And did you think that they were just gonna sit on their hind legs crapping ... that is the picture that most stupid americans have isn't it.

You didn't think the'd have the brains for this sort of technology, well sit back relax and watch it happen.

No, much as wil like it or not they percieve american expansion as a threat to them, so they will try to protect themselves as best as they can.

I keep saying it GO HOME, sit tite and think Florida.

-spew from Why:
"And did you think that they were just gonna sit on their hind legs crapping ... that is the picture that most stupid americans have isn't it."

Uhh, no, actually. If you had bothered to read the article, it was the IAEA (as in international) that made the statement.

"You didn't think the'd have the brains for this sort of technology, well sit back relax and watch it happen."

Who, or where in the article did it say that, exactly? It should be obvious to even an asshat like yourself that that worldwide export controls banning key nuclear technologies suggest that anybody with a bit of funding could exploit it. The point of the story was that they made limited progress in trying to exploit this technology.

"No, much as wil like it or not they percieve american expansion as a threat to them, so they will try to protect themselves as best as they can."

Uhh, again, if your had bothered to read the story, a more plasable reason for a nuclear program was their former neighbor, Saddam and that their reasons might have shifted to power generation.

"I keep saying it GO HOME, sit tite and think Florida."

What does this mean? Why should Florida be thought of?

I don't know about you, but the less nuclear weapons on this planet, the better. You should look past your hatred and see the world as it really is.

mg,

I don't have have hatred, I have clear vision , it is the americans who cause the hatred, why are U in somebody else's backyard, even the world community didn't want you there ... THINK about that ...go home think Florida

We don't fly planes into buildings that are in other people's back yard. If you want to keep doing stuff like that, you should expect that we will be in your backyard, dropping very large bombs.

Why,

"I don't have have hatred, I have clear vision , it is the americans who cause the hatred"

Well, which is it? Either you have hatred or you don't. Why can't you just give a straight answer? Just say it, you hate america/americans/american policy (or whatever). As I said, you should look past your hatred and see the world as it really is (Realpolitik). You might be surprised how different it actually is to the picture drawn by liberal media bias. If we as humans have a failing, it's we tend to see only what we want to see (not you personally).

"why are U in somebody else's backyard"

You once again show your lack of 'clear vision', or, you are still in the kindergarten of understanding real-world geo-political interaction. Here's an exercise for you, why do YOU think we are there?
Oil? American Imperialism? Had lots of surplus amunition that was nearing its use-by date? If your answer is less than 15 words long, it's wrong.

"even the world community didn't want you there ... THINK about that"

Uhh, did I miss the 'world vote' on this issue? What about the UN, you say? All I saw were countries protecting their own monitary interests using anti-war sentiment as a cloak. Don't confuse vocal protests (played up in the liberal media) as an indication of some sort of majority. Say a million people marched against the war in Iraq. What about the BILLIONS of people who didn't? Democracy is not run by popular protest. Democracy defends your right to peaceful protest. Action in democracy takes place at the polls. Democracy, since its inception, has always been protected by power, military or otherwise, not from some 'Bush=Hitler' placard carring kid skipping class.

...go home think Florida

No, really, can you explain what you mean by 'go home think Florida'?

Those of you (American or not) who argue in favour of the American forign policy are either in dire need of a history lesson or so conditioned that you have lost the ability to think for yourselves.

Read this factual article about how the west and the US have toppled and undermined democracy in the
middle east...

Any of you who thinks American democracy is the next best thing since slice bread should find out how corrupt it is by seeing this documentary "The Carlyle Group" at:

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

Those of you who want to know what this "War on Terror" is really about and are tired of CNN and Fox News should see this brilliant documentary by John Pilger;

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article4851.htm

Back to the first article:

How we denied democracy to the Middle East

By Robert Fisk

8 November 2003: (The Independent) We created this place, weaned the grotesque dictators. And we expect the Arabs to trust Bush's promise?

It gets weirder and weirder. As his helicopters are falling out of the sky over Iraq, President Bush tells us things are getting even better. The more we succeed, he says, the deadlier the attacks will become. Thank God the Americans now have a few - a very few - brave journalists, like Maureen Dowd, to explain what is happening.

The worse things are, the better they get. Iraq's wartime information minister, "Comical Ali", had nothing on this; he claimed the Americans weren't in Baghdad when we could see their tanks. Bush claims he's going to introduce democracy in the Middle East when his soldiers are facing more than resistance in Iraq. They are facing an insurrection. So let's take a look at the latest lies. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," he told us on Thursday. "Because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." Well said, Sir. George Bush Jr sounds almost as convincing as, well, Tony Blair. It's all a lie. "We" - the West, Europe, America - never "excused and accommodated" lack of freedom. We endorsed lack of freedom. We created it in the Middle East and supported it.

When Colonel Ghaddafi took over Libya, the Foreign Office thought him a much sprightlier figure than King Idriss. We supported the Egyptian generals (aka Gamal Abdul Nasser) when they originally kicked out King Farouk. We - the Brits - created the Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan. We - the Brits - put a Hashemite King on the throne of Iraq. And when the Baath party took over from the monarchy in Baghdad, the CIA obligingly handed Saddam's mates the names of all senior communist party members so they could be liquidated.

The Brits created all those worthy sheikhdoms in the Gulf. Kuwait was our doing; Saudi Arabia was ultimately a joint Anglo-US project, the United Arab Emirates (formerly the Trucial State) etc. But when Iran decided in the 1950s that it preferred Mohammed Mossadeq's democratic rule to the Shah's, the CIA's Kim Roosevelt, with Colonel "Monty" Woodhouse of MI6, overthrew democracy in Iran. Now President Bush demands the same "democracy" in present-day Iran and says we merely "excused and accommodated" the loathsome US-supported Shah's regime.

Now let's have another linguistic analysis of Mr Bush's words. "The failure of Iraqi democracy," he told us two days ago, "would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region." Here's another take: the failure of the Bush administration to control Israel's settlement-building on Arab land would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Now that would be more like it. But no. President Bush thinks Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is "a man of peace".

And then there's that intriguing Bush demand for a revolution in undemocratic Iran. Sure, Iran is a theocratic state (a necrocracy, I suspect), but the morally impressive President Mohamed Khatami, repeatedly thwarted by the dictatorial old divines, was democratically elected - and by a far more convincing majority than President George Bush Jr in the last US presidential elections.

Yes, "democracy can be the future of every nation", Bush tells us. So why did his country support Saddam's viciousness and war crimes for so many years? Why did Washington give its blessing, at various stages, to Colonel Ghaddafi, Hafez Assad of Syria, the Turkish generals, Hassan of Morocco, the Shah, the sleek Ben Ali of Tunisia, the creepy generals of Algeria, the plucky little King of Jordan and even - breathe in because the UNOCAL boys wanted a gas pipeline through Afghanistan - the Taliban?

A break here. Fouad Siniora is the finance minister of Lebanon. He is a believer in the American way of life, a graduate of the American University of Beirut and a former lecturer there, an ex-executive of Citibank. He has a valid American visa in his passport. Yet he has been telephoned by the American embassy in Beirut to be told he will not be permitted entry to the US.

Why? Because last year he gave $ 660 at a Ramadan fast-breaking iftah to a charity that runs educational projects and orphanages in Lebanon. The organisation is run by Sayed Mohamed Fadlallah - once described by the Western press as the "spiritual adviser" to Hizbollah. CIA sources long ago revealed that they tried to kill Fadlallah - they failed, but their Saudi-prepared car bomb killed 75 civilians - so Siniora, an Americanophile to his fingertips, is persona non grata in the US. Fadlallah is not Hizbollah's "spiritual adviser" - so he could hardly withdraw his support for its victory over the Israeli army in Lebanon three years ago - but the loony- tune "security" legislation in the US has deprived Siniora of any further contact with a country he admires.

Yes, roll on democracy. Bring 'em on. The new "Rummyworld" war on terror is in Iraq. Ban the press from filming the return of dead American soldiers to the US. Liberty is what it's about, democracy. "Accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East", indeed. We created this place, drew its borders, weaned their grotesque dictators. And we expect the Arabs to trust Mr Bush's promise?

Why you are a perfect example of a retard, (which is what Islam calls a "scholar") is.

Independant, you show that you have no idea what is going on in Iraq, or why the middle east is the way it is.

It is this way because of Islam, nothing else.
We didn't "make" terrorists, fundementalists were there long before. Try reading things like " The Making of an Arch Terrorist in this case Ayman Muhammad Rabi' Al-Zawahiri, osama's right hand man.

Step away from that lefty " I wanna blame myself cause it makes me feel better" nonsense.

If fact, here is a quote from it. It's people like this that are the founders of Fundemental Jihad Islamists, not the USA, brits etc.

"While other Islamists at the time, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, were looking to change their societies from within, Qutb was an influence on Zawahiri and others like him, "to launch something wider."10 But like most Islamists before him and after, Qutb's world views, defined in his book "Ma'alim 'Ala Al-Tariq (Signposts on the Road), published in 1957, was predicated on a perfect dichotomy between believers and infidels, between Shari'a (Islamic law) and the law of the infidels, between tradition and decadence and between violent change and sham legitimacy. To quote Qutb himself, "In the world there is only one party, the party of Allah; all of the others are parties of Satan and rebellion. Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of rebellion." In his book, Al-Zawahiri asserts that the Jihad movement had begun its march against the government in the mid-1960s when the Nasserite regime confined to prison 17,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood and hanged Sayyed Qutb, the leading thinker of the movement at the time.

Independent,

"Read this factual article about how the west and the US have toppled and undermined democracy in the middle east..."

You mean the quoted article from Bob Fisk? FISK? The Meme? Here is a link to the insight of Fisk and his 'factual' reporting:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-11-15&id=3735

Sorry, you have to do better than Fisk.

"Those of you who want to know what this "War on Terror" is really about and are tired of CNN and Fox News should see this brilliant documentary by John Pilger"

You wheel out Pilger?

http://www.robert-fisk.com/john_pilger.htm

Need I say more?

"Those of you (American or not) who argue in favour of the American forign policy are either in dire need of a history lesson or so conditioned that you have lost the ability to think for yourselves."

Your 'history lesson' is irrelevant. I have yet to see any credible argument that that accurately equates events of the past with current events. What I think you are trying to say is: we are where we are today as a result of past US policy. Yes? I would agree 100% with you. America has made many good and bad choices over its short existence. As you would expect, most were made to promote US interests above all others, as it should be (what country is stupid enough not to?). The results of these choices have produced good and bad in the world. But I would argue on balance, the good far, far outweigh the bad. There is, however, no excuse for our past mistakes. Is the current US policy addressing some of our (our as in the west) last century's failures? I would say yes.
Would it have been better to deal with Iraq in 1991? Much better. Should we have supported Sadam prior to 1991? With hindsight, obviously no, but at the time, it served the west's interests to do so. As a side note, America is not exclusive in its support for dictators. France, UK, China, Russia and just about every other major power have done so. So to single out the US does not show an accurate picture of the world. Today's attempt to foster democracy in Iraq attempts to address this failing. Is it going to be easy? Hardly. Is it worth the effort? I would say it is one of humanities most worthwhile tasks in the past 200 years, ranking with defeating Hitler in WW2 and going to the moon.

Don't confuse democracy with American politics, two completlely different things.

Have a read of this for a real world view:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20031118

That is a great piece in The Spectator on Fisk. He is truly a piece of work. If only his gullible followers could see him for the total fraud that he is.

Guys, focus on the the message, not the messenger. The Spectator and his editor Boris Johnson's (he is a Conservative MP) views are well known.

I think Some of you are in denial of the facts. The US and the west in general have toppled democracy in the Middle East (1953 CIA Coup in Iran is a good example), South-East Asia (e.g. Indonisia), Latin America (Chillie and recently the failed attempt in Venezuela)...I could go on and on...they have also overthrown some dictators that they created who got too big for their own shoes (Panama, Saddam etc.)

Of course the US has done this to pursue it's own interest. But look at the consequences... is the world safer place now? Do we really expect the poeple of the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere to just rollover? Is Iraq a safer place now?

Someone argued that it is all to do with Islam. If that is so then how do you explain non-Islamic countries in South-east Asia and Latin America standing up to US domination?

It's to do with greed...the kind of Cheney / Bush greed that sends American soldiers to die abroad, whilst Cheney's "old" company Halliburton and Bechtel fill up thier pocketets and the avergage American taxpayer foots the bill for the war. The kind of greed that makes Pappa Bush sell arms to the US installed regimes for "The Carlyle group" whilst his son is the sitting president. Oh yes, the rest are at it too...James baker, Frank Carlucci, John Major and the rest of the "Freedom Loving" folkes.

Yes, I meant Chile!

Independent,

Right on, where have you been all this time.

Some superb comments and one who is telling the truth. I know it is hard for the port siders to swallow, but so may of them just live in false reality.

why Name some names here, please. I want to see whom you pick for the portside crew...

LMAO
democracy in the middle east?
And Americans destroyed it?
LMAO

Funny, Islamists say democracy is evil, and Islam never was nor ever will be "Democratic"

The Caliph was the successor of Muhammad as the military, political, and religious leader of the Muslim community. Caliphs headed the great Islamic empires. After a long period of decline, the caliphate was abolished by the secular Turkish government in 1924. Muslim radicals (read terrorists) worldwide have declared their intention to revive it and to wage offensive jihad against the non-Muslim world under its banner.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir is the international movement which openly declares its intention to:

Restore a worldwide Caliphate, uniting the world under Islamic rule;
Ban all faiths apart from Islam,
Regulate all religious practice according to Sharia law;
"Give all non-Muslim states a choice between either joining the Caliphate under Sharia law, or paying a tax to the Caliphate. Failure to pay the tax would be punished by military attacks."

If anything, western powers have tried to install democracy in the mid east, not take it away.

This 'terrorism' is simply just radical Islam trying to go back to the ways of mohammeds time, perpetual war.

Wake up people. No need for revisionist history, it's all here in front of you in black and white.
Islamists aren't even trying to hide their intentions anymore.

Indy (may I call you Indy?)

Unfortunatly, the problem is the messenger is creating the message, their own message and trying to pass it off as factual reporting. And in Fisk's case, a fantasy.

I agree mostly with your general analysis of the end results in Iran, Asia and Latin America, but again, hindsight is 20/20. At the time, this was not case. I find it indefensible to try to link past US foreign policy with current events. The US (and world, for that matter) of 1953 was a completely different place. Policy was derived from a completely different set of motivations, goals, etc.

"Is Iraq a safer place now?"

Are you kidding? If you believe the 'If it bleeds, it leads' media circus, then the question has merit. Visit some (or all, they need the hits) of the Iraqi bloggers that have sprung up over the past few weeks. Even with the current violence committed by a few (with various agendas), Iraq under uncle Saddam was much worse. Based on experience with post WW2 Germany, the US can expect more of this before it gets better. But unlike life under Saddam, it will get better in a free Iraq. 7 months is simply not enough time to undo 30+ years of horror under Saddam.

Here's a link to get you started:
Iraq at a glance

In a broad terms, the current policy in Iraq, I believe, represents a fundimental shift away from previous US policy, and will have a signifcant impact on the only major un-reformed religion, Islam. It is shameful what is promoted under the banner of religion, especially Islam. Have a look at:
faithfreedom.org

As for your Bush/Cheney (and it seems a whole host of others) neo-Con conspiracy 'facts', one can't reason someone out of an idea they were never reasoned into. The general theme runs lock-step with your previous links, so not much I say would help.

Why,

You still have not answered:

Explain what you mean by 'go home think Florida'?

Bubba

Although you are right that there are evil elements of islam that would like to create a one world islamic government. Much of what independent writes about how the CIA has supported dictatorships and overthrown democratic regimes is also true.

The CIA is an anti-democtatic organization whose true intentions are unkown to the American people. The CIA goes against all that is democratic.

It is the sister organization of the KGB. It was created to fight evil with evil. Now that the evil of the KGB has been elimitated there is no purpose for an organization such as the CIA and there provably never was.

All in all, the CIA has done more to destroy freedom and democracy than it has done to support it. The CIA and PATRIOT act are two of the most damaging things that have been done to the US constitution. The founding fathers would never have supported either.

Independent

You say:

"We created this place, drew its borders, weaned their grotesque dictators. And we expect the Arabs to trust Mr Bush's promise?"

The Arabs have a saying "My brother against my cousin and my cousin against a foreigner". And you really expect Arabs in general to trust ANYONE!? Grow up and realise that in this world your feel good lefty rationale is laughed at by the vast majority of Arabs and is only seen as a sign of decadence and weekness.

Why

This "think Florida" crap is obviously a reference to Bush winning the election from the recount in Florida...right???

Just a quick comment as I need to go to bed early and get a good night sleep tonight as I am part of the official welcoming party for The President :)

And by the way, tune to a proper news channel to see the unwelcome Bush march on Thursday. It will the biggest march in a working day the country has seen. It follows a two million people march in London against the war.

For those who say Islamic countries never were democracies and never will be and that Amercica does not topple democracies I have this to say:

Would you believe it if it was the CIA who said it? Would you belive it if the (CIA) man Donald Wilber who masterminded it said it?

Read this CIA declassified document:

Dr. Donald H. Wilber, "Overthrow of Premier Mossadeg of Iran November 1952-August 1953," CIA Clandestine Service Historical Paper No. 208, March 1954. Declassified in 2000. See www.cryptome.org/cia-iran-all.htm

And don't forget Iran was the first successsful CIA Coup, the following year it was the turn of Guatemala and the rest of "evil doers".

I do not for one moment think that someone like Bubba will be convinced even after reading the CIA declassified document. How do you convince anyone who does not want to be convinced...

And don't forget there are more than a billion people around the world who know themselves as muslims. Like any other societies there are rich, poor, leftwing, rightwing, moderate, millitant muslims even agnostic and athiests ones!. It is far to simplistic to see them all as enemy. And no, the vast majority of them have no interest in converting you to Islam. Throughout history people have stood up against domination whatever their background. They don't hate America, they just want it to go away.

Indy,
Personally, I will be waking up tomorrow, secure in the knowledge that your right (and those of other great names like George 'Bagdaddy' Galloway ex-MP and Tommy 'so far left, he is off the scale' Sheridan SSP) to peaceful protest (and it will be peaceful, right? heh) is/was/continues to be secured, in no small way, by the United States of America.

And Look, you have company! See who else now has that right!

Gee, how did they get that right? It was less than a year ago, Saddam received 100% of the 'vote' in an 'election'. Was it the UN who secured this freedom for Iraq? France? Germany? Ranting 'Hitler=Bush' protesters?

As for quoting declassified CIA documents from 1954, I still fail to see the relevance to a 21st century world. You are attempting to take selected factoids and arrange them to suit your simplistic view of the world. Wishing it does not make it so.

As for 'Islamic Democracies' that never will be, that's true if left to the likes of the UN.

"And don't forget there are more than a billion people around the world who know themselves as muslims. Like any other societies there are rich, poor, leftwing, rightwing, moderate, millitant muslims even agnostic and athiests ones!. It is far to simplistic to see them all as enemy. And no, the vast majority of them have no interest in converting you to Islam."

And that is why time and time again, George Bush has said Islam is a religion of peace. Unfortunately, it is used as a weapon by some followers of Islam, and yes, they do want to convert/destroy 'non-believers', that was my point when I referenced the faithfreedom.org link.

"They don't hate America, they just want it to go away"

Well that is rather unlikely, wouldn't you say? From my 14 years living in Europe, I would say most 'anti-Americanism' is really just envy and frustration at their own govt's failures. For examples, just tune into the UK's current wailing and ranting over the UK/US 'special' relationship. Pathetic.

"If anything, western powers have tried to install democracy in the mid east, not take it away."

Go, Bubba, go, Bubba!

MG
"From my 14 years living in Europe, I would say most 'anti-Americanism' is really just envy and frustration at their own govt's failures. For examples, just tune into the UK's current wailing and ranting over the UK/US 'special' relationship. Pathetic."

Most Brits don't harbour antipathy towards Americans. The predominant feeling is one of kinship. But most do harbour antipathy towards Bush. Maybe some hate him as person, but most dislike him for his policies and what those policies have wrought. The relationship isn't special. Special relationships don't involve tariffs and unlawful incarceration.

Dirk,

I would say from experience that for my time spent in the UK, I would somewhat disagree. I lived/live in an area where the US had a base and it is now gone. While the local population was happy to have americans amongst them, they were really only happy they were pumping £20 million/year into the local economy. Example: flat rental prices dropped almost in half when the base closed, but housing prices stayed the same. Certainly antipathy from young people (as they shove another Big Mac into their mouth, wash it down with Coke and watch another episode of The Simpson's). The only group that I ever had some interesting conversations with were the older, war-era people, who had a bit of kinship, as one might expect. During the 80's, it was funny to watch the local land owners and farmers react to the yearly CND (traveller) demo outside the base (priceless!).

As a whole, while people were/are friendly, there is always a point, when Bush or some policy enters the conversation, and you get the usual result. I think the 'special' relationship exists more from America to the UK, expressing our common language (mostly!), acknowledgement of 'seeding' the founding of our country and thanks at staying a strong ally throughout the years.

As for the 'special' relationship between the UK and US, I'll leave that for the local populus to decide. I just hope the thousands and thousands of US war dead (through 2 wars) and the billions spent for recontruction after these wars and defence through the Cold War will carry some weight! (Sorry about the Bic Macs, though)

As for antipathy towards Bush (and not the US), I find it amusing the lack of same feeling towards Chirac (and France). If you want a true political crook, look no further. But you don't see him being toppled in Trafalgar Square. Why not? The problem is no one here looks past the sound bite, the latest local spin on whatever the story is. And as for the local 'horror' over spending £5 million on his visit, the NHS probably wastes more than that per week.

Have a read of this by Andrew Sullivan to put this into perspective:

London Calling

As for my own personal view of Bush, I find him refreshing. Let's face it, he is not a career politician, does not have a slick exterior like Clinton or Blair. He rides a horse better than a teleprompter. But every read of every description from every person that has personally met Bush says he is nothing like the biased image portrayed in the media. He may not have the delivery of Clinton, but would you trust Clinton alone with your 17 year old daughter? Bush does not fit the mould demanded by the euro-elite, so they focus on the negative. I would rather have a Bush-like president over a big-haired Clinton-drone like Kerry any day. He says what he means, says it simply and does what he says. These qualities appeal to a vast majority of middle-america, to the revulsion of 'old europe'. As the big Yin is fond of saying (about politicians) 'Don't vote, it just encourages them'

mg, you say you lived near an American Base in the UK...that kind of leads me to think that you are in the US armed forces or somehow linked to it. Are you?

Indy,
Lived (still live, technically) near the base. I served in the US Navy until 1995 and have spent about 12 years total in the UK. After I resigned, I stayed in the UK as my wife was from here, and we had both started local business ventures that were prosperous.

Indy
"It follows a two million people march in London against the war."

I was in London when the war started and I took pictures of about 15 protestors outside Parliament. There definitely was not 2 million people. When was this march.

Indy,
Before you raise your flag with the Stop the War Coalition/Stop Bush organisers, see who you will be marching for and the practices they employ to spread their 'truth'

Those Liberal Democrat alliances

Anti-war campaigns, and the lying liars who run them

I don't know about you, but I would feel uneasy about being manipulated by the SWP (Socialist Workers' Party). You are measured by the company you keep...

Aaran, the march was held a few weeks before the war started, when there still was a glimmer of hope that someone would listen. The vast majority that marched were ordinary folks, most had never marched in their lives before. The march started at 11 am and by 7 pm people were still arriving to join it. It was the largest demonstration in the country’s history.

mg, put aside your “Baghdady” character assassination and “SWP” “blame by association” technique. I don’t think you mean malice but these “sweeping everyone with the same brush because it helps an argument” diverts from having a sensible discussion. These tactics were used in the USA (McCarty), the USSR (Show trails) etc.. surely we have moved on…

The accusation of “Anti-Americanism” sounds just as illogical and contrived as it did in the fifties when McCarty used it and is as bad as being Anti-French or Anti any other nation. Don’t confuse the struggle of the people of the middle-east, latin-america and elsewhere against the US corporate greed and domination with being Anti-American.

You say “Is the current US policy addressing some of our (our as in the west) last century's failures? I would say yes.”

Does this mean that you think America should be invading one country after another from now on to rectify some of it’s past “mistakes”? This sounds remarkably similar to the NeoCons agenda and the PNAC (the Project for New American Century).

America has toppled democracies in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, Grenada not to mention the failed coup last year in Venezuela. When I point to the CIA declassified document, you say it is “selective” and “You are attempting to take selected factoids and arrange them to suit your simplistic view of the world”. OK, for a full list of US Interventions in 70 countries since WWII just search the web. It is a long list…and there are plenty of references.

If you want to know what the relevance of the past US actions are to what is happening now read this Stephen Kinzer’s book “All the Shah’s men: An American Coup and the root of middle east terror”: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471265179/103-2628456-8707024?v=glance

Look at who has reviewed the book: Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Gore Vidal.

Yes, I would very much like the march on Thursday to be peaceful, but there are always some hot-heads around who join in for the ride, I just hope that those armed US security people don’t start shooting if someone tries to get close to the motorcade. You express a concern about the “peacefulness” of the march in London but seem to support violent US actions against other countries the result of which is massive loss of life, misery and destruction. Can you not extend the same feelings to your fellow human beings in other parts of the world who have suffered so much as a result of US actions?

Indy,

"mg, put aside your “Baghdady” character assassination and “SWP” “blame by association” technique. I don’t think you mean malice but these “sweeping everyone with the same brush because it helps an argument” diverts from having a sensible discussion."

Where were you during the last 2 years? Either you have ignored or obviously never listened to George Galloway, MP for Baghdad Central? Here's a quote (when meeting Saddam himself)

""Sir... we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability... We are with you! Until victory! Until Jerusalem!"

And here's my all time favourite George quote:

"In their occupation of Iraq, the US and British armies have entered the gates of hell. Soon it will be 100 degrees at midnight in Baghdad, but there will be no respite from the need for full body armour. In two weeks, armed attacks on coalition forces have nearly doubled to 25 per day. More than 200 have been wounded and over 40 killed in combat since 'victory' was declared by President Bush. Morale among US forces is dropping towards Vietnam-type levels, with heavy drug consumption, and commanders turning a blind eye to the prostituting of Iraqi women. No doubt the spectre of troops 'fragging' overly strict officers is on their minds."

I don't have to say a word about George Bagdaddy's character, he speaks for himself.

As for the true roots of the Stop the War Coalition, its creation is well documented:

Quoted from the Washington Post:

"In Britain, according to organizer John Rees, several hundred activists first got together the weekend after Sept. 11. Most were from the hard core of the British left -- the Socialist Workers Party, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-capitalist organization Globalized Resistance, along with Labor Party legislators Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway. Within weeks, they had combined with representatives from two more important elements -- Britain's growing Muslim community and its militant trade unions. By October they had a name: the Stop the War Coalition."

That George does get around, does he not?

The serious point I was trying to make is that honest, decent people (like yourself) are being lead by some rather dubious people, under the banner of 'Stop the War Coalition'. They are being used as pawns by the likes of the SWP. You know the SWP, the same great people who support Kim Il in North Korea?

"The accusation of “Anti-Americanism” sounds just as illogical and contrived as it did in the fifties when McCarty used it and is as bad as being Anti-French or Anti any other nation. Don’t confuse the struggle of the people of the middle-east, latin-america and elsewhere against the US corporate greed and domination with being Anti-American."

They 'sound' nothing like each other. Joe McCarthy was a wacko making hysterical accusations of people being communist in America, mainly for self-promotion and political gain. It is much different from listening to people express hatred towards America (just listen to George or Tommy).

"Yes, I would very much like the march on Thursday to be peaceful, but there are always some hot-heads around who join in for the ride"

These 'hot-heads', provided courtesy of the Stop the War Coalition, suggesting you are marching to someone else's agenda.

"I just hope that those armed US security people don’t start shooting if someone tries to get close to the motorcade."

Uhh, why would you not be as concerned for any of the UK armed police going into 'rock-and-roll' mode? What make's US security personnel any less professional?

"You express a concern about the 'peacefulness' of the march in London but seem to support violent US actions against other countries the result of which is massive loss of life, misery and destruction."

I don't even know where to begin with that one. Peaceful assembly and protest is that: peaceful. War is well, war. (I will assume you know the difference) Yes, I supported armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq to remove the kite-banning Taliban and Saddam. If you cannot recognise the obvious reasons for military action in these 2 situations, you clearly never will. If you want an honest appraisal of your implied 'war is wrong in Iraq' thinking, post your anti-war feelings to any of the Iraqi bloggers now up on the net (see links above) No, really. Don't listen to me, hear it from the people we just waged an 'evil' war against. They're the voices you should be listening to, not me or the 'Stop the War' ranters.

As for the 'massive loss of life', see the mass graves in Iraq, beaches of Normandy, Serbia, Stalingrad, Iran/Iraq war for examples of that. Don't you have a clue what was going on in Iraq before the war? Or how few people were killed (combatants and collateral) during GW2?

"Can you not extend the same feelings to your fellow human beings in other parts of the world who have suffered so much as a result of US actions?"

I do, but change the word suffered to benefited. You can't imagine my joy at seeing the statue of Saddam being pulled down, people cheering, smiling and shaking soldiers hands, etc. And then the camera pans to a lone Iraqi standing in the background with a poster that said:

GO HOME HUMAN SHIELDS, YOU U.S. WANKERS!

That one image said it all. We were back in Iraq to finish what we started in 1991. For the rest of the 90's under Clinton, we tried the UN, sanctions and half-assed measures. It is shameful that it took 9/11 and another Bush to wake America up to our responsibility in fixing this mess. No amount of UN hand-wringing, Kofi's statements of 'Deep concern...' and idle diplomacy would ever have worked with a tyrant like Saddam without the credible military might to back it up. Period.

How can you, in good faith, march in protest against a war that has just freed an entire nation, Iraq, people like you and me, being represented by the likes of George Galloway?

Sorry Indy, I'll finish my reply in the AM!

Just to keep the record straight, Galloway is an ex-Labor Party MP. He's still an MP but the Labor Party expelled him. He's even too far out for them.

Why? You are a Total fool! Robert Fisk has
been totally discredited. He has been caught reporting
made up fiction as "News" many times.

He is a well known, pathological liar who never
tells the truth! And to hell with you anyway.

You are wasting my valuable time, idiot!

KenG,
I welcome the correction on George. I very much doubt he will ever manage to secure another public office when his tenure expires. As a side note, it looks like he is starting to lose support from his own traditional power base. heh.

Indy, to continue:

"Does this mean that you think America should be invading one country after another from now on to rectify some of it’s past 'mistakes'? This sounds remarkably similar to the NeoCons agenda and the PNAC (the Project for New American Century)."

No, it does not and no the PNAC does not advocate that either. Have you actually read any of their writings? (I suggest not if you are serious about your question). Every supposed 'neocon' guru (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Rummy, Bush) have made clear statements (on quite a few occasions) where there are cases for 'invasion' as you put it. PNAC's own documents, see "No War With Pyongyang" as an example make clear definitions. While throwing about the hysterical tag 'NEOCON'! makes good press, it does not reflect my view entirely.

"America has toppled democracies in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, Grenada not to mention the failed coup last year in Venezuela. When I point to the CIA declassified document, you say it is “selective” and “You are attempting to take selected factoids and arrange them to suit your simplistic view of the world”. OK, for a full list of US Interventions in 70 countries since WWII just search the web. It is a long list…and there are plenty of references."

Again, you miss the point. You are attempting to argue your point with references dating back to 1953 about the CIA that you say point to how current events are affected, some sort of 'never-ending chain' of american policy. We've had many presidents since then, many administrations, policies- all attempting to deal with 'the world' of their day. Again, america was not alone in conducting foreign policy in this manner (in fact, 'old europe' has been at it much longer than the US has even been in existence). It was simply the way the world was. To take america's action in isolation shows selective ignorance in attempting to promote an argument in today's reality. I am saying that the 'fundamental shift' in america's policy reflects the rejection of the old 'cloak and dagger' CIA ways (inherited from 'old europe') and makes transparent america's intentions, motives and methods.

I don't know what you classify as a 'democracy', but your suggested examples of "Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, Grenada" for various individual reasons, would not meet my criteria of a democracy. This looks again like liberal generalisation to promote a point.

Here's a question: Do you believe military action in Iraq to remove Saddam and free the Iraqi people was right?

mg

So very well said! I congratulate you on a position so very well elucidated. For F*cks sake this is gonna be hard. Bamiyan Buddha Bustin Taliban to the right of me and naive, bitter and twisted die hard socialists to the left of me (very left).

Keep the faith my brothers and sisters. The future of the civilised world rests with us.

Go Bush.....kick arse!!!

Take a look at what a lovely “free” media we have and how many millions of dollars each have paid into the Bush “election”. http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/64582.php.

The corporate media is overwhelmingly pro Bush/Blair and pro war.

Rupert Merdock (Fox News, The Washington Post, The Times, The Sun, The Dialy Star, The Daily Record). Lord Conrad (Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, The Jerusalem Post), Lord Rothermere (The Dialy Mail and Sunday Mail). Time Warner, the owners of CNN.

Any chance you have been manipulated by any of them?

Try to separate personalities from the actual arguments, focus on facts guys. Do you think 2 million people turned up for the march in London because they craved to be led by one person or one group or another? People marched and will march again because they have it up to here with lies and gunboat diplomacy. They do not want any more countries invaded in a perpetual and never ending “war on terror” as prescribed by the NeoCons aka AEI (The American Enterprise Institue’s Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Micheal Ladeen http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15860 warmongers. Were it in Ladeen’s hands the US would now be in Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Cuba and then it’s China turn).

Saddam was a tyrant long before the media spin. He was a tyrant when the CIA put his party into power to get one over the MI6 installed Hashemite King. He was a tyrant when the US gave the green light to him to attack Iran. He was a tyrant in 1983 when Donald Rumdfeld (then Reagon’s Middle East envoy) flew to Baghdad, shook his hand and provided him with chemical weapons to attack the Iranians. The US officers were on the ground in the Faw when the Iraqis used them. He was a tyrant when he attached the Kurds at Halabja with chemical weapons that we supplied him with (the UK actually built a chemical factory at Faluja, and yes the rest were at it too). Saddam was always a pawn. He was a tyrant when the US actively supported him in the Iran/Iraq war. Saddam just got too big for his shoes. He promised Bush Sr. that he will continue to be US’s “strongman” in the region and guarantee the supply of cheap oil. Given his close support from the US up to then he though he might get away with Kuwait too.

mg, democracy means people electing their goverment not necessarly those to "your" liking.

I agree with you "You see what you want to see"....need to get back to work now...

Independent

mg, democracy means people electing their goverment not necessarly those to "your" liking.

Just like Saddam kept electing himself with 100% of the vote right! Keep dreaming and you sound like a broken record with your rehashed arguments of past events. Just admit you are a raving and disgruntled lefty.

Get over it mate SOCIALISM IS DEAD. Even the Chinese are embracing Capitalism. It must realy suck being you mate :)

Indy,

"Take a look at what a lovely 'free' media we have and how many millions of dollars each have paid into the Bush 'election'"

Who ever said media was 'free'? (as in free from spin) I defy you to find any 'news' report that is not written to the authors chosen point in the political spectrum. I think it's laughable when UK tabloids 'pledge' their support for one party or another.

As for US election campaign funding, all major candidates from all parties pull in that kind of money from contributions. It sucks, I agree and it should be reformed. I assume you are trying to assert that political contribution=media content? I don't think it is as prolific as you suggest. Media, first and foremost, is a business. Driven by ratings or circulation. They are more concerned with profits. I hardly think Rupert has much say as to what gets printed in the Sun and Record or Lord Conrad in the Jerusalem Post. Editors, on the other hand, set the tone and have much more influence on what and how news is reported. There has been a long tradition of liberal views making up the core of mainstream media. They may not be wacky far left socialist, but identifiably liberal.

"The corporate media is overwhelmingly pro Bush/Blair and pro war"

This I completely reject. US troops hadn't even had their first refuelling stop on their way to Baghdad when all your 'corporate' media giants were wailing the now famous Q-word, 'Quagmire!' Hysterical asshat pundits complaining about every thing from the wrong shoes to the sand. It was as if Bob Fisk had been writing their scripts. You could just see them wishing for a disaster and failure because if it bleeds, it leads. The only obvious flag waiving I saw was Fox News, which was targeted towards an internal audience.

"big list of media corps"
"Any chance you have been manipulated by any of them?"

Not hardly. Knowledge is power. From your proffered list, I read none of the tabloids because they don't really contain any 'news' and are only half a paper (but they have nice tits though). The rest of the broadsheets (The Jerusalem Post? Where the hell am I supposed to get that?) have real news but as I don't live in a metropolitan area, they would be difficult to get. I do read news of some of their web related sites, but usually as links from other sites. Of the TV channels, CNN and Fox (You missed out SkyNews, isn't that owned by BSkyB and Rupert?) I watch them all along with BBC mostly. Although I admit I don't actually watch much TV, except when the story is visual.

Back to your point, there is a significant difference between:
actively participating and supporting a coalition conceived, supported and run by hard-core socialist and the likes of George Galloway, knowing they are using your good faith to further their aims and objectives

and

watching or reading pathetic news output from any media venue. I am free to accept or reject, fisk, error check or research any of it (and I do).

"Try to separate personalities from the actual arguments, focus on facts guys."

Nothing I have said about George or the SWP has anything to do with personalities! but their philosophy, aims and frankly, lies. These are the facts, as presented to you further up the page. Your persistent attempt to reuse this same argument (from previous posts) that I have it in for George suggests you have not even given me the courtesy of reading the links describing his actions and words. Any reasonable person (and I assume you are) would not agree with what he has done and said. Same for the SWP.

"Do you think 2 million people turned up for the march in London because they craved to be led by one person or one group or another?"

(I don't know where you keep getting fed this 2 million person march. Saying it over and over will not make it true. Even if it were true, how many people live in the UK? Does not = a 'majority of people' as in your previous posts claim)

Anyway, implying that I said that people 'craved' to be led by George or the SWP suggests, yet again, you don't even bother reading what I said. I said:

Posted by: mg at November 18, 2003 04:00 PM

I don't know about you, but I would feel uneasy about being manipulated by the SWP (Socialist Workers' Party). You are measured by the company you keep...

and,

Posted by: mg at November 19, 2003 12:20 AM

The serious point I was trying to make is that honest, decent people (like yourself) are being lead by some rather dubious people, under the banner of 'Stop the War Coalition'. They are being used as pawns by the likes of the SWP. You know the SWP, the same great people who support Kim Il in North Korea?

Do you see?

"People marched and will march again because they have it up to here with lies and gunboat diplomacy. They do not want any more countries invaded in a perpetual and never ending 'war on terror' as prescribed by the NeoCons aka AEI"

People will march as is their right. As for 'lies', see previous posts. Gunboat diplomacy has produced good in the world, too. An Anglo-French coalition used it to drive the Turks out of Greece in 1827 which formed modern Greece. And again in Beirut to protect Turkey from an Egyptian rebel sultant. In fact, it was used in the shortest war in history (30 minutes), where the ever-thrifty Royal Navy, first shelled the palace of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and then made him pay for the expended ammunition(!) Which, BTW, helped finish off the slave trade in East Africa.

I think what you really mean is the use of military force, not 'gunboat diplomacy'. What should be quite obvious is that there are times when the use of military might is essential. As for your misguided perception of a 'perpetual war on terror', I've really already covered that in previous posts. Read for yourself the PNAC ideas.

"Saddam was a tyrant long before the media spin. ..." (and the rest)

I assume this para was your answer to my question:

Do you believe military action in Iraq to remove Saddam and free the Iraqi people was right?

I don't really see you have given any answer. The rest of the para I covered in various previous posts re CIA, current US policy addressing some of our (our as in the west) last century's failures, etc. I have to commend your ability to weave a web of facts, half-truths and lies into one, tasty, liberal friendly package, though.

Can you answer the question with a simple yes or no? If no, what would have removed Saddam and freed Iraq?

I would be interested in your answers to my previous posted questions as well:

-why would you not be as concerned for any of the UK armed police going into 'rock-and-roll' mode? What make's US security personnel any less professional? (Especially in light of the latest palace security news. I applaud Bush's security team for insisting they call the shots in light of this fuckup)

-How can you, in good faith, march in protest against a war that has just freed an entire nation, Iraq, people like you and me, being represented by the likes of George Galloway?

-Have you acted on my suggestion and posted your anti-war views to any of the Iraqi bloggers? What was their response?

And finally,

"mg, democracy means people electing their goverment not necessarly those to 'your' liking." (sic)

And that's exactly what the newly Free Iraq was just given. A world full of democracies is a world free of tyranny. A middle-east full of true democracies is a world free from children being brainwashed into thinking strapping a bomb around their chest and blowing up others is their destiny. (71 raisins? I thought it was 71 virgins! damn.)

You either accept people suffering under tyranny and oppresion (by placing your faith in endless hand-wringing talking-head diplomats) or you choose to fight against it with every tool you have. Yours seems the course of in-action, as tyrants have never been toppled by holding a sign, marching in protest (well, maybe the velvet revolution, but the US had won the cold war to kick it off). You spoke about the 'millions' of protesters. What about the billions around the world who did not protest?

mg,

Much of what Independent says is right. The US (and others) have brought down democracies and dictatorships alike in persuit of their own interests. After all it is much easier to engage in a covert action in a democracy than a tightly run dictatorship. I'am afraid there are extremists on both sides who want to polarise the world into neocons v suiside bombers. We have to stop this happening for our children's sake. This is why the marching is important. For every 1 person who actualy turns up for the march represents many more who could not for whatever reason turn up.
Try organising a march for Bush/Blair and the policy on Iraq or "support of our troops" as it was called. Last time only a few hundered turned up. must go now to join the party.

Here in Japan the 2nd top news was the visit of Bush to England. They of course spent more time on the handful of protesters than on the official state visit between two important country's leaders. They also said that most of the English people were against Bush, and that today (20th) there would be at least 100,000 protesters.

Funny thing, i immediately went to the Guardian and found results to the contrary regarding what the English think of Bush, and on today's news which i'm still watching now, we are all the way down to the sports, and still there is not a word on any march at all going on in England.

So i wonder Independent-san, you wrote: "It will the biggest march in a working day the country has seen". Did it happen?

Dave,

"Much of what Independent says is right. The US (and others) have brought down democracies and dictatorships alike in persuit of their own interests.

You may want to actually read the previous points where these were already discussed.

"After all it is much easier to engage in a covert action in a democracy than a tightly run dictatorship."

Huh? How stupid is that statement. Saddam didn't seem to have any problems, or Hitler, or any of the others. How is it easier?

"I'am afraid there are extremists on both sides who want to polarise the world into neocons v suiside bombers."

I have never read or heard any statements coming from any supposed 'neocons' (who, by a liberal definition, are extremist) that suggest they are, in fact, 'neocons'. What's farther right than a neocon? Ultra-necon?

"We have to stop this happening for our children's sake. This is why the marching is important."

I agree, terrorist and terrorism have to stop. Exactly how many terrorist bombings have protest marches stopped, exactly?

"For every 1 person who actualy turns up for the march represents many more who could not for whatever reason turn up."

Fair point. So even if 1 protester represents 4, 8, 10 others (with like, real jobs and lives) it still does not represent anything near a 'majority' in any sense, numerically or spiritually or whatever.

In fact, if you accept the SWP numbers on today's march, you can conclude that at least 3x more people in the UK support the Countryside Alliance, and want fox hunting to continue as are against Bush and the war.

"Try organising a march for Bush/Blair and the policy on Iraq or "support of our troops" as it was called. Last time only a few hundered turned up."

I don't have to. By definition, a protest march is a minority group expressing their opinion on a topic to the majority, hoping to affect a change of opinion in the majority. The majority has no need for a march, as they hold the majority view.

"must go now to join the party."

How telling your statement is. It is true, these type of gatherings look like street parties. Music, food, dancing, people selling things, etc. I suggest a significant number of people attending these gatherings a just out for a party. Just remember while you are out enjoying yourself, there are men and women, at that very moment, working to ensure terrorists do not harm you or your children.

Dear lefty liberals,
I have enjoyed these stimulating discussions on the central topic of today. A have found resonable voices coming from the left of the political spectrum. Can any of the calm voices on the left explain this?:

Amerikan Corporate Media Bury Protest Headlines with Michael Jackson Scandal

Here's the first para for those too lazy to follow the link:

"With world attention and global headlines turned towards the protests in the United Kingdom and the FTAA in Miami, suddenly a new scandal erupts for Amerikan corporate media to waste the public's time with: "authorities have issued an arrest warrant for Michael Jackson on multiple counts of child molestation." This debacle pales in comparison to the thousands of dead Iraqi children murdered by bLiar and the chimp. What amazing timing! Meanwhile, the world awaits the arrest of some real war criminals: Bush and Blair." (sic)

Is it any wonder the liberal cause appears to be untenable when the core base, the 'voice' of the left, claims this?

MG

Do you really think that site is representative of mainstream anti-war opinion? Do you seriously discount the overthrow of the Iranian govt. as relevant to today?

I have information that may fuel your righteous anger. The US is currently supporting undemocratic and brutal dictatorships. Funding them and opening diplomatic relations with them. For overfly rights and oil exports. Let's hear it for the GWOT, '80s style!

"You either accept people suffering under tyranny and oppresion (by placing your faith in endless hand-wringing talking-head diplomats) or you choose to fight against it with every tool you have. "
Let's have a concerted effort to replace the murderous tyrannies of Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea. Their back burner status is unacceptable. The international community are doing nothing. Let's see the nations who are facilitating these despots brought to task for their crimes. In the Hague, to make it official.

Dirk,

"Do you really think that site is representative of mainstream anti-war opinion? Do you seriously discount the overthrow of the Iranian govt. as relevant to today?"

Uhh, I can't be for sure, but if you accept that the major political 'voices' (as exampled in many previous posts all up the page) as representing extreme leftist idealism, then I think people like Indy and others who have posted reasoned arguments here probable represent people who are a little closer to reality. The problem with the left is that if you go too far left, you drop off into wacky socalist/communist frenzy.

As far as the overthrow in Iran, I disagree with its use to support the arguments of Indy (see previous posts). We stand here today in a world that is a direct product of all our previous actions.

"The US is currently supporting undemocratic and brutal dictatorships. Funding them and opening diplomatic relations with them. For overfly rights and oil exports. Let's hear it for the GWOT, '80s style!"

I agree with your point to a degree. How simple the world would be if your vision were true. I believe we have seen the beginning of a shift away from that policy, as outlined in Bush's '3 pillar' speech. How 'old europe' will amend their ways, I have no idea.

"Let's have a concerted effort to replace the murderous tyrannies of Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea. Their back burner status is unacceptable. The international community are doing nothing."

I fully agree there are plenty of tyrannies in the world, one you cited, although Eq. Guinea has more poverty than tyranny that oppresses it's people (considering they sit on a pool of oil). Their back-burner status is not a result of apathy. But as the west has finite resources, it would be impossible to do everything at once. As Uzbekistan is currently cooperating with the west to allow overfly and other rights, they can keep. I'ts all a matter of priority. Eq. Guinea is not attacking the world with terrorism, therefore they are currently not a high priority.

"Let's see the nations who are facilitating these despots brought to task for their crimes. In the Hague, to make it official"

No one is forcing these leaders to be bad. As you say, the 'international community' (read the UN) is doing nothing. Isn't standing by doing nothing just as bad? Are you going to take every country in the world to The Hague?

Let's look at a fairly simple example of Eq Guinea. Typical small, poor west-african country. Before oil was found on their doorstep, what did the 'international community' do to help them? What did they do to bring democracy, freedom from tyranny and poverty? A food program here, and aid program there. What did a western country with long historical ties to Africa (like France) do to help them? Nothing. They sat below the radar of western liberal activism. Then one day, they found oil. It was a new ballgame. Western oil companies competed for exploration/exploitation rights. If the US (through Shell or whoever) did not secure rights, then France (through Elf) or whoever would have stepped in. Their once impoverished govt. and country are now awash with funds. Are we supporting the dictator by this action? Did we negotiate oil contracts that stipulated they could not use the funds to improve their country and their citizens lives? Corruption in Africa is the cause of these problems, not the West's commercial interests. So unless their own people rise up behind a just and honest opposition, we (as the West) would have to invade and install sound govts. in every country.

Shall I teach you how to know something? Realize you know it when you know it, and realize you don't know it when you don't.

Due to the positioning of the Dock, remember that when you build an application, you have to be sure that new document window sizes and positions do not violate the Dock's space. Dock is temperamental and Dock loves his space. If you default to a window size that expands behind the dock, users will have a difficult time reaching the navigation and resize areas at the bottom of the screen. I can personally say that more than once I have been rather peeved that I couldn't get to an area of the window to resize because the default window settings always pop up behind the Dock. In addition, the new Dock in 10.1 will allow users to position their Dock location on either side of the screen as well.

To put my money where my mouth is, in each new article I'll build a hypothetical application that illustrates the guidelines I'm covering. Today's application is called "Paint" and will be based on the photo-illustrative icon I created in my last article. Together we will complete each step, and by the end of the project we should have a well-designed, 95%-100% Aqua-compliant application. I'll leave some room for personal preferences and the fact that Apple changes the OS every few months.

To put my money where my mouth is, in each new article I'll build a hypothetical application that illustrates the guidelines I'm covering. Today's application is called "Paint" and will be based on the photo-illustrative icon I created in my last article. Together we will complete each step, and by the end of the project we should have a well-designed, 95%-100% Aqua-compliant application. I'll leave some room for personal preferences and the fact that Apple changes the OS every few months.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: