Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U-S-A ...... a okay ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U-S-A ...... a okay ?

    Quoted:

    In the January/February 2003 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Professor Malcolm Dando and Mark Wheelis argue that the USAís actions in withdrawing from a draft protocol of the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BTWC) effectively left the international treaty "dead in the water". Why would they do that? Apart from the fact that Bush will tear up any treaty that involves a) the international community and b) logic. Dando and Wheelis write that with hindsight tearing up the protocol was the first clue that the USA may have a secret CBW programme.

    The second clue came after the anthrax letter attacks when evidence of a US involvement in a CBW programme started to come to light. Many believe that the source for the anthrax was the US itself and as the material was weapons grade it would therefore come from a US military programme. If true the next question has to be: If the attacks contained 5 grams of anthrax and you only need one gram of the stuff for a "defensive" testing program, who was holding 5 times that amount and why? Does the five grams indicate an "offensive" and therefore illegal program?

    Clue three and four are to be found at Battelle, a not for profit institute in Columbus Ohio, where weapons grade anthrax is being produced and stored for the US military, under Project Jefferson funded by the Defence Intelligence Agency. It was here that they also tested an anthrax bomb, under Project Clear Vision funded by the C.I.A. Development of delivery systems for biological weapons is banned under the BTWC. Some might try to argue that it is a "defensive bomb". I for one would certainly enjoy it if they did.

    Late last year the Guardian newspaper ran a front page story on the Joint Non Lethal Weapons Directorate, a US military body who have exploited a loophole in the Chemical Weapons Convention, which allows states to develop and produce chemical weapons for "law enforcement" , for tear gas and the like. Scientists say there is no such thing as a "non lethal chemical weapon " citing the Moscow theatre siege as an example of how lethal non lethal weapons can be.

    More importantly though is the question of military involvement in a "law enforcement programme". Why is the work funded and tested by the military and not the police? Then came the revelations that the Joint Non Lethal Weapons Directorate had in fact developed and tested a mortar shell designed to carry a chemical weapon payload.

    Add to all of this the fact that Bush is spending $6bn on bio labs to house the most dangerous pathogens known to humankind and the US has some serious explaining to do. Are the USAís programmes "defensive" and therefore legal? The only thing that could establish that would be an independent inspection team created under the treaty the US destroyed. So the US is asking Iraq to comply with itís international obligations while hiding from its own.

  • #2
    Are the Americans using this forum the true face of America. Or is this just the extreme right wing surfacing ? The new wave of anti-europeanism. You need someone to have a go at, someone to complain about, someone to invade or starve to death through sanctions. You call us eurowimps.....good selection of words. The same wimps that can stomach a fight, and have. The same wimps that have lived with the threat of terrorism for years and simply get on with it. September the 11th gave you a wake up call and ever since have decided to blame all the worlds problems on someone else. You may have lost 3000 odd people in one day through terrorism, we lost 3000 odd over thirty years through terrorism. Didi we go invavding countries because we were running scared ? When I lived in Germany for two years I had to check my car for bombs everytime I went out, Americans complain that they are delayed at the airports due to increased security checks !! Welcome to the real world. You cannot expect to wave a big shitty stick and not get splashed with it .....sorry. This is not the way I expected a British Colony to behave. Australia is a good little boy, why can't you be.?

    Comment


    • #3
      I personally have no doubt that the USA has still a secret BCW stockpile with the reasoning that 'the other side' probably has them too and to be prepared.

      And also the defencive research: You can't develop an antidote without having a potetial harmfull bacteria (for testing purposes) so they are developing new bio weapons with the reasoning that they need these to develop propper defence methods. Of course, the knowledge gained by developing the harmfull bio weapon bacteria wont be destroyed after an antidote is found and even if no large quantities are produced the knowledge alone is immensively valuable if one needs bio weapons quickly.
      "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

      Henry Alfred Kissinger

      Comment


      • #4
        Agent Orange....

        Hello,

        The infamous Orange Agent's original purpose was not to kill people, but to cause rapid deforestization of local jungle areas to clear away for the US regular troops to hunt down the NVA or VC troops.

        Thus, we can freely claim that America has not launched a chemical or biological attack on her enemies. And the world do know the democratic population here in America would never condone any kind of chemical or biological attack except under dire situations such as a surprise terrorist or state attack on America.

        Unlike America, Iraq does not make that kind of disctintion. Saddam would prefer to kill all of his personal, real or imagined, enemies with anything at his disposal. So your argument, Marko, does not wash anymore than it is needed.

        So what if USA has some top-secret weapon program? Are you saying Great Britain doesn't have top-secret program or that France and Germany don't have that kind of capability? Then, you're dreaming on, Marko.

        Dan
        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

        "Aim small, miss small."

        Comment


        • #5
          I personally have no doubt that the USA has still a secret BCW stockpile with the reasoning that 'the other side' probably has them too and to be prepared.

          And also the defencive research: You can't develop an antidote without having a potetial harmfull bacteria (for testing purposes) so they are developing new bio weapons with the reasoning that they need these to develop propper defence methods. Of course, the knowledge gained by developing the harmfull bio weapon bacteria wont be destroyed after an antidote is found and even if no large quantities are produced the knowledge alone is immensively valuable if one needs bio weapons quickly.


          You're absolutely correct Kraut. I believe the US is stockpiling Chemical and Biological Weapons. And yes, we're likely exploring the offensive possibility of these weapons. I will not do anything to dismiss, or even justify it. Research is fine. However, once the reports come in, people see the capabilities of these weapons, and want them. That's where I draw the line.

          The domestic and international ramifactions are so great, the US could never imagine using them. Bush mentioned nuclear weapons in an Iraqi scenario, and people, including myself, criticized the ideal. Even if attacked by Weapons of Mass Destruct-ion, I don't believe retaliation in-kind is the best solution. If Saddam hits our troops with WMDs, retaliating with our own destructive arsenal would only slow the advance, further degrade our forces, and might collapse what little support we have.

          I don't support the use of WMDs in almost any scenario imaginable. If terrorist hit us, that doesn't mean we go off and do exactly what our enemy did to us, kill a bunch of innocent people. If China struck us with nukes, I would demand an all out counterattack on that nation. Why? Because I know there is no way on earth we could remove the threat conventionally in 30 mins except with ICBMS.

          So I will not argue or justify this position. Research is fine, but as I believe on Iraq, no government invest in weaponary they do not intend to use. So it's troubling.

          Are the Americans using this forum the true face of America. Or is this just the extreme right wing surfacing ? The new wave of anti-europeanism. You need someone to have a go at, someone to complain about, someone to invade or starve to death through sanctions. You call us eurowimps.....good selection of words. The same wimps that can stomach a fight, and have. The same wimps that have lived with the threat of terrorism for years and simply get on with it. September the 11th gave you a wake up call and ever since have decided to blame all the worlds problems on someone else. You may have lost 3000 odd people in one day through terrorism, we lost 3000 odd over thirty years through terrorism. Didi we go invavding countries because we were running scared ? When I lived in Germany for two years I had to check my car for bombs everytime I went out, Americans complain that they are delayed at the airports due to increased security checks !! Welcome to the real world. You cannot expect to wave a big shitty stick and not get splashed with it .....sorry. This is not the way I expected a British Colony to behave. Australia is a good little boy, why can't you be.?

          First Marko, if you're willing to just sit on duff and get hammered, that's you. If someone hits me, it's their *ss. The notion that America over-reacted to 9/11 is partly why Americans are so angered by Europe. Instead of urging a more controlled response, UN and most European governments all-but said, "That's what you get, now stop *itching and take the whipping like a man."

          The response of the US government has not been the madman approach so many are claiming. Military action is very limited. Our greatest contribution to the anti-terrorists effort is strengthing countries to defend themselves and route Al-Qaeda or terrorists in their country. There is nothing wrong with that.

          Did I want to go into Afghanistan? No. I felt it was a sand-trap that will probably suck in our troops. However, I wasn't prepared to sit idly by while we buried our dead.

          We're not Europe. The United States should not, and can't tolerate that kind of attack to occur without a decisive and firm response. This was, to Americans, more than just an terrorist attack. It was a degradition to everything we believed in. So, trying to just blow it off as just another terrorist attack is just wrong.

          The US has been dealing with terrorism since before George Washington. The usual response was narrow in scale, and more symbolic than effective. Almost every US President had to deal with some terrorist incident raging from pirates, to hostage crisises. Many leaders chose to negotiate than take a firm stance.

          Bush seems to be taking a different position. While you might think the United Kingdom is being "a good little boy," reality suggest otherwise. The UK was likely the first nation to form an "Anti/Counter-terrorist Organization." It's launched or supported numerous hostage rescue operations. Almost every Western CT unit is mirrored on, and trains with SAS.

          These operators have been begging for a more committed response to terrorism by their governments. Leaders are reluctant because these covert operations are deadly from a political standpoint.

          After 9/11, the US changed it's policy. The American people are prepared to accept some risk to ensure their security. We are stepping up our FID and are accepting more request for SOF training. You only see a small portion of what is really happening.

          Australia is not being a good little boy. I had a heated debate with some people after the local government announced a pre-emptive strike policy that was similar to the United States. You're just not reading about all this in the daily news.

          We've tried it the way you suggested Kraut. If I have mroe time, I would be more than willing to list just some of the incidents the US have faced in it's history, and how we responded. It didn't work. In fact, it only made matters worse. Terrorists have long believed civilized society, particularly the West, are easy pickings. Bin Laden saw how Clinton ran from Somalia and reacted to numerous terrorist attacks, and was inspired. We're gonna make sure 9/11 was the worst decision he ever made. If that makes me a bad guy, oh well.

          We're not blaming the world for our woes. We're just dealing with the threats before us. Terrorism can not be fought individually. It's a globl operation. We aren't killing everyone. The rules of Anti/Counter-terrorism are still hallmark to our strategy. Terrorism is still crime, not military action. The military is only being used to address threats "greater than" those normally experienced in law enforcement.

          Finally Marko, we're not the far right. What's happened is that we're bombarded almost daily both at home and on the Internet by constant hatred for the US. NBC ran a special "Why does Europe Hate Us" Many are just tired. We see things being distorted in the general press. Alot of us hold military and government jobs and know better. Many are also well-schooled in domestic US policy, and are just sick of being pounded for taking a stand.

          I do apologize for at times generalizing Europe as a whole. I don't think anyone is a wimp because they don't want war. The wimps are politicians who are serving their own agendas. To our face, they smile, and to our backs, they stab. That's diplomacy. However, in these sensitive times, it can wear you down.

          I had a friend who lives in Israel. As the conflict heated up he would costly criticize how the media portrayed his country. I passed it off, and even took for granted the implications. However, now I understand what he means. I wake up in the morning and see pissed off people who I thought were my friends burning my flag. I hear a foreign expert telling me how I am thinking. I see one of my worst enemies being almost held as a hero for defying the US and the International community. At times it's seems that some people's zeal to criticize America overshadows their own protection.

          Last night I saw some talk show, and one of the commentors grew angry with this woman and silenced her by saying "Well, we're gonna invade Iraq, and there's nothing you can do about it, dispite your propoganda."

          Marko, I don't think Europeans are wimps. You still have the guts to post right? Alot of us are frustrated, and tired. So tempers might flare where they shouldn't and people say things they might look back later and say, "that was dumb." So it has little to do with the right-wingism. The real problem is too much information and misinformation being recieved. So people are voicing their frustration in a manner that might offend others. It doesn't make it right. However, walking away from your beliefs just because you don't like what people say is immoral.
          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Deltapooh

            Marko, I don't think Europeans are wimps. You still have the guts to post right? Alot of us are frustrated, and tired. So tempers might flare where they shouldn't and people say things they might look back later and say, "that was dumb." So it has little to do with the right-wingism. The real problem is too much information and misinformation being recieved. So people are voicing their frustration in a manner that might offend others. It doesn't make it right. However, walking away from your beliefs just because you don't like what people say is immoral.
            You see I bring the best out in you. ! I agree totally with what you say here. I should clarify my position. I am the guy that opposes white with black, ying with yang, I just like to argue from the other side of the fence. I am fully aware of the power of mis-information and propaganda and I know no government is pefect; as men are involved in the running of governments and men can't be treated. Also alot of posts are simply aimed to annoy Cheetah and Old Eagle as they bite like little fishes...makes me smile. Anyway - up the resistance....

            Comment


            • #7
              Ah....

              Originally posted by Marko


              You see I bring the best out in you. ! I agree totally with what you say here. I should clarify my position. I am the guy that opposes white with black, ying with yang, I just like to argue from the other side of the fence. I am fully aware of the power of mis-information and propaganda and I know no government is pefect; as men are involved in the running of governments and men can't be treated. Also alot of posts are simply aimed to annoy Cheetah and Old Eagle as they bite like little fishes...makes me smile. Anyway - up the resistance....
              Marko,

              More like you're annoying yourself with unrealistic posts....

              If you really agreed with some points, then why continue with anti-American sentiments? No offense, but it seems that you enjoy making stupid jokes about America and insulting my own commander-in-chief, President George W. Bush. You talk tough, but make no substance. Let's see how you would handle in Bush Jr.'s position, it's not an easy place to be.

              If you stop shouting down with anti-American sentiments, then I'll refrain from calling you Europeans a bunch of wimps, in fact, Maddog asked me to change my signature to something less offensive....

              Way I see it, you must stop making such anti-American sentiments, you say you don't hate us, but your posts say otherwise.

              By the way, in the other threads about America owing Great Britain for colonizing in the first place, I disagree with that, why? My father came from Hungary, he fled because of communists taking over, and my mother's side came from West Germany during the war. That's right, you heard me right, my ancestors did not come from Great Britain, so I don't owe you anything.

              In the end, Great Britain do owe America a lot, just as Hungary and West Germany owe America a lot. I owe America, not yours, I will NEVER accept that kind of argument, and I'm sure you'll never accept mine, too.

              America has always been mindful of her allies' lack of thankful attitudes, and I'm willing to put up with that kind of attitude from you, you know why? Because it is America who must send her troops to death, not yours, despite 30,000 British troops, they're not going to see any real action, it's Americans, not yours. So spare me your stupid attitude.

              If nobody else is willing to have courage and stand up to Saddam without America using her political clout, then I only can say this, "Back off!"

              Marko, back off, America is going through with its invasion, either with or without your help, and I certainly don't want YOUR help, because you would be excited over a chance to send a bunch of American troops to their death! I don't think you even care about Americans and everybody else except your life.

              For once and all, back off, and let America do the job....

              Dan
              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

              "Aim small, miss small."

              Comment


              • #8
                By the way, in the other threads about America owing Great Britain for colonizing in the first place, I disagree with that, why? My father came from Hungary, he fled because of communists taking over, and my mother's side came from West Germany during the war. That's right, you heard me right, my ancestors did not come from Great Britain, so I don't owe you anything.

                And my some of my ancestors were hear long before anyone else seeing that I'm part Indian. I'm also part black, white, and cajun French. So I'm.................uh................hmmmm....... . Well I'me very confused now.
                "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                Comment


                • #9
                  Me i'm an American.Where my ancestors came from is secondary to who we are now.Though there is no seed of Albion in my famlies past

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ah....

                    Originally posted by Cheetah772
                    America has always been mindful of her allies' lack of thankful attitudes, and I'm willing to put up with that kind of attitude from you, you know why? Because it is America who must send her troops to death, not yours, despite 30,000 British troops, they're not going to see any real action, it's Americans, not yours. So spare me your stupid attitude.
                    Firstly, I thought I was on your ignore list, apparently not. How could you possibler state whether the British troops are going to see action or not ? They did in the first Gulf War so why not in the second ? So do you think the Royal Marines will be kept out of any fighting, or the Para's ? Or the SAS - get real.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by John Paul
                      Me i'm an American.Where my ancestors came from is secondary to who we are now.Though there is no seed of Albion in my famlies past
                      Thereís no British blood in me too.
                      Öwell, Iím not American, Iím only a poor little ungratefull and coward frog.
                      And Iíve got nothing against the British (except during the VI Nations).

                      La Palice.
                      Monsieur de La Palice est mort
                      Mort devant Pavie.
                      Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
                      Il ťtait encore en vie...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The call for a peaceful solution that comes from Europe (although not all of Europe!!) has to be put in context.

                        You have to remind yourselves that Europe is a continent where war has ravaged the countries for more than 2000 years...which makes us kind of expert on that matter. Maybe the downfalls of every war (destruction, famine, economic setbacks and loss of life) have somehow gotten into our genes? Maybe that's why we are not so eager to fight another war, with uncertain outcome.

                        You know, in the last World War, the USA have lost about 300.000 soldiers (correct me if I am totally wrong on this), Europe has suffered about 50 billion casualties. Not to speak from the levels of destruction, tell me how many cities have been destroyed or even damaged in the US?

                        Now, maybe, just maybe, the people who rule over here remember the war a bit different than good old Georgie in his bomber.

                        I understand the people who want peace. It's just that I don't want it at the cost we are probably going to pay if we sit now and wait. Let's deal with the Iraqis now, and then with Al Qaida...and who knows who will be our next enemy.
                        "you come from nothing,
                        you go to nothing,
                        what have you lost?
                        nothing!"
                        Monty Python

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As a Canadian, I am personally tired and annoyed of the basic and simplistic anti-americanism that is spreading around the planet (including Canada). The U.S. does not deserve that. I think people in the Western world and elsewhere have a short memory and are getting too emotional to keep some sense of historical perspective.

                          I believe the World needs the U.S. as a stabilizing power, as much as the U.S. also needs the World to continue to thrive. America is overall a great nation, and I respect and admire its accomplishments and history - in fact there are only 3 American things I have trouble with : the guns-for-all obsession, the bad food habits that are slowly making everybody obese, and the religious right (like John Lennon, I would like to live in a world where we would not have those damned religions, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jews or whatever you want. You may say I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one )

                          So I do not share the current anti-americanism. I am not the guy who will start trashing America and Americans like some others are doing.

                          But I am still worried about the direction America seems to be heading to in the coming years. I am not talking about the Iraqi crisis only, but also about North Korea, the Axis of Evil, and the pre-emptive strike doctrine. I do not see all this as features of a benevolent superpower, serene with itself, confident and eager to be a stabilizing power. I see all this as features of a superpower in disarray, afraid of the future, destabilizng the world through rash actions and words. It seems like if the U.S. is unsure of the planetary role it should play now that it won the Great Ideological Fight between Communism and Capitalism.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            USA terrorists ? Oh yes

                            The unlawful use of force or violence committed by a group or individual, who has some connection to a foreign power or whose activities transcend national boundaries, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.
                            FBI definition of international terrorism'

                            Terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine state agents.
                            Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1983, U.S. Department of State, September 1984
                            If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their ******* SAMs [surface-to-air missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace.... We dictated the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. Its a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need.
                            U.S. Brigadier General William Looney, one director of the continued U.S. bombing campaign of Iraq

                            I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are.
                            George H. W. Bush, then U.S. vice president, referring to an American ship that shot down an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians

                            A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an airforce.
                            William Blum, Rogue State

                            Using either the FBI or the State Department definition of terrorism, the U.S. must be considered a terrorist state. Since 1945, the United States has tried to overthrow more than 40 governments and repressed at least 30 popular movements outside U.S. borders. U.S. officials have funded and trained a long list of assassins, death squad leaders, and bombers to aid them in these projects.
                            A White House commission report on the CIA from 1954 makes it very clear that the U.S. reserves the right to use whatever means it chooses to defend its own interests, including what would count as "terrorism" from any other source:
                            If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of "fair play" must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage, and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated, and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be made acquainted with, understand, and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy.
                            The U.S. has infiltrated, invaded, bombed, and destroyed more countries than any other nation on earth in order to further its own political and economic interests. The U.S. is the only nation ever to use the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, the atomic bomb. It has used chemical weapons in vast quantities abroad-not to mention its experimentation with them on civilians inside U.S. borders. Whether covertly or overtly, by proxy or directly, the U.S. has always used terror to achieve its aims. The main thing that sets the U.S. apart is that it is richer, better equipped, and more systematic-and thus capable of inflicting terror on a far broader scale than its enemies. That's why civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. once called the U.S. government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." What follows are some examples of terror, U.S. style.

                            Vietnam
                            After the Second World War, the U.S. backed France in its efforts to maintain its colonies in Indochina, fearing the "domino effect" if Vietnam were to achieve independence. The U.S. refused to allow Vietnam to reunite after it was divided in 1954, creating a puppet regime in the South. Over a several-year period, the U.S. escalated its military presence to defeat the national liberation movement. The method employed by the U.S. in Vietnam was to defeat the guerrilla armies by destroying the civilian population. To meet this goal, the U.S. dropped 15 million tons of ordnance on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia-more than twice the amount it used during the Second World War.
                            It is now believed that the U.S. and its allies killed as many as 5 million Southeast Asian citizens during the active war years. The numbers of dead in Laos and Cambodia remain uncounted, but as of 1971, a Congressional Research Service report prepared for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicated that over one million Laotians had been killed, wounded, and refugeed, with the figure for Cambodia being two million. More than a half million "secret" U.S. bombing missions of Laos that began in late 1964 devastated whole populations of ancient cultures there. Estimates indicate that around 230,000 tons of bombs were dropped over northern Laos in 1968 and 1969 alone. Increasing numbers of U.S. military personnel were added on the Laotian ground in 1961.... "Secret" bombing of Cambodia had begun in March 1969.... When the bombing in Cambodia finally ceased, the U.S. Air Force had officially recorded dropping nearly 260,000 tons of bombs there. The total tonnage of bombs dropped in Laos over eight-and-a-half years exceeded two million.
                            The consensus now is that more than 3 million Vietnamese were killed, with 300,000 additional missing in action and presumed dead.
                            In the ground war, the army and marines conducted "search and destroy" missions in which the killing of civilians was a common occurrence. We are more familiar with the My Lai massacre, in which U.S. forces massacred 500 villagers, but such incidents were not aberrations, as a report from an incident in April 1968, described by a member of the 2nd Battalion, 27th Marines, makes clear. After soldiers were ordered to "torch" a village where they were unable to find "snipers,"
                            there was a lot of screaming and just chaos coming from the direction of the village and a lot of people started running out of the tree line. From where I was standing, I saw maybe two or three male villagers and the rest were women and children- some of the children walking and some of them young enough to be carried, l would say under a year, maybe. The last thing I heard as a command was the gunnery sergeant told them to open fire to keep them back. Their village was on fire and they were in panic; they didn't stop, so they just cut down the women and children with mortars, machine guns, tanks, snipers.
                            Another soldier commented, "When Calley [the lieutenant in charge during the My Lai massacre-editors note] and his people went through there, it was not the first time anyone went through My Lai and put the torch to it, nor was it the last time."
                            Vietnam became a testing ground for the newest U.S. weapons-including chemical weapons. In 1961, the U.S. initiated a new program of developing "herbicidal warfare" in Vietnam. Between 1962 and 1970, the U.S. dropped 100 million pounds of Agent Orange and other types of herbicide over 4 million acres of land in Vietnam and burned millions more. By the end of the war, 25 million acres of farmland and 12 million acres of forest were destroyed. Five-hundred pounds of the highly toxic and almost indestructible substance dioxin remained in Vietnam as a result of mass spraying of Agent Orange. Dioxin is so potent that experts estimate that only three ounces in the New York City water supply would kill the city's entire population. The U.S. also experimented with poison gas and other toxic substances. In at least one instance, the CIA used influenza in an attempt to cripple a village.
                            U.S. experts figured out how to intensify the toxic impact of many of their weapons. One U.S. pilot described how napalm-hundreds of thousands of gallons of which were dropped in Vietnam-was transformed into a more deadly tool of chemical warfare:
                            We sure are pleased with those backroom boys at Dow. The original product wasn't so hot-if the gooks were quick they could scrape it off. So the boys started adding polystyrene- now it sticks like **** to a blanket. But then if the gooks jumped under water it stopped burning, so they started adding Willie Peter [WP-white phosphorous] so's to make it burn better. It'll even burn under water now. And one drop is enough, it'll keep on burning right down to the bone so they die anyway from phosphorous poisoning.
                            On top of the millions that the U.S. killed, two million Vietnamese were exposed to various poisons as a result of the U.S. war. Inside Vietnam, rates of birth defects and multiple miscarriages skyrocketed after the war, and returning U.S. soldiers passed crippling diseases like cancer on to their children. Tens of thousands more died in Vietnam after the war from unexploded ordnance left by the U.S. forces. Widespread chromosomal damage and neurological disorders have been reported as a direct result of the chemical warfare waged by the United States.

                            International terrorist networks U.S. style
                            If Bush is truly concerned with uprooting international networks of terrorists, he can begin at home. The U.S. not only harbors many famous international terrorists-it is the world's number one sponsor of terrorist networks.
                            It would be difficult to imagine a more far-reaching network of international terrorists than the United States' own Central Intelligence Agency. Since its formation in 1947, the CIA has employed thousands as one part of the U.S. strategy to maintain hegemony during the Cold War. The CIA enlisted anyone that could serve as an ally in the battle against the Soviet Union. This policy included protecting and hiring German Nazis after the Second World War-even some directly implicated in atrocities against Jews-to enlist them in the new anticommunist crusade. The notorious Gestapo officer Klaus Barbie, for example, was smuggled out of Germany and hired by U.S. intelligence in 1947.
                            The CIA trained and helped to fund-through the elicit cocaine trade-the Nicaraguan contras. Drawn from former military personnel of the Somoza dictatorship and right-wing opponents of the Sandinista revolution, the contras were created, in the words of then-chairman of Americas Watch, to conduct "a planned strategy of terrorism" against the Sandinista regime. Ronald Reagan called them "freedom fighters." Former contra director Edgar Chamorro explained how the contras, from bases in Honduras, operated:
                            FDN [the main contra organization] units would arrive at an
                            undefended village, assemble the residents in the town square and then proceed to kill-in full view of the others-all persons suspected of working for the Nicaraguan Government or the FSLN [Sandinista National Liberation Front], including police, local militia members, party members, health workers teachers, and farmers from government-sponsored cooperatives.
                            The U.S. is home to its very own terrorist training school, the School of the Americas (SOA), now located in Fort Benning, Georgia. The SOA was formed in 1946, one year before the CIA was created, in order to train Latin American dictators, death squad leaders, and military and police officers. The school has trained such notorious figures as El Salvador's Roberto D'Abuisson, a 1972 graduate and the death squad leader responsible for the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero in 1980. SOA graduate Leopoldo Galtieri, dictator of Argentina between 1981 and 1982, was responsible for the death or disappearance of more than 30,000 people. Colonel Julio Roberto Alpirez, a two-time graduate of the SOA and a CIA "asset," commanded the Guatemalan security force responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 people throughout the course of a four-decade counterinsurgency war.
                            El Salvador's Atlacatl Battalion's leaders were also trained at the SOA. In December 1981, the battalion swept into the northeastern village of El Mozote and systematically killed more than 200 men, women, and children, raping many of the women, beheading many of the victims, and slitting the throats of and hanging children.
                            All of these methods were put into practice during the Vietnam War when the CIA created the infamous Phoenix Program. Faced with a popular guerrilla movement on the ground and growing protest over the number of U.S. soldiers killed in the war, Vietnam became a virtual laboratory for developing counterinsurgency techniques that could replace standard military intervention with terror. Overseen by William Casey of the CIA, the object of the Phoenix Program was to replace U.S. ground troops with a Vietnamese force, under CIA and U.S. military command, that could round up, torture, and kill suspected Vietcong leaders while the U.S. continued to bomb the entire population from the sky. Of course, people working for Phoenix didn't distinguish between "leaders" and civilians, but rather swept entire areas and claimed everyone they detained was Vietcong. The practice of setting quotas for how many people Phoenix needed to kill-3,000 per week-only ensured random murder.
                            As former U.S. military intelligence officer K. Barton Osborn told a House committee, no one detained by Phoenix for questioning lived through the process. Former CIA director William Colby, who ran the Phoenix Program, claimed that more than 20,000 people were killed by its agents; the South Vietnamese government claimed more than twice that number. U.S. troops, along with the CIA, not only massacred entire villages, but used torture and summary execution to control the population. Osborn described to Congress the catalog of horrors that Marine counterintelligence and their Vietnamese collaborators inflicted:
                            The use of the insertion of the 6-inch dowel into the canal of one of my detainee's ears and the tapping through the brain until he died. The starving to death [in a cage] of a Vietnamese woman who was suspected of being a part of a local political education cadre in one of the local villages.... [T]he use of electronic gear such as sealed telephones attached to...both the women's vagina and the men's testicles [to] shock them into submission.
                            Other techniques included throwing prisoners out of planes alive and cutting off fingers, fingernails, ears, and sexual organs.
                            In many ways, the CIA intervention in Guatemala mirrored what they had done in Vietnam. As in Vietnam, the U.S. faced a popular movement on the ground. Despite a U.S.-engineered coup in 1954-paid for by the CIA and the United Fruit Company-popular resistance to U.S.-based companies and handpicked rulers continued to threaten U.S. interests in the area. In response to widespread protest, the U.S. set up a "counterinsurgency" base in Guatemala in 1962. The base, staffed by U.S. special forces and Guatemalan officers schooled at the SOA's original location in Panama, trained death squads to quell protest and kill dissidents. The effort was beefed up in 1966, when the U.S. sent a military officer to retrain and arm the Guatemalan military. Parallel to SOA military training, more than 30,000 Guatemalan police had received training from the U.S. Office of Public Safety by 1970.
                            The results were catastrophic. Between 1966 and 1968 alone, U.S.-trained death squads killed between 3,000 and 8,000 people, according to Amnesty International. By 1976, the numbers had swelled to 20,000 murdered or disappeared. Death squads used techniques gleaned from the U.S. war in Vietnam to torture and terrorize their victims, including electric shock with field telephones, covering their victims' heads with plastic bags filled with insecticide, and dropping suspected guerrillas from planes alive. One CIA-backed Guatemalan army unit known as "G2"-infamous for its brutality and liberal use of torture-even had its own crematorium.
                            General Hector Gramajo, who taught counterinsurgency courses at the SOA in 1967, described the general approach that continued throughout the 1980s. Gramajo told the Harvard International Review:
                            We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system. We instituted civil affairs [in 1982], which provides development for 70 percent of the population, while we kill 30 percent. Before, the strategy was to kill 100 percent.
                            Since the CIA-engineered coup in 1953, more than 200,000 Guatemalans have died at the hands of military, police, and death squad leaders-many of them sponsored by the CIA and trained at the SOA.
                            "Our kind of dictator"
                            In 1989, the U.S. invaded Panama, supposedly to root out the dictator and international drug runner Manuel Noriega. President Bush portrayed Noriega as a brutal dictator and vowed to "end 21 years of dictatorship" by invading the country and arresting Noriega. Bush failed to mention that Noriega had been on the CIA payroll for 10 years-including the year 1976, when Bush headed up the CIA-collecting up to $100,000 annually.
                            Noriega had turned against U.S. interests by challenging the 1977 treaty that would hand over U.S. military bases and control of the Panama Canal by 2000, as well as by continuing to support "enemies" of the U.S. such as Cuba. Fearing that defiance against U.S. rule might spread throughout Latin America, the U.S. decided to pull the plug on its handpicked dictator. Under auspices of "bringing Noriega to justice," the U.S. Iaunched the largest air raid since the Vietnam War-not on Noriega, but on the civilian population of one of Panama's poorest neighborhoods, El Chorillo.
                            Claiming that El Chorillo harbored nationalist supporters of the Noriega regime, the U.S. Ieveled the neighborhood. At least 15 square blocks-home to 30,000 people-were demolished by 24,000 troops using the newest equipment in the U.S. arsenal. Dick Cheney, who was then secretary of defense, tried to subdue critics with the idea that by using the latest and most sophisticated war machines, including the stealth fighter bomber, the U.S. had actually helped save lives in Panama. "The reason we used this particular aircraft," Cheney explained, "is because of its great accuracy. We dropped, I believe, two 2,000-pound bombs near Rio Hato to pave the way for the Rangers when they landed there and to stun and disorient the [Panamanian troops]. And it really worked, because it reduced both Panamanian and U.S. casualties."
                            One resident of El Chorillo, a mother taking care of her seven-year-old son when the U.S. invaded, tells a different story:
                            I was ironing when I heard the first sound of machine guns firing.... It was around 11:30. We went out on the balcony where you could see little red lights, which the neighbors said were projectiles. Thirty or forty minutes later, four helicopters appeared headed toward the Central Barracks. The helicopters were firing all kinds of weapons because you could hear the bursts and explosions were of different intensities....
                            The lights in the neighborhood went out and houses began to burn. It was chaos. People tried to leave their burning homes but found themselves between two fires.... [T]anks and armored cars and soldiers were advancing on foot, firing. We could hardly believe it. My son was crying, terrified. The best my sister and I could try to do was protect him with our bodies.
                            With every bomb blast the building shook and the windows shattered. At some point I made my way to the kitchen and somehow brought back the tanks of propane [cooking] gas back to the bathroom, which seemed the most sheltered spot, because the gas tanks were exploding in a lot of the apartments as they were hit by bullets.
                            U.S. soldiers wove through the wreckage setting fire to homes that survived the bombing attacks. The bombing and burning left at least 20,000 poor and working-class Panamanians homeless.
                            U.S. troops surrounded and took over hospitals, in some cases falsifying death reports to match U.S. propaganda that claimed the death toll was low. At one hospital, eight of the nine doctors on duty at the time of the invasion were fired or driven into hiding after they were tagged Noriega supporters. U.S. troops not only neglected to count the number of dead, but covered up the massacre by burying bodies in at least 14 unmarked mass graves. Witnesses even saw U.S. troops using flame-throwers to incinerate bodies, presumably also to disguise the true death toll. While it has been impossible to get an accurate death count due to U.S. intervention, many estimate that between one thousand and four thousand Panamanians died in the attacks.
                            The U.S. not only grabbed Noriega under absolutely no legal authority-but also arrested and detained many others, including Dr. Romulo Escobar Behancourt, chief negotiator of the 1977 treaty, who was arrested and held for five days. They also held several union leaders for three weeks on no charges, destroyed offices of political and human rights organizations, and shut down newspapers that had been critical of U.S. policy. U.S. troops stole 15,000 boxes of Panamanian government documents, which to this day they have refused to return. One source estimates that U.S. forces arrested 7,000 people during the invasion.
                            According to the FBI, terrorism is distinguished as illegal violence. The U.S. attack on Panama defied all international law, including Geneva convention protocol prohibiting the slaying of civilians in warfare. The United Nations, the Organization of American States, and most nations condemned the invasion. Regardless of Noriega's own crimes, the U.S. had absolutely no jurisdiction in Panama and thus no legal claim on Noriega, yet they abducted him and brought him to trial in a U.S. court.
                            The U.S. invasion of Panama, justified in part as a war on drugs, is only one example of U.S. hypocrisy when it comes to combating "narcoterrorism." Not only did key U.S. officials wine and dine Noriega throughout the 1970s and 1980s with full knowledge of his involvement in the drug trade, but Noriega's successor, Guillermo Endara-handpicked by the U.S.- was equally if not more involved in narcotics trafficking. In fact, Endara, as nearly all other senior government officials who were given Washington's stamp of approval, was head of a Panamanian bank known for laundering drug money.
                            Currently, the U.S. claims to be waging a "war on drugs" by funding the Colombian government, which is the third-largest recipient of U.S. aid. Yet a 1994 Amnesty International report showed that government-supported paramilitary groups, which have killed 20,000 people since 1986 - many of them human rights workers, union leaders, and heads of political organizations-are knee-deep in the drug trade. Many of the death squad leaders responsible for atrocities in Columbia were trained at the SOA. More than 10,000 Colombian military personnel have been trained at the SOA-more than any other country.

                            Fighting terrorism: The new cover for imperialism
                            Around the world, the U.S. government is using the tragedy of September 11 not only to justify a war against Afghanistan, but to lay the basis for wars in many other countries as well. Already, the warlords in Washington have hinted that more strategic locations in terms of U.S. interests may be next in line for U.S. or NATO military intervention-for example, Iraq.
                            Before the dust had settled over New York and D.C., "antiterrorism experts" were already concluding that the U.S. needed to get back to the kind of good old-fashioned covert operations they had engaged in during the Cold War, including bringing more "unsavory characters" onto the CIA payroll. The U.S. hopes to use the war on "terrorism" like they used the war on "communism"-as a permanent excuse to project its power abroad, using assassinations, proxy armies, dictators, secret terror cells, and direct military intervention. We should oppose them every step of the way.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You must be kidding me!

                              Marko,

                              You must be kidding me! USA as a terrorist state? Come on, I don't believe that crap.

                              USA has the best human rights record in the world. In fact, I wouldn't want to live in any other country, this is my home.

                              Believe anything you want, but America is not a terrorist state, and the reason we were propping up regimes that aren't necessarily democratic is simply because they supported us by repelling the communists during the Cold War.

                              Next, are you even going to tell us that Russia is not a terrorist state because it has done a far greater share of propping up regimes that aren't exactly forthcoming with democratic movements. Good example is North Vietnam, even today, it does not adovcate the freedom of speech.

                              Great Britain is guilty of this charge, too. Remember, it was once a major world power with a huge colonial empire, thus, Great Britain was not exactly helpful or respectful of the colonies wanting the independence. In fact, many of European countries are guilty of this charge as well. Are you going to call your own country or any European country that has done this a terrorist state? I don't think so.

                              It was wrong to prop up a undemocratic regime, but then it was wrong for OBL to send a couple of planes into Twin Towers, killing more than 3,000 Americans.

                              America a terrorist state? You've gotten me laughing off my ass.

                              Thanks for a real laugh...

                              Dan
                              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                              "Aim small, miss small."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • Karri
                                Prawn heads
                                by Karri
                                How do you cook them? How do you eat them?

                                So far I've always just twisted them off, and discarded it along with the shells and such, only...
                                Today, 11:40
                              • Jose50
                                Thoughts on the US abandoning NATO
                                by Jose50
                                Now may be a good time for the NATO countries to start beefing up their materiel, personnel and alliances. There is a decided wave here in the US that...
                                Today, 08:41
                              • Von Richter
                                Sagittarius Rising...
                                by Von Richter
                                Just having a re-read of this book after it's stood for donkey's years on the bookshelf. Once again, within the first couple of pages, I'm transported...
                                Today, 01:19
                              Working...
                              X