Does America Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?~Stephen Gowans MUST READ!!

scentsofjannah

Does This Country Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?
Stephen Gowans
Media Monitors
29 October 2001
http://www.mediamonitors.net/

It claims to be conducting a war on terrorism against a network (al-Qaeda) it helped create to fight proxy wars on its behalf (in Afghanistan and the Balkans.)

It says it must bring anthrax terrorists to justice, but has the world's largest stockpile of smallpox, anthrax, and other biological weapons. It continues to experiment with new weaponized pathogens. It refuses to agree to measures to strengthen a biological weapons treaty. And there's evidence it has used biological weapons (in the Korean War.)

It has called some its past adversaries empires, bent on world domination (the Soviet Union), but it has 200,000 soldiers permanently stationed in dozens of countries around the globe. Its global military presence expands every year, encircling one of the few countries left to challenge its hegemony -- Russia.

In one country alone (South Korea), which it has occupied for over five decades, it has 45,000 soldiers.

The country's wars are always said to be fought for some high moral purpose: to stop ethnic cleansing, to prevent tyranny, to uphold international law, to defeat communist expansion, to root out terrorism, but somehow, while this is being done, the country always seems, as John Flynn once put it, to capture its enemies' markets while blundering into their oil wells.

It's always strapped for cash when it comes to social spending, health care and Social Security, but can find billions at the drop of a hat for a new weapons program.

Its colossal military is more than two and half times larger than the militaries of the next nine largest potential adversaries combined (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba.)

Its military spending, combined with that of its allies (NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia), is five times greater than that of the next nine largest potential adversaries together. Yet, it says, it's always under threat.

In the last five decades, it has attacked no less than two dozen countries. In the last four years, it has bombed four countries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Iraq) one of them in two separate campaigns (Afghanistan), and one almost daily (Iraq.)

Even though the raison d'être of the major military alliance it leads (NATO) has vanished, the alliance is more robust than ever, and is expanding.

It refuses to sign a treaty banning land mines.

It refuses to sign the Kyoto Accords, limiting greenhouse gasses.

It uses cluster bombs -- bombs consisting of dozens of tiny land mine-like bomblets -- which continue to kill, usually children, well after a war is finished.

It has 30,000 tons of chemical weapons.

It has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. It refuses to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

It refuses to renounce the first strike use of nuclear weapons. It won't commit to refraining from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.

It is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons.

It says it doesn't target civilians, but, in maintaining the world's largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, is prepared to kill civilians in countless numbers.

In one major campaign lasting over ten years (Vietnam War), it carpet bombed three countries (North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), killing at least three million civilians. A decade earlier, it carpet bombed North Korea so thoroughly it ran out of targets to bomb.

It issues ultimata to other countries (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan), and when the ultimata are rejected, it says the other side refused to negotiate. When the other side begs to negotiate, it's bombed.

It promotes the deception that a country can be bombed around the clock with only a few civilian casualties. It announces in advance of a bombing campaign that some civilian deaths are inevitable, and then, when they occur, say they were accidental and unintended.

It bombs civilian infrastructure -- water treatment facilities, power plants, dams, flood control systems, irrigation, water storage, pumping stations, sewage facilities, bridges, transportation facilities, petrochemical plants, fertilizer factories, auto-plants, as well as hospitals, schools, old folks homes, Red Cross buildings, and residential neighborhoods. After reducing its enemies to rubble, it imposes sanctions to hinder the rebuilding of all that was destroyed (Yugoslavia, Iraq), until a puppet regime is installed (Yugoslavia.)

It enforces one sanctions regime (Iraq) that is estimated to have contributed to the deaths of 1.5 million civilians. One of the country's leaders (Madeleine Albright) said the deaths are "worth it."

If it doesn't like another country's economic policies, it tars the leadership as tyrants and brutes, declares the country a dictatorship, and raises concern about human rights violations (Yugoslavia, Belarus) and railroads the leaders into jail (Yugoslavia) or arranges to have them overthrown in a coup (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Yugoslavia.) Authoritarian countries whose leaders are tyrants and brutes and who routinely trample human rights are called friends and allies if they have the right economic policies (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Philippines, El Salvador, Haiti.) Their leaders don't go to jail (Pinochet.)

It routinely intervenes in the elections of other countries, funding political parties, NGO's and media, but prohibits other countries from intervening in its own elections.

It commits war crimes unrestrainedly, free from censure and prosecution, because it controls the international body that establishes war crimes tribunals. It refuses to sign a treaty to establish a international criminal court that could prosecute war crimes free from its interference.

Its media is described as practicing "suck-up" journalism, afraid to be too critical of the country's leadership, for fear of being frozen out and refused access to "news makers." The media regards itself as duty-bound by patriotism to assist in the production and dissemination of propaganda in times of war, a now permanent condition.

The majority of its population consists of honest, humane, peace-loving people, who are poles apart from the barbarous, sociopaths who run the country. They are kept in a fog as to what's being done in their name. If they knew, they wouldn't stand for it for a moment. This, the leadership knows, and so spends liberally on public relations to keep the population pliable and in the dark.

It has the largest prison population per capita in the world.

In one of its largest states (California), it spends more on prisons than education.

The infant mortality rate in its capital is higher than that of a third world country it has blockaded economically for four decades (Cuba), and whose politics it doesn't like.

Criticism of the country's foreign policy is dealt with by assigning dismissive labels to the critics (anti-American, communists), threats of legal sanction (charges of sedition), or threats of deportation (to Cuba.) The criticisms themselves are never addressed.

The country forces the poor and wretched of the world to adopt austere economic policies that it, itself, would never adopt, for fear of economic ruin. The polices have the effect of intensifying the misery of the world's poor, while increasing the wealth of the country's business elite.

The country claims to have a free press, but only the wealthiest can own the press. Not surprisingly, the press reflects the interests of the wealthy. It's said that anyone can become leader of the country, but only those who can ingratiate themselves with the wealthiest citizens can raise the funds and backing to occupy the country's highest offices. The president, the cabinet, and most elected representatives, have either been bought by, or are members of, the country's economic elite.

The country's foreign policies have caused illimitable suffering throughout much of the world for decades. This has led to it being reviled over the greater part of the globe. Its leader (George W. Bush) can only reply, "I don't know why. We're doing such a good job."

adi8putra


		hahaha...very well summarised.

adi8putra

In short, America does NOT have the moral authority to lead the world.

Dawud_uk

Quote:

The majority of its population consists of honest, humane, peace-loving people, who are poles apart from the barbarous, sociopaths who run the country. They are kept in a fog as to what's being done in their name. If they knew, they wouldn't stand for it for a moment. This, the leadership knows, and so spends liberally on public relations to keep the population pliable and in the dark.

i disagree with this bit...

i am convinced that if put to the vote then the US / UK / West's choice would be to continue the oppression.

this is because their only alternative is a massive drop in living standards as it is all maintained through oppression overseas.

put this question to your non-muslim colleagues...
if you had the choice to stop all the wars the west has going overseas but it meant a half in your income and standard of living would you vote for this or not?

i think most people in the west would vote for stuff the foreigners and keep the cash and standard of living for themselves. sad but this is the state of the people.

Daw'ud

Geronimo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawud_uk

i disagree with this bit...

i am convinced that if put to the vote then the US / UK / West's choice would be to continue the oppression.

this is because their only alternative is a massive drop in living standards as it is all maintained through oppression overseas.

put this question to your non-muslim colleagues...
if you had the choice to stop all the wars the west has going overseas but it meant a half in your income and standard of living would you vote for this or not?

i think most people in the west would vote for stuff the foreigners and keep the cash and standard of living for themselves. sad but this is the state of the people.

Daw'ud

Wow you don't know jack obviously. How is the West keeping a high standard of living off the back of Muslims? We get most of our oil from Venezuela, Canada, and Mexico. We get our labor from either here at home or China. The muslim would need to wake up and stop playing the victim role before the West cut you off and you realize how crappy your world really can be.

Dawud_uk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geronimo

Wow you don't know jack obviously. How is the West keeping a high standard of living off the back of Muslims? We get most of our oil from Venezuela, Canada, and Mexico. We get our labor from either here at home or China. The muslim would need to wake up and stop playing the victim role before the West cut you off and you realize how crappy your world really can be.

geronimo,

you obviously need to add a study of where the West's oil comes from to your list of things to learn? most oil comes from Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Kuwait and they are all muslim lands.

but that wasnt my point, i didnt mention muslims. look if no single muslim was in danger or being oppressed by the west but they were hurting others then it would still be obligatory for us to help those oppressed people.

Daw'ud

Geronimo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawud_uk

geronimo,

you obviously need to add a study of where the West's oil comes from to your list of things to learn? most oil comes from Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Kuwait and they are all muslim lands.

but that wasnt my point, i didnt mention muslims. look if no single muslim was in danger or being oppressed by the west but they were hurting others then it would still be obligatory for us to help those oppressed people.

Daw'ud

Who helped them devolpe the capacity to mine that oil? Who paid for a good portion of that infrastructure? Who work most of those oil sites? China is the muslim world most importer of oil. I don't know about other countries but here in the US most of our oil comes from Canada followed by Mexico and Venezuela.

scentsofjannah

Geronimo please give us some feedback on the article and stop wrangling with this or that person.

Keltoi

I don't have the time or energy to go through all the statements I don't agree with in that article, or whatever it was. Good piece of propoganda.

scentsofjannah

these are the facts Keltoi..

tell me whats points you dont agree with? if you ar eindeed truthful..in points

1

2

3

comeone do it

wilberhum

America does not Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World.
Neither does any one else.

guyabano

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawud_uk

geronimo,

you obviously need to add a study of where the West's oil comes from to your list of things to learn? most oil comes from Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Kuwait and they are all muslim lands.

but that wasnt my point, i didnt mention muslims. look if no single muslim was in danger or being oppressed by the west but they were hurting others then it would still be obligatory for us to help those oppressed people.

Daw'ud

wrong ! Biggest oil fields are in Canada ..not underground, but burried in the sand ! See here

searchingsoul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawud_uk

i disagree with this bit...

i am convinced that if put to the vote then the US / UK / West's choice would be to continue the oppression.

this is because their only alternative is a massive drop in living standards as it is all maintained through oppression overseas.

put this question to your non-muslim colleagues...
if you had the choice to stop all the wars the west has going overseas but it meant a half in your income and standard of living would you vote for this or not?

i think most people in the west would vote for stuff the foreigners and keep the cash and standard of living for themselves. sad but this is the state of the people.

Daw'ud

I think most non muslims would vote to end all war and accept a lower standard of living. But I'm unconvinced that the US standard of living is directly tied with all of the worlds wars.

Keltoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by searchingsoul

I think most non muslims would vote to end all war and accept a lower standard of living. But I'm unconvinced that the US standard of living is directly tied with all of the worlds wars.

On this topic most point to the issue of "imperialism". Of course, nations like France, Great Britain, etc have gained more from world imperialism than the U.S. ever thought about. The U.S. is an easy target for blame because of our standard of living, and the lengths the U.S. will go to protect that standard. No question the U.S. has intervened in areas, particulary in South America, that haven't helped the common people of those countries. That being said, many of these countries need to take a look at themselves and their own governments, but many times these countries like to fan the flames of anti-Israel and anti-American hatred to distract their citizens from the corruption that exists within their own governments.

searchingsoul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keltoi

On this topic most point to the issue of "imperialism". Of course, nations like France, Great Britain, etc have gained more from world imperialism than the U.S. ever thought about. The U.S. is an easy target for blame because of our standard of living, and the lengths the U.S. will go to protect that standard. No question the U.S. has intervened in areas, particulary in South America, that haven't helped the common people of those countries. That being said, many of these countries need to take a look at themselves and their own governments, but many times these countries like to fan the flames of anti-Israel and anti-American hatred to distract their citizens from the corruption that exists within their own governments.

You make perfect sense.

When people are asked to assess the status of their own country the thread normally dies, or is redirected with another thought.

I know that the USA is far from perfect, and no they don't have the moral authority to lead the world (like Wilberhum said, noone has this authority). Let's not forget that their are negatives associated with ALL countries.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

	(#1 (permalink))
scentsofjannah Holistic health nut Status: Offline Posts: 478 Reputation: 452 Rep Power: 24 Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: englands green and pleasant land Gender: Way of Life: Muslim	Does America Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?~Stephen Gowans MUST READ!! - 07-28-2006 Does This Country Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World? Stephen Gowans Media Monitors 29 October 2001 http://www.mediamonitors.net/ It claims to be conducting a war on terrorism against a network (al-Qaeda) it helped create to fight proxy wars on its behalf (in Afghanistan and the Balkans.) It says it must bring anthrax terrorists to justice, but has the world's largest stockpile of smallpox, anthrax, and other biological weapons. It continues to experiment with new weaponized pathogens. It refuses to agree to measures to strengthen a biological weapons treaty. And there's evidence it has used biological weapons (in the Korean War.) It has called some its past adversaries empires, bent on world domination (the Soviet Union), but it has 200,000 soldiers permanently stationed in dozens of countries around the globe. Its global military presence expands every year, encircling one of the few countries left to challenge its hegemony -- Russia. In one country alone (South Korea), which it has occupied for over five decades, it has 45,000 soldiers. The country's wars are always said to be fought for some high moral purpose: to stop ethnic cleansing, to prevent tyranny, to uphold international law, to defeat communist expansion, to root out terrorism, but somehow, while this is being done, the country always seems, as John Flynn once put it, to capture its enemies' markets while blundering into their oil wells. It's always strapped for cash when it comes to social spending, health care and Social Security, but can find billions at the drop of a hat for a new weapons program. Its colossal military is more than two and half times larger than the militaries of the next nine largest potential adversaries combined (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba.) Its military spending, combined with that of its allies (NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia), is five times greater than that of the next nine largest potential adversaries together. Yet, it says, it's always under threat. In the last five decades, it has attacked no less than two dozen countries. In the last four years, it has bombed four countries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Iraq) one of them in two separate campaigns (Afghanistan), and one almost daily (Iraq.) Even though the raison d'être of the major military alliance it leads (NATO) has vanished, the alliance is more robust than ever, and is expanding. It refuses to sign a treaty banning land mines. It refuses to sign the Kyoto Accords, limiting greenhouse gasses. It uses cluster bombs -- bombs consisting of dozens of tiny land mine-like bomblets -- which continue to kill, usually children, well after a war is finished. It has 30,000 tons of chemical weapons. It has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. It refuses to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It refuses to renounce the first strike use of nuclear weapons. It won't commit to refraining from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. It is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. It says it doesn't target civilians, but, in maintaining the world's largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, is prepared to kill civilians in countless numbers. In one major campaign lasting over ten years (Vietnam War), it carpet bombed three countries (North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), killing at least three million civilians. A decade earlier, it carpet bombed North Korea so thoroughly it ran out of targets to bomb. It issues ultimata to other countries (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan), and when the ultimata are rejected, it says the other side refused to negotiate. When the other side begs to negotiate, it's bombed. It promotes the deception that a country can be bombed around the clock with only a few civilian casualties. It announces in advance of a bombing campaign that some civilian deaths are inevitable, and then, when they occur, say they were accidental and unintended. It bombs civilian infrastructure -- water treatment facilities, power plants, dams, flood control systems, irrigation, water storage, pumping stations, sewage facilities, bridges, transportation facilities, petrochemical plants, fertilizer factories, auto-plants, as well as hospitals, schools, old folks homes, Red Cross buildings, and residential neighborhoods. After reducing its enemies to rubble, it imposes sanctions to hinder the rebuilding of all that was destroyed (Yugoslavia, Iraq), until a puppet regime is installed (Yugoslavia.) It enforces one sanctions regime (Iraq) that is estimated to have contributed to the deaths of 1.5 million civilians. One of the country's leaders (Madeleine Albright) said the deaths are "worth it." If it doesn't like another country's economic policies, it tars the leadership as tyrants and brutes, declares the country a dictatorship, and raises concern about human rights violations (Yugoslavia, Belarus) and railroads the leaders into jail (Yugoslavia) or arranges to have them overthrown in a coup (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Yugoslavia.) Authoritarian countries whose leaders are tyrants and brutes and who routinely trample human rights are called friends and allies if they have the right economic policies (Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Philippines, El Salvador, Haiti.) Their leaders don't go to jail (Pinochet.) It routinely intervenes in the elections of other countries, funding political parties, NGO's and media, but prohibits other countries from intervening in its own elections. It commits war crimes unrestrainedly, free from censure and prosecution, because it controls the international body that establishes war crimes tribunals. It refuses to sign a treaty to establish a international criminal court that could prosecute war crimes free from its interference. Its media is described as practicing "suck-up" journalism, afraid to be too critical of the country's leadership, for fear of being frozen out and refused access to "news makers." The media regards itself as duty-bound by patriotism to assist in the production and dissemination of propaganda in times of war, a now permanent condition. The majority of its population consists of honest, humane, peace-loving people, who are poles apart from the barbarous, sociopaths who run the country. They are kept in a fog as to what's being done in their name. If they knew, they wouldn't stand for it for a moment. This, the leadership knows, and so spends liberally on public relations to keep the population pliable and in the dark. It has the largest prison population per capita in the world. In one of its largest states (California), it spends more on prisons than education. The infant mortality rate in its capital is higher than that of a third world country it has blockaded economically for four decades (Cuba), and whose politics it doesn't like. Criticism of the country's foreign policy is dealt with by assigning dismissive labels to the critics (anti-American, communists), threats of legal sanction (charges of sedition), or threats of deportation (to Cuba.) The criticisms themselves are never addressed. The country forces the poor and wretched of the world to adopt austere economic policies that it, itself, would never adopt, for fear of economic ruin. The polices have the effect of intensifying the misery of the world's poor, while increasing the wealth of the country's business elite. The country claims to have a free press, but only the wealthiest can own the press. Not surprisingly, the press reflects the interests of the wealthy. It's said that anyone can become leader of the country, but only those who can ingratiate themselves with the wealthiest citizens can raise the funds and backing to occupy the country's highest offices. The president, the cabinet, and most elected representatives, have either been bought by, or are members of, the country's economic elite. The country's foreign policies have caused illimitable suffering throughout much of the world for decades. This has led to it being reviled over the greater part of the globe. Its leader (George W. Bush) can only reply, "I don't know why. We're doing such a good job." __________________ All of them worship out of fear of fire and consider deliverance abundant good fortune or so they may dwell in the gardens , and reach to the meadows of paradise and there drink from its rivers of gardens or fire i have no opinion I seek no exchange for my Dearest Love Rabia Al Adawiya

	(#8 (permalink))
scentsofjannah Holistic health nut Status: Offline Posts: 478 Reputation: 452 Rep Power: 24 Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: englands green and pleasant land Gender: Way of Life: Muslim	Re: Does America Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?~Stephen Gowans MUST READ!! - 07-28-2006 Geronimo please give us some feedback on the article and stop wrangling with this or that person. __________________ All of them worship out of fear of fire and consider deliverance abundant good fortune or so they may dwell in the gardens , and reach to the meadows of paradise and there drink from its rivers of gardens or fire i have no opinion I seek no exchange for my Dearest Love Rabia Al Adawiya

	(#9 (permalink))
Keltoi IB Oldskool Status: Offline Posts: 5,376 Reputation: 9219 Rep Power: 38 Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Oklahoma, USA Gender: Way of Life: Christian	Re: Does America Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?~Stephen Gowans MUST READ!! - 07-28-2006 I don't have the time or energy to go through all the statements I don't agree with in that article, or whatever it was. Good piece of propoganda.

	(#10 (permalink))
scentsofjannah Holistic health nut Status: Offline Posts: 478 Reputation: 452 Rep Power: 24 Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: englands green and pleasant land Gender: Way of Life: Muslim	Re: Does America Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?~Stephen Gowans MUST READ!! - 07-28-2006 these are the facts Keltoi.. tell me whats points you dont agree with? if you ar eindeed truthful..in points 1 2 3 comeone do it __________________ All of them worship out of fear of fire and consider deliverance abundant good fortune or so they may dwell in the gardens , and reach to the meadows of paradise and there drink from its rivers of gardens or fire i have no opinion I seek no exchange for my Dearest Love Rabia Al Adawiya

	(#11 (permalink))
wilberhum Account Disabled Status: Offline Posts: 4,789 Reputation: 6956 Rep Power: 0 Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Seattle, Wa. USA Gender: Way of Life: Agnostic	Re: Does America Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World?~Stephen Gowans MUST READ!! - 07-28-2006 America does not Have The Moral Authority To Lead The World. Neither does any one else.