Topic awaiting preservation: regime change continued... (Page 1 of 1)

WAR CRY

The Case for Regime Change

NEW YORK--Making the case for United Nations intervention against the United States, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami told the organization yesterday that military action will be "unavoidable" unless the U.S. agrees to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

In a much-anticipated speech to a special session of the U.N. General Assembly held in Brussels, Khatami launched a blistering attack against American leader George W. Bush, accusing him of defying U.N. resolutions and using his country's wealth to line the pockets of wealthy cronies at a time when the people of his country make do without such basic social programs as national health insurance.

"Nearly two years ago, the civilized world watched as this evil and corrupt dictator subverted the world's oldest representative democracy in an illegal coup d'état," said Khatami. "Since then the Bush regime has continued America's systematic repression of ethnic and religious minorities and threatened international peace and security throughout the world. Thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Basic civil rights have been violated. This rogue state has flouted the international community on legal, economic and environmental issues. It has even ignored the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by denying that its illegal invasion of Afghanistan--which has had a destabilizing influence throughout Central Asia--was a war at all."

Khatami said the U.S. possesses the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, weapons "that, when first developed, were used immediately to kill half a million innocent civilians just months after acquiring them. No nation that has committed nuclear genocide can be entrusted with weapons of mass destruction."

"Bush has invaded Afghanistan and is now threatening Iraq. We cannot stand by and do nothing while danger gathers. We can't for this tyrant to strike first. We have an obligation to act pre-emptively to protect the world from this evildoer," Khatami said.

As delegates punctuated his words with bursts of applause, Khatami noted that U.S. intelligence agencies had helped establish and fund the world's most virulent terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, and the Taliban regime that harbored them. "The U.S. created the Islamist extremists who attacked its people on September 11, 2001," he stated, "and Bush's illegitimate junta cynically exploited those attacks to repress political dissidents, make sweetheart deals with politically-connected corporations and revive 19th century-style colonial imperialism."

Khatami asked the U.N. to set a deadline for Bush to step down in favor of president-in-exile Al Gore, the legitimate winner of the 2000 election, the results of which were subverted through widespread voting irregularities and intimidation. "We favor not regime change, but rather restoration and liberation," he said. In addition, Khatami said, the U.S. must dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, guarantee basic human rights to all citizens and agree to abide by international law or "face the consequences."

Most observers agree that those "consequences" would likely include a prolonged bombing campaign targeting major U.S. cities and military installations, followed by a ground invasion led by European forces. "Civilian casualties would likely be substantial," said a French military analyst. "But the American people must be liberated from tyranny."

Khatami's charges, which were detailed in a dossier prepared by French President Jacques Chirac, were dismissed by a representative of the American strongman as "lies, half-truths and misguided beliefs, motivated by the desire to control a country with oil, natural gas and other natural resources." National Security Minister Condoleezza Rice denied that the U.S. maintains weapons of mass destruction and invited U.N. inspectors to visit Washington to "see for themselves that our weapons are designed only to keep the peace, subject of course to full respect for American sovereignty."

The U.N. is expected to reject any conditions for or restrictions on arms inspections.

Experts believe that the liberation of the United States will require a large ground force of European and other international troops, followed by a massive rebuilding program costing billions of euros. "Even before Bush, the American political system was a shambles," said Prof. Salvatore Deluna of the University of Madrid. "Their single-party plutocracy will have to be reshaped into true parliamentary-style democracy. Moreover, the economy will have to be retooled from its current military dictatorship model--in which a third of the federal budget goes to arms, and taxes are paid almost exclusively by the working class--to one in which basic human needs such as education and poverty are addressed. Their infrastructure is a mess; they don't even have a national passenger train system. Fixing a failed state of this size will require many years."


"nuff said"

Hehe...that was great! Thanks for posting...

Where's it from?

I guess most Americans are taking a back seat on this as they are scared they might get arrested and shipped off in the night to some camp for being dissident or speaking the truth about the New Emperor...

...dam Chickens...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 05-28-2003).]

Xiprex this

quote:

---

as they are scared they might get arrested and shipped off in the night to some camp for being dissident or speaking the truth about the New Emporor...

---

is an unfounded opinion...you could not possibly know what most Americans think...I surely don't.

Thus, it's a reactionary, emotionally-overloaded statement. Why post such comments?

I think Xpirex was being cheeky with that last comment. It made me chuckle.

Yeah lighten up guys, just trying to provoke a little response.. seems a little sedate in here lately. With all the wicked things the US Neo-Con Empire is up to and all it's citizens are so quiet, and scared to speak their minds in public...

They say now that EVERY single visitor to New York that arrives by plane will be finger-printed and photographed... (for security reasons) ..and that you get an instant $50 fine if you take up more than one seat on the subway, even if you are the only one on the train... $50 fine if you are found sitting on a crate in the street or public place.... and you are all suspiciously quiet and mute. your getting slowly screwed and you don't care, and don't do anything. They even have you scared to speak.

Where the hell is Bugs with the certainty that weapons of mass destruction would be found? All so quiet... What a crock of shit.

..and what's wrong with being reactionary anyway? ..or emotionally charged? God I am alive and I feel.. not every feeling and reaction can or should be simmered and toned down in passionless, endless boring debate... sometimes you got to dam scream...

Democracy Kills

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 05-28-2003).]

Jestah

And sometimes you have to have an actual point as well....

I think his point was that we are being slowly robbed of our freedoms and everyone is so afraid to be labeled un-american that everyone is just sitting by watching it happen.

I understand what he was attempting to point out, GN.

My point was that it helps to have valid statements on which to base your accusations.

I'd have to say the reason that most people aren't saying much in this thread is because it's just plain silly, and not really of much real worth.

The initial post was "cute" perhaps, but that's about it.

As for our rights, I really don't see that much has changed vs. the time of say - WWI or WWII. In fact in many ways things are better than then in regard to civil rights.

I agree there are frightening trends in society, but I'm more concerned about issues unrelated to military action.





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-28-2003).]

Yea,
things have gotten much better, as far as general civil rights go.
But it does seem than there are a lot more laws then there used
to be which sort of micro-manages our lives and our every decision,
even down to wearing shoes while you are driving; which: by the way,
it's illegal to drive with no shoes.


.quotes.

And if you go back 100 years, it was illegal - in most places (and still is in some...technically) - to have anal or oral sex.

Having to wear shoes while operating a vehicle (an issue of safety which potentially effects the safety of others) vs. not being able to engage in the consentual sexual acts of my choice.....hmm......I think I can live with the shoes law

It was perfectly legal to deny service (food, medical, whatever...) to a black man.

In many places it was legal for a man to beat his wife, often with some sort of stipulation (for instance one state law saw fit to limit the thickness of the stick used to beat your wife to the thickness of your thumb, another saw fit to limit beatings to sundays...).

I can live with laws that don't allow that type of ignorant bias.

=)



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-28-2003).]

Yea, I agree.
All the major things have gotten much better.
I guess it just seems that the politicians are so
bored now that they have nothing better to do than
to make up stupid little laws just so they can keep their
jobs.

How could not wearing shoes while driving effect the safety of others?
And the seatbelt law. I mean, I understand it saves lives, and I always wear mine, and would even if it was not against the law. What's up with that being against the law though? Why should someone have the right to decide what I do when the effects would only harm myself? They are imposing on my freedom to be a stupid idiot, those bastards.


.quotes.

Most of those stupid little laws stem from the fact that some jackass took advantage of the fact that there was no law against something.

:::krets.net:::