Canada, The US Elections And Their Missile "Defence" Shield: An Histor
Posted on Saturday, November 06 at 11:44 by Anonymous
Perhaps those of us who had foolishly hoped there might be a change in US foreign policy should now examine the militarist American behemoth from a more historical perspective.
In his new book, The Dictators, US historian Richard Overy provides a comparative study of the two most tyrannical governments of the 20th century, the German National Socialist government of Adolf Hitler and the Russian communist government under Josef Stalin. He readily identifies some fundamental characteristics shared by the two nations as they gradually slid from more open governments into more oppressive and then finally into tyrannical regimes. Overy proves both governments were generally very popular even at the height of their oppression. Most citizens accepted the gutting of their civil rights because the work of their security services in rooting out and punishing their ?enemies? was perceived as both necessary and desirable. Both tyrannies strengthened their popular support within an atmosphere of extreme national crisis and fear accompanied by massive ideological brainwashing. Detention camps with inhuman conditions, torture of innocents and death became acceptable because there was no room for doubt, compromise or mercy toward their arbitrarily designated "enemies".
Most importantly, the German and Russian governments attempted to derive scientific legitimacy through unique visions of historical mission which allowed them to impose their economic and political ideologies on weaker and "less enlightened" countries. The dictators studied Straussian theories of deception and did not hesitate to lie to the masses if it served to rally them behind national policies that were actually against their own class interests. In both cases the result was a widespread albeit illogical acceptance of the ?vision? enumerated by their leaders. Although both falsely believed destiny would ultimately ensure their supremacy, their empires were nonetheless well protected at all times through the development of mighty war machines operating on the Darwinian/Machiavellian concepts of "might is right" and "the strong are meant to rule over the weak".
Overy's precepts are just too contemporary and too familiar. Our neighbours to the south have spoken in a clear voice, and Canadians should stop looking at the United States of America through rose-coloured glasses. We should reject Act II of the American political agenda, including Canadian participation in the US missile defence shield, which is really an offensive weapon system that has jump started a race for the military domination of space. Contact your MP and let him know we don?t want to be responsible for the consequences to mankind, half of whom are still trying to survive on less than $2.00 per day.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Michael Clarke
An American-Canadian
GlobalDemocracyProject.org
Contributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
"...Canadians should stop looking at the United States of America through rose-coloured glasses."
It's most disturbing to me that so many Americans voted Bush back in and that many of our MP's and our PM are still looking at supporting a government that has an evangelical murderer for a leader. I want to know what exactly their reasoning is. The lame reasons of "we want to keep NORAD" and "it's best for Canada" are not enough. I think we're better off without NORAD. It did not do it's job on 9/11. It's a waste of money. And how is it best for Canada? Are we going to be bombed into smitherines if we don't agree? Are the CIA and CICS going to arrange an assassination of our PM if we don't?
If there are threats being given to us from US bunkers and from behind closed-door meetings I think that it is the responsibility of our new "transparent" and "open" government to come clean and tell us about these threats and give us the opportunity to agree with our govs decision to join in. As it stands we just think they're ALL morons or just lying to us. Where's the Canadian Chavez? He just tells the world he's being threatened by a US lead coup and his openness is what keeps him the safest in my opinion.
Tell Canadians, tell the world if we are being threatened and bullied into joining MD. We can help. We can make a difference if we know what's really going on. Let us decide!
Neville Chamberlain's 'peace in our time' message might have felt good to hear back then too, but the Nazis didn't care for his message, they went on a murderous spree anyhow.
Today we have fascist Islamic states and NGO's who will soon have access to nuclear weapons technology, they already have the missiles. Today's fascists keep saying that they want rivers of blood to flow, that they want to incinerate people etc. etc. ad nauseum... and here in the West we have people who choose to ignore what they're saying and what they're doing, in favour of attacking those who are responsible for our defence and our freedom.
The coloured glasses should come off, the ears should be unplugged and the brain should be put in reasoning mode as opposed to 'paranoid conspiracy theory' mode. It's plain to see that the ideology that sends out suicide bombers, once they have nuclear weapons, are today's threat to world peace.
Both Britain and the USA have been occupiers in these lands ever since WWI, and especially WWII, when the importance of their oil resources was well-understood. Britain physically occupied various regions (especially Iran) between WWI and WWII and then the USA carried on with a de facto occupation with the CIA after WWII when Britain was too weak to do it anymore. Of course, this changed starting with Desert Storm when the USA has sought to establish a permanent presence. Now, with the Iraqi war they have succeeded, with the promise of permanent military bases from the puppet Iraqi government.
The USA is also engaged in an economic occupation of Iraq. In Linda McQuaig's new well-researched book, she clearly outlines how Saddam Hussain threatened to go to the Euro to purchase Iraqi oil, as well as seeking out non-US, ie. European companies, to develop Iraqi oil fields. She also gives an excellent accounting of how US oil companies severely and unjustly exploited middle eastern oil without fair compensation, taking an average of 56% profit (the lowest figure cited in her book).
Here in Alberta the mere mention of the NEP with its vague implications that Ottawa somehow stole billions of dollars from us (even though Ottawa never actually got a dime) is guaranteed to incite hatred of many Albertans against the federal government. Yet, we somehow think that the people in the middle east should not feel hatred towards foreign corporations backed by foreign powers who have done worse.
Combine this with the fact that both Britain and the USA have installed, tolerated, and propped up many dictators in the region who as a matter of public record have caused much suffering to their people and it would be a wonder if there was anything but hatred of such governments and their supporters. If you think this has changed, just look at Azerbaijan, which at the present time (meaining today, right now, this very date you are reading this) has the same type of cruel dictatorship as Saddam Hussain had with many oil resources; yet the American government is maintaining economic and political relations with this country. As a matter of fact, Donald Rumsfeld came back from this country just recently and when asked about the above he brushed the question off, saying the US has good relations with Azerbaijan and wouldn't say anything more.
Knowing the above, which is all a matter of public knowledge for anyone caring to look more deeply into these matters, it is clear that as occupiers in these foreign lands the USA and Britain are the aggressors just as Adolf Hitler was the aggressor to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement. Therefore, using your own logic we can hardly expect the people of these lands to offer appeasement to the USA and Britain with the expectation that they will no longer continue their occupation/aggression.
Michael Clarke
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article ... 60,00.html
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill