ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Saddam's gift to the world

  1. #1
    Guest
    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=31444

    Posted: March 15, 2003
    1:00 a.m. Eastern


    2003 WorldNetDaily.com


    Saddam Hussein's greatest gift to the world may well be the collapse of the United Nations. The impasse in the Security Council over what the words "serious consequences" mean in resolution 1441, is highly visible evidence that the U.N., as the world's peacekeeper, is totally irrelevant.

    In its preamble, the U.N. Charter says it was formed to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." The truth is, that the U.N. has done more to prevent peace, than to prevent war. In its entire history, the U.N. Security Council has voted to authorize military intervention only three times: in Korea, in the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and in the 2002 intervention in Afghanistan all at the request of the United States.

    While hundreds of thousands of people were being hacked to death in Rwanda, the U.N. talked, but did nothing. While ethnic cleansing was occurring in the Balkans, the U.N. talked, but did nothing. The chronology of slaughter during the life of the U.N. is inescapable evidence of the U.N.'s abject failure to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

    Saddam's refusal to comply with 18 U.N. resolutions shines the spotlight of reality on the U.N.'s irrelevance. This unintended gift from Saddam, allows us to get on with making the world a safer place for all.

    Since it is now abundantly clear that the world cannot look to the U.N., the United States has no choice but to accept the role it has played since World War II. Like it or not, we are the world's policemen. It is time to stop wasting resources at the U.N., in hopes it will be what it can never become.

    The attack on the World Trade Center has forever changed the foundation of U.S. foreign policy. The U.N.'s spectacular failure forces the United States to look to the future from a new perspective: national defense first, and advancement of U.S. national interests.

    To achieve both of these objectives, friendly, cooperative relations with all nations that share these objectives is a must. After all, these are the same objectives that virtually every nation pursues. More than 20 nations have signed on to support America's efforts in Iraq, even without U.N. support, because they realize that our goals advance their national interests and promote their national defense.

    France, Germany, Russia and China choose not to support the U.S. effort because the elimination of Saddam Hussein will not advance their national interests. So be it.

    The United States cannot look to the U.N. to provide solutions to the rising North Korean conflict nor to the rising conflict with Iran. Using the same principle that has guided the Bush administration in dealing with Iraq military power as the last resort the U.S. should exhaust diplomatic efforts to help end the nuclear threat posed by both of these nations. At the end of the day, the United States should be prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent their anticipated weapons of mass destruction from ever being used.

    It will take perhaps a decade for the world to realize that we are entering a new, post-U.N. era. The only way America can prove to the world that we are not the "great Satan," as taught by Saddam and Osama, is to demonstrate the principles of freedom at home, and in our relationships with the nations that want our help.

    We cannot leave Afghanistan to fall victim to the next, most powerful warlord. We need to help them discover the principles of freedom on which to build democratic institutions that ensure self governance by the people. The Iraqis long to escape the iron fist of tyranny which has enslaved them for generations. It is in our self-interest to help them.

    Freedom, as America has demonstrated, is the best hope for peace and prosperity in the world.

    The U.N. has never been about freedom. It has always been about amassing the power to control world events. When government controls the people whether the government is a Saddam, the Taliban or a world government there is no freedom. Freedom can exist only when people control their government through an orderly process which results in policies the people want, administered by officials the people choose. Freedom requires a system that allows the people to change their leaders, without bloodshed, whenever they wish.

    President Bush believes that "Freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is God's gift to humanity." This is the principle that should guide our post-9/11, post-U.N. foreign policy.

  2. #2
    Guest
    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=31444

    Posted: March 15, 2003
    1:00 a.m. Eastern


    2003 WorldNetDaily.com


    Saddam Hussein's greatest gift to the world may well be the collapse of the United Nations. The impasse in the Security Council over what the words "serious consequences" mean in resolution 1441, is highly visible evidence that the U.N., as the world's peacekeeper, is totally irrelevant.

    In its preamble, the U.N. Charter says it was formed to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." The truth is, that the U.N. has done more to prevent peace, than to prevent war. In its entire history, the U.N. Security Council has voted to authorize military intervention only three times: in Korea, in the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and in the 2002 intervention in Afghanistan all at the request of the United States.

    While hundreds of thousands of people were being hacked to death in Rwanda, the U.N. talked, but did nothing. While ethnic cleansing was occurring in the Balkans, the U.N. talked, but did nothing. The chronology of slaughter during the life of the U.N. is inescapable evidence of the U.N.'s abject failure to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."

    Saddam's refusal to comply with 18 U.N. resolutions shines the spotlight of reality on the U.N.'s irrelevance. This unintended gift from Saddam, allows us to get on with making the world a safer place for all.

    Since it is now abundantly clear that the world cannot look to the U.N., the United States has no choice but to accept the role it has played since World War II. Like it or not, we are the world's policemen. It is time to stop wasting resources at the U.N., in hopes it will be what it can never become.

    The attack on the World Trade Center has forever changed the foundation of U.S. foreign policy. The U.N.'s spectacular failure forces the United States to look to the future from a new perspective: national defense first, and advancement of U.S. national interests.

    To achieve both of these objectives, friendly, cooperative relations with all nations that share these objectives is a must. After all, these are the same objectives that virtually every nation pursues. More than 20 nations have signed on to support America's efforts in Iraq, even without U.N. support, because they realize that our goals advance their national interests and promote their national defense.

    France, Germany, Russia and China choose not to support the U.S. effort because the elimination of Saddam Hussein will not advance their national interests. So be it.

    The United States cannot look to the U.N. to provide solutions to the rising North Korean conflict nor to the rising conflict with Iran. Using the same principle that has guided the Bush administration in dealing with Iraq military power as the last resort the U.S. should exhaust diplomatic efforts to help end the nuclear threat posed by both of these nations. At the end of the day, the United States should be prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent their anticipated weapons of mass destruction from ever being used.

    It will take perhaps a decade for the world to realize that we are entering a new, post-U.N. era. The only way America can prove to the world that we are not the "great Satan," as taught by Saddam and Osama, is to demonstrate the principles of freedom at home, and in our relationships with the nations that want our help.

    We cannot leave Afghanistan to fall victim to the next, most powerful warlord. We need to help them discover the principles of freedom on which to build democratic institutions that ensure self governance by the people. The Iraqis long to escape the iron fist of tyranny which has enslaved them for generations. It is in our self-interest to help them.

    Freedom, as America has demonstrated, is the best hope for peace and prosperity in the world.

    The U.N. has never been about freedom. It has always been about amassing the power to control world events. When government controls the people whether the government is a Saddam, the Taliban or a world government there is no freedom. Freedom can exist only when people control their government through an orderly process which results in policies the people want, administered by officials the people choose. Freedom requires a system that allows the people to change their leaders, without bloodshed, whenever they wish.

    President Bush believes that "Freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is God's gift to humanity." This is the principle that should guide our post-9/11, post-U.N. foreign policy.

  3. #3
    Guest
    In fact the distruction of the U.N. is only due to the bully and open obsession of the U.S. to go to unnecessary wars. You may want to flip things to suit your ***, but facts are facts and only a country stupid as America won't want to recognize them!

  4. #4
    Guest
    Amen!

  5. #5
    Guest
    whatever

  6. #6
    Guest
    horrible article... god's gift to the world... jeee... why didn't I think of that, hm, Bush must be god then!

    The neanderthals that are occupieying the world today are not ready for a homo sapien sapien U.N. that's the problem!

  7. #7
    Guest
    The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

    It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

    But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

    Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

    "You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

    Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

    Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

    To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

    Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

    Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

    Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

    His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

    Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

    He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

    His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

    To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

    But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

    With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

    It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time."

    Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

    In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

    To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

    Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

    A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

    As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.
    February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

    Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

    We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

    Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

    Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

    Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

    To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

Similar Threads

  1. Gift of Obama to entire WORLD !!!
    By a9b3h5 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-23-2009, 01:27 PM
  2. Saddam's death verdict
    By macyuhoo in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 11-19-2006, 11:16 AM
  3. Report: Saddam has chronic prostate infection
    By Julie in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-29-2004, 11:33 PM
  4. World Immigration: World News
    By E. in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-29-2004, 12:12 PM
  5. Charges against Saddam:
    By kjv62803 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-06-2004, 11:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: