Whats your opinion on professor Ward Churchill and his views?

[The_Other_Admin]

A professor at the University of Colorado who compared some of the World Trade Center victims to a Nazi war criminal received a standing ovation from a campus crowd of more than a thousand who packed a ballroom to hear him speak. University officials had announced plans to cancel the speech because of security concerns, then backed off after the professor, Ward Churchill, filed a lawsuit asking a judge to force the school to let him speak. Earlier, Mr. Churchill said he mourned the Sept. 11 victims and conceded that he could have explained himself better. Mr. Churchill made the comparison in an essay written hours after the attacks. He called some victims ''little Eichmanns,'' a reference to Adolf Eichmann. He said in dismissing some victims he was referring to ''technocrats'' who participated in what he called repressive American policies. ''I didn't mean the floor sweepers, the passers-by, the children,'' he said, adding that he did not mean to say the World Trade Center ''technocrats'' were Nazis but were, like Eichmann, bureaucrats who participated in an immoral system. Gov. Bill Owens has called for Mr. Churchill to be fired.

Whats your opinion?

[Faisal]

Dead people should not be bad-mouthed like this. I think he should have been more careful about what he said and wrote. Churchill is free to critisize a system, but the people working in WTC were only trying to earn a living, they can't be blamed for the system.

[Nadeem]

Churchill is free to critisize a system, but the people working in WTC were only trying to earn a living, they can't be blamed for the system.

Salaam,

Faisal,
With all due respect,yes,but those people can be blamed because by earning their living within that system they actively contributed to its existence and survival.:cool:

Sure we shouldn't bad mouth dead people but the truth is more important.:)

Chuck,
Well he may have had a point because the WTC was regarded by many as a 'monument' to capitalism which they deem to have some immoral sides to it.:blabla:

Other than that I can't see how any of us can form a realistic opinion about something we have no clear knowledge of.:cool:

I mean most people don't know anything about the beaurocrats in the WTC.:cool: :)

Wasalaam.

[bdb85]

I think if he had had a relative that died in the attacks, he might have felt differently.

That man (I'm not going to give him the respect of using his name), is nothing but a giant, pompus, windbag full of puss. He is a washed-up professor who is obvously over the hill and looking for attention wherever he can get it.

Its a shame some people demand attention so much, they have to trun to scock value.

His speech was political pornography, nothing more. What he says is just as vulgar and disgusting as the pages of Hustler Magazine.

And its ironic that while he bad-mouths the US government, at the same time he was recieving a paycheck from them for many years.

What a little twerp.

(Sorry if I seem bitter, I know many people who lost good friends and loved ones in the attack. They deserve better than what that man said).

[The_Other_Admin]

Well, lot of people get him wrong, I'll put here Churchill's own reply:


It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American 'command and control infrastructure' in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a 'legitimate' target.

[An example of a civilian facility targeted by the US: the infamous bombing of the Amariya civilian shelter in Baghdad in January 1991, with 400 deaths, almost all women and children, all subsequently identified and named by the Iraqis. To this day the US government says it was a legitimate target]

[Churchill concludes,] If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these 'standards' when they are routinely applied to other people, they should not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them. It should be emphasized that I applied the 'little Eichmanns' characterization only to those described as 'technicians.' Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, [they] were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else.

[bdb85]

t is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American 'command and control infrastructure' in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a 'legitimate' target.

Refer to my previous post.

What if they targeted his office at the University of Colorado? After all, it prepares little minions of capitalism to become immoral beaurocrats. And he recieves a paycheck from the State of Colorado and the United States government.

Like I said, he doesn't want to contribute anything worth while to any debate--he just wants shock value.

[bdb85]

CIA office in the WTC? Can you say, "Urban Legend?"

[The_Other_Admin]

What if they targeted his office at the University of Colorado?

I've seen his speeches, it is difficult to tell, but from the sound of it, he might have the same opinion.

[Nadeem]

Salaam Chuck,

Well in that case,after carefully reading his words,I could possibly agree with him but I still don't know enough about him to form a credible,honest opinion since Br.Binyameen is so critical of him!:)

So I am hearing two opposing viewpoints about him and am in no position to make any firm opinion.:cool: :)

Wasalaam.

[bdb85]

The terrorists on 9/11 didn't target the WTC because it was a "command and control center", they targeted it to kill as many people as they possibly could.

That man from Colorado reads into them way too much. They didn't care who they killed, they wanted to kill Americans/I], along with anyone who doesn't conform to their twisted view of the world. They didn't care if they were CIA agents stock brokers, janitors, or "beaurocrats". The Binladenist terrorists want me dead, the want my sister dead, they want my father dead, they want my mother dead, they want [I] all Americans dead!
Why doesn't this man seem to get that? Does he not read Bin Laden's "fatwhas"?

Has any official in the US government stated that it is the policy of the United States to kill all Muslims? Hardly, if that were the case I would not be around right now. :D

And if that man thinks that the same logic applies to him, why is he still here?

[The_Other_Admin]

His speech was political pornography, nothing more. What he says is just as vulgar and disgusting as the pages of Hustler Magazine.

And its ironic that while he bad-mouths the US government, at the same time he was recieving a paycheck from them for many years.

I don't condone violence; however, the utter irony in this situation is that when Churchill or others say something like this they are shut-down. On the other hand, right-wingers are free to call on to nuke Mecca or to shot people for treason just for expressing their views.

[bdb85]

I don't condone violence; however, the utter irony in this situation is that when Churchill or others say something like this they are shut-down. On the other hand, right-wingers are free to call on to nuke Mecca or to shot people for treason just for expressing their views.

Salaam
Its all a matter of where you live--in Saudi Arabia you can say that stuff about 9/11 and get away with it, whereas you can't say that most of the hijackers were Saudi, therefore the Saudi Arabian government had a secret hand in 9/11, and it was all part of a conspiracy on the part of the Royal Family to raise oil prices by starting a general war in the Middle East. In the USA the reverse is true. Both notions are, of course, rediculous.
Nevertheless, I would bet my shirt that if a professor in any American University that recieves federal funds says the US government should "nuke Mecca" would loose his job just as quickly, although it he would not recieve as much hostility in the public at large.
W'Salaam
Benyameen

[The_Other_Admin]

The terrorists on 9/11 didn't target the WTC because it was a "command and control center", they targeted it to kill as many people as they possibly could.

That man from Colorado reads into them way too much. They didn't care who they killed, they wanted to kill Americans/I], along with anyone who doesn't conform to their twisted view of the world. They didn't care if they were CIA agents stock brokers, janitors, or "beaurocrats". The Binladenist terrorists want me dead, the want my sister dead, they want my father dead, they want my mother dead, they want [I] all Americans dead!
Why doesn't this man seem to get that? Does he not read Bin Laden's "fatwhas"?

Has any official in the US government stated that it is the policy of the United States to kill all Muslims? Hardly, if that were the case I would not be around right now. :D

And if that man thinks that the same logic applies to him, why is he still here?
He is not saying Bin Ladin is right. He is only pointing out the results of a policy and the stardards by which the two events are guaged even though the actions are very similar in nature. Read post #5 again, and read his essay: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

[bdb85]

He is not saying Bin Ladin is right. He is only pointing out the results of a policy and the stardards by which the two events are guaged even though the actions are very similar in nature. Read post #5 again, and read his essay: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
No, but he IS saying that if American foreign policy was different, Bin Laden wouldn't have attacked us. Bin Laden is the kind of person who always has to hate someone, it is his raison d'etre. Do you seriously believe that even if America completely withdrew from the Middle East tomorrow, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would take their ball and go home? Of course not.
This is just baloney.Bin Laden's vendetta against Americans has nothing to do with foreign policy, he only uses this as a veil for his sick love-hate relationship with the power of the USA. He hates the amount of power America has, yet he also wishes he had that much power himself! The psychological term is "indentification with the agressor".
The policies of the USA did not CAUSE Bin Laden to attack the USA. If a woman was raped, would you agree if the rapist said she "deserved it" because her skirt was too short, or because she gave him a suggestive glance? Or if a person is mugged, its because they were carrying too much money, so they "deserved" it?
Thats the kind of logic this man is using.

[The_Other_Admin]

No, but he IS saying that if American foreign policy was different, Bin Laden wouldn't have attacked us.

If US policy Bin Laden had not been in the picture in the first place. Bin Laden, Taliban, and Al Quida is the result of the mess created by the US in Afghanistan in the first place.


Do you seriously believe that even if America completely withdrew from the Middle East tomorrow, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would take their ball and go home?
Well, it will pull the rug out under from Bin Laden's argument and recruitment.

[bdb85]

If US policy Bin Laden had not been in the picture in the first place. Bin Laden, Taliban, and Al Quida is the result of the mess created by the US in the first place.

You are correct. All came into being FIRSTLY out of opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It was the height of the Cold War, it was the policy of the US government to support anyone who was anti-Communist, and at the same time not openly anti-American (Bin Laden didn't start denouncing the USA until the mid-90's). It is the unfortunate by-product of short-sighted Cold War policy, I agree with you on that.
This still doesn't make the "beaurocrats" in the WTC "Nazi war criminals".

One could also say if it wasn't for the Saudi government; who expelled bin Laden to Afgahnistan in the first place, it would have never have happened either.

There are many different currents that contributed to the formation of Al Qaeda and Binladenism, some within the control of the US government and some that were not.

I still don't believe in blaming the victim.

[bdb85]

Well, it will pull the rug out under from Bin Laden's argument and recruitment.
Even if the US government did that, Bin Laden would find something else to harp on--most likely he would then moan about "CULTURAL imperialism" and demand that all US companies and personel leave the middle east, American TV and movies be banned, etc.
The appropriate response is neither over-kill agression and war, nor appeasement. It lies somewhere in between. There should be an agressive campaign against Al Qaeda ONLY and not actual nation-states like Iraq unless the leader of a particular nation state admits openly to harboring and supporting Al Qaeda.
On the other front, the US should use "soft power" (economic assistance, become a TRUE "honest broker" in the Israel-Palistinian conflict, pressure its allies to democratize more on their own, abliet gradually).
I feel I should condem extremists on both sides--both neoconservative hawks in the USA, and Binladenist terrorists in the ME.

[The_Other_Admin]

Ben, what you are saying is reasonable, and what I gather from his writings is not different from "I feel I should condem extremists on both sides--both neoconservative hawks in the USA, and Binladenist terrorists in the ME," however, in a different way. Some of the things in he says is an overdose for his arguments, nonetheless, he do raise some good points.



The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough – and it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior – the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no mystery to the US public. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day dissemination of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the exceedingly high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they knew.

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys" – or was it "sand niggers" that week? – in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance. It was a performance worthy of the nazis during the early months of their drive into Russia. And it should be borne in mind that Good Germans gleefully cheered that butchery, too. Indeed, support for Hitler suffered no serious erosion among Germany's "innocent civilians" until the defeat at Stalingrad in 1943.

There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was "unaware" of them. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay's assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html


Here is another interesting article: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_mickeyz.html



My sources tell me that U.S. intelligence has just uncovered a chilling pre-9/11 edict from Osama bin Laden on the topic of striking the infidels where it hurts:


“What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties...we must strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent.”

Actually, not only do I not have any “sources”, but that quote does not come courtesy of the reigning bogeyman...it’s a January 1, 1948 diary entry by one of Israel's founding fathers, David Ben-Gurion (talking about the Palestinians, of course).

It’s the singer, not the song...and when those crooning are Israeli, the tune they carry is never panned by the American corporate media. Golda Meir can declare, “There was no such thing as Palestinians; they never existed” while Menachem Begin can conversely admit the existence of Palestinians but paradoxically call them “beasts walking on two legs” and “cockroaches” but the H Word isn't uttered.

Thanks to Ward Churchill, we have a good idea of what provokes the H Word in today's McSociety. But is he really guilty of hate speech for what he said? In the end, that's a matter of opinion...but I do know what Churchill didn't say.

Ward Churchill didn't say this: “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.” That was George W. Bush, president of the United States of Advertisement....

[bdb85]

Let me deconstruct:

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

Is he aware Sadam Hussein put "human shields" around these facilities to make the US government look like it was targeting civillians? Is he also aware that when any facility that involves civillians is bombed by the US airforce, leaflets are dropped in the native language several hours, sometimes days, beforehand telling all civillians to "leave the area immediatley"?


If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough – and it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior

Ariel warfare was outlawed by the Great Powers of Europe in 1908. It was never signed by the United States. Nevertheless, isn't it safe to conclude that no nation ever followed this prohibition? Sorry, but its a fact of life international law is broken all the time by nations of all stripes.


– the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.\

Firstly, the sanctions were imposed by the UN, not the USA alone. So they were not "US-imposed". Thats just an outright lie. Secondly, the medicines he refers to can easily be made into all kinds of biological and chemical weapons. Thirdly, with regards to "nutrients", the Oil For Food Program was supposed to fix this--but it turned out to be corrupt as hell, with the UN getting kickbacks and Sadaam Hussein using the money that was supposed to go to his people to build lavish palaces.


All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

What about the gassing of the Kurds, the Iran-Iraq war, Sadaam's disasterous "Arab Socialist" economic policy? How people were killed then? He fails to mention this.


The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no mystery to the US public. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day dissemination of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the exceedingly high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they knew.

The two Bush's: his favorite straw men. GWB is an awful President; yes, but saying he is the source of all misery in the world (as he suggests) is a little much.


In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys" – or was it "sand niggers" that week? – in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance. It was a performance worthy of the nazis during the early months of their drive into Russia. And it should be borne in mind that Good Germans gleefully cheered that butchery, too. Indeed, support for Hitler suffered no serious erosion among Germany's "innocent civilians" until the defeat at Stalingrad in 1943.

I never heard any American with a high school diploma and an IQ over 90 refer to Arabs as "Sand niggers" or "towelheads". How often does this guy get out of his University, anyway? And any good debator knows the first person to use Hitler or the Nazis in an argument admits he is intellectualy bakrupt, period. (This goes for the two Bush's with their arguments against Sadaam as well, he was evil but couldn't be compared to Hitler!).


There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

Um, actually it was the British and French who led the way in demonizing the German people. Sorry, too many Americans are of German descent (such as myself) for that to happen to any extent here. But; hey, two wrongs make a right--so lets demonize the American people too!


If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

Another red herring. Hitler Hitler Hitler. Nazis Nazis Nazis. Can't this guy be original? Refer to my statement on the Oil for Food Program to see how noble the UN is. Governments are corrupt--national AND international ones. IT should also be noted American taxpayers fund 60% of the UN budget.


One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was "unaware" of them. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay's assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.
The UN is just as corrupt as the US government, sorry. Genocide? Genocide is the deliberate extermination of a race. If this were the policy of the USA, the US government would have done a better job of it--we have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world seven times. If that is what we wanted, we wouldn't mess around. Obviously, that wasn't the objective here.

Im not even going to address his waving the bloody shirt of Israel, you know I condem their policy unconditionally, and as Muslims grow in numbers in the US and have more influence in the American polity, we will be able to influence US policy towards Israel and make it more even-handed.

And you won't find me defending GWB's stupidity and his sick messianic complex, either.

Awful? Yes. Bad Policy? yes. short-sighted? yes. genocide and hitler? NO

[bdb85]

I disagree with my government, I disagree with my President, but calling someone a Nazi, demonizing the US government by implying it is the sole source of evil in the world, is uncivilized and beyond the pale.

He trows around those words like spitballs.

But if the US government was really like Nazi Germany, wouldn't he be in a conentration camp by now? Instead, hes basking in the glow of constant media attention. By being able to speak so freely without being shot or placed in prison proves that the US government hardly resembles the Third Reich.

Calling this holocaust or a genocide is an insult to our intellgence, and to the survivors of that awful crime.

And I wonder, since that man thinks the US likes to kill Muslims for fun, what he thinks of the actions in Kosovo and Bosnia where the US prevented a REAL genocide against European Muslims by Serbia?

[syedhs]

I disagree with my government, I disagree with my President, but calling someone a Nazi, demonizing the US government by implying it is the sole source of evil in the world, is uncivilized and beyond the pale.

He trows around those words like spitballs.

But if the US government was really like Nazi Germany, wouldn't he be in a conentration camp by now? Instead, hes basking in the glow of constant media attention. By being able to speak so freely without being shot or placed in prison proves that the US government hardly resembles the Third Reich.

Calling this holocaust or a genocide is an insult to our intellgence, and to the survivors of that awful crime.

And I wonder, since that man thinks the US likes to kill Muslims for fun, what he thinks of the actions in Kosovo and Bosnia where the US prevented a REAL genocide against European Muslims by Serbia?

Salam BDB85,

I agree with the rest of what you said, except for the last paragraph. As a matter of fact, for more than a year, genocide, killings on Bosnian had been ongoing without any real intervention.. then the world comes to rescue. One should ponder why it took sooo long for USA to come in? Why is it no so in the case of Kuwait invasion by Iraq? The partial answer to this is INTEREST.

[bdb85]

I agree with the rest of what you said, except for the last paragraph. As a matter of fact, for more than a year, genocide, killings on Bosnian had been ongoing without any real intervention.. then the world comes to rescue. One should ponder why it took sooo long for USA to come in? Why is it no so in the case of Kuwait invasion by Iraq? The partial answer to this is INTEREST.

Oh I definitley think oil has something to do with the longer time it took for action in the Balkans, all nations always act firstly in their own interest, and secondly out of humanitarian care (usually to put a better face on the economic motive).

I think a much better anology for what US foreign policy looks like would be that of British Imperialism, rather than German Nazism.

BTW, as a side, this isn't the first time Ex-Professor C. got in trouble--he was suspended previously for fabricating historical figures about the Native Americans; and in addition he is an AVOWED atheist! Who can we give any credence to him at all?

If you want to read about the ill-effects of a short-sighted (but not intentionally evil) US foreign policy, read "Terrorism and Tyranny" by James Brovard. Mr. Brovard points out the terrible mistakes about American foreign policy, and points out correctly who the government has in the past 40 years betrayed the American people and traditional American principles with their foreign policy.

His broadsides against Bush are even more damning because he himself is a conservative and a Republican (President Bush's party).

[bdb85]

I agree with the rest of what you said, except for the last paragraph. As a matter of fact, for more than a year, genocide, killings on Bosnian had been ongoing without any real intervention.. then the world comes to rescue. One should ponder why it took sooo long for USA to come in? Why is it no so in the case of Kuwait invasion by Iraq? The partial answer to this is INTEREST.

Oh I definitley think oil has something to do with the longer time it took for action in the Balkans, all nations always act firstly in their own interest, and secondly out of humanitarian care (usually to put a better face on the economic motive).

I think a much better anology for what US foreign policy looks like would be that of British Imperialism, rather than German Nazism.

BTW, as a side, this isn't the first time Ex-Professor C. got in trouble--he was suspended previously for fabricating historical figures about the Native Americans; and in addition he is an AVOWED atheist! He also lacks a PhD, which makes one wonder why he was ever a full professor at all. Who can we give any credence to him at all?

With regards to free speech, the US Supreme Court in 1914 ruled that obscenity, pornography, and false warnings of imminent danger are not protected by the first amendment (i.e. someone yelling FIRE in a crowded theater, when there is in fact no fire). I think two out of three apply to the ex-professor's remarks.

If you want to read about the ill-effects of a short-sighted (but not intentionally evil) US foreign policy, read "Terrorism and Tyranny" by James Brovard. Mr. Brovard points out the terrible mistakes about American foreign policy, and points out correctly who the government has in the past 40 years betrayed the American people and traditional American principles with their foreign policy.

His broadsides against Bush are even more damning because he himself is a conservative and a Republican (President Bush's party).