ErricoMalatesta

In a world that worked on basic principles of what is right for one is right for everyone? crimes of aggression. In reality? nothing

Which they would be with the exception that international laws apply to everyone except the most powerful states

Those poor oppressed multi national companies

Ok lets think about it The US and the UK continuously fought democracy, and still are, every step of the way in Iraq. They only held elections after mass non-violent protest by the Iraqi people. Well what is one measurement we can use for judging democracy and freedom? I guess you could say listening to the will of the people. According to a British Ministry of Defence survey 84% of Iraqis want withdrawal of UK and US troops, 1% thought that the occupying forces improved security. So we better ignore that... What else.... How about the reestablishing of relations with Iran which would no doubt happen under a sovereign Iraq and which was already happening under Saddam. Well apart from a sovereign and democratic Iraq, patching up Iran-Iraq relations is the last thing the US want. So how does a real democratic Iraq look VS a US/UK democratic Iraq. Well a sovereign Iraq would be Shiite dominated, there would be no occupying foreign forces, it would be an independent Arab nation that controls most of the worlds major energy resource, no foreign military bases... These are obviously things Washington don’t want. The elections weren’t "unfair" or "fraudulent" in terms of the winning candidate or the process of voting, they simply don't matter.

I haven’t ignored them I have addressed them as total propaganda bullshit, if you had a single ounce of motivation to actually look up what you are saying you would realise this. Saddam was a threat to no one outside of Iraq, this is a fact supported by all intelligence agencies and academic specialists across the entire world and if you would turn off your propaganda fox news box you wouldn't even be arguing this ridiculous point How is telling you what you have said is complete bullshit "emotionally ignoring logic", do some research and you would realise how little you know about this subject. What is it you don't understand about supreme international crime of aggression put forth by all international laws? 3000 dead people is NOTHING you wiped out more civilians in initial attacks on Afghanistan, and Iraq is reaching half a million dead people directly because of your actions. The US kill more people every year across the globe because of its actions than 3000 people.

The UN have about as much independence as the US allow them. They are not real elections that represent the people of Iraq, it is self-evident everywhere you look. Historically at U.S actions in other countries, present in the fact the majority of the population completely disregard any legitimacy claimed by the government. The entire process, from the parties to voting day is setup by the U.S, like they have done before. That is not democracy that is a client regime. The US position is irrelevant and is only used as a shallow justification. Hamas were voted in by the people in a free election so the US (Israel) punished them. And for an example of irrelevance the U.S flooded Turkey in the late 90s with hundreds of millions of dollars in military equipment to carry out brutal repression against the Kurdish population and then in a later published document on terrorism praised Turkey as a liberal progressive nation. The “US don’t aid or negotiate” is completely hollow, it means they don’t aid or negotiate with people they don’t like and people they do, regardless of gross crimes against humanity, they will still aid. You seem, like others, to think this global hegemony is limited to Bush and it never has been. There is nothing paranoid or conspiracy in the global domination the US exert over everyone constatly regardless of party and president in power because its all on the record. So bombing 5000 civilians in an initial attack solves this? "left wing" Again so what? AQ were going to bomb more things, this justifies bombing civilians and invasion of a country, the #1 international crime (above terrorism), how? I will look into this but even so Mullah Omar and Osama could have made out on television. The U.S under all laws still have no right to invade the country to get him because he wasn't handed over. Beyond that they also have no right to occupy the country once its been established he has skipped town. The difference? Nazi Germany started a war with invasion, U.S started a war with invasion... actually pretty similar

Sounds like you are ready to move on from entertainment to actual news sources

He wasn't a threat to anyone, what don't you get about this? UN disarm requests don't override global intelligence assessments of him being no danger to anyone outside of Iraq In fantasy land or in a land that requires proof? So you justify the U.S, the beacon of freedom and democracy, blowing up a water treatment plant and putting sanctions down that killed 1 million to 2 million children ok because their leader wasn't a nice guy? Ok so by your reasoning Japan are fully justified in attacking pearl harbour Those who can best handle democracy are usually repressed by the U.S The will of the world? It wasn't the will of the world, maybe you missed the part where everyone was against your war and you can't protect something that isn't in danger in the first place. Its funny how for Americans supreme crimes of aggression and international laws don't exist when they are the ones breaking them.

So what you are saying is you have no evidence of election fraud. It isn't fraud because it isn't a real democracy. All of the candidates answer to the occupying army, its setup to be a client state. It is self evident in every action that have taken including those in every other country they have ever setup "democracy". It is "democracy" is so much as it gives the results the U.S want. I'm going to bed and might be bothered looking up an article on it later on, although it would be easier if you did it yourself but off the top of my head some recent examples would be… Palestine voting in 2006 in a free election, the people don't vote the way the U.S want them to, sanction time. Venezuela vote in free election, the people don’t vote the way the U.S want them to, coup time, coup fails – vilification and slander time. In regards to what? No the U.S didn't invade France and if you have to ask why I am not even going to answer. They were not joined at the hip. There may have been some support amongst elements of the Taliban but Afghanistan as a sovereign nation and the Taliban, brutal and oppressive as their regime may be, are not AQ A terrorist group attack a country and it is justifiable to seek revenge on a country that had nothing to do with it. Present evidence like they were asked 1. The U.S demanded Pakistan cut off supply convoys that provided much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population, the numbers at risk of starvation were estimated to have risen by 50% a month later, to 7.5 million. 2. The threat of bombing forced the world for food program to reduce food supplies to 15% of what was needed and when the bombing started pull out entirely. Resulting in warnings by major relief agencies of a likely "humanitarian crisis of epic proportions in Afghanistan" 3. Harvard's leading Afghan specialist wrote that the bombing was leaving "millions of Afghans...at grave risk of starvation" The U.S not only ran the risk but willingly accepted that their actions may have had these effects. As for your own research you bring up numbers of 5000 and say that attacking Afghanistan was justifiable? So the terrorist organization kills 3000 and a justifiable reaction is to revenge bomb MORE civilians of a country with a small element of the society having possible links to the terrorist group

So the guy that exploits you, your kids and your grandkids by taking all your surplus-value is worse than the slightly hypocritical lesbian b-grade celebrity campaigning against guns. …ok I'm guessing you meant to reverse that comparison in a sarcastic conclusion, but who knows if this was English, or wtf the surplus value bit was about. Anyone who has been exploited by Donald Trump - raise your hands! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Replace "worse" with “better” to repair the brain lapse and have the sarcasm complete. The surplus-value being provided by your surplus-labour... which is taken by Donald or one of his friends...and unless you are one of Donald's friends than chances are he is inadvertently part of the process of your exploitation. A direct part for any NYC tradesmen we have around, hands up?… for the rest of us indirectly just one of many. Point being the over opinionated lesbian comic is not the bigger enemy

They don't need to "rig" the election, they setup the entire process. The outcomes were always going to be exactly what the U.S wanted; they have had a lot of practice at it. If control of oil was their primary aim why did they invade Afghanistan which has no oil? Afghanistan was invaded because it didn't toe the line. The U.S government needed to both appease the U.S population and ensure what’s called the mafia complex. The U.S asked the Afghans to hand over people the U.S suspected of 9/11 links, the Afghans had the audacity to ask for evidence, so the U.S sanctioned and then started bombing, almost killing millions of people The U.S and Saudi Arabia are best friends

Wanting to and being able to are completely different and Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone nor is there any evidence that he wanted to "fuck the US up" Saddam was never planning to attack the U.S The chemical weapons you trained his scientists to make and the chemical weapons you gave him the ingredients for? Yes I think most of us remember them Do you remember blowing up a water treatment plant and then imposing sanctions which estimates put at having killed between 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 Iraqi children? There was no catastophe imminant from Saddam comming to anywhere or anyone. Can't handle it? so only white people in the west can "handle" democracy? Not Arabs right? Like the Arabs who have been fighting for democracy in Sadui Arabi for decades that you keep preventing by providing the millions of weapons to the monarchy to keep democracy suppressed? By invading? No, that was the number one crime under all international laws.

That was not their only stated aim, that was their rationale for the war which I agree was BS. The Operation was called Iraqi Freedom not Operation get rid of the WMDs, that implies that they at least had the idea of deomcracy at the itme and not just invented it later. Its in the public record go back and have a look. Months and months of war build up, invasion, and occupation over specifically finding the WMD's THEN once they were no where in sight they bring "democracy" to the foreground. I havn't looked at it in a while and don't have it on hand but there is actually a 6-8 week period where you can see it dramatically change Well thats not what the UN thought, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4471997 "Appeared Fair, Transparent" within the bounds aloud by the U.S. The U.S are there to setup a client state to retain control of the oil, so its a democracy to the extent the outcome ends up how they want it, again much like all other democracies they have bought to the people of other countries in the past.

The U.S stated aim in Iraq was to stop the production or possession of nukes, when there were no nukes it quickly switched to this new, and just as bullshit, goal. Much like the “democratic elections” the U.S install in other countries… they weren’t democratic elections. This chaos wasn’t unexpected by most people if mass global protests are anything to go by, nor was it unexpected by most intelligence agencies.

So the guy that exploits you, your kids and your grandkids by taking all your surplus-value is worse than the slightly hypocritical lesbian b-grade celebrity campaigning against guns. …ok

I don't approve of what she's doing, but like others, I am not going to Narc on them either. But if they're dumb enough to get caught, they deserve the punishment the law specifies. Unjust laws are no laws at all

There is no way that is one of the reasons unless you mean "democracy" in terms of the "democracy" the U.S have always tried spreading. Also given that the U.S has always suppressed democracy in the middle east

Yet you are complaining about government power?

QuoteYou'd really have to be rather daft to believe everything our leaders and politicians tell us. We get older listening to the newer and more extravagant lies whilst doing very little about it, other than perhaps commenting over the matter, or changing our vote. Is there anything else that can be done morally and legally? Doesn't seem so - all the power is off balance. Maybe this is an issue in itself. There are plenty of things you can do. Organize, demostrate, educate - You don't even have to start a grass roots organization there are already plenty to sign up with.

Control of the world's fast depleting number 1 energy resource?! Preventing Iran from selling in Euros and destroying the U.S dollar as reserve currency? Not for freedom, democracy or stopping nukes after all? I’m astonished

I don't understand what the problem is... As I understand Rosie, a bit of a dickhead and a lesbian comedian that co-hosts a tv show, is piling shit on Donald the poster boy for world inequality. Seems pretty irrelevant who is publicly ridiculing Donald as long as its happening

You should have run up completely astonished at the news he presented and asked how a drunkard such as yourself can avoid this place called hell... and what is hell... and just rolled along with the fake concerned interest and worry... then put forth that your also homeless. In my experience, fat fuck heads like that are well prepared to walk around like fucking idiots with a sign condemning others but rarely have enough Jesus juice or general humanitarian qualities to feed, cloth and shelter you ever for one night in order to get you on the path to Jesus

I will try to help you understand this unanimous agreement that doesn't exist http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3265/gwkw8.jpg

As it is stated in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", they (PNAC) needed an event "like a new Pearl Harbor" for their plans to be realized. PNAC members are riddled throughout the current administration, and the event they were looking for happened on 911. They were able to invalidate the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights in one document, which was obviously prepared well before 911, in 'The Patriot Act'. The second attack on America then allowed Bush to declare war on and occupy Afganistan, then Iraq, and soon Iran. Newsflash As is the nature of the world super power the U.S have been brutally expanding their economic and power interests since hmm, FOREVER. They don't need to fly planes into buildings for "new pearl harbours", they just go ahead and do what they want. As you have used sources I will too. Source: Pretty much every fucking decade, if not year, of the 20th century.

You missed the target completely. They have one of the largest welfare/entitlement programs in the modern world. They also have a rich conservative right and have been cool with Chirac for about ten years now.