Full Version: An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire
Here are some parts from "An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire" by Arundhati Roy:
Link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Arundhat..._To_Empire.html
Now, questions for debate:
Are the author's claims valid?
Is there really a bias on the Western Media because it is owned by the Military/Industrial Complex?
Is the author paranoid like many War-On-Iraq-Is-Really-About-Terrorism supporters suggest?
*Edited to conform to forum Rules for copyrighted materials. Our excerpting limit is no more than two consecutive paragraphs, and no more than six paragraphs per article*
Link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Arundhat..._To_Empire.html
QUOTE
<snip>
President George W. Bush, commander in chief of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, has issued clear instructions: "Iraq. Will. Be. Liberated." (Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are killed, their souls will be liberated.) American and British citizens owe it to the Supreme Commander to forsake thought and rally behind their troops. Their countries are at war.
And what a war it is.
After using the "good offices" of U.N. diplomacy (economic sanctions and weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its knees, its people starved, half a million of its children killed, its infrastructure severely damaged, after making sure that most of its weapons have been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely be unrivaled in history, the "Allies"/"Coalition of the Willing" (better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought) sent in an invading army!
Operation Iraqi Freedom? I don't think so. It's more like Operation Let's Run a Race, but First Let Me Break Your Knees.
<snip>
While the American people will end up paying for the [Iraq] war, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers, and corporations involved in "reconstruction" work will make direct gains from the war. Many of them are old friends and former employers of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice cabal... Contracts for "reconstruction" are already being negotiated. The news doesn't hit the stands because much of the U.S. corporate media is owned and managed by the same interests.
p34
<snip>
When the United States invaded Iraq, a New York Times/CBS News survey estimated that forty-two percent of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And an ABC News poll said that fifty-five percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein directly supported Al-Qaeda. None of this opinion is based on evidence (because there isn't any). All of it is based on insinuation, auto-suggestion, and outright lies circulated by the U.S. corporate media, otherwise known as the "Free Press," lat hollow pillar on which contemporary American democracy rests.
Public support in the United States for the war against Iraq was founded on a multi-tiered edifice of falsehood and deceit, coordinated by the U.S. government and faithfully amplified by the corporate media.
<snip>
Someone recently said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, America would have had to invent him. But in a way, America did invent him. He was among the jihadis who moved to Afghanistan in 1979 when the CIA commenced its operations there. Bin Laden has the distinction of being created by the CIA and wanted by the FBI. In the course of a fortnight, he was promoted from Suspect to Prime Suspect, and then, despite the lack of any real evidence, straight up the charts to "Wanted: Dead or Alive."
President George W. Bush, commander in chief of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, has issued clear instructions: "Iraq. Will. Be. Liberated." (Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are killed, their souls will be liberated.) American and British citizens owe it to the Supreme Commander to forsake thought and rally behind their troops. Their countries are at war.
And what a war it is.
After using the "good offices" of U.N. diplomacy (economic sanctions and weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its knees, its people starved, half a million of its children killed, its infrastructure severely damaged, after making sure that most of its weapons have been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely be unrivaled in history, the "Allies"/"Coalition of the Willing" (better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought) sent in an invading army!
Operation Iraqi Freedom? I don't think so. It's more like Operation Let's Run a Race, but First Let Me Break Your Knees.
<snip>
While the American people will end up paying for the [Iraq] war, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers, and corporations involved in "reconstruction" work will make direct gains from the war. Many of them are old friends and former employers of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice cabal... Contracts for "reconstruction" are already being negotiated. The news doesn't hit the stands because much of the U.S. corporate media is owned and managed by the same interests.
p34
<snip>
When the United States invaded Iraq, a New York Times/CBS News survey estimated that forty-two percent of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And an ABC News poll said that fifty-five percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein directly supported Al-Qaeda. None of this opinion is based on evidence (because there isn't any). All of it is based on insinuation, auto-suggestion, and outright lies circulated by the U.S. corporate media, otherwise known as the "Free Press," lat hollow pillar on which contemporary American democracy rests.
Public support in the United States for the war against Iraq was founded on a multi-tiered edifice of falsehood and deceit, coordinated by the U.S. government and faithfully amplified by the corporate media.
<snip>
Someone recently said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, America would have had to invent him. But in a way, America did invent him. He was among the jihadis who moved to Afghanistan in 1979 when the CIA commenced its operations there. Bin Laden has the distinction of being created by the CIA and wanted by the FBI. In the course of a fortnight, he was promoted from Suspect to Prime Suspect, and then, despite the lack of any real evidence, straight up the charts to "Wanted: Dead or Alive."
Now, questions for debate:
Are the author's claims valid?
Is there really a bias on the Western Media because it is owned by the Military/Industrial Complex?
Is the author paranoid like many War-On-Iraq-Is-Really-About-Terrorism supporters suggest?
*Edited to conform to forum Rules for copyrighted materials. Our excerpting limit is no more than two consecutive paragraphs, and no more than six paragraphs per article*
Are the author's claims valid?
More or less.
Is there really a bias on the Western Media because it is owned by the Military/Industrial Complex?
There are many reasons for lack of objectivity in the U.S. media, including (1) ownership, (2) sponsorship, (3) direct pressure from governments and (4) careerism among journalists. Similar forces are at work elsewhere in the West, but because the non-U.S. Western elites do not have as much at stake in Iraq and in some cases even oppose U.S. intervention there, one finds greater objectivity on this subject in, say, the French media than in the American.
Is the author paranoid like many War-On-Iraq-Is-Really-About-Terrorism supporters suggest?
Making realistic statements about the actual workings of power in the West inevitably gives rise to accusations dementia from those who, whether from service to power, lack of imagination, or desire for comfort, embrace the standard untruths.
War against terrorism is a particular absurdity, since terrorism is not a political movement, but merely a tactic of war, on a par with aerial bombardment or submarine blockade. If Manhattan had been attacked by a parachute battalion, would an appropriate rejoinder be a "War on Parachutism?" "War on Terrorism" is a formula devised to make it more difficult for people to comtemplate the true reasons the United States was attacked, and to understand the real nature of the enemy. But to do that, one would have to come to grips with the actual nature of U.S. and Israeli power in the Middle East, a highly dangerous topic from the viewpoint of the U.S. governing elite.
More or less.
Is there really a bias on the Western Media because it is owned by the Military/Industrial Complex?
There are many reasons for lack of objectivity in the U.S. media, including (1) ownership, (2) sponsorship, (3) direct pressure from governments and (4) careerism among journalists. Similar forces are at work elsewhere in the West, but because the non-U.S. Western elites do not have as much at stake in Iraq and in some cases even oppose U.S. intervention there, one finds greater objectivity on this subject in, say, the French media than in the American.
Is the author paranoid like many War-On-Iraq-Is-Really-About-Terrorism supporters suggest?
Making realistic statements about the actual workings of power in the West inevitably gives rise to accusations dementia from those who, whether from service to power, lack of imagination, or desire for comfort, embrace the standard untruths.
War against terrorism is a particular absurdity, since terrorism is not a political movement, but merely a tactic of war, on a par with aerial bombardment or submarine blockade. If Manhattan had been attacked by a parachute battalion, would an appropriate rejoinder be a "War on Parachutism?" "War on Terrorism" is a formula devised to make it more difficult for people to comtemplate the true reasons the United States was attacked, and to understand the real nature of the enemy. But to do that, one would have to come to grips with the actual nature of U.S. and Israeli power in the Middle East, a highly dangerous topic from the viewpoint of the U.S. governing elite.
Are the author's claims valid?
This seems to be a re-iteration of anti-war sentiments. I thought I was watching an International Answer rally while reading it. Actually, since it came immediately prior to the war, perhaps it is the genesis of the anti-war rhetoric...
Something seems odd here. The Iraq war started on March 20, 2003. And yet in this speech (dated March 7, 2003) we have the following:
Interesting...
Of course, much of this same discourse was submitted to the Guardian in an article in April 2003: Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates
Let's examine a one of the claims:
Since when did Rice get lumped into the oil/weapon cabal? To my knowledge, Rice does not own any of these companies and has no stake in them. In other words, this is a dishonest claim intended to disparage those involved with very little to back it up.
Lay aside the fact that it would be oil companies that would rebuild a petroleum infrastructure.
The entire speech is simply an anti-war advocate expressing her views. Take it at face value.
Is there really a bias on the Western Media because it is owned by the Military/Industrial Complex?
Sure there is. In fact, the website that the article is hosted on is probably also owned by the Military/Industrial complex. And yet, we are free to read it...
Is the author paranoid like many War-On-Iraq-Is-Really-About-Terrorism supporters suggest?
She has her own views of the world and how it works. I'll leave it at that.
This seems to be a re-iteration of anti-war sentiments. I thought I was watching an International Answer rally while reading it. Actually, since it came immediately prior to the war, perhaps it is the genesis of the anti-war rhetoric...
Something seems odd here. The Iraq war started on March 20, 2003. And yet in this speech (dated March 7, 2003) we have the following:
QUOTE
When the United States invaded Iraq, a New York Times/CBS News survey estimated that forty-two percent of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Interesting...
Of course, much of this same discourse was submitted to the Guardian in an article in April 2003: Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates
Let's examine a one of the claims:
QUOTE
While the American people will end up paying for the [Iraq] war, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers, and corporations involved in "reconstruction" work will make direct gains from the war. Many of them are old friends and former employers of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice cabal... Contracts for "reconstruction" are already being negotiated. The news doesn't hit the stands because much of the U.S. corporate media is owned and managed by the same interests.
Since when did Rice get lumped into the oil/weapon cabal? To my knowledge, Rice does not own any of these companies and has no stake in them. In other words, this is a dishonest claim intended to disparage those involved with very little to back it up.
Lay aside the fact that it would be oil companies that would rebuild a petroleum infrastructure.
The entire speech is simply an anti-war advocate expressing her views. Take it at face value.
Is there really a bias on the Western Media because it is owned by the Military/Industrial Complex?
Sure there is. In fact, the website that the article is hosted on is probably also owned by the Military/Industrial complex. And yet, we are free to read it...
Is the author paranoid like many War-On-Iraq-Is-Really-About-Terrorism supporters suggest?
She has her own views of the world and how it works. I'll leave it at that.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 28 2005, 03:52 PM)
Sure there is. In fact, the website that the article is hosted on is probably also owned by the Military/Industrial complex. And yet, we are free to read it...
The article is from the http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/ and as the name suggests, it is quite far from being a corporate mouth.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 28 2005, 03:52 PM)
Since when did Rice get lumped into the oil/weapon cabal? To my knowledge, Rice does not own any of these companies and has no stake in them. In other words, this is a dishonest claim intended to disparage those involved with very little to back it up.
Lay aside the fact that it would be oil companies that would rebuild a petroleum infrastructure.
The entire speech is simply an anti-war advocate expressing her views. Take it at face value.
Lay aside the fact that it would be oil companies that would rebuild a petroleum infrastructure.
The entire speech is simply an anti-war advocate expressing her views. Take it at face value.
Well Rice may not be connected but you must admit that both Bush and Cheney are in the business.
Besides she does have many valid points:
QUOTE
The American people may be a little fuzzy about where exactly Afghanistan is (we hear reports that there's a run on maps of the country), but the U.S. government and Afghanistan are old friends. In 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) launched the CIA's largest covert operation since the Vietnam War. Their purpose was to harness the energy of Afghan resistance and expand it into a holy war, an Islamic jihad, which would turn Muslim countries within the Soviet Union against the communist regime and eventually destabilize it. When it began, it was meant to be the Soviet Union's Vietnam. It turned out to be much more than that. Over the years, through the ISI, the CIA funded and recruited tens of thousands of radical majahedeen from forty Islamic countries as soldiers for America's proxy war. The rank and file of the mujahedeen were unaware that their jihad was actually being fought on behalf of Uncle Sam.
And
QUOTE
Someone recently said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, America would have had to invent him. But in a way, America did invent him. He was among the jihadis who moved to Afghanistan in 1979 when the CIA commenced its operations there. Bin Laden has the distinction of being created by the CIA and wanted by the FBI.
USA did fund and arm Osama and many other not quite saintly people like:
QUOTE
Augusto Pinochet - Chile, "Papa Doc" Duvalier - Haiti, Efrain Rios Montt - Guatemala, Park Chung-hee - South Korea,
P W Botha - South Africa, Sani Abacha - Nigeria, Rafael Trujillos - Dominican Republic, General Suharto - Indonesia, Fulgencio Batista - Cuba,
Mobuto Sese Seko - Zaire, Ferdinand Marcos - Philippines, Anastasio Somoza - Nicaragua, King Hassan II - Morocco, Pol Pot - Cambodia
P W Botha - South Africa, Sani Abacha - Nigeria, Rafael Trujillos - Dominican Republic, General Suharto - Indonesia, Fulgencio Batista - Cuba,
Mobuto Sese Seko - Zaire, Ferdinand Marcos - Philippines, Anastasio Somoza - Nicaragua, King Hassan II - Morocco, Pol Pot - Cambodia
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.