I'll get away with it too

[noxxville]

Based on our seemingly inevitable attack on Iraq, I've figured out that soon I'll be able to get away with murder. Here's how this will work:

I have this neighbor. Well, he doesn't really live that close to me, but he does have a lot of land. I grow oranges you see, and I'm running short on land...but that's irrelevant. Don't even think about that. Here's what's important: the guy is evil. Every weekend I drive by his house and see his kids out in the yard. They all have bruises (he obviously beats them). His wife is always wearing really big sunglasses, obviously hiding her perpetual black eyes. He has guns too. Every other day he's out in the backyard shooting beer cans. Makes quite a bit of noise. We've told the police about him. They go over to his house and he swears that we're lying, that he doesn't even own a gun. But we all know better.

I hate this guy. Once, when my mother was visiting, she was nearly run over by the guy. I know he was trying to hit her! He's a bully, once he even parked his car on the neighbor's lawn. We made him move it but I know he just wants to park it there again.

Some of my neighbors think I should give him another chance, that I might have it all wrong. But I know things they don't know you see. I hate this man. He is evil. I mean he beats his own kids, and his wife. How can I just sit by and let that happen? He even tried to run over my mother!

Anyway, I figure that pretty soon I'll be able to just storm into his house and just gun him down. I mean, I've tried to be diplomatic about the whole thing but, if he'll do that to his kids, god only knows what he's capable of. So, for the sake of my whole neighborhood, I'm going to kill this man.

When I get arrested, all I have to do is make the very obvious comparison between my situation and our attack on Iraq. I'm sure to get off! I mean, the whole country is so behind this war, once they see the connection I'm safe!

***

What's really scary is I can actually see someone trying this...

[masterofNone]

fantastic.

Today I heard a commentator saying how we needed to be sure the Iraqis put a government in place, after Saddam was ousted, that reflected OUR values since we were going through all of the trouble of liberating them.

Sometime in the past year I woke up in this surreal country that was part Rome, part Nazi Germany, part America, and part George Orwell's 1984. "Liberate!" a more perfect example of doublespeak I can't imagine.

liberate the oil reserves perhaps.

[amanda]

Nice piece of logic there, noxx.

Are we even going to ALLOW the Iraqis to implement their own government? Seems to me that we've done that once already. (gee, aren't we the greatest? One day, Iraq may become a big boy just like us! Just eat our American-grown, greenback-ed oil contracts.) It seems now a dispute at the dinner table has become one for the whole global neighborhood.

At least no one can accuse Bush Jr. of not fulfilling his campaign promises- he DID say he wanted to rebuild a country.

Somebody just forgot to ask which one.

[RuneT]

http://www.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00098/null_98397a.jpg

[Deviate]

we're franchising the American way. we don't like the practices of another culture so we're going to beat the shit out of them until they become like us....

it's not war, it's a Crusade. and we're good and it's all the other bastards who are wrong. it's OUR job to make it right, to make THEM right. if we don't, who will?

so, with our blazing sword of justice, let us march swiftly into the desert and end the tyranny of our foes. remember, we do this in the name of PEACE.

and the most peaceful thing is death.

-st.

[masterofNone]

I saw these things in the past 24 hours on this subject

"War is a catastrophe. You can't win a catastrophe. You can't win a war anymore than you can win an earthquake."
Fiona Shaw, an actress interviewed by Charlie Rose on his PBS show...

"IF I HATE MY NEIGHBOR, CAN I KILL HIM?"
Written in large letters of spray paint on an overpass above the Dulles Toll road in Virginia...

"What does America need to be invading a small country like Iraq for?"
Charles, a tow truck driver with no teeth, nasty fingernails and an IQ of maybe 90, as he pulled my son's escort onto the back of his truck...

I don't know about you folks but I couldn't find anybody in my life that disagreed with Charles today... and yet our democracy is going to war within a few weeks. Lunacy[/SIZE]

[Red Princess]

i am so depressed about the whole thing. i said they were a pissant puny country the last time we blew them back into the stone age. i was shouted down about what a threat they are, i still don't believe it

[RuneT]

It's a democracy fighting for democratic values in an undemocratic way and on foreign land.
It amazes me that the government of USA and the UK can continue their war plans when most of their own people are against it.

[Red Princess]

they are not listening and they are manipulating the press to scare the hell out of people.

[masterofNone]

cool, peg's back.

[Red Princess]

it was more of a reference to all the crap powell was telling the UN the other day. i think most of that was lies and half-truths. they did a poll on the local news about whether people were more afraid of iraq after seeing that speech and they were.

[masterofNone]

I know this is going to get Peg's goat, and it sounds like paranoia and conspiracy theory BS but I was thinking the other day...
If the Government is in the pocket of Big Business (or Big Oil or whoever contributes mega $$ to the campaigns) and the press is in the pocket of Big Business (or Big Oil or whoever provides mega $$ for advertising) can we really say we have a free press anymore? I mean if they're both answering to the same puppetmasters... isn't that as bad as the state controlled press of the old soviet union? Maybe worse because at least there were no illusions of freedom of the press in that case.

I don't know...I mean... I was just thinking.

[Red Princess]

MoN , you are just trying to get her to post more than Deviate. (might work)

[Red Princess]

the thing that bothered me most about Powell is that he was (and is) under no real compulsion to be truthful, all his 'visual aids' and 'evidence' was murky enough to my eyes as to be useless. i mean you would have to take his word for it what all that meant. He was not presenting evidence he was making a great big pre-emptive excuse. pissed me off

[Deviate]

i agree, MoN. and unfortunately when someone tries to uncover a consipiracy they're ignored as crackpots. but what does one do when there IS a conspiracy?

isn't there a reason to be paranoid?

i trust little in what i read or hear in the news, from the government, etc. i can't trust it so i stay out of it. all i fall back on is theory and facts.

FACT: large companies contribute to the campaigns of certain (most) cadidates
FACT: large companies purchase advertising in media
FACT: most large media sources would be bankrupt without the support of large business
FACT: most candidates would be bankrupt without the support of large business

THEORY: politicians support the whims of big business more than that of the common man
THEORY: the news supports the whims of big business more than that of the common man
THEORY: the news supports politicians who support big business
THEORY: the government is owned by big business
THEORY: the common man is not represented

what can i say? i'm a crackpot.

-st.

[Deviate]

the problem is, Peg, the general Joe doesn't know what news we AREN'T seeing. as long as we see enough to THINK the papers are being objective then the papers can stay in business.

-st.

[Red Princess]

impeccable logic, i see no crackpots here

[dickieC]

I have just been to see The Quiet American. A film everyone should see in these troubled times, especially Americans.

I think I'm the only one who is, on balance, in favour of war here. I say on balance because I believe the Republican administration is of course plotting against Iraq for ulterior motives. But what war has ever been fought for noble reasons? Even Churchill was determined that the Atlantic Charter of human rights and freedoms, signed in 1941 with FDR, would not apply to the British colonial empire. And elements of FDR's administration were very determined that US participation in the European theatre of the war would not mean that the UK would prevail in the post-war power politics of free trade and the future of European colonial empires: they wanted to impose US spheres of influence. Does that mean that resisting Hitler by all means necessary was wrong? There is such a thing as a just war, even if, as T.S. Eliot says in "Murder in the Cathedral", "The last temptation is the greatest treason To do the right deed for the wrong reason." I'm not sure that's true in all circumstances.

America and Britain (and France) created the monster that is Saddam Hussein. The least they can do is to get rid of him. Even if they are negligent in supporting democratic forces after the event, the post-hoc regime can't be worse than it is now.

Imagine a world without Iraq and North Korea. Very few pariah states, rogue states left then. Wouldn't you feel safer living in that kind of world? Certainly, if I were a Zimbabwean, I would feel much better if the North Korean regime fell apart under American pressure - the North Koreans trained the Zimbabwean Army 5th Brigade, guilty of the most appalling massacres of over 20,000 people in 1982-5. Getting rid of totalitarian regimes is a moral cause which can and should be supported by people of left (=US liberal) opinion.

[Madmack]

Regardless of the positioning or 'im-positioning' of a new government in Iraq.... If the goal is the simple removal of Saddam... Then be prepared for the birth of 'Kurdistan'..
The Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Kurds in the south east of Turkey have been chomping at the bit in their move towards nationhood for years. Without Saddam bombing and gassing them into submission they will push much harder.
It will be very interesting to see how Turkey, a NATO member, deals with the secessionist movement...

[Red Princess]

i would like to imagine a world where people take control of their own countries, not other peoples'. where it is not the job of the United States and England and whoever to impose their standards outside their own borders. A world where there are no rogue states because their own people have kicked out the a**holes.

[Deviate]

there will always be the new evil.

after Hitler it was Russia, after that it was North Korea, after that it's Iraq...

there HAS to be an enemy. if we keep wiping them all out, what will we inevitibly create? the US needs to start respecting other cultures and governments and needs to stop declaring itself Boss of the World.

we are globalizing our values, needs, and interests and raping the diverse culture of the planet. when all the outside enemies are gone and we are all one community, the only culture left to attack is us.

-st.

[dickieC]

I wish I could agree that people have the leverage to overthrow dictators in their country without outside help. Sometimes, sadly, they don't.

[Red Princess]

we did it

[dickieC]

Yes, agreed; but before the idea of a totalitarian state had been conceived. And that form of state organisation is very good at defending its insane paranoid self for long periods. Saddam Hussein has been in power since 1979, and probably 1972. That's longer than I've been alive, and longer than the lifetimes of most of us here.

[Deviate]

i agree, people sometimes need help, but who are we to determine the outcome?

what governments fear is that one day the people learn that they are the ultimate power, that they give all officials strength and that all they have to do is to stand up and resist.

the problem is that the average oppressee still fears death. and no matter how bad the tyranny might be, many accept it as the cost of life.

so meanwhile, the US puts its families in the front lines, people who fear death just as much as the average oppressee, and they give their lives for the "freedom" of people who aren't so dedicated to being free that they will lie their own lives on the line....

i feel that it is up to the people to determine when they need freedom, and that will be their call fight for themselves. then we can lend all the hand we need.

edited to add: oh, and a dictatorship that's lasted only 30 years? longer than my life but not long at all for a dictatorship. and not long enough to sprout revolution

-st.

[dickieC]

I sincerely doubt that a post-Saddam, US-imposed regime will be worse than what Saddam can and does do to his people.

We all want self-determination for the Iraqi people (Madmack: agreed that the position of the Kurds is complex and will probably not be resolved to Turkey's satisfaction). Is that going to happen without outside intervention? No. Will it happen with western intervention? It might, but it is not guaranteed. But it would be a step in the right direction.

[Red Princess]

the idea of a totalitarian state has always been with us since governments were created almost. If we prop up a population that is not willing to fight for itself we have done no good for anyone. And who says the Iraqis hate Saddam anyhow? check your sources where that little bit came from. What if they don't? Why should we give them more reasons to hate US and commit acts of terrorsim againsst us?

[zefrank]

a good source of editorials, popular and alternate news sources form around the globe:

http://www.commondreams.org.

the American media largest fault in my mind is its regurgitation of the propaganda like slogans and terminology that comes out of the Whit House and Pentagon...words like "Smart Bombs", "Stun and Awe", "Regime Change" among others are based on mass appeal advertising principles that ultimately distract the public from the realities of war.

this guy talks a lot about it in this book and on the air:

MacArthur, John R. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992. 260 pages.

[masterofNone]

we did it
Yes we did it with a parity of weaponry with the british. In the twentieth century the weaponry amassed by the leaders makes civil war essentially suicide or imprisonment. No, Saddam Husein is a bad guy. I'm not hugely upset with the idea of removing him. I am hugely upset with the manner. See Dickie, while it would be okay for me if Britain invaded Iraq it pisses me off that we are. Britain popped that cherry long before America existed. The English never met a land mass they didn't want to invade and colonize. The word Imperial was first applied to the British empire and they didn't see it as a slur.

But we are Americans. We fought off the empire to gain our freedom. We have never in 225 years attacked another nation pre-emptively. While it's not specifically against our constitution... it sure is against our tradition. This is a big step toward the dawn of the American Empire.

Americans always root for the underdog. Up until the last 20 years or so we've always been the underdog. Now we're the big guy on the playground and we're acting like a bully. It's not in our national character and we're all having a real problem with it. And I think we're all trying to figure out how to get it under control.

[noxxville]

For someone with no pants, Dev speaks much truth.

We do force our way down the throats of other nations. We do so despite the costs and are unwilling to admit that we are not always right. We involved ourselves in a "civil war" (Vietnam) that we instigated and refused to let it go, even at a huge price to our own citizens.

When people have had enough, they will rise. It's happened before and it will happen again. Even the Roman Empire, which controlled most of what was known as "the free world" at one point, could not rule over those who refused to be ruled.

It is truly the people who give a government power. The president cannot take congress and fly missions over Iraq. He relies on the citizens of his country to do such things. If the citizens refuse (people in the military are citizens), he can do nothing. When people truly reach the point where their freedom and the freedom of their children outweighs their current "safety" they will rise and nothing will stop them.

[dickieC]

Originally posted by Red Princess
the idea of a totalitarian state has always been with us since governments were created almost. If we prop up a population that is not willing to fight for itself we have done no good for anyone. And who says the Iraqis hate Saddam anyhow? check your sources where that little bit came from. What if they don't? Why should we give them more reasons to hate US and commit acts of terrorsim againsst us?

The totalitarian state is a twentieth century invention. It goes along with mass media and the industrial revolution, perverted into the abolition of absolute truth and industrial machinery of killing and repression.

I am at a loss to explain how the general Iraqi people feel. We do not know whether they genuinely support Saddam or not. And the reason why that is the case is the repressive nature of the regime. That is obviously a circular argument; however, as ordinary citizens we do not have access to the intelligence gathering apparatus of the US and UK governments. It is unfortunate that we lack alternative sources of information. But Amnesty International, Human Rights watch and other similar organisations were the ones who tried to break the news to the world in 1989 that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Governments wouldn't believe them then. So why, now that governments are saying that the regime has WMD, are we not believing that, when I for one trusted AI before?

[noxxville]

Actually, you know what pisses me off most about this?

Why won't we just come out and say we're going to attack him. Everybody knows we are. There doesn't seem to be any way to prevent it unless Bush and his entire staff go down in a horrible cotton candy machine explosion.

Instead, we keep trying to Blame Iraq for us attacking Iraq. It's such bullshit.

When you were a kid, if you hit your sister/brother and tried to tell your mom that they made you do it, would that excuse fly? No. We learned that at 4. What the hell is the problem here?

[Red Princess]

Doesn't the fact that there was such a time delay bother you? Why indeed do we care now when we did not before?

[dickieC]

But we are Americans. We fought off the empire to gain our freedom. We have never in 225 years attacked another nation pre-emptively. While it's not specifically against our constitution... it sure is against our tradition. This is a big step toward the dawn of the American Empire.


Re: USA attacking other nations: Mexico, 1847. Spain, 1898. Guatamala, 1958. Cuba, 1961. Grenada, 1983................

The US imperium has existed since the Second World War. Agreed, it does not take the form of a colonial empire, but then the British Empire was not simply the areas coloured red on the map either.

[zefrank]

dickie -

in terms of Iraq's alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people I point you to this article...written by a former CIA senior political analyst.

there are many more examples of questionable anti-Iraq rhetoric and finger pointing.

I'm not saying he's not a bad man...but as long as we are talking about taking people's word on information it should be pointed out.


http://commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm

[dickieC]

Originally posted by Red Princess
Doesn't the fact that there was such a time delay bother you? Why indeed do we care now when we did not before?

Yes, of course it does. I wish Saddam had been disposed of many years ago, so that the Iraqi people had been free of him.

It goes back to my point about being motivated to do a good thing for the wrong reason. I can't possibly deny that control of oil is the motivation for getting rid of Saddam. But getting rid of Saddam is a good thing.

[dickieC]

Originally posted by zefrank
dickie -

in terms of Iraq's alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people I point you to this article...written by a former CIA senior political analyst.

there are many more examples of questionable anti-Iraq rhetoric and finger pointing.

I'm not saying he's not a bad man...but as long as we are talking about taking people's word on information it should be pointed out.


http://commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm

Thanks. This is news to me.

[zefrank]

Originally posted by nycwriters
Interesting story Ze. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, the utter and complete disregard for a civilization that "got in the way" is kind of despotic don't you think?

it is estimated that between 40,000 and 200,000 iraqis will die as a result of the potential war. Will we be held accountable? In wartime casualties assume a different burden of guilt. is that just, not sure, but we should apply the same standards to the iran/iraq war

[masterofNone]

man. I've never seen a thread grow this fast before.

Dickie, name me a part of the British Empire that wasn't a colony at one time or another. I mean, since the invention of the long bow.

[zefrank]

good article on media and the right:

http://commondreams.org/views03/0131-09.htm

[noxxville]

And what will our actions spark in the future? Does this mean that any country can up and attack another, without worldwide agreement, simply because it feels just in doing so?

[zefrank]

Originally posted by noxxville
And what will our actions spark in the future? Does this mean that any country can up and attack another, without worldwide agreement, simply because it feels just in doing so?

i certainly think there are times when a country can justly go to war without worldwide consent. this isn't one of them though.

[dickieC]

Originally posted by masterofNone
man. I've never seen a thread grow this fast before.

Dickie, name me a part of the British Empire that wasn't a colony at one time or another. I mean, since the invention of the long bow.

- The client-state relationship between the UK and South American states (particularly Argentina) from the 1830s up until the 1940s. British finance capital had a far greater say in the running of parts of South America in the 19th century than the USA.

- The position of Egypt is a classic example - even before the invasion of 1882, the country was effectively an Anglo-French vassal state with predominantly British administration through the position of the Resident Commissioner working with the pliant Turkish/Ottoman Khedive.

- A large part of the Chinese treaty port system, dominated by British trading interests with certain extra-territorial rights from the 1780s onwards. Hong Kong was the exception to prove the rule.

- Siam, now Thailand, again a buffer state between the British and French empires in south-east Asia but subject to greater British influence.

Power is sometimes more effectively exercised by economic means than colonial. This is the genius of the USA's imperial power since WWII.

[masterofNone]

oh THOSE parts... well, why didn't you say so.


ahem

The U.S. now ranks 17th, below Costa Rica and Slovenia, on the worldwide index of press freedom established by the Reporters Without Borders.
that's an eye opener.

[dickieC]

Originally posted by masterofNone
oh THOSE parts... well, why didn't you say so.


ahem


that's an eye opener.

That's a good statistic. Where does the UK come?

[noxxville]

Originally posted by zefrank
i certainly think there are times when a country can justly go to war without worldwide consent. this isn't one of them though.

I agree. However to strike out against another country when much of the world is just asking for more time to try and resolve it peacefully is just wrong. We are not trying.

When this began, it was becuase he wouldn't allow inspections. When he allowed inspections, it was for disarmament. When disarmament was enough, it bcame regime change. We're really just looking for an excuse that the world will swallow. And now, we're even saying we don't care if the world will swallow it because we are just that damn right.

[dickieC]

Exactly. But I'd still like to know - especially given the predominance of Rupert Murdoch (not, admittedly, as great as Conrad Black in Canada).

[dickieC]

Gotta go to bed, seeya guys. Will rejoin debate tomorrow.

[zefrank]

Originally posted by nycwriters
Hrm, careful on those editorials Ze. While there is some fact in the one you just posted, it fails to recognize that there are about 20% that are still single-owned ..

In my opinion 20% is terrible when media is concerned. I understand the issue hits home for you though, and I do applaud the fact that alternatives do exist.

[Deviate]

Peg,

we don't doubt your ethics, nor are we pointing out the ethics of any particular person. i, myself, believe journalism, in the spirit of journalism, to be a noble profession. the broad brush strokes come when the individual gets shuffled into the whole.

unfortunately when the nobility of news, information and communication become a large business, quite often its focus becomes money and power over the basic principles upon which it was founded.

take the country, for instance. great idea about freedom and opportunities for the common man. but now it's a country of incredible greed, wanting more money and more power....

-st.

[masterofNone]

I know I'm ethical. I know my peers are too.
yep, we know you are too. But it's not about that really. I heard a nationally syndicated columnist interviewed the other day saying she would like to speak out against the war but... and she kept hesitating... dancing around the point. She finally came out and said she was straight out opposed to the administrations policies but felt that she was endangering her job if she were to write about her views because she worked for a conservative venue.

There is no doubt in my mind that the press has become increasingly conservative in the past decade. This happens to be a reflection of the number of media outlets that are owned by conservatives. While individual reporters and editors are moral and ethical, the preponderance of conservative ownership in the media has naturally had a chilling effect on the presentation of high quality liberal political viewpoints.

And they still have the nerve to accuse the press of being left-leaning. Hello?

"The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing mankind that he didn't exist"
Verbal Kent - The Usual Suspects

And DC? I wasn't trying to make a point about the Brits with that stat. I was just astonished by it. Your point was well made and well taken. Seriously... next time I want to pick a Poly-Sci argument I want you in my corner as fact man. Doesn't mean the Brits aren't a bunch of wankers tho.

[Deviate]

sigh.

war is stinky.
money blows.
peg is great.
y'all are smart.

-st.

[dickieC]

Grrr!!!! This makes me angry:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030207/140/dso7h.html

Thieves!

P.S. how do I make the URL into just thieves! without all the http: stuff?

[dickieC]

Originally posted by masterofNone
And DC? I wasn't trying to make a point about the Brits with that stat. I was just astonished by it. Your point was well made and well taken. Seriously... next time I want to pick a Poly-Sci argument I want you in my corner as fact man. Doesn't mean the Brits aren't a bunch of wankers tho. [/B]


Nononono

I genuinely wanted to know where the UK is in that list!

[xerocs]

thank you for lightening that up dev.... but can i join in here for a moment? first does anyone read the bible... specifically revelations? secondly... is everyone against me because i am military and although i don't favor war... i don't favor chemicals, missiles aimed at the homeland of my four year old daughter, terrorists that would just as soon shoot me as look at me for the simple fact that i was born into a country that tries to lend an overzealous hand or any of the threats that are coming from the simple request to disarm and adopt a free way of thinking...

[masterofNone]

I think I'm not alone in saying I whole heartedly support the good men and women in the armed services. It was a disgrace the way some were treated upon returning from the Vietnam War. I personally think you are serving an incredibly important role in any free society. I might disagree with your arguments and your perceptions of the world... but I respect your role in our society.

But in a free society we can take issue with the war our administration is sending you to fight. We can take issue with our administration's motivations and philosophies. We have to keep vigilant to be sure a force as powerful as the United States Armed Services.. with it's technology, and weaponry, and most of all it's unequalled personnel... we cannot let that force be weilded by the corrupt or for ends that are not in keeping with the proud tradition of our nation.

If we as a nation were to do that we would be dishonoring you, your fellow soldiers, and the tradition of the armed services.

[xerocs]

thank you... you are right that my perceptions are different and i take into account what everyone is saying... i just know that as an american soldier, i myself feel threatened and know that i am a target... i don't know if we are doing the right thing... i do know that something must be done....

[Red Princess]

just be careful Xerocs

[xerocs]

i will red... as a matter of fact i always try to... when everything is said and done, i just want it all to be ok... i would like to see this blow over as just iraqs plee for help.... i can only pray that the bible hasn't already predicted it.....

[masterofNone]

yes

[zenbabe]

http://zenmedia.org/Pics/random%20stuff/ChecklistBushready.jpg

[zenbabe]

www.vampirebat.com/obeythefist

[masterofNone]

that's american push button brutality to be precise.

[masterofNone]

fantastic

[dickieC]

very very good

[noxxville]

I hate to put this so simply but.....Bush is a jackass. He's a jackass that's going to get a lot of people killed.

[RuneT]

RT-BULLETIN@
BUSH SAYS THAT HE ALWAYS KNOWS BEST AND THAT HE DOESN’T LIKE TO BE QUESTIONED. EITHER YOU ARE WITH US OR YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORISTS.
MORE@
RuneT00:18 02-11-03

[amanda]

There's no way that letter is legit. It has too many long words used appropriately. No circular thinking, no defining a word by using it in the defintion, and not even once did he use the words "terrorism" or "weapons of mass destruction".

And not one way to turn down his proposal.

[masterofNone]

if they could just call up all the people who've lost their job since Bush took office... no wait, that would be way too many soldiers.

[noxxville]

Originally posted by masterofNone
if they could just call up all the people who've lost their job since Bush took office... no wait, that would be way too many soldiers.

Good one.

[Red Princess]

maybe they are pals now since the pope apologized for the crusades (only a tiny bit late)

[noxxville]

Beautiful. :)

[zenbabe]

Brilliant!

[zefrank]

bush should be removed from office. not since hitler has a regime used propoganda so effectively against its people. This administration's policy stands to divide this country in a way that won't be repairable.

soon we will all be guilty if we do nothing.

[zefrank]

Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), an old coot that I haven't always agreed with, seems
to been the only Senator with a freaking backbone on this issue. He can
also speak English, to whit:

"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human
experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of
battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of
war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully
silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the
nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.


We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own
uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the
editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of
the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple
attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes,
represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning
point in the recent history of the world.


This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary
doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The
doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other
nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening
but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the
traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of
international law and the U.N. Charter. And it is being tested at a time of
worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they
will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High-level
administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the
table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more
destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a
world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of
many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our
time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to
damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust,
misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is
fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed
after Sept. 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little
guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are
being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their
stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less
than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also
short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling.
Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This administration, now
in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I
believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this administration has squandered a large
projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us
to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This administration's
domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition,
underfunding scores of essential programs for our people. This
administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth.
This administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in
healthcare for our elderly. This administration has been slow to provide
adequate funding for homeland security. This administration has been
reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden.
In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and
urging them to kill. This administration has split traditional alliances,
possibly crippling, for all time, international order-keeping entities like
the United Nations and NATO. This administration has called into question
the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as
well-intentioned peacekeeper. This administration has turned the patient
art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that
reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders,
and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil,
denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude
insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive
military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We
need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as
the newer-found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome
military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating
attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military
manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support
of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters
cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is
evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that
region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in
Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that
remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This administration
has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to
embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in
Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that
after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence
of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields,
becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that
nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the
reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on
Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the
Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered
by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a worldwide recession?
Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the
interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join
the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for
nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant
administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous
consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any president after the savage
attacks of Sept. 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a
shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly
impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely
destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is
currently witnessing is inexcusable from any administration charged with
the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest
superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this
administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of
horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the
nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is
under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days
before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of
chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of
what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our
attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray
that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a
rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a
last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any
president who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation
which is over 50 percent children is "in the highest moral traditions of
our country." This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to
be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a
corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box
of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time."

I will be marching in S.F. on February 16th.

[noxxville]

As we have been talking about this, I began to think about a history professor that I once had. He is, in my opinion, a brilliant man who is quite knowledgeable on causes of conflict. I asked him what he though of the state of affairs. Below is his response. Enjoy.

-------

I must tell you that I am deeply disturbed about the way that Bush has handled his foreign policy. The Korean situation was going in the right direction, and though Bush had some right to consider Clinton's policies flawed, both the Korean and Israeli situations were going well when Bush took office. He then came in and broke off the Clinton proceedings with North Korea, then disengaged from the Middle East for a year, while Israel put 1304 new settlements in the West Bank. Bush then found himself trying to do a catch-up in Middle Eastern diplomacy and the Korean situation has been a mess since, made worse by the "axis of evil" remark.

Further, I am not convinced that war with Iraq is the answer. They are contained, divided into three parts because of the no-fly zones and now with our U-2 planes allowed to fly over, and who knows what else we can see with modern technology, there is no reason for war in my mind. It sets such a bad precedent and is so unlike anything that the U.S. has done in the past. I think we should be patient, firm and never set a policy of pre-emptive
strikes.

I feel that we are in a situation like July 1914 right now. I do not know if you ever took my European history class, but June 28th 1914 was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. It was clear then that Serbia was behind it, and so Austria was right to present Serbia with a strong ultimatum. Austria did go too far, however, and presented an ultimatum that was designed to be rejected. The surprise was that Serbia accepted the ultimatum and Austria declared war anyway.

I feel like we are acting a bit like Austria--granted Saddam is a horrid person--but we have got inspectors in that land, U-2 flights over it, no-fly zones, etc.--and now we declare war anyway!! As in 1914, there may be a terrible domino effect. Austria's declaration of war on Serbia led to Russian intervention, which panicked Germany, which led to France and England and others falling into the first World War. What might the dominos be now? Arab peoples do not think we will be attacking because we want
peace, rather they see us protecting Israel and oil. I fear what direction a war may go. You are enough of a historian, I bet, to know that a war like this just plants the seeds for the next war.

But, suppose you disagree. Still, there was no reason for Bush to talk as he has these past two years. He has been arrogant, callous and unsophisticated. For example, it was horrid for Ari Fleischer to make that public comment about welcoming an assassination of Saddam. The very next day a diplomat of
ours was assassinated, and now, just a couple of weeks ago, yet another. You never make public statements like that. It was simply stupid of him. I don't know if you saw that press conference when he said this with his smart-alec smirk while he said it?

Bush should have heeded the advice of Teddy Roosevelt who argued that while a nation always needs to have a tough moral resolve, "it always pays for a nation to be a gentleman...say nothing that can be taken hold of by those anxious to foment trouble between ourselves and any foreign power, or who
delight in giving the impression that as a nation we are walking about with a chip on our shoulder. We are too big a people to be able to be careless in what we say."

We are so unchallenged now as a nation--I had hoped that Bush would take the high road when he came into office. I have been terribly disappointed with the quality of his language and behavior in general in diplomatic affairs.

[lapietra]

Once again - I want to remark on how grateful I am to be a member of this board -
What members have posted in this thread has touched me deeply, helped me to become more informed, and to be able to give my amorphous feelings of dread some anchor.
Ze - if it's true you're going to be traveling west - be safe - wish I could be up there with you :)

[zenbabe]

Ze,

Get your ass on Yahoo chat.. no slacking! DO IT NOW!

[zenbabe]

:mad:

[amanda]

ze,

thank you for posting that.

many of my students are asking me "Why? Why are not more Americans standing up to this?"

all I can say is, "I really don't know. But I DO know is that there are some people in America who are doing all they can to shout this administration down."

However, the only people I could ever think of was you guys.

I will be in Shibuya (Tokyo) tomorrow to walk.

It pains me that I can't do more.

[Deviate]

f*ck it.
f*ck the administration.
f*ck bush and f*ck his bullshit bloodlust.

i have been silent too long.

and i agree, with ze. we will all be guilty of having done nothing. we say that the people are the power - well let's all start being more powerful.

everyone:
find a protest or demonstration and join it
organize your own
write a letter to the editor of your paper
send it to other papers
write your congresspersons
handcuff yourself to something
get arrested

i am going to plan a naked message of peace right here in the heartland.

we can not sit and say, "why did this happen?"
we must STAND and shout "this will NOT happen"

-st.

[zenbabe]

found mine (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030214-9999_1n14protest.html)

[amanda]

hear ya deev, loud and clear.

And I want to be able to do more than what you've listed.

Even with all of that, I feel absolutely powerless.

[zefrank]

I'm going to the rally in New York: Sat 12.00 1st and 48th

[zenbabe]

Finally!

[noxxville]

Finally what?

[noxxville]

I think that this (http://www.acousticmusic.com/byrd.htm) is worth reading.