and the funds disappear into the general kitty with no American auditor in sight. The additional cost to American taxpayers of disbursing the aid once a year equates to $250m per year.
Every so often, an American president will state that aid to Israel will be made conditional on it not being spent in the Occupied Territories. However, once the aid is handed over to Israel, then there is absolutely no control over it. Israelis can always disingenuously claim that the funds for the settlements come from other accounts--American's gullibility is always taken for granted.
Countries in Northern Africa have on occasion requested USAID technicians for various projects. Sometimes the technician showing up for the project is an Israeli contractor, or the aid recipient is asked to contact the Israeli company directly. This is an odd practice, and no other nationals are used in a similar fashion. Once again, what is at play is an indirect subsidy to Israel using the foreign aid budget.
Israel has on several occasions obtained "US loan guarantees" on huge loans that Israel placed in various markets. If Israel doesn't default on those loans, then the cost to the taxpayer will be zero. However, the general accounting practice is to allot for the possibility of default, and thus costing a portion of those loan guarantees. In the case of Israel, such a standard practice isn't implemented.
The implications of the loan guarantees are also enormous. In the early 1990s, Israel received guarantees on loans of $10bn, and it is currently lobbying for another batch of $10bn loans guaranteed by the US taxpayer. If in the future the US decides to become more assertive and perhaps reduce its economic aid to Israel, then Israel could default on its loans--a likely possibility. The US would be left with massive bills to cover the loan guarantees. The loan guarantees further tie in US policy to Israeli whims, and therefore they should be rejected.
For the same reasons one has to be wary of the loan guarantees one also has to be wary of the huge issuance of "Israel bonds" in American markets. Often such bonds enter the pension funds of ordinary Americans, and thus future of Israeli and US policy impinge on the welfare of ordinary Americans. Scrutiny of the policy pertaining to the inclusion of such bonds in pension funds is something ordinary Americans should be concerned about.
One often hears that Irving Moskowitz, the "bingo parlor" magnate, transfers funds from his California operations to pay for the development of illegal settlements. In the process, he obtains various US tax advantages because the funds putatively go to humanitarian projects. Why should such funds disappear in Israel without paying the requisite US taxes? At a time when the US gov't is clamping down on numerous humanitarian organizations operating in the region, it would seem that projects in the illegally occupied territories should also be off limits. Once again, it isn't possible to verify the extent of this abuse.
Jordan recently obtained a preferential trade agreement with the US. However, the agreement is often conditional on products being produced in partnership with Israeli companies. This equates to a low value added assembly in Jordan, and Israeli companies reaping the bulk of the benefits. Nowhere else has such a conditionality been applied to US aid or trade agreements. It costs the US because even more cheap products pour into the US with lower tariffs. Although the agreement is meant to aid Jordan, it also benefits Israel. The cost in terms of Jordanian resentment is always ignored.
On several occasions, the disbursement of funds to Israel has been delayed. As soon as this happens, Israelis will clamor to receive the interest due for the days that the funds weren't in their possession, a preposterous situation. Assume that you promise someone a handout on a certain date, and if you delayed, would you pay interest on the handout?
Cuckoos make nice cooing sounds in the forests. They also deposit their eggs amidst the nests of sparrows. The cuckoo chick is about three times larger than the sparrow chicks, and will often drive them from the nest or starve them out. The mother cowbird will nearly exhaust herself attempting to feed the demands of the cuckoo in its nest--a parasite that it doesn't recognize as an alien in its midst, even when it is bigger than the mother sparrow herself! The parasite gains control not only of the nest, but also of the mother sparrow that frantically seeks to feed the parasite.
Israel is America's cuckoo. Massive aid flows go in ever increasing quantities to the cuckoo, and the negative aspects of this are evident for all to see. It is increasingly dangerous for Americans to set foot in the Middle East, the hostility directed at them originates primarily from Israeli actions in the area. Few people forget that the bomb dropped on them was US-made (maybe even US-owned), dropped by a US-made F16, piloted by an Israeli pilot, and the whole thing made possible by US funds. We all know that some Middle Eastern hostility has hit America's home soil. Why Americans should subject themselves to the whims and demands of the cuckoo remains as one of today's greatest mysteries. All the justifications proffered for the aid flows ring increasingly hollow, and raise significant questions on why this detrimental relationship continues.
It is only when Americans start adding up all the handouts and adjusting them to inflation that perhaps they will realize that its relationship with Israel is truly harmful. Americans may also start costing the resentment and hatred that Israel has engendered to themselves. A simple step to change the situation is to determine who is boss, who really controls the US budget and its foreign policy. The nature of democracy in America--and elsewhere--depends on this. The peace of the region, and alas, peace in the rest of the world, depend on it too.
Paul de Rooij is an economist living in London. He can be reached at proox@hotmail.com