>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^SDGundamX:
I'd say there are three big reasons why the US is still in Iraq. The first is that without someone there to monitor the situation, the country would devolve into utter chaos. You think it's the wild west right now, imagine what would happen if suddenly there was zero security and the various factions could have a go at each other unrestrained. Regardless of whether going in was right or wrong, I think leaving now would just result, in the end, in even more death.
- Who the hell cares what happens there now. they're not idiots, they'll figure it out. we can't even get our economy under control so who are we to offer help on a dime we don't have?
The second reason is that Americans really don't care one way or the other. They care just about enough to b tch about it on Internet forums and that's it. You don't see masses of people walking out of their jobs or going on hunger strikes until the President recalls the troops. American citizens could shut down the country tomorrow if they really wanted the troops home. But no, most citizens' commitment to the cause goes as far as complaining and hoping their elected officials do something. Hell, the illegal immigrants held bigger demonstrations protesting the new immigration bills than any US citizens ever have protesting the war.
- Are you kidding? walking out on our jobs? What's that gonna do? Put us further into debt that's what. And hunger strike? Wow, HAHAHA. That's rich. I'm sure we've all seen PLENTY of demonstrations. You can even find a few on the sift if you'd really like to. Furthermore, this describes little about what we're still doing there. It doesn't answer any questions other that "what are we doing about it?" (and it's a ridiculous answer at that).
The final reason Americans are still there... because even if they decided to leave right this very second it would take something like a year to actually ferry all the troops and equipment out. So at the very least the US will have some sort of presence there for the next year.

- Well let's get it started now


Congratulations for proving my point about being willing to bitch about it on an Internet forum but not do anything to get the ball rolling.

If you're not willing to show a commitment to change, then why should the administration change its policy? That's the answer to your question about why we're still there: the current administration thinks it's in our vital interests to be there and citizens like you aren't doing anything, besides flame people on the Internet, to dissuade them that they're wrong. It's not ridiculous at all to ask what citizens are doing to stop the war. Remember my example about the illegal immigrant demonstrations? Notice how no new immigration bills ever got passed? From the independence of India from Britain to the Civil Rights Movement to the end of apartheid in South Africa, peaceful (and sometimes not so peaceful) demonstrations have shown their ability to effect change. Don't be so quick to discount them.

What happened in South Africa was not a miracle. The transition of power happened relatively smoothly because the ANC government had to make huge concessions in their private meetings with the Apartheid government in order for them to cede control.

There may not have been a violent revolution but apartheid is alive and well in South Africa with the disparity between the rich and the poor being greater than ever before. The rise of a small black elite does not constitute the transition to a free and egalitarian society.

This lingering poverty and inequality has lead to South Africa becoming one of the most violent nations in the world with rape and murder statistics that are obscene. This latent rise in violence is something that is totally ignored by the media and world in general, and the previously oppressed black population still has to bear the brunt of it.

No miracle happened here, and as a South African I find it disturbing to see how uninformed the foreign media still are, inebriated with this idea of the 'peaceful revolution' and totally oblivious to the precarious state of South Africa as it exists today.

John Pilger and Willam Mervin Gumede have written extensively on this subject if anyone is interested.

"I think they do some terrorist acts"
"I thought I could convince them to be more accommodating"
"...they agreed completely, and they authorized me from the top level, to make that announcement to the public"

"Nobody told me not to go.....

Jimmy Carter is one of the biggest fucks on the planet-follow the money, eh? King Fahd was a longtime contributor to the Carter Center until he died-his foundation continues to accept monies from those who wish the see Israel disappear

"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"-I'd consider it an insult to myself, and a glorious waste of brain cells to thuumb through it-here's one blogger's reminder, after the usual brain-damaged responses to the label, "anti-semitic" using bastardized semantics and leaving meaning at the doorstep-
[Carter's message is simple and clear: End the unjust occupation, then let's start talking about peace. That's not antisemitic, it's anti-oppression.]-

"Scholars, founding members, of Carter's own foundation resigned over the book's outright lies and distortions. Carter refuses to debate anyone who is knowledgeable enough about the subject and the totality of his own defense argument is merely that "my book is totally accurate." Carter accepts major monies from those who oppose the very existence of the State of Israel... Methinketh, therefore, that anyone with a minimal degree of intellectual honesty has to be somewhat weary of the "truths" in his book.'

Carter the Tool. He needs to go back to farming-and not be allowed to speak in public, ever again.

It's not a matter of how LONG Tibet has been 'part' of China or of Tibet achieving national independence, but one of the systematic steps the Chinese government has been taking over the past 50 years to dilute Tibetan culture and language, flooding the area with non-Tibetan immigrants and giving the Tibetan people little say in the management of the region. This "Chinese Apartheid" is the reason why disenfranchised Tibetans are rioting.

These debates, though useful in their own way, they tend to drive me nuts. With all the huge problems and examples we could examine we always hit the little ones.

As far as the NAACP goes they have had the debate over the name and left it the way it is partly out of inclusion, not exclusion or prejudice of any sort. Colored didn't and doesn't mean just black, it means non white and the group though mostly associated with the black community isn't focused just on them and wanted to be open to all who face similar issues. I'm sure there were other arguments and reasons but that's at least one of them.

If we wanted clear examples though of both institutional racism and of our own guilt in it as a society it's damned clear and easy to draw. Almost one young black man in eight between 25 and 29 years of age is behind bars right now, today. We lock them up at a rate almost 6 times higher than South Africa did at the height of apartheid. Not always due to worse crimes but all too often due to things like safe school zones being so close they overlap where they live while our kids spend little time in one. Or the 100 to 1 disparity between rock and powder cocaine which offers the same penalties for 5 grams of rock and 500 grams of powder, putting real dealers in the same cell as a stupid kid shopping for the weekend party. Add the problems associated with trying to fight any charge from the perspective of poverty and they never had a chance.

Almost one in eight between 25-29 and most of us don't even know, or if we do we don't think about it much. If that was in our neighborhoods we'd care fast enough but it isn't us so it isn't in our news, in our thoughts, or in our minds when we vote on these issues. Sure looks racist in effect even if not intent, why else is it so easy to ignore? Intentions didn't change the results any.

There are a lot of different types of prejudice, from institutional to society wide, but the least of our problems is what we think of someones taste in music or what we think of a groups name. Personally I think too much emphasis on the little things while we ignore the huge screaming issues just makes the whole subject easier to ignore entirely. I often sympathize with the arguments and those making them, I just don't see it as helpful.

There were certainly some episodes which pushed the boundaries. The one where they travel to South Africa springs to mind. But the episode was actually very anti-apartheid, the fact they wore 'blackface' at some points during the episode was accepted at the time, but would be well and truly out of bounds today.

*requeue

Was anyone else struck by the phrase "... generations of economic apartheid"? Talk about a charged statement.

that was great info. always nice to see such value added comments

qruel

In reply to this comment by qualm:
It wasn't only Cheney.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/11/1431258

"But even as the majority of the American people came to oppose South Africa's apartheid regime, Reagan stood by his friend. African American leaders and organizations pressured Congress to take action and ultimately it passed sanctions against South Africa. True to form, Reagan vetoed the bill. But to Reagan's shame, Congress overrode the veto."

Also the Thatcher government in Britain, as well as Israel were supporters of South African apartheid.

Here's an interesting article which examines Israel's friendship with the South African apartheid regime:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html

It wasn't only Cheney.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/11/1431258

"But even as the majority of the American people came to oppose South Africa's apartheid regime, Reagan stood by his friend. African American leaders and organizations pressured Congress to take action and ultimately it passed sanctions against South Africa. True to form, Reagan vetoed the bill. But to Reagan's shame, Congress overrode the veto."

Also the Thatcher government in Britain, as well as Israel were supporters of South African apartheid.

Here's an interesting article which examines Israel's friendship with the South African apartheid regime:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html

You can't be fucking serious... Convert her to Judaism? This is clearly MEMRI bullshit now.

Whatever to make the Palestinians seem more like animals so the Israeli apartheid can go on.

The translation is not great - but the show is not a fake. It was first broadcast on 'Al-Aqsa' - a Hamas tv station. As soon as it was broadcast the Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti - who is not affiliated to Hamas or Fatah - asked for it to be immediately withdrawn and shelved. He also stated that the show should not politicize children and that it must "stop the political approach to children."

However, Barghouti also pointed out that the unfortunate content of the clip is a direct result of the daily humiliation, oppression and murder that has been inflicted on the Palestinian people by the Israelis (funded by America) for over fifty years : "Fishermen are shot at when they try to fish. The passages are closed. People cannot move freely from in or out of Gaza...It's a situation of imprisonment for years. And that oppression, this apartheid system, of course drives people crazy and creates certain reactions as the one you have seen."

Palestinian children witness the daily humiliation, oppression, and murder of their people - and the continual theft of their land - from a very young age. Most Palestinian children have never experienced the kinds of freedoms or rights that people in other countries take for granted. Years of abuse will only foster hatred. The only way to bring an end to the hatred you see in this video is to bring an end to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/92ED9BE3-199A-43CC-9845-5DE4FF19E593.htm">illegal settlements, an end to daily incursions into Palestinian land, an end to the daily humiliation and murder of the Palestinian people, an end to unobjective American support of Israel, an end to the unconditional funding that Israel recieves from the US, a guaranteed right of return for Palestinian refugees, and joint sovereignty of Jerusalem. In return, neighbouring Arab states must recognise Israel's right to exist.


For more on this topic see the following playlist: Free Palestine - حرﺓ‎‎‎ فلسطين‎

Yes I agree that rationality should be based within the realms of morals and so on.

However my statement is simply reflective of the world we live in, while it would be nice if we were all rational agents with morales it is no so. While we can clinically analyze certain things and work out the pros and cons of certain step over others it is too often that our morality gives away in face of fear or other emotional responses. Some that go far deeper then any rationality or morality can control.

Observe the war drums post 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. Most of what happened during that time was rationality gone in face of mass hysteria and fear over a terrorist attack. Rationality would imply that while the attack was devastating it was not the world changing event as pro-war advocates make it seem. That Iraq is not a threat, I mean the most powerful country in the world coming down to presenting a case for war based on fuzzy sat images and power point presentations.

Take this for example, the US supports Israel with arms and international backing in the UN where it struck down more then 60 resolutions aimed at ending the perpetual conflict that exists there. The conditions are nearing apartheid, the Arab people see this as backing of imperialism of Jewish people over the Palestinian and Arab in the Western bank and Golan heights. So anti-American fervor develops. Creating the large destabilization we now see in Iraq and so on. Is American support of Israel rational then? http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

At the same time rational thinking can be a problem as much as a solution. Look at Vietnam. Rationally the domino theory makes sense, while it gives no account to historical background. Thus flawed.

My overall point being that while we as the new generation might include a certain humanity in our thinking, this is not what happens in the highest level of goverment. But it's not all lost, hopefully with emerging communities like VS and Moveon.org and others young people can be educated and have a profound influence on our world in the future.

In reply to your comment:
““No that was rational thinking"

I think you and I have different definitions of the word "rational"

For me, my morals play a huge role in rational thinking, rational thinking does not equal cynical calculation. If someone approached me on the street and offered me a million for killing someone, I wouldnt do it, and I'd say thats typical rational decision , to put selfish greed for money over the value of human life is not just morally appalling, it is also insane and therefore also irrational among any human being who isnt a cynical, selfish psychopath.

Dropping the atomic bombs was probably rationalized, but not necessarily "rational" as such. the rationalization was probably a mixture of a lot of things, politics, tactics,war etc. but if you define the act as "rational" I guess that means you either thought it was the only sane thing to do, or that you prefer to be inherently irrational..


In reply to your comment:
“No that was rational thinking, there was simply nothing of strategic importance, thats why the French came, took out their citizens and left. The Belgians lost troops and pulled out. The UN had it's hands full dealing with the Balkans, white people being more important in the larger scheme of things. The Canadians sent one general to basically lose his sanity. There was no failure to act, there was simply failure to want to interevene in a genocide. Only after the fact did the world paid attention, then forgot until Hotel Rwanda.

The justification with Oppenheimer again was rational, and so was the usage of atomics and firebombing Japan. General Curtis Lemay said himself that had they lost the war they would have all been tried as war criminals. The American goverment knew that the people would not tolerate another bloody battle like the one in Okinawa for the island of Japan. So the question to the president was this then, do you want to send more American troops to die fighting D-day type assaults? Or do you drop the atomic bomb to capitulate the enemy? What would you pick as the leader of the American people?

In no way am I supporting the events. But my belief that rationality can just be dangerous as religious fanaticism. Because circumstance sometimes drives you into it.””

Wingoguy - no one here is advocating destroying the state of Israel or putting all the Israeli's in camps - your comment is unhelpful and simplistic. What we are advocating is an end to the daily murder, oppression, and humiliation of the Palestinian people, and an end to the settlements and apartheid wall which are designed to illegally steal more Palestinian land and to annex Jerusalem. An equitable solution must include a return of illegally occupied Palestinian land, a right of return for the millions of Palestinian refugees forced off their land by the Israeli army, and joint sovereignty of Jerusalem. However, it must also include full recognition of Israel's right to exist - from both the Palestinian's and the neighbouring Arab and Islamic states.

Great post!

On this topic also see: What is AIPAC ;
Illegal Israeli Settlements - British press v American media ; Jimmy Carter on Israel's apartheid policy and the power of the Israel lobby ; If Americans Knew

Great post!

On this topic also see: What is AIPAC ;
Illegal Israeli Settlements - British press v American media ; Jimmy Carter on Israel's apartheid policy and the power of the Israel lobby ; If Americans Knew