John Dolva Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Certainly there are Terry, and rulings. Probably why anti UN is on the gov agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 By pretending that its concern for United Fruit's right to continue generating unfettered profits was really a concern about the effect of Commies on the geo-political landscape, CIA could rationalize overthrowing this democratically elected government and even assassinating those who stood in the way.Aren't there any international laws against the tactics employed by the CIA and the United Fruit Company?Certainly there are Terry, and rulings. Probably why anti UN is on the gov agenda. John is exactly correct that the government's anti-U.N. agenda is driven by a fundamental international lawlessness for which the U.S. disclaims any accountability. Anyone who feels smug about dragging Saddam Hussein into court should be mindful that the U.S. has previously been found by the World Court to be criminally violating international law. There was a resolution passed during the Contra Crusade in Central America condemning the U.S.' role there. The U.N. is substantially restrained from such findings because of the U.S. veto power. But just imagine if Ronald Reagan had been dragged into an international court to be held accountable for the atrocities in Central America. That the U.S. continues to evade responsibility for its hegemonic actions is a disservice to civilization generally. T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 By pretending that its concern for United Fruit's right to continue generating unfettered profits was really a concern about the effect of Commies on the geo-political landscape, CIA could rationalize overthrowing this democratically elected government and even assassinating those who stood in the way. Aren't there any international laws against the tactics employed by the CIA and the United Fruit Company? Certainly there are Terry, and rulings. Probably why anti UN is on the gov agenda. John is exactly correct that the government's anti-U.N. agenda is driven by a fundamental international lawlessness for which the U.S. disclaims any accountability. Anyone who feels smug about dragging Saddam Hussein into court should be mindful that the U.S. has previously been found by the World Court to be criminally violating international law. There was a resolution passed during the Contra Crusade in Central America condemning the U.S.' role there. The U.N. is substantially restrained from such findings because of the U.S. veto power. But just imagine if Ronald Reagan had been dragged into an international court to be held accountable for the atrocities in Central America. That the U.S. continues to evade responsibility for its hegemonic actions is a disservice to civilization generally. T.C. Very good posts. I don't know how anyone with a conscience is not ashamed to be an American. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 It seems the NeoCons have lost another supporter. Francis Fukuyama is the famous NeoCon philosopher and the man who claimed that with the defeat of communism in Eastern Europe we had reached the "end of history" (what about China?). However, in his new book, After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads, his philosophy appears to have changed. What do you make of this Tim? You can find an extract from his book here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6205 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 John you are correct that his philosophy seems to have changed. I have not yet read his new book but I will attempt to do so soon. But as you point out he was probably wrong the first time around anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Hayes Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Very good posts. I don't know how anyone with a conscience is not ashamed to be an American. Dawn I'm new here, Dawn, so I'll open with a question. What nationality would you be unashamed of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 1, 2006 Author Share Posted April 1, 2006 Very good posts. I don't know how anyone with a conscience is not ashamed to be an American. Dawn I'm new here, Dawn, so I'll open with a question. What nationality would you be unashamed of? Dawn will obviously answer for herself but I expect she means that she is ashamed that so many people voted for George Bush. I disagree with Dawn that you should ever be ashamed to be a member of any nationality. Crimes are committed by individuals not nations. I am ashamed to have Tony Blair as my leader. However, I am consoled by the fact that only a minority of the population voted for him (one of the problems of the voting system in the UK). What I would say is that I am disheartened by the fairly small percentage of people in both America and the UK who seem to care passionately about the crimes committed by people like Bush and Blair. Maybe there is some truth in the saying that nations get the governments they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent Adams Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Well, I'll clearly state that I am not ashamed of being an American. That being said, I find it somewhat ironic that in an earlier post it was mentioned that the US government under Lil' Bush is anti-UN, when it was widely believed that Big Bush was trying build some kind of "world government" through the UN, when he was discussing his "new world order". Big Bush was criticized for the "impression" that he was willing to give up some US sovereignty to a larger world governmental body. Now, the saga of the 'Bush dynasty" is turned on its head, as Lil' Bush is completely anti-UN? Just something that popped into my head while reading the thought of Reagan being charged with the atrocities in Central America. I'm curious what the prospects of Kennedy would have been if he was charged with sanctioned assassinations and/or assassination attempts against other nations leaders. I think it is quite clear that these were sanctioned by Kennedy, or at least the Kennedy political machine. I'm not trying to bash Kennedy, Reagan, the Bushes, or any other US Presidents actions, as they all have administrations with people with different motivations. I guess I'm trying to find the pure, honest, caring individual who became a US President (in the last century), that we can always be proud of. They all have their warts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Very good posts. I don't know how anyone with a conscience is not ashamed to be an American. Dawn I'm new here, Dawn, so I'll open with a question. What nationality would you be unashamed of? Stan, I am an American by naturalization. I moved to the Boston area, from Canada, in 1968, becoming a US citizen in 1976. I was so proud to become a citizen that day. There were a lot of things wrong with this government, coming out daily in the news back then, but I was (and am) a firm believer that if you don't like something, be involved in affecting change, not just complaining. I believe this last election was stolen. The policies that W and his neocons have put forth are erroding very important Consitutional privileges. That our attorney general could actually SAY that torture is acceptable horrifies me. That people can be held without being told of the charges or given the right to consult with an attorney flies in the face of the principals we hold dear. That the press has become so gultless is troublesome. For example: Are you aware that 11 US seaports are operated by a shipping company owned by the Chinese government ? Do you see this in the news? We need to be vigiliant about seeing that our once- taken- for granted rights are not further eroded. In the name of "national security" the current administration has shown utter disregard for the rule of law, or the checks and balances necessary to ensure that we don't have an imperial presidency. If citizens dare question Bush's policies they are called unpatriotic. It's the Patriot Act that is unAmerican, not we who criticise these undemocratic measures. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Hayes Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Very good posts. I don't know how anyone with a conscience is not ashamed to be an American. Dawn I'm new here, Dawn, so I'll open with a question. What nationality would you be unashamed of? Stan, I am an American by naturalization. I moved to the Boston area, from Canada, in 1968, becoming a US citizen in 1976. I was so proud to become a citizen that day. There were a lot of things wrong with this government, coming out daily in the news back then, but I was (and am) a firm believer that if you don't like something, be involved in affecting change, not just complaining. I believe this last election was stolen. The policies that W and his neocons have put forth are erroding very important Consitutional privileges. That our attorney general could actually SAY that torture is acceptable horrifies me. That people can be held without being told of the charges or given the right to consult with an attorney flies in the face of the principals we hold dear. That the press has become so gultless is troublesome. For example: Are you aware that 11 US seaports are operated by a shipping company owned by the Chinese government ? Do you see this in the news? We need to be vigiliant about seeing that our once- taken- for granted rights are not further eroded. In the name of "national security" the current administration has shown utter disregard for the rule of law, or the checks and balances necessary to ensure that we don't have an imperial presidency. If citizens dare question Bush's policies they are called unpatriotic. It's the Patriot Act that is unAmerican, not we who criticise these undemocratic measures. Dawn Hi Dawn- Thanks for sharing your views (with most of which I'm in profound disagreement), but, with respect, you didn't answer my question... Best Stan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Hi Dawn- Thanks for sharing your views (with most of which I'm in profound disagreement), but, with respect, you didn't answer my question... Best Stan Stan: I did answer your question as best I can. I am not ashamed of a particular nationality. I meant that I am ashamed to see what is taking place in America. I guess I simply worded it wrongly. I would not want to live elsewhere. In fact I am not sure why are are even posting on a thread dovoted to Tim Gratz' political views. What is our view on this case? Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Hayes Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Hi Dawn- Thanks for sharing your views (with most of which I'm in profound disagreement), but, with respect, you didn't answer my question... Best Stan Stan: I did answer your question as best I can. I am not ashamed of a particular nationality. I meant that I am ashamed to see what is taking place in America. I guess I simply worded it wrongly. I would not want to live elsewhere. In fact I am not sure why are are even posting on a thread dovoted to Tim Gratz' political views. What is our view on this case? Dawn Hi Dawn- Appreciate your clearing the air! Re the case, I can only speak for myself, but curiosity "R" I. I suspect that's why most of us signed on to the forum... Best Stan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) As one who has had his intellignece AND his sanity questioned by Mr. Gratz, based upon my posts on this forum, I must agree with those who express the notion that Mr. Gratz impedes investigation into certain areas which are his "sacred cows." Republicans, if Mr. Gratz's posts are to be swallowed whole, are incapable of deceit and are therefore above suspicion in such matters as assassinations. I have corresponded with Mr. Gratz via email and found him to be less argumentative and more personable away from this forum...which leads me to believe that his reasons for being here have less to do with expanding the general level of knowledge on the forum and much to do with impeding inquiry in certain directions. Having re-entered the classroom for the first time in nearly 30 years in the semester just completed, I encountered time management issues which forced me to choose between the higher education offered on the forum here and the demands of a classroom education...and, fortunately for those financing my education, the classroom won out. With a 3.75 GPA on a 4.0 scale, it appears I've chosen wisely. Summer classes don't begin for me for another month, so I have a little time to try to catch up with what I've missed over the past 4+ months. Mr. Gratz's political views quite obviously color his discussion of the facts...as do everyone else's political views. While I can only speak for myself, my view that corruption is not exclusively the property of one particular political party--a view not shared, apparently, by Mr. Gratz--means that I have NO "sacred cows," and that if the evidence points toward a particular suspect, then by all means let's examine this suspect no matter WHAT his political affiliation. And yes, that INCLUDES Mr. C. Douglas Dillon. Just MY opinion...YOUR mileage may vary, void where prohibited, and alcohol may intensify any side effects. Edited May 11, 2006 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 I have corresponded with Mr. Gratz via email and found him to be less argumentative and more personable away from this forum...which leads me to believe that his reasons for being here have less to do with expanding the general level of knowledge on the forum and much to do with impeding inquiry in certain directions. That is very true. That is the main reason I became very suspicious of him. His reaction to having being named as a conspirator in the Arthur Bremer case is also very interesting. Nor should we forget his relationship with Donald Segretti and Tony Ulasewicz. By the way, welcome back, you have been missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 By the way, welcome back, you have been missed. I hesitate to post this...but... ...had President Kennedy been missed on 11/22/1963, history would read quite differently. And I'd venture to say that we'd not be speaking of Bremer, Segretti, or Ulasewicz at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now