Foofie wrote:
JTT wrote:
Quote:Facing the American flag with my right hand over my heart: I solemnly swear that I will forgo all thought and blindly support any and all manner of criminality, be it murder, rape, torture or any other sordid deeds that my country engages in. I hereby relinquish any claim to being a decent, caring human being in order that I may carry out and/or support these most despicable of deeds.
You are not quoting me. I will not reply to any more of your posts, since you made reference to me and then showed the above quote that I did not say. Enjoy the other posters. You are not debating with me in a proper manner, in my opinion.
Don't feel bad or look back. Many others have also given up 0n that poster, Foofie. He or she is not grounded in reality.
He or she is not grounded in reality.
The Economic Sanctions Against Cuba
The Failure of a Cruel and Irrational Policy
by Sam Lamrani
www.zmag.org, October 9, 2007
For 15 consecutive years, the general assembly of the United Nations has voted in favor of lifting the economic sanctions that seriously harm the Cuban people, especially the most vulnerable sectors. The international community is unanimous on this issue, with the majority continually increasing. In 2006, 183 countries condemned the cruel and illegal state of siege that Washington imposes on Cuba. In vain. As if deaf, the U.S. government persists in applying an inhumane, anachronistic and ineffectual policy that has been in place since July 1960. [1]
The sanctions have cost the Cuban economy more than $89,000 million since then. In 2006 Cuba lost nearly $4,000 million as a direct consequence of this brutal policy. Not only can the Caribbean island not export any product to the U.S., nor import anything, but it does not even have the authorization to establish commercial dealings with U.S. companies located in other countries, which is in flagrant violation of international law. Cuba cannot obtain credits of any kind from international financial institutions and are prohibited from using the U.S. dollar in its transactions with the rest of the world. [2]
Since going into effect, Washington's hostile economic policy has become increasingly severe with the adoption of the Torricelli Act in 1992, the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, the first report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba in 2004 and the second edition of the report in 2006. U.S. tourists are restricted from traveling to Cuba under penalty of an exceedingly harsh punishment that could include up to 10 years in prison and $150,000 fine. In 2005 the sanctions imposed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) against U.S. citizens who visited Cuba increased by 54%. Moreover, since 2004, Cubans residing in the U.S. have not been allowed to visit their families in Cuba for more than 14 days every 3 years and only if they obtain authorization from the Treasury Department. In 2005 the number of these trips decreased more than 50% in comparison to 2003. [3]
The economic sanctions have also had a disastrous impact on the food availability of Cubans. In fact, the U.S. strictly limits Cuba's acquisition of foodstuffs. Between May 2006 and April 2007 U.S. measures caused losses valued at $258 million in this sector. With this lost money, Cuba could have purchased 180,000 tons of beans, 72,000 tons of soybean oil, 300.000 tons of corn and 275,000 tons of wheat. [4]
The health sector also suffers; losses are evaluated at $30 million. What is more, the Cuban Ophthalmology Institute "Ramón Pando Ferrer" could not obtain an apparatus for studying the retina that was marketed by the company Humphreys-Zeiss. The same with the medicine Visudyne distributed by the multinational Novartis. Similarly, Abbot Laboratories was blocked from selling Cuba the anesthetic Sevorane, which was destined for pediatric use. The Treasury Department also prohibited the sale of artificial hear valves for use in children who suffer cardiac arrhythmia. The education, culture, transportation, housing, industrial and agricultural sectors are also seriously affected by the economic sanctions. [5]
Democrat Barack Obama, 2008 U.S. presidential candidate, has already spoken out against the economic punishment exacted on Cuba. [6] Democratic Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who is also a candidate, followed his lead. If elected he assured that he would lift the sanctions, open a new embassy in Havana, put an end to the subversive and illegal Radio and TV Martí programs and abolish the Cuban Adjustment Act that encourages illegal immigration. "Other than the war in Iraq, no other American policy is more broadly unpopular internationally," he declared, calling it an "abject failure." [7]
The objectives of the economic sanctions - which continue to be the toppling of the Cuban government- were clearly defined by Lester D. Mallory, Deputy Under-secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs on April 6, 1960 in a memorandum to Roy R. Rubottom Jr., then Under-secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs:
"Most Cubans support Castro. There's no effective political opposition (...) the only foreseeable means to alienate internal support is by creating disillusionment and discouragement based on lack of satisfaction and economical difficulties () We should immediately use any possible measure to cause hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the Government." [8]
This is nothing less than a genocidal assault as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948, which stipulates in Article II that "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Points B and C respectively specify "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" and "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." [9] It couldn't be any more clear.
The vicious economic harassment that has lasted for nearly a half century has failed in its mission. The Revolutionary government is still in power and more solidly than ever despite the temporary retirement of President Fidel Castro. The independence of Cuba is a reality that continues to obsess Washington to the point of causing it to persist in a policy so cruel and irrational.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Cuba/Economic_Sanctions_Cuba.html
Iraq is a clear-cut case of genocide.
The carnage resulting from this genocide clearly exposes the disparity between the professed principles of American foreign policy and its manifest practice. This hypocrisy betrays the indifference of American leaders to basic democratic principles and to respect for both domestic and international law.
[Taken from the article below. Read on]
Consciousness of Guilt
Genocide in Iraq?
By DAVID MODEL
Despite the precipitous plunge in his popularity and growing criticism of his competency, character, and style, George W. Bush is not really that much different from other presidents with respect to his hegemonic ambitions or his proclivity to use force to achieve foreign policy objectives. Continuing historical patterns, President Bush and all presidents since World War II have committed horrendous crimes against humanity in order to protect and advance American interests under the guise of liberating people from under the jackboot of brutal dictators or communist subversives, bringing democracy to totalitarian states, improving the lives of those who are suffering and eradicating terrorism.
These are laudable goals reflecting prevailing shibboleths domestically. These goals are an alluring mantle for the real paradigm governing foreign policy which is the pursuit of American interests with total indifference to the consequences to people victimized by American “ideals”.
The gaping discrepancy between the stated goals of American foreign policy and its praxis is best exemplified by the apogee of war crimes: genocide. In its pursuit of these lofty goals, the United States has committed genocide in Iraq. Intervention resulting in genocide at the very minimum proves that American government’s professed motives for foreign policy decisions are altogether specious.
Rationalizations for the application of military force have been based on euphemistic doctrines which have no basis in American or international law. George W. Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war was not new to foreign and defence policy strategists but can be traced back to Dean Acheson’s doctrine dismissing the applicability of international law to the United States as outlined in a speech to the American Society of International Law in 1963 in which he argued that:
The power, position and prestige of the US had been challenged [Cuban Missile Crisis] by another state and the law does not deal with such questions of ultimate power " power that comes close to the source of sovereignty. [1]
In other words, national interests including meretricious threats to the sovereignty of the American State supersede international law despite the fact the United Nations Charter makes provisions for these exigencies.
The growing appetite for the unilateral application of force resulted in the “humanitarian intervention” or “illegal but legitimate” doctrine during the Clinton and Bush presidencies. This doctrine validated acts of preemption that justified the use of force whenever a threat was neither imminent nor substantial but necessary to defend the security interests of the United States against a perceived threat easily manufactured through the propaganda of fear.
Invading and occupying Iraq under the pretext of a preemptive war, a country already decimated by Dessert Storm, sanctions and no-fly-zones, represents the quintessential tragedy and hypocrisy of American foreign policy. To verify that the American Government is guilty of genocide in Iraq, I will establish a set of criteria based on the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and apply them to Iraq.
The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sets out a number of criteria to evaluate whether or not a war crime attains the magnitude of genocide. These criteria are not without controversy but by examining the scholarly literature on the subject and the judgments of the International Criminal Court, I have established conservative standards to assess whether or not the American Government is responsible for genocide in Iraq.
According to the Convention:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm;
c) Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Although the phrase “in whole or in part” sounds ambiguous, its ambit has been restricted by judgments of the International Criminal Court. According to the Rapporteur for the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court, “The accused aimed to destroy a large part of the group in a particular area.”
The International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia concluded that “The killing of all members of a group within a small geographical area” was tantamount to genocide.
Notwithstanding the imprecision of these definitions of “part”, the area in Bosnia referred to in the ruling sets a baseline for future cases. The architect of the Convention, Raphael Lemkin, intended to define “in part” as a level of destruction sufficiently substantial to imperil the existence of the group. Shedding even further light on this problem, the Convention itself considers attempted genocide to be punishable under the Convention implying that intent alone is sufficient to establish guilt.
“Intent” is another term in need of clarification. Apart from direct evidence through orders, statements, or coordinated acts, intention can be shown if “Acts of destruction that are not the specific goal but are predictable outcomes or by-products of a policy, which may have been avoided by a change in that policy.” [2]
The Genocide Convention defines two basic levels of guilt: the direct commission of genocide and complicity to commit genocide.
Complicity in genocide must embody:
1. Intentional participation;
2. Knowledge of the genocidal intent of the perpetrators;
3. Organizing, planning, supplying arms, training intelligence, or direct military support.
One example of direct American genocide, Iraq, has suffered massive destruction to its infrastructure, the economy and human life, particularly since the imposition of American sanctions in 1990 and the bombing in 1991. UN Resolution 661 mandated sanctions against Iraq originally to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The resolution was worded in such a way as to grant the United States a veto over which products could be traded with Iraq. The American government exploited that veto to severely punish the people of Iraq in the hope that they would overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves.
According to a 1993 UNICEF study, “What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement toward food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place.” [3]
Declassified documents divulge the fact that the Americans were aware of and responsible for a humanitarian crisis caused by the sanctions. A Defense Intelligence Agency report on January 18, 1991 concludes that:
Failing to secure supplies [for Iraq] will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences; if not epidemics of disease…Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventative medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks.[4]
On January 15, 1991, B-52s were flying towards their targets in Iraq and cruise missiles were fired from ships in the Indian Ocean. Iraqi defences were incapable of offering any resistance.
Restricting the bombing to only military targets was not part of the U.S. war plan whereas targets included hospitals, electric utilities, schools, factories, water treatment plants, irrigation systems, food storage facilities and community health centres. Over 200,000 people died, the majority of whom were civilians.
In 2003, George Bush Junior inflicted further atrocities on the devastated people of Iraq and on a country virtually bombed back into pre-industrial times by another so-called war. As of today, Iraq has suffered a further one million casualties and four million refugees.
Whether or not the administrations of Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior intended to commit genocide in Iraq is irrelevant because the consequences of the bombings and sanctions could have been predicted by any reasonable person. The actions of these administrations clearly resulted in mass killing, serious bodily and mental harm, and the infliction of conditions calculated to bring about Iraq’s physical destruction in whole or in part. Iraq is a clear-cut case of genocide.
The carnage resulting from this genocide clearly exposes the disparity between the professed principles of American foreign policy and its manifest practice. This hypocrisy betrays the indifference of American leaders to basic democratic principles and to respect for both domestic and international law.
David Model is a Professor of Political Science at Seneca College. He is the author of States of Darkness: US Complicity in Genocides Since 1945. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Israel at 60
We Should Not Celebrate Dispossession
By EVE SPANGLER
This month, Israel is celebrating its 60th anniversary. American Jews will be invited to join in those celebrations. But, in refusing to recognize that its national existence rests on the expulsion of more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homeland, Israel fails to speak to Jews of conscience. Here is why I cannot join the celebration.
My grandmother, my mother’s mother, was a seamstress. She was known for the loveliness of her embroidery. Before WWI, she had made a career of sewing flowers onto fine silk ball gowns destined to be worn in Vienna’s imperial palace, the Hofburg. Eventually, her hands became too rough for the silk and she was fired. Thereafter, she raised three daughters in a one-room apartment in Vienna’s 2nd district, a Jewish neighborhood nicknamed “die Maztosinsel” (Matzo Island). She supported herself by helping merchants at a nearby open-air food market clean their stalls at the end of the day. In return for her labor she was given the half-rotted food that was no longer good enough for paying customers and, in this way, she was able to feed herself and her daughters. But even in conditions of such dire poverty, she went on sewing and was known for the beauty of the embroidered quilts that covered her daughters. I have always thought of her as my quilt Omi (an affectionate term for grandmother).
As time went on, political danger was added to economic privation. By 1932, Austrians were living under a home-grown fascist regime. My mother was fired from her job, but joined a youth group working to get children out of Austria. Then, in 1938, Hitler’s armies annexed Austria. Soon, Hitler came to visit the newest possession of the Third Reich. On a sleety cold day, the Viennese lined his parade route 10 deep for the 8 hours that his train was delayed, screaming themselves hoarse on “Heil Hitler.” So my mother and her mother knew that they were living in a nation of collaborators.
One day, my mother came home to find her mother having coffee with the Christian lady who lived across the hall. For many years, the two old ladies had shared a bathroom and a water tap at the end of the hall, and whatever food they possessed. Today they were sharing pastry and discussing the occupation. When it came time to leave, my grandmother’s neighbor got up, but instead of going to the door, she walked behind the screen that separated the beds from the rest of the small room. A minute later she emerged with all of my grandmother’s quilts piled in her arms. Without shame or haste or apology she went to the door. There she paused and said to my Omi “Well, the Nazis will take these anyway, and I’ve always wanted them.” And with that, she walked out.
Sometime later, my mother was designated a chaperone on one of the last Kindertransport trains to leave Austria. But, while my mother was able to get to safety, my quilt Omi was denounced to the Nazis by one of her neighbors. She was arrested and shipped to the Warsaw ghetto, which functioned as a holding pen for Auschwitz. And there the trail ends. We have never known exactly how or when she died. Her unmarked death remains the great unhealed sore of my mother’s life in this, her 98th year.
So when Israelis claim to have created the Jewish state in my name, in the name of my quilt Omi, they speak less than the whole truth. They never say “to establish this state we took " and we continue to take - the beautiful embroidered quilts from Palestinians and, worse yet, the water from their land, and the olive trees from their gardens and indeed, the very roof over their heads.” This, too, is Israel. So I must say NO. No, you may not use my name. No, you may not use the name of my quilt Omi. We do not celebrate independence born of others’ ongoing dispossession.
Eve Spangler is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Boston College and a member of Jewish Voice for Peace.
http://www.counterpunch.org/spangler05152008.html
Israel is going to impose some reciprocity on its Hamas prisoners. They will no longer live in a virtual summer camp while Shalit is denied everything.
Advocate wrote:
Israel is going to impose some reciprocity on its Hamas prisoners. They will no longer live in a virtual summer camp while Shalit is denied everything.
I would make all the Hamas prisoners study for the SAT college entrance exams during the day. All the teachers would be Jewish women. In the evening they would have to watch episodes of Molly Goldberg shows from 1950's black and white tv.
You have to realize that the author of the piece is an extreme anglophile who was incensed over the alleged Obama snubs of Gordon Brown and others.
Regarding Israel, I recall that Carter started out being very cool to Israel, but soon came around upon realizing the value of our relationship with the country.
Not directly related to Hamas, but there is some fear in some quarters that Israel may attempt to take out the nuclear facilities in Iran, as they are greatly troubled by a madman gaining access to nuclear weapons that could be directed at Israel. That opionion from none other than David Patraeus.
Just okie speculating here, if that should happen, things in the world could move very very quickly. Mere speculation, but I believe there would be a real danger of Obama then moving along with the U.N. to oppose Israel, possibly even seeking to eliminate the state. Again, just speculation, but we do know Obama is not pro-Israel, no way, and we also know the U.N. is silently or quietly undermining Israel, and even cooperating at times with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
"Petraeus Says Israel Might Choose to Attack Iran"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6m8Gjlv2Njs&refer=home
