Brwydr Fallujah

Newyddion, protestiadau, trafod

Cymedrolwr: Cwlcymro

Rheolau’r seiat
Newyddion, protestiadau, trafod. Cofiwch, dim ymosodiadau personol. Pwyswch yma i ddarllen canllawiau cyffredinol maes-e.

Pwy chi'n cefnogi yn Fallujah?

Yr Americanwyr
7
28%
Yr Iraciaid dan warchae
9
36%
Neb - dwi'n heddychwr!
9
36%
 
Cyfanswm pleidleisiau : 25

Postiogan Sioni Size » Gwe 19 Tach 2004 12:20 pm

Arbennig. Mr Paul Wolfowitz. Halen y ddaear. Un arall o lywodraeth Bush sydd jysd isho gweld pawb o bobl y byd yn cael bywyd gwell. A mae dy nonsens cyffelyb yn fy niflasu cyn gymaint bellach fel nad oes gen i'r mynadd. Gadewaf i Noam Chomsky a Naomi Klein esbonio haerllugrwydd safbwynt Garnet Bowen, a rhagrith a chelwydd Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq ... honest.htm
At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.

Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam.

With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally — a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim.

Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" — fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region.

Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it."

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career — like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course.

So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression — and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.

One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington.

Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.

The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population.

Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss — along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy.

To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state.

Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered.

The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades — weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled.

Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations.

Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent — and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq ... _greed.htm
Not Neo-Con, Just Plain Greed
The U.S. campaign to have Iraq's debts forgiven shows how the Bush administration backs any market distortion that enriches its friends


by Naomi Klein

Contrary to all predictions, the heavy doors of Old Europe weren't slammed in James Baker's face as he asked forgiveness for Iraq's foreign debt. France and Germany appear to have signed on, and Russia is softening its line.

Just last week, there was virtual consensus that Mr. Baker's Drop the Debt Tour had been maliciously sabotaged by deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose move to shut out non-coalition partners from $18.6-billion (U.S.) in Iraq reconstruction contracts seemed designed to make Mr. Baker look like a hypocrite.

Only now it turns out that Mr. Wolfowitz may not have been undermining Mr. Baker at all, but rather acting as his enforcer. He showed up with a big stick -- the threat of economic exclusion from Iraq's potential $500-billion reconstruction -- just when Mr. Baker was about to speak softly..........
....While neo-cons worship abstract free-market rules, there is really only one rule that appears to matter to the Bush clan: If it helps our friends get even richer, do it.

Seen through this lens, the seemingly erratic behavior coming out of Washington makes a lot more sense. Sure, Mr. Wolfowitz's contract-hogging openly flouts the free-market principles of competition and government non-intervention. But like Mr. Baker's jubilee, it does have a direct benefit for the firms closest to the Bush administration. Not only are they buying a debt-free Iraq, but they won't have to compete for the deals with European corporate rivals.

The entire reconstruction project defies neo-con tenets. It has sent this year's U.S. deficit to a cartoonish $500-billion, much of it handed out in no-bid contracts, creating the kind of monopoly in which Halliburton may have been able to overcharge an estimated $61-million for imported gasoline in Iraq.

Those looking for ideology in the White House should consider this: For the men who rule our world, rules are for other people. The truly powerful feed ideology to the masses like fast food while they dine on the most rarified delicacy of all: impunity.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Sioni Size
Defnyddiwr Aur
Defnyddiwr Aur
 
Negeseuon: 2302
Ymunwyd: Maw 06 Mai 2003 11:43 pm
Lleoliad: Pen Llyn

Postiogan Cardi Bach » Llun 22 Tach 2004 2:28 pm

Garnet Bowen a ddywedodd:
Cardi Bach a ddywedodd: Pwy bynnag fydd America yn gefnogi fydd yn ennill yr etholiad. Pypet. Dyw e ddim yn ddemocratiaeth os oes (neu ydyw'n ymddangos fel petai) dryll yn pwyso yn erbyn dy ben.


Beth am beidio condemnio'r etholiadau cyn iddyn nhw ddigwydd? Fedrith neb ohona ni ddeud beth sy'n mynd i ddigwydd gyda sicrwydd perffaith. Gwell byddai disgwyl i weld beth fydd y canlyniadau, a beirniadu wedyn.


Bydd milwyr America, a'i arfau, tanciau, armoured vehicles ac ati, o amgylch y blychau balot pan fydd yr etholiadau ymlaen - mae llywodraeth America newydd gadarnhau hynny.

Yn amlwg byddan nhw'n etholiadau diduedd.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Cardi Bach
Gweinyddwr
Gweinyddwr
 
Negeseuon: 2694
Ymunwyd: Maw 22 Hyd 2002 7:54 am
Lleoliad: Gal

Postiogan Sioni Size » Llun 22 Tach 2004 3:41 pm

Sgwn i os gawn ni enghraifft o'u maniffesto cyn yr etholiadau gwych yma. Sgwn i os gaiff yr iraciaid.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Sioni Size
Defnyddiwr Aur
Defnyddiwr Aur
 
Negeseuon: 2302
Ymunwyd: Maw 06 Mai 2003 11:43 pm
Lleoliad: Pen Llyn

bast@**ds

Postiogan Waen » Maw 21 Rhag 2004 12:57 am

Dyma cyfres o ffotos sy'n dangos (honedig er does yna dim rheswm i beidio choelio) cyrff pobol oedd yn byw yn Fallujah a gafoedd eu lladd (gan yr Americanwyr) tra yn eu gwlau, neu chwifio fflag gwyn!
:crio: :drwg:
'mond os ydych yn barod am grafics go hegr- http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album28&page=1
fel mae'r awdur yn dweud-
“The Americans shot every boat on the river because people were trying to escape Fallujah by the river. They shot all the sheep, any animal people owned was shot. Helicopters shot all the animals and anything that moved in all the villages surrounding Fallujah during the fighting.”


He said that none of the roads into Fallujah, or around Fallujah were passable because anyone on them was shot. “I know one family that were all killed. There are no signs on these roads that tell people not to use them-so people don’t know they aren’t supposed to use them. No signs in English or Arabic!”

bast@**ds
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Waen
Defnyddiwr Efydd
Defnyddiwr Efydd
 
Negeseuon: 227
Ymunwyd: Maw 22 Hyd 2002 2:45 am

Postiogan Sioni Size » Maw 21 Rhag 2004 10:22 am

Dyma di'r math o beth sydd wedi bod yn digwydd ers dechrau'r rhyfel, tra fod cefnogwyr yr antur ffiaidd, anghyfreithlon, celwyddog a chwbwl anfoesol yn anwybyddu'r realiti gan glodfori rhyddhau'r bobl rhag Saddam ddrwg, dathlu bod prosbects gwell i iraciaid, achub y byd rhag WMD ac ar ben hynny sicrhau economi sefydlog i'r byd i gyd yn grwn. Tra'n eistedd yn ddoeth yn eu tyrrau eifori adain dde/neo-liberal yn chwarae duw yn eu pennau a chynllunio'r byd.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Sioni Size
Defnyddiwr Aur
Defnyddiwr Aur
 
Negeseuon: 2302
Ymunwyd: Maw 06 Mai 2003 11:43 pm
Lleoliad: Pen Llyn

Nôl

Dychwelyd i Rhyfel a Heddwch

Pwy sydd ar-lein

Defnyddwyr sy’n pori’r seiat hon: Dim defnyddwyr cofrestredig a 18 gwestai