Re: Fw: [steiner] question
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, DRStarman2001@a... wrote:
> social_artist@y... writes:Hussein to
> >>>The United States was also> instrumental in bringing Saddam
> > power.power by
> *******I'm afraid this is also quite untrue: Hussein was brought to
> the Soviets in the 1970s, who have always been allied with IraqAGAINST the
> US. The US does not have, and never had, any influence there.There was a coup, probably supported by Soviet, that ousted the king,
a figure installed by the british in the 30'ties .. by the baath
party, Saddam on his own eventually brutalized his way to sole power
as leader of the bath-party - he is obvously a national-socialist, and
consciously studied Stalin and Hitler -- this has been known for 35
years without the world reacting.
In the cold-war period the thing was a balance question ... but
eventually as there was a shift from a bi-polar superpower balance to
a unilateral powerposition, this position has unfortunatedly NOT been
used to promote the fine principles of freedom and democracy ..
So Saddam suddenly became "our" bastard in the 80'ties - as Iran was
seen as the main enemy...
However with a little insigth it turns out that the shiite political
islam is less dangerous than sunni islam, especially in the saudi
version (Osama bin Laden) ... However the US continually is allied
with some of the most reactionarey islamo-totalitarian regimes in the
region... and the current administration have nice talk about a
post-war Iraq - but no clue who they are dealing with and what they
are doing... Especially the adversion towards the shiite moderates and
the reformed communists in the iraqi opposition is plain stupid, as
they are the only two groups which is actually on site figthing Saddam
and have any civil society fundament in Iraq...
So the iraqi people are not in for freedom and democracy.. the kurds
will be sacrificed to keep Turkey happy, the shiites to keep the Sunni
totlaitarian arab monarchies happy - and the commies - yeah who cares ??
So the talk about "difficulties" in a postwar Iraq.. is really
meaning "we can't get the people in charge in a democratic way, that
"(3) The promotion of democracy: The ouster of Saddam Hussein, it is
claimed, will clear the space for the Iraqi people (under American
guidance, of course) to establish a truly democratic government and
serve as a beacon and inspiration for the spread of democracy
throughout the Islamic world, which is said to be sadly deficient in
this respect. Certainly, the spread of democracy to the Islamic world
would be a good thing, and should be encouraged. But is there any
reason to believe that the administration is motivated by a desire to
spread democracy in its rush to war with Iraq?
There are several reasons to doubt this. First of all, many of the top
leaders of the current administration, particularly Donald Rumsfeld
and Dick Cheney, were completely happy to embrace the Saddam Hussein
dictatorship in the 1980s when Iraq was the enemy of our enemy (that
is, Iran) and thus considered our de facto friend. Under the so-called
"tilt" toward Iraq, the Reagan-Bush administration decided to assist
Iraq in its war against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. As
part of this policy, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries
that support terrorism, thus permitting the provision of billions of
dollars' worth of agricultural credits and other forms of assistance
to Hussein. The bearer of this good news was none other than Donald
Rumsfeld, who traveled to Baghdad and met with Hussein in December
1983 as a special representative of President Reagan. At the same
time, the Department of Defense provided Iraq with secret satellite
data on Iranian military positions. This information was provided to
Saddam even though U.S. leaders were informed by a senior State
Department official on November 1, 1983 that the Iraqis were using
chemical weapons against the Iranians "almost daily," and were aware
that U.S. satellite data could be used by Baghdad to pinpoint CW
attacks on Iranian positions. Dick Cheney, who took over as Secretary
of Defense in 1989, continued the practice of supplying Iran with
secret intelligence data. Not once did Mssrs. Rumsfeld and Cheney
speak out against Iraqi CW use or suggest that the United States
discontinue its support of the Hussein dictatorship during this
period. So there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the current
leadership has a principled objection to dictatorial rule in Iraq--it
is only when Saddam is threatening us instead of our enemies that they
care about his tyrannical behavior.
There is another reason to be skeptical about the Bush
administration's commitment to democracy in this part of the world,
and that is the fact that the administration has developed close
relationships with a number of other dictatorial or authoritarian
regimes in the area. Most notably, the United States had developed
close ties with the post-Soviet dictatorships in Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. Each of these countries is ruled by a
Stalinist dictator who once served as a loyal agent of the Soviet
empire: Heydar Aliyev in Azerbaijan, Nursultan Nazarbaev of
Kazakhstan, and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. Only slightly less odious
than Saddam Hussein, these tyrants have been welcomed to the White
House and showered with American aid and support. And there certainly
is nothing even remotely democratic about Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, two
of America's other close allies in the region. So it is hard to
believe that the Bush administration is motivated by a love of
democracy, when it has been so quick to embrace patently undemocratic
regimes that have agreed to do its bidding."
> But agents being told to not investigate MUSLIMS they had becomeNone were illegal aliens .. all had legal staus for being in the States
> individually suspicious of is believeable. The refusal to keep track
> illegal aliens, lest we be charged with 'profiling',
And to call non-racial profiling in policies for racial politics is a
A bit like the one about the white mans burden:
"Why don't people understand how troublesome it is for me to be tough
on the niggers to make them carry my load"
Hey man carry it yourself
- *******The so-called "anthroposophy" list you post to all the time, Soren, has deteriorated to the point where there's no anthroposophy at all on it, nothing but shrill political rants in place of any higher knowledge. You were one of the main causes of this, and so I'm putting you on moderated status: you and several other leftists formed your own list to express your ides there, so you don't lack a forum.
I don't want this list to likewise deteriorate, so I'm calling a halt to the politics thread. As I said when answering Sarah's question, it's not likely to serve any good purpose, and certainly not lead to any agreement among people---it never does.
But one simple comment. The study of Steiner and anthroposophy has nothing in common with Marxist-type political agitation and diatribes against "capitalism." In fact, they are opposites, because there is nothing spiritual whatsoever in such materialist oratory.
As for the many misstatements in your post, such as that the Sept. 11th bombers were not "illegal aliens" (when in fact they had overstayed their visas and should legally have been deported), I won't try to correct them all, because so many corrections of fact are needed that it would just distract more from the purpose of this list.