Revolt in Paradise

GT in #45 <<< I were to assume that Ford, IBM and other US businesses with interest in Germany were but a face of the US govt. (as per your power elite theory), then the US govt. did indeed support Hitler. >>>

Actually the model that sees political as a committee of the big corporations, has nothing to do with `power elite` model, it has more to do with the classical Marxist point of view which in the classical Victorian era was quite accurate. Crisis, particularly the great depression and the ensuing New Deal forced them to make adjustments within that hierarchy of institutions, that is the Power Elite Model. The Power Elite model refers more to the world emerging after WW2 though its context can be found in that war. I think we have discussed that model long enough on Chowk for you to view it in past posts rather than a new discussion on the pluralism vs power elite model being necessary. Here is an article in case you missed reading it when I provided the link before. You can disagree with me if you want but there are no other competing models whatsoever that fit in with the facts post WW2.

THE FALSE DEMOCRACY OF ELITES


Bush Is A Devil, Chavez Says, Echoing Some in US
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 20, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The United Nations building still stinks of sulphur, after the ``devil`` -- President George W. Bush -- addressed the General Assembly, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told the world on Wednesday.

Chavez` speech to the General Assembly -- a personal attack on President Bush -- was greeted with sustained applause from the United Nations` member states.

Chavez, after calling Bush a devil, said he thinks Bush needs a psychiatrist.

The Bush-hatred spewing from Chavez sounded familiar, given the fact that some Americans espouse the same beliefs, as their free-speech rights entitle them to do.

Personal attacks on Bush are daily fare on various liberal blogs and Air America talk radio, where Bush is routinely blasted as stupid, incompetent, power-hungry, crazy, and extremist.

Chavez accused Bush the ``dictator`` of trying to consolidate his grip on world domination. He said Bush wants to impose ``the false democracy of elites`` on the world. And he accused Bush of racism, saying that he paints people of color -- such as the new Bolivian president -- as extremists.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere, Chavez said. ``It`s not that we are extremists,`` he added -- it`s that the world is ``waking up -- and rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.``

Chavez made it clear that he was talking about Bush the ``imperialist,`` not the American people.

As Cybercast News Service has previously reported, Chavez -- who is friendly with some of America`s worst foes (Iran, North Korea and Cuba) -- is lobbying for a seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Re: # 48 by Urstruly:

Urstruly sahib:

``Americas involvement in the WWII shouldn`t be (and cannot be seen ) as an ideological struggle against Germany or Nazism, because it was not.``

This is definitely a point of view, and you have put it across in a post that is .... enjoyable. You know me by now, I cannot see things in black and white. The same stands for your assertion. In any case, my question to SR remains unanswered. Don`t get me wrong, I would not be surprised if the US govt. did indeed support Hitler. I simply want to know.

#36 by tahmed32 on September 20, 2006 6:07am PT
according to some historians islamic world was going through enlightenment (age of reason)
date wine was halal in baghdad in spain prayers were said in berber language etc.
the crusades and mongol invasion put a stop to that, what happens when a civilisation is under attack it turns inward, that`s exactly what happened to islamic civilisation.

#49

Dear Dick,

I must agree with you on what you said about the poet Iqbal.

Anybody who takes the poet Iqbal seriously ought to have his or her head examined by the Sohail – probably at highly discounted rates because of the large number of visits required.

Except for the saving grace for Iqbal that he may have been a poet. And NOBODY takes poets seriously.

Nobody in their right mind, that is!

Of course, with my Paapistani brothers and sisters, that is always an open question.

Re: # 47 Perhaps you should ask the Chinese and the Indains living there this question. Cheap-skate-macaca-zeemax

Re: # 46 BJKumari why involve me in your little fracas with the Jamaat-e-Chowk-ibn-Al-qaeda cell of Chowk.

Ofcourse the Jaamat-e-chowk members will create some muck and use double treple negatives and positives to confuse the issue - like I see dear old cheap_skate_macaca-Zeemax has done. They donot have an answer. they will quote some idiot who thinks ek_bal was the greatest 20th century muslim!

Re: # 45 GT

Americas involvement in the WWII shouldn`t be (and cannot be seen ) as an ideological struggle against Germany or Nazism, because it was not. Tthe anti-Nazi US stance was a propaganda invented decades after WWI. Please keep in mind that US decalred war on Germany in December 1941 which is little over two years after the war started. The core reason that US got itself involved in this war was a business deal that took place between Roosevelt and Churcill. THis business deal is called ``Atlantic Charter``. The terms and conditions of this charter can be summarized in one sentence ``We (US) will save your (UK) ass, in return for your Empire``.

According to the Churchill`s own words, Atlantic Charter was the death warrant of the British Colonial Empire but he had no choice because German forces were preparing to land on British Isle with in weeks. According to eye witmnesses Churcill was in tears while signing the document. It is said that Roosevelt comforted him with these immortal words ``Mr. Prime Minister, I know it is hard for you, but I see you (British Empire) as a monkey who has stuck his hands in a jar full of candies. That monkey can easily get his hand unstuck if he simply let go some of the candies; but the monkey is greedy, he is jumping up and down, screaming and kicking but holding on to its candies. So my advise to you, Sir, is that it is time to let go of your candies``

The Atlantic Charter was signed sometime in September 1941. Japanese realized the potential impact of this ``business deed`` between US and UK and saw US as an emerging empire replacing UK. Japanese, who had their own ambitions of an Asian empire tried to pre-empt US plans by attacking Pearle Harbor in December 1941. One week after that US declared itself a combatant in the WWII. It was time to put the business deed in action.

After the end of the WWII, UK forces started evacuating its colonies one by one. The original plan was that as UK would evacuate their colonies the US forces would start replacing them - as it happened in North Africa. In other words there would not be a integral level change in the status of colonies other than that that the British masters would replace American masters. The plan would have gone through had the emergence of Soviet Union not threw the spanner in their plans. The emergence of Soviets Union was the biggest threat to capitalism ever and it was threatening the very core of the colonial Empires through its ideology. Hitler was doing the same thing, but he had no ideology, he was merely a thug. From the perspective of people of colonies Hitler replacing their the then current masters would only mean replacement of one set of ass-wholes with other. However, soviet union`s ideology meant something. It had an appeal to the oppressed people around the globe that finally the time had come when meek would inherit the earth.

But American monkey was smarter than the British monkey. It improvised the concept of Empire from direct rule to proxy rule and help countries ``win their freedom`` from colonialism, as long as it was able to install its own puppet proxy regimes.

After the collapse of Soviet Empire, US started to strengthen its proxy rule around the globe but 9/11 threw the spanner in its plans. Now US is stuck with the choice that either it should let go of its candies or keep them by force and continue being a monkey with its hands stuck in the candy jar. British, as despecable hustlers, as they are siezed the opportunity to get even with Americans for the hand that Americans did to UK with Atlantic Charter. British dragged Americans into wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan and elsewhere to make the monkey out of them. Enjoy the show.

Interseting question BJ #40,

“There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.”

Why do the Muslims of the world - ``educated`` or otherwise, get so uptight at the above - obviously true statements? Why, why, why???

The answer is that the assumption preceding the question is not only not `obviously true`, but completely FALSE.

That is why Mohathir Mohamad says that the only reason Muslims are backward is because they left the teachings of Quran. Of-course, he says a lot of other things as well like bringing about the decline & fall of USA.

Or don`t you think Mohathir, who practically built Malaysia single-handedly from a lazy colonial backwater to the powerhouse it is today, knows a thing or two?

About Gillster and his friends, they need to read more Iqbal.

#44

Abbey Masadi,

Cut out the buck-waash and answer #40.

If an answer is indeed possible.

Without your own ``bhai-jaans`` chopping off your head.

And that of the dear Dick!

(But don`t anybody DARE call Dick`s head by its logical name!!!)

Re: # 44 by masadi:

If I were to assume that Ford, IBM and other US businesses with interest in Germany were but a face of the US govt. (as per your power elite theory), then the US govt. did indeed support Hitler. However, I do not buy the assumption in its entirety. Hence, I asked SR if there was evidence for US govt. support for Germany.

I do not intend to argue with you about the validity of the ``power elite`` hypothesis, at least not now and not on this board. For now let us simply agree to disagree.

Hitler and the US/UK:

What I stated in #8 regarding US obsession with creating enemies related to the post ww2 era, however Navelle Chamberlin`s appeasement of Hitler, endorsed by Roosevelt is not a disputed historical fact, and the vested US corporations in the German military machine, including IBM and FORD until the entry of the US into the war, is also not disputed. Behind all of these was the broader picture of containing the Soviet Union, a purpose for which Hitler was allowed to have a full swing at them. I don`t think these basic facts, regardless of the details can be described as ``conspiracy

from the BBC......
The speech came after some Muslim leaders expressed concerns about the UK`s foreign policy and called for it to be changed.

Mr Reid did not tell Muslim parents to report their concerns to the police but wants them to confront their children`s behaviour and talk to them.

BBC Home Affairs Correspondent Daniel Sandford said Muslim elders felt their ``real concerns`` about the points raised by the home secretary had been ``spoiled by stupid heckling``.

In an open letter last month, some Muslims leaders said British foreign policy was putting civilians at increased risk in the UK and abroad.

Mr Reid described the letter, signed by three Muslim MPs, three peers and 38 organisations, as a ``dreadful misjudgement``.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Tony Blair said the government alone could not root out extremism in Muslim communities and defeat the terrorism it creates.


dreadful misjdugement - that is strong language from a Home Minister esp a Brit one.

Mr Reid did not tell Muslim parents to report their concerns to the police but wants them to confront their children`s behaviour and talk to them.

oh! my! The ball has been bounced back. The Muslims want autonomy, he is asking them to deal with the situation and bring things back to an even keel.

As I said, the writings slowly but surely appearing on the wall.

Re: # 40 we have to wait for Echoboom, zeemax and Masadi to comeback with an answer. in the good ole days ROMAIR would have been quick of the mark here. these ROMAIR has become more ``reasoned`` so we have to wait for the others to answer.

The video of John reid`s speech is here.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5362052.stm

#38

What is wrong with the following statement?

“There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.”

I think the Carey speaks the truth.

Why do the Muslims of the world - ``educated`` or otherwise, get so uptight at the above - obviously true statements?

Why, why, why???