babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » international peace movement   » The Globalization of State Terror

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Globalization of State Terror
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 29 July 2005 02:03 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is clear now that the neocons, in their rise to power, developed a strategy to eliminate the obstacles in their path. They wisely narrowed their focus to three main areas where they anticipated the most resistance; civil liberties, congressional approval of war and the checks on presidential power. The monikers of "enemy combatant" and preemption, minted in neo-fascist think-tanks, have concealed the real objectives of their creators behind modern-sounding jargon. The goals, however, remain the same; declaration of a permanent state of war and the supremacy of the president.

Mike Whitney

quote:
Ideas are the fuel that power the engine of history. The radical ideology that animates the Bush regime is a force as real as the laser-guided munitions that pummeled Baghdad. They may be obscured by the vile fictions of the media, but their deadly meaning is not hard to grasp. They represent the greatest danger the world has ever seen; the globalization of state terror.


Fascism is on the march.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 29 July 2005 03:07 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The US came out of WW1 with the biggest prize; New York had supplanted London as the world's capital. They came out of WW11 with ten times the capital they went in with, albeit yoked to a war footing. History records that they made note of the world's treasures post-war, and that the Arabian oil fields dwarfed all others.

I believe that the US determined that the other winner, Russia, should not claim that prize. Britain, the imperial power of record, couldn't check Russia, but could help the US contain her.

The US populace was carefully conditioned to mistrust their war ally. The war party was having things all their own way; Americans were paying a ransom to the warmongers in their midst, and Russia was forced to confront a new enemy they should have had no quarrel with.

I think historians will agree that the US fumbled badly in its clumsy attempt to wrest the oil fields from their owners. Israel has overplayed its hand, and faces a disaster of it's own making. Juan Cole has it right: Iran has won the Iraq war.


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 29 July 2005 03:27 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I believe that the US determined that the other winner, Russia, should not claim that prize. Britain, the imperial power of record, couldn't check Russia, but could help the US contain her.

It is important to mention that the US used the creation of a post-war international system to freeze Britain out.

The details are foggy now, but I believe the "Atlantic Charter" which provided wartime assistance to Britain, also required it to do away with Commonwealth trade preferences.

There were numerous other tactics used. Skidorsky's biography of John Maynard Keynes deals with this very well, showing how angry Keynes became when he saw that the US was undercutting British possibilities at every turn.

That's why it is called: "Fighting For Britain". He has to fight the US for Britain, but came up empty-handed.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 29 July 2005 04:02 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
It is important to mention that the US used the creation of a post-war international system to freeze Britain out.

The details are foggy now, but I believe the "Atlantic Charter" which provided wartime assistance to Britain, also required it to do away with Commonwealth trade preferences.


I didn't know that, but it explains a lot. I always wondered why Britain was willing to abandon the Commonwealth trade preferences. I remember when the shelves in Canadian stores were stocked with different stuff from what one would find in American stores. So much came from England. Now, it seems to be the same stuff everywhere.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca