An open letter to all those decent American's

I am not surprised by your lack of comprehension, so I will type this slowly and perhaps you will understand. It is a very fine line between a terrorist and a patriot; it all depends on which side of the line you are standing.
We in the Western World see al-Qaeda as a terrorist group but their compatriots, their country men see them as Patriots fighting a great Western evil, to them we are the terrorists but from our perspective they are the terrorists and we are the patriots … Is that clear enough for you?

They recently held democratic elections in Palestine, a concept the Bush regime has been pushing in the Middle East for a long time Now it has happened and the Palestinian people have voted overwhelmingly for Hamas this US administration can't accept the reality of what has happened and are calling for a regime change.
The Palestinian people have spoken, it was democratic, the voice of the majority and the Bush regime is trying to make it null & void … If that isn't trying to impose on a Sovereign State I don't know what is …

is it any wonder that America is becoming very unpopular around the world, if I was a citizen I would be concerned.

If you consider the government in Iraq to be an "American style democracy", you really should look into it more.

McGentrix wrote:

If you consider the government in Iraq to be an "American style democracy", you really should look into it more.

I never said that it was in fact an American style democracy. If that's all that you extracted from my post, you should read it again.
The US has a long history of propping up or backing hostile governments that are friendly to US business interests.
It was my mistake to not add the disclaimer that the US wants to impose any kind of government that will suit their needs and their needs only in whatever corner of the world they do not exercise major influence.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Israel...the list does go on. You're an educated fellow. These are not foreign to you.

"American style", IMO, is synonymous with "friendly to America and American business interests, to hell with what happens on the periphery"

Iraq is nothing more than a 21st century Nicaragua, Vietnam, or Panama, albeit with different scenarios being played out under different circumstances. The MO is to impose an American style democracy that is friendly to American business interests with an American style economy run by American corporations.

Do you realize that terrorism has a definition?

There is a bit of dispute about the definition, but I don't see how any of our acts would fit any of the proposed definitions of terrorism.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Turn him over. Turn him over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostage they hold over, destroy all the terrorist camps. There's no need to negotiate. There's no discussions. I told exact -- told them exactly what they need to do, and there's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty. Turn him over. If they want us to stop our military operations, they just got to meet my conditions. And when I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations.

oralloy wrote:

Do you realize that terrorism has a definition?

There is a bit of dispute about the definition, but I don't see how any of our acts would fit any of the proposed definitions of terrorism.

The use of violence to achieve a political, religious or economic end.

The statement made by G.W. Bush to Afghanistan following 9/11 has been characterized as a statement, that if made by a so-called "rogue nation" toward another, would have been regarded as a preemption to terrorist activity, and a terrorist claim.

Quote:

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Turn him over. Turn him over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostage they hold over, destroy all the terrorist camps. There's no need to negotiate. There's no discussions. I told exact -- told them exactly what they need to do, and there's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty. Turn him over. If they want us to stop our military operations, they just got to meet my conditions. And when I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations.

Also, following the events in Nicaragua, Nicaragua took the US to the World Court, and "won". Unfortunately, the US is too powerful, so their terrorist actions on Nicaraguan soil, although intolerable, were unenforceable.

Not targeting civilians, but killing them anyway as a by-product of war is delicately called "collateral damage".

Perhaps the thousands who were killed in Nicaragua, enacted through American backed Contras, were not killed as a result of CIA backed terrorism?
This was a covert operation that was done behind a veil of anonymity that would have gone unnoticed. To the shagrin of the US military, the top got blown off.

When Operation Just Cause went in with 24000 strong, under mostly falsified pretenses, to pull out ex-CIA "employee" Noriega, killing possibly thousands, and displaceing many more, that was an act of terror.

anton wrote:

They recently held democratic elections in Palestine, a concept the Bush regime has been pushing in the Middle East for a long time Now it has happened and the Palestinian people have voted overwhelmingly for Hamas this US administration can't accept the reality of what has happened and are calling for a regime change.
The Palestinian people have spoken, it was democratic, the voice of the majority and the Bush regime is trying to make it null & void … If that isn't trying to impose on a Sovereign State I don't know what is …

While the Palestinians are free to elect whomever they wish, we are free to not give aid to governments that go against our values.

I've seen no attempt to make their election null and void. We just don't choose to aid the elected government.

anton wrote:

is it any wonder that America is becoming very unpopular around the world, if I was a citizen I would be concerned.

Anti-Americanism is always a concern, just as anti-Semitism is. However, I don't think there is any real threat at this time.

To impose sanctions or withhold financial aid is a form of coercion, in simple terminology it is bullying.

To impose sanctions or withhold financial aid is a form of coercion, in simple terminology it is bullying.

Bush is preaching democracy but apparently it must be democracy on his terms, it is not a case of do as I do it's do as I say … that's not very democratic.

The hatred of the US is not necessarily a hatred of the American people; it's a hatred of an administration that is out of control and threatening the peace of the world … if the US continues along this path it will become isolated and shunned by those it needs as allies, if I was a US citizen I would be concerned.

I will make a prediction, the US will be out of Iraq sooner than later and the Iraqi's will be worse off than they have ever been; under Saddam it was a secular society but post Saddam, post the US led invasion it will become a Theocracy existing under elements of Sharia Law … We are talking about a tribal society with no understanding of the democratic principle.

anton wrote:

To impose sanctions or withhold financial aid is a form of coercion, in simple terminology it is bullying.

Not all coercion is illegitimate.

anton wrote:

Bush is preaching democracy but apparently it must be democracy on his terms, it is not a case of do as I do it's do as I say … that's not very democratic.

Bush isn't saying the Palestinians can't elect who they want. He is saying that we won't aid regimes who we strongly disagree with.

anton wrote:

The hatred of the US is not necessarily a hatred of the American people; it's a hatred of an administration that is out of control and threatening the peace of the world … if the US continues along this path it will become isolated and shunned by those it needs as allies, if I was a US citizen I would be concerned.

The Bush administration is hardly out of control or threatening world peace.

For the most part the world's governments will remain above such anti-Americanism. I see no cause for concern.

anton wrote:

I will make a prediction, the US will be out of Iraq sooner than later and the Iraqi's will be worse off than they have ever been; under Saddam it was a secular society but post Saddam, post the US led invasion it will become a Theocracy existing under elements of Sharia Law … We are talking about a tribal society with no understanding of the democratic principle.

I doubt they will become a theocracy. They seem to like Islamic democracy.

I don't think it is a fair characterization to say they have no understanding of democratic principles.

I'm wondering if Iraq shouldn't be split up though.

anton wrote:

To impose sanctions or withhold financial aid is a form of coercion, in simple terminology it is bullying.

Not all coercion is illegitimate.

I really don't know if United States citizens are getting the full story of how the world feels about the Bush regime and the occupation of Iraq;

Last night I listened to an interview with respected author, writer and journalist, Robert Fisk that enforced all that we in Australia are hearing daily … Iraq and Afghanistan are basket cases, black holes of iniquity. He does not think there will be a civil war, however he suggest s that if the Sadre Shiite Militia join up with Sunnis it will become an all out war against the occupation forces; what is happening now, in Iraq, is a direct result of the invasion.

Below is an exert from the interview:

ROBERT FISK: Yeah, I listened to Bush. It made me doubt myself when I heard him say that. I still go along and say what I said before - Iraq is not a sectarian society, but a tribal society. People are intermarried. Shiites and Sunnis marry each other. It's not a question of having a huge block of people here called Shiites and a huge block of people called Sunnis any more than you can do the same with the United States, saying Blacks are here and Protestants are here and so on. But certainly, somebody at the moment is trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq. Someone wants a civil war. Some form of militias and death squads want a civil war. There never has been a civil war in Iraq. The real question I ask myself is: who are these people who are trying to provoke the civil war? Now the Americans will say it's Al Qaeda, it's the Sunni insurgents. It is the death squads. Many of the death squads work for the Ministry of Interior. Who runs the Ministry of Interior in Baghdad? Who pays the Ministry of the Interior? Who pays the militia men who make up the death squads? We do, the occupation authorities. I'd like to know what the Americans are doing to get at the people who are trying to provoke the civil war. It seems to me not very much. We don't hear of any suicide bombers being stopped before they blow themselves up. We don't hear of anybody stopping a mosque getting blown up. We're not hearing of death squads all being arrested. Something is going very, very wrong in Baghdad. Something is going wrong with the Administration. Mr. Bush says, "Oh, yes, sure, I talk to the Shiites and I talk to the Sunnis." He's talking to a small bunch of people living behind American machine guns inside the so-called Green Zone, the former Republican palace of Saddam Hussein, which is surrounded by massive concrete walls like a crusader castle. These people do not and cannot even leave this crusader castle. If they want to leave to the airport, they're helicoptered to the airport. They can't even travel on the airport road. What we've got at the moment is a little nexus of people all of whom live under American protection and talk on the telephone to George W Bush who says, "I've been talking to them and they have to choose between chaos and unity." These people can't even control the roads 50 metres from the Green Zone in which they work.

Follow this hyper-link to read the complete interview; I'm sure you will find it extremely interesting.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1582067.htm