By Risto Karajkov, Osservatorio sui Balcani, Rovereto, Italy, August 13, 2008

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the exodus of the “refugee children” from Aegean Macedonia (Northern Greece). The “children,” who are now elderly, gathered from all over the world in Skopje in July to commemorate.

Their story is a sad one. They fled their homes amid a raging civil war and grew up separated from parents and siblings. When they became adults, they could not return to their native Greece or claim their land. For the first time ever, their demands were endorsed by the Macedonian government this year.

Some 25,000-30,000 children were exiled from Northern Greece in the later phase of its civil war, which raged 1945-1949. Most of them, according to Macedonian historians, were of Macedonian ethnic origin, whereas several thousand were Greek. They were evacuated by the Greek Communist Party, which was one of the sides in the conflict, and were sent to “democratic” communist countries in the Eastern bloc. Many of the children stayed in Macedonia and the other republics in former Yugoslavia. Others went to Hungary, Romania, Poland, and other communist countries.

The motive was essentially humanitarian in nature, to have the children safe from war, and by doing that to ease the mobilization of their parents as combatants.

Some historians yet claim otherwise—that even in that humanitarian operation there was an ulterior motive of ethnic cleansing.

After having been exiled from Greece, some of these children were brought back in the last phases of the war—as child soldiers. They were taken from their dorms in the allied communist countries, trained in camps in former Yugoslavia, and sent to the front. Poland was the only country that did not allow the recruitment of children it hosted.

Once they became a little older, many of the refugee children scattered in the migrant-friendly lands of America, Canada, and Australia.

When they fled they were told they would return shortly, immediately after the victory. Alas, they never did.

In the post-war years, their Greek citizenship had been revoked and their properties in Greece confiscated. For half a century they could not enter Greece. Those who attempted were returned from the border. In the 1980’s Greece passed legislation allowing the return only of those who are “Greek by origin.” Several years ago Athens made a concession allowing the entry of those who would not have the Macedonian toponym of their village of birth written in their passports.

For all of these years the “refugee children” have demanded the right to go back and the restitution of their property.

“We call upon the Greek government, in the name of historic justice and human rights as universal value, to face the unsustainable policy of the past. We want to be able to return to our homeland and we want abolition of the discriminatory laws which deny our rights,” said the refugees in a statement from their meeting in Skopje in July.

Several thousand refugees gathered from all over the world in the newly built Boris Trajkovski Hall. The event was greeted by the president of the Macedonian Parliament, Trajko Veljanovski.

This is the first time that any official endorsement was given by the Macedonian government to the refugees. At the same time, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski wrote letters to Greek Prime Minister Konstantin Karamanlis and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso asking for recognition of the unrecognized Macedonian minority in Greece.

There has been a lot of debate in the Macedonian press recently over the possibility of legal action for the restitution of refugee property in Greece.

The Association of Refugee Children from Aegean Macedonia has recently filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Apart from that, no individual petitions for property restitution have been reported. Some news reports operate with a number of around 4,000 claims that have allegedly already been received by a coordination initiative run from Skopje. Yet, experts claim that carrying such an initiative through Greek courts could prove a challenge. Some suggest exploring the possibility of taking legal action in courts in other countries. Legal experts further indicate that the provision in Greek law that only “Greeks by origin” are entitled to restitution of property is not in accordance with international standards.

“The Nuremberg principles [adopted in 1946] which are now legislation in more than 80 countries,” says Sam Vaknin, an economist, “are not concerned with the ethnicity or the ‘origin’ of the refugees. If their property was seized, it is not important if they were listed as Bulgarian or even if they were or were not Greek citizens.”

An Israeli citizen who lives in Skopje, Vaknin makes comparisons to the Jewish experience in obtaining compensation for the suffering during the World War II. According to him it is important that “Macedonia becomes the home state of the refugees [to give citizenship to those who do not have it], and to become their legal protector.” That is to say, the government should get involved and stand behind these legal proceedings.

This is something all Macedonian governments have been shying away from since independence. Under Greek pressure in the early 1990’s, Macedonia changed the provision in its constitution committing to care for its kin in neighboring states. With all the complexity of the name issue and Greek consistent claims of Macedonian irredentism, it is clear why subsequent governments in Macedonia have chosen not to get involved. It would have been the ultimate shortcut for worsening relations with Greece.

After the signing of the interim accord in 1995, which ended the Greek embargo, for 13 subsequent years relations between the two countries have been improving, Greek investment followed, and the name issue was stashed under the carpet. A perfect way to resolve it, many thought. All until the beginning of this year and the NATO summit, when Greece vetoed Macedonia’s entry over the name issue.

For years after their exile there had been consistent attempts to reunite refugee children, scattered the world over with their families. Some succeeded. Some never did. In some cases it took decades for a brother and sister to meet.

The Macedonians in Greece were manipulated by Tito and the Yugoslav leadership at the time, says historian Todor Cepreganov, director of the Institute of National History in Skopje. “They entered the war deceived by promises of ‘Macedonian unification’ made by the Yugoslav leadership, which also had its eyes on Trieste and Istria.”

Cepreganov says that Tito and Tempo (Svetozar Vukmanovic) were promising “unification” to the Macedonians as a mode for achieving their idea of domination in the Balkans. In this way they simply manipulated them for Stalin’s global and Tito’s regional interests.

From Osservatorio sui Balcani.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Writes: Bruce Barnbaum - Granite Falls, Wash.

‘Panic thinking’ about gas prices stalls progress

When panic sets in, thinking ends. After Sept. 11, 2001, the American public fell for the lies about Iraq being a major threat to the U.S. and supported the invasion. Panic ruled the day. It has taken years for a majority of the public to turn against the unjustified war.

Today, with gasoline prices hovering around $4 per gallon, the public is again in the throes of panic-thinking. This phrase, of course, is an oxymoron, for there is no thinking when panic takes hold.

After years of sensibly opposing offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because of its potential effect on the environment, panic is pushing the public toward support of such drilling.

Studies show that opening those areas to drilling would have no significant effect on gasoline prices for at least 10 years. At that time, the effect of drilling in Alaska would save roughly 2 cents per gallon at the pump, along with possible devastating oil spills. Of course, by then gasoline could be $10 per gallon or more.

Obviously, drilling would do nothing to lower prices. But when panic takes over, people cannot see facts or common sense. It matters little what the issue is. Panic trumps thinking every time.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Since yesterday, when John McBOMB’s chief economic adviser, the “Whining” Phil ‘McGramOfPot’ Gramm got thrown under the straight-talk express wreckage, McCain and Bush have been pivoting towards Obama’s positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, shamelessly trying to camouflage their moves with “benchMURK” talking points like a “general time horizon” for withdrawal from Iraq.

   Pic Courtesy: seedsofdoubt.com

Obama has consistently stated that he wants the U.S. to start withdrawing from Iraq for re-deployment in Afghanistan within sixteen months.

As Obama landed in Afghanistan today, the German magazine newspaper “Der Spiegel” reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told them that he supported Barack Obama’s proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months, essentially endorsing Obama, and slapping Bush upside the head.

al-Maliki said: “U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Asked if he supported Obama’s ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for….”Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems.”

Meanwhile, the White House said on Friday George W. Bush and Maliki had agreed that a security deal under negotiation should set a “time horizon” for meeting “aspirational goals” for reducing U.S. forces in Iraq.

In a speech earlier this week, Obama promised to commit at least two more combat brigades - up to 10,000 men - to Afghanistan, if he wins November’s election. He also said the US military should focus on that country rather than Iraq.

Copycat McCain upped the ante — to 3 brigades. Asked where he would get the troops while bogged in his “100 year Iraq war,” McCain said: “We need to work that out. We need to have greater participation on the part of our NATO allies, as I said in my opening remarks today and we need a lot more help.”

NATO Allies? You mean your cousins in Great Britain?

To the best of my knowledge the Brits are not thrilled at all with this illegal war.

In a campaign stop McCain said: “I know how to win wars. And if I’m elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq.”

And my question is: Which WAR has McCain ever won?

Being caged like an animal in Vietnam — another illegal war that America lost, is not winning, in my opinion.

In Vietnam 2,000,000+ civilian lives were lost, most from South Vietnam. 58,000+ American soldiers also lost their lives in the war.

Just like in Iraq, U.S. military personnel often went on civilian killing rampages — For example:

Nixonian cover-ups and protests followed world wide.

The Vietnam war started because American president Eisenhower did not want “communism to spread throughout the world” and eventually to America. Essentially the U.S. was asked by France, via NATO, to keep the communists from “taking over” the French “Colonial” Territory — Vietnam. A European colonialist (France) asked Neo-European-Colonialist (America) to help it maintain a grip on it’s illegally acquired colony, resulting in Vietnam being split into two, and causing Vietnamese to slit each others throats — just like the Shia and the Sunni have been doing in Iraq — the fruits of an illegal OIL war.

Of late, the U.S has been bribing the Sunnis with the almighty Dollar — hence the “artificial peace.”

“Fear of Communism,”…”Fear of Muslims,”…”Fear of The Obama-Fist-Bump,”…”Fear of Islamo-Fascists,”…”Fear of Black Panthers,”…”Fear of Foreign Languages,”… “Fear of Mexican Immigrants,”…”Fear of a Black President,”…”Fear of Imaginary ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction‘” …RING A BELL?

Lynch them ALL!……AGAIN and AGAIN!

Hallelujah,… Sweet Home Alabama!

That’s what the criminal ‘High Cabal‘ a.k.a The Republican Party has drafted John McCain For — To beat up, lynch, burn, bomb, steal-oil-from and dominate everyone who does not toe the line.

“You are either with us or against us.” — George Bush, November 6, 2001

The world and many Americans are tired of this Moronic Cowboy Republican Dictatorship, and Obama is a much needed fresh face. The whole world is desperately “Clinging To Obama,” and his current tour will only serve to stamp that point.

Contrary to what the right-wing thugs hope — Obama will shine in the Middle-East and in Europe, and will come home fortified and ready to thump McCain’s sorry ass in November — thoroughly well, with or without Hillary Clinton’s racist and un-principled “Angry-White-Whore” army.

   [Enlarge Image]


   Pic Courtesy: seedsofdoubt.com

Popularity: 13% [?]

Bush’s Mideast Dishonor

Writes: Sami Moubayed, in Damascus, Syria

I don’t think Bush needs to strengthen his legacy. It has already been deeply engraved in the history of the Middle East. George W. Bush has in fact ruined the Middle East.

No words can describe my anger at what the United States has tolerated or promoted in the Middle East under the Bush White House. The list is long: the war on Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Falluja, Mosul, the war on Lebanon, Qana, and not to forget, the circus in Palestine, the killing in Jenin, and the siege in Gaza, topped with the elimination of Yasser Arafat, a democratically elected leader. These images have always reminded me of Sept. 11, 2001. The blood of these children—in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq—is no less valuable than that of Americans killed at the Twin Towers. Many Americans have been sending me “hate mail” recently, saying that the Bush Administration has been good to the Arabs and is trying to bring peace, security, and democracy to the Middle East. Sorry to tell them that this White House will be remembered for Abu Ghraib. It will be remembered for the atrocities in Gaza. It will be remembered for Qana.

Bush has perhaps single-handedly re-written the history of the Middle East—certainly against our will. This history has been very bloody and embarrassing for America, and it will affect America’s image for generations to come. Allow me to quote the former and legendary U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, who spoke to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862 saying: “Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. The fiery trail through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.”

In our part of the world, Bush has marched into history in great dishonor.

Each country singled out by the White House as a haven for democracy and progress has been ruined, beyond imagination, by his policies in the Arab World. America’s image has been perverted, distorted, and tarnished beyond repair in the minds of the millions of Arabs and non-Arabs who are disgusted by all the bloodshed we are seeing in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon.

Everybody in the Arab World holds Bush responsible for all of this madness, along with prime ministers Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert. I always wanted to write to the U.S. President and tell him: “Think for a minute, Mr. President, about how history will refer to you 100 years from now. Will you be ranked among great men like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt? What have they done for America and what have you achieved? Washington achieved independence for America. Lincoln fought the Civil War. Wilson won World War I and Roosevelt defeated Hitler in World War II. You ruined the image of your forefathers—the great men who founded and created the modern United States.”

To a mother whose child was killed in Qana, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Bush, will all be viewed as criminals. A grief-stricken person will not differentiate between good and evil, or right and wrong. He or she will hold America responsible for the death of their loved ones. I personally have high admiration for the American presidents mentioned above. They were strong leaders with talent, principle, and character. Bush is responsible for ruining their image in the Arab World.

To prove my point, I repeat a phrase that I have used over and over again since 2004, quoting Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts who said: “To many people in the Middle East, the symbol of America is not the Statue of Liberty but a prisoner standing on a box wearing a dark cape, a dark hood on his head, afraid he is going to be electrocuted.”

Many discussions were held by American policymakers and intellectuals in the United States, after September 11, on one question: “Why do they hate us?” The answer can be summarized with one simple phrase: “Favoritism towards Israel.” What happened over the last eight years—in Palestine and Lebanon—was an unforgivable crime committed by Israel, under the watchful eye of the United States, thanks to Bush.

I received a very large amount of “hate mail” from Americans and pro-Israeli readers over the last few years in response to the series of articles I have written against the Israeli War on Lebanon, which coincides with July 12, 2008.

These readers were enraged by my condemnation of the United States and Israel, claiming that the “war on terror” was correct and justified. One reader wrote: “You are an ungrateful man and I am done reading your site” because of what I had just written about Israel and the United States.

At the same time, I received many, many e-mails from Arab readers who supported my arguments, saying that Bush’s bias against the Arabs was “an unforgivable crime”—in every sense of the world.

I happen to personally know many of the Arab readers with whom I have communicated. They are not turbaned and bearded fanatics who roam the world with guns, wanting to destroy Israel and the United States. Rather they are fine, Westernized, American-educated and highly cultured Arab men and women (many are actually not even Muslims) who have never carried a gun in their life. One addressed the Bush administration and cursed its policy-makers saying that they have “abused the names of the great men of American history.”

The colossal difference in views, and the accumulating anger on both sides, makes dialogue and understanding extremely difficult—especially in times of war; especially under George W. Bush.

One reader commented on my work, saying that he was “disgusted” because I was “demonizing the U.S. for trying to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East.” He added, “If you are too ignorant and too stupid to see that, then maybe you aren’t worth U.S. blood and gold.” Another reader added, and I quote him at length: “Go buddy up with Syria, go buddy up with Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran, and go live in a piece of … world that glorifies suicide bombing by children, glorifies naked anti-Semitism and ignorance of the Holocaust, ‘honor kills their women and forces them to wear burkhas. Go ahead and chose to keep your part of the world uneducated, unemployed, and hopeless. Go ahead and chose to keep the Middle East the gutter of the world while America has the compassion to try and help you by removing the cancer affecting your region.”

In response, I write: What blood and what gold were spilled and paid by the Americans for the Arab World? I am astonished that an educated American would think in such a manner. America did not come to this part of the world to tutor or to educate. This is the biggest falsification brought to the world by President Bush.

Iraq was destroyed and looted under the Americans. There are over 10 people dying per day in America’s Iraq—so much for democracy and education. At one point it was more than 35 people dying per day in Iraq, meaning that more than one death occurs per hour in the “new and democratic Iraq.”

At one point more than 1,500 died per month in America’s Iraq. Mass graves—all created after Saddam Hussein, have been found in America’s Iraq, dug up by the Iraqis themselves under America’s watchful eye. Death squads are free to roam the streets, killing Iraqis by night.

Five years after the US invasion of Iraq, one cannot but wonder how the Americans missed a golden opportunity to create a secure democracy in the country to replace the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Optimists in the Arab world, especially pro-Western and particularly pro-American Arabs, defended the United States until curtain fall, saying that it truly would root out terrorism from Iraq, and bring both stability and democracy to the Iraqi people.

Every one of those beliefs has been shattered - over and over again, since March 2003. As Iraq enters its sixth year since 2003, it is safe to ask: what has been achieved? What can I describe as American “compassion” towards the Arabs?

Apart from the downfall of Saddam, not a single achievement is noteworthy in Iraq. The country today is a “democracy” in civil war - a democracy where human life is being wasted, along with the dreams and security of the Iraqi people. Inasmuch as free elections are a great asset of which all oppressed people dream, they mean nothing if security is lacking.

History will not remember the free elections that took place in January and December 2005 as much as it will remember the notorious pictures of the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The killings and the death squads that haunt the streets of Iraq will live much longer in the minds of Iraqi people than the image of Saddam’s statue falling in Baghdad.

American soldiers torturing (Lynching) Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison
[Click on PICS to enlarge image]

Bush’s America did not come to democratize the Iraqis. It came to expand its sphere of influence, replace that of the former USSR, control the rise of political Islam, rebuild the Iraq it had destroyed, make use of Iraq’s oil wealth, and safeguard the security of Israel. Must I remind my American reader of the scandals of Abu Ghraib? Those pictures alone show how much compassion the Americans have for the Arabs. Must I remind him of the killing of 24 Iraqis in cold blood by U.S. marines at Haditha in November 2005 or of the killing of 11 Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops in the village of Ishaqi in March 2006?

The Arabs remember too clearly that it was the Americans who initially supported Saddam Hussein’s rise to power in 1979, simply because he challenged Iran. It was the Americans who orchestrated the first coup d’etat in Syria in 1949, toppling the democratically elected president Shukri al-Quwatli and replacing him with General Husni al-Za’im, a stooge of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), because the latter promised to respond to U.S. needs in the Middle East. These were mainly a crackdown on communism, a ceasefire with Israel, and privileges to Tapline, a U.S. oil company.

The fact that Quwatli had been democratically elected by his people meant nothing to the CIA, the White House or the Pentagon in 1949. The fact that Yasser Arafat, another democratically elected president, was besieged to his office in 2001-2004 also meant nothing to the Americans who said that he was “irrelevant” and completely ignored him—along with the will and choice of the Palestinian people, because he refused to become an American stooge in the Middle East.

The Americans must give to win the trust of the Arabs.

Arabs will only begin to have faith in the U.S. and the Bush White House when peace is brought to the Palestinians, security is maintained in Iraq, and American statesmen show more interest in real Arab domestic issues and democracy.

The Americans have also failed to portray themselves as honest brokers in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the cornerstone of grievances to the Arab majority. The real problem that the Americans fail to understand is not Arafat, nor terrorism, nor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but land and freedom for the Palestinians. Once that is secured, a majority of Arabs will start to trust America.

The road to peace in the Middle East runs through Jerusalem, not Baghdad. On the issue of Palestine, there is consensus among the 200 million Arabs. Since September 2000, more than 50,000 people have been left homeless in Gaza alone. The Occupied Territories currently suffer from 40 percent unemployment, and in Gaza alone it is over 50 percent. When the intifada broke out in 2000, the poverty rate was 21 percent, and by December 2002 it had increased to 60 percent. In Gaza, poverty today is estimated at over 80 percent.

Due to terrible conditions, food consumption in the Occupied Territories has dropped by 25 percent, and half of the population currently lives off United Nations aid. Malnutrition among infants is 22 percent, the highest in the region, matched only in the Sahara Desert.

The Israeli Defense Army has generated losses in Palestinian infrastructure estimated at U.S.$1.7 billion in 2002 alone. And that number is likely to increase, given the U.S. alliance with Israel and its generous donation of arms and money. When former secretary of state Collin Powell announced his plan for “democracy in the Middle East” in late 2003, he promised $29 million to promote a democratic culture to the Arabs. Whereas at the start of 2004, the White House gave Israel $300 million in donations to “help combat terrorism.”

In an interview with the Israeli daily Yediot Aharanot, Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice once said, “I first visited Israel in 2000. I felt I was returning home, despite the fact that this was a place I have never visited. I have a deep affinity with Israel. I have always admired the history of the state of Israel and the hardness and determination of the people that founded it.” — Read: The tragic futility of Condoleezza Rice

No remark could have a worse effect on the inhabitants of the Middle East. Rice wrote her doctoral dissertation on the Cold War era and the USSR, and although she has a prestigious background in academia, she sadly has not read her Middle East history correctly. To the Arab street she is trying to appeal to today, the “founders” that she admires in Israel are nothing but invaders who realized early on that in order to survive they must uproot, kill and terrorize the Arabs and Palestinians.

Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s colonial department, said in 1940, “We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way [other] than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them! Not one village, not one tribe should be left.”

In 1948, there were 475 villages in Palestine, 385 of which were bulldozed to the ground by Israel.

In 1938, the “founder” Ben Gurion told the World Council of Poale Zion, “The boundaries of Zionist aspirations include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s trans-Jordan, all of the West Bank and Sinai.” Ten years later, as premier of Israel, he said, “Our aim is to smash Lebanon, trans-Jordan and Syria. We shall establish a Christian state [in Lebanon], and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate trans-Jordan, then Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” (Taken from “Ben Gurion: A Biography,” written in 1986 by Michael Bar Zohar). These words have had more of an impact on Arabs, even those who are moderate and Westernized, than the democratic promises of Rice.

As an African-American who grew up inspired by the American Revolution against colonialism, and as someone who has read, if not memorized the Bill of Rights of the U.S. constitution, how can Rice admire a people uprooting, terrorizing and “smashing” another people? — Read: Lynchings in America — A History Not Known By Many — An hereditary trait that fully explains Abu Ghraib

   1935 lynching of Rubin Stacy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

   1919 lynching William Brown in Douglas County, Nebraska

   1936 lynching of Lint Shaw in Royston, Georgia

This is a question asked all over the Middle East, shedding a lot of doubt on Rice’s credibility when talking about democratizing the Arab World, and the support she has from her President. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the trinity that holds the U.S. together and defines its democracy, yet it has not been applied by the U.S.—Bush’s America—when dealing with the Middle East.

To make things clear to readers: I am not opposed to peace with Israel nor am I anti-Semite. One of my closest friends during childhood and young adulthood had a Damascene Jewish mother. She was a remarkable lady. I am someone who sees no difference between Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and Baha’is. All of them have the right to live in peace and security. When Arafat signed Oslo in 1993, I was one of those who strongly supported him. I still think it was the bravest decision he ever took in his life. Oslo was ruined not because of Arafat but because of the outbreak of the intifada on Sept. 28, 2000. The outbreak of violence started after Ariel Sharon’s provocation in visiting the al-Aqsa Mosque. A circle of violence started after that, and all hell broke loose in the Middle East after Sept. 11, 2001. Give me a peace-wanting government in the United States and I will support Syrian-Israeli, or Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. One of my favorite quotes was made by Yitzhak Rabin in 1993, during the signing of Oslo. He said, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to love, and a time to hate; A time for war, and a time for peace.”

That was 15 years ago. These administrations, thanks to Bush, Olmert, and Rice, have spread nothing but destruction, setting Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine—and now possibly Iran—ablaze. That is their legacy. They have not surpassed “a time to hate, and a time for war.” They kept us at a “time to kill and a time to die” never bringing us a “time to heal, a time to laugh, a time to love, and a time for peace.”

Note: The picture illustrations, supporting links and anchor text to external resources are by PoliticalArticles.NET.

   [Enlarge Picture]
About The Author: Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst and historian based in Damascus, Syria. Moubayed is the author of “Damascus Between Democracy and Dictatorship (2000)” and “Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900-2000 (2006).” He has also authored a biography of Syria’s former President Shukri al-Quwatli and currently serves as Associate Professor at the Faculty of International Relations at al-Kalamoun University in Syria. In 2004, he created Syrianhistory.com, the first and online museum of Syrian history. He is also co-founder and editor-in-chief of FORWARD, the leading English monthly in Syria, and Vice-President of Haykal Media.

   [Enlarge Image]

Popularity: 13% [?]

 Columnist - John Sammon
You know what bothers me, apart from the ethics, who’s right and who’s wrong? (America is always right, right or wrong).

America only attacks small, poor countries. Look at the list of our opponents over the past thirty years or so, Vietnam, Granada, Iraq, Afghanistan, The Balkans, Lebanon, and Cuba (oops, we didn’t attack Cuba, we almost did).

Always in the name of freedom.

It makes me yearn for World War Two, the good war, where we fought competent powerful enemies worthy of the name. Now, I know because we’re America we’re always right no matter what. I know we have right on our side in every case. That we’re infallible, incapable of error.

But do we always have to fight countries much smaller than ourselves?

This will get me labeled as unpatriotic, and not one of the my-country-right-or-wrong-God-likes-me-and-not-you crowd. But it makes me uncomfortable that we’re always beating up (in the name of right) on poor small countries, countries whose gross national product is a fraction of our own.

These are people who don’t have refrigerators like we do.

To be invaded by the United States, you have to be small, poor, and have no navy and no air force like we do.

We never take on big countries like China.

Here’s a partial list of countries that because of their size and poverty can consider themselves under risk of attack from Bombs Away John McCain if they don’t conform to the American lifestyle, and fail to provide us with raw materials, or do what we want when we want, or pattern themselves after us, or seek nuclear power (that right is reserved for America and its friends like India).

And most of all, not attack their neighbors. The right to attack is reserved for America. Here’s the list:

Chad – This tiny Central African country, named for a voting stub (chad), would be easy for the United States to defeat. Hell, they don’t have anything except sand and flies. In fact, their chief commodity export are gnats.

Switzerland – If we run out of milk, we know where we can get it (lots of cows). The only problem here are the mountains (we have specialized troops that can climb those), and the sexy blondes in the villages who might prove a distraction. It can be overcome by our modern technology.

Yemen – This is a plumb ready for the taking. Think of it. Oil rich. On the ocean where the Red Sea meets the Arabian Sea. Beautiful waterfront condos overlooking the sea. Prime real estate. No air force to speak of. Navy? Can Arabs sail? Hell no. The only problem is, it’s a republic. That’s okay, we can blame 9-11 on ‘em. Yemen has another advantage. Many different tribes. We can get them to warring with each other.

Djibouti – Another Arab country in the Horn of Africa. Once again, potential oil and ocean views. We could overrun them in three days. It’s a Moslem country so this would figure in with our remaking the Middle East. But the main reason is it would give our hip soldiers (who love slang) the chance to wear tee shirts that say, “you bet Djibouti (your booty).”

Netherlands Antilles – This tiny island off the coast of Venezuela, I can’t think of one good reason to invade. Except maybe, it’s close to South America and would give us more of a presence there. We’ve always tried to boss South America.

This is only a partial list.

There are many more such countries that can be taught freedom.

© Copyright 2008 by SammonSays.com

Popularity: 19% [?]