The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

While I reject this contention (U.S./Brit attacks continuing until Iraq is conquered, destroyed or both), it does raise a fair question: what, exactly would you like to see happen now?

---

I think that everyone who is against this war at least partially because of the terrible civilian body count that will be the result, has to hope for a fast and complete victory of the COW forces now, even though I'm convinced it is not going to happen.

It is not just the guns and bombs. A lot more people are going to die because of lack of clean water and food. I think, about 60% of the Iraqi people were/are solely dependent on food-rations provided by the state. In the areas that are fought over, these food-rations are completely absent. And as long as the COW isn't in complete control, they won't and can't start to supply the population with the necessities. Neither can the aid organizations.



That doesn't mean that I will stop protesting this war. It is still a war of aggression without any legitimation that should have never been started. I don't want to see that happen again. Especially when another part of the axis of evil is right next door to Iraq. Convenient and cheap (which is very important to Rumsfeld). I mean, there is already a large force in Iraq, and even a second front practically waiting in Afghanistan...

_____________________

"MURDERERS! Remember Orca!!! Free Willy!!!" Yun-kyung bellowed. "The shark in Jaws was just misunderstood!" - Castaway
I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[cassiopeia191]

I appreciated your post and some of the points I strongly disagreed with were mentioned before. There's just one point that struck me as really contradictory but that is your personal business.

Quote:

---

I believe, with every part of me, that there are things worth dieing for. Things, even, worth killing for. Even if that killing is utterly most heartbreakingly regrettable.

---

Quote:

---

As a christian, which I am,

---

I am sorry if I misunderstood but in my opinion, those two things together don't work. "Thou shalt not kill." This is a clear statement with which I agree and it doesn't say, killing is regrettable but justified in some cases.

Quote:

---

I am a bit boggled by the intensity of Anti-American/British sentiment. Sincerely. Maybe it's fear. That whole, 'regime change' idea. Maybe it is, as some have suggested, past foreign policy. Maybe that was a kettle waiting to boil. May it was Mr. Bush's 'go war go' attitude. But the sentiments seem very deep and not recent. Maybe it's the Palestine question. And if it is, is there a way for us to win? If we help, if we don't, if we stay out of it...how do we win in that situation? No matter what we do, don't we, in fact get hated by someone?

---

In most countries, Americans aren't treated with less respect than before the Iraq crisis because many people are trying to make a difference between the people and its government. However, if you decided to stand on Karlsplatz in Munich today, wearing a "I love the US" shirt and a "Support Bush" button, I can almost guarantee you that a) you could move freely because people would be careful to stay away from you and b) that you might get a piece of someone's mind on the way but c) no one would throw rocks at you. That would be the case in a majority of the countries, I think, optimistically.

If you look at the Arab world, that's different...the US has done nothing to promote some kind of positive image of itself there and the hate has been becoming immense. Quite understandably so. "Maybe it's the Palestine question."

Not maybe, I can assure you that it is. The US has done a very poor job in trying to resolve this crisis and have not pressured the Israelis to pull out of Palestine regions. The State of Israel was founded on ground that did not belong to the Israelis and while I think that it was neccessary and important, it left the Palestinians as "the losers" and this has produced enormous amounts of aggression...I don't like saying that, but the Arab world hates Israel and in supporting Israel in the path its taken so far has brought America a good share of this hatred as well. This is a crisis we should focus on and resolve. We always talk about how we just cannot watch Saddam Hussein killing his own people (who are now being killed by American and British bombs -where's the difference?) but this argument doesn't seem to apply to the Israel/Palestinian problem with all its suicide attacks, oppression and humiliation, fighting and misery. And when I read reports on Israel beating up children who demonstrate for their fellow Muslims in Iraq, I do see where all this aggression comes from.

I don't want to come across anti-Israel because this is not the case, but in my opinion, this just proves the hypocrisy of the war some more and also shows where the sources of all this anti-Americanism lie.

Quote:

---

Listen - you have an open heart, which wants to learn. In my view, you lack an informed base from which to understand what is actually going on. So learn. Do the reading, do the work.

---

bzengo: Sorry, this comes across as very condescending, even for me. I agree with most of what you've said but I also think that someone's different POV should be respected although we might think they are wrong. Also, this shouldn't be an elite discussion, this is a thread for kittens to discuss the political aspect of this war, not everyone needs to have this immense background knowledge some here do possess.



That's all for today.

"Oh, isn't life a terrible thing, thank God?"

Edited by: cassiopeia191 at: 3/31/03 4:31:48 am

[justastraightdog]

mariacomet: "I'm not sure I see the USA as colonial, but I agree with the heart of our post, in that....we have had NO luck in the libreration business. None. Zero. In fact, we tend to leave things in shambles."



As someone whose parents have been liberated by the USA I can fully ashure you that your track record isn't that bad. Infact, it may turn out that you've been too successful in liberating Germany. We've been good students, we've listened to our teacher, we've learned our lessons well. We won't return to blind faith, implicit obedience or unconditional loyalty (and hell, we've invented the concept of Nibelungentreue). Can you understand what a huge disappointment it is, that it's now, of all things, our teacher who asked us to do so? That we are now being verbally attacked by the USA for doing what we've been taught to do - by the USA, no less.



-----



Florida rules the USA. Only the government of Florida, elected by the people of Florida, knows what's good and bad for the rest of the USA. Florida's armed forces are powerful enough to suppress any resistance from any other state. Federal laws don't apply to Florida anymore, but Florida insists on them in every other state. After Washington refused to greenlight a pre-emptive strike lead by Florida against Utah ("to liberate the people of Utah from the evil Mormon regime"), Florida called federal institutions outdated and redundant and started heavy air raids on Salt-Lake-City immediately.



Do you want to live in a USA like that? A USA in which 15 million people determine the fate of 300 millions? In which only one out of twenty is allowed to vote? Not because of any special qualification, but for the sole reason that he or she was born in Florida? What do you think the rest of the USA should do - endlessly discussing the intentions of the government and the feelings of the people of Florida? Or should they rather discuss how to overcome this clearly anti-democratic and unfair system, regardless of the intentions and feelings of the people in Florida?



There are 300 million people in the USA and 6 billion people in the world.



Do the math.

_______________________________
Though here at journey's end I lie in darkness buried deep, beyond all towers strong and high, beyond all mountains steep,
above all shadows rides the Sun and Stars for ever dwell: I will not say the Day is done, nor bid the Stars farewell.

[darkmagicwillow]

cassiopeia wrote in response to mariacomet's support of the war as a Christian:

---

I am sorry if I misunderstood but in my opinion, those two things together don't work. "Thou shalt not kill." This is a clear statement with which I agree and it doesn't say, killing is regrettable but justified in some cases.

---

A better translation than the King James version of that commandment would be "Thou shalt not murder." The deity to whom the commandments are attributed is also the one who commands the Hebrew tribes to war on the inhabitants of what is now called Palestine, and in Exodus 15:3 is essentially described as a war god, "The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is His name." Of course, the gospels appear to contradict that sentiment in some places, and which parts of the Torah (Old Testament) a Christian should follow has always been a subject of contention. Still, I think an argument can be made either way.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[mariacomet]

cassiopeia191One of my passions is religion, but I'll try to be good kitten and be brief. You brought up a bible passage, and rightfully so. Most christians live and die by the bible.



My personal opinion though is you cannot read one line and get a full understanding of what is intended. One of the main reasons for this is that language has changed over time. Words literally can mean different things now then they once did. For instance, I read somewhere that originally something like 34 words were used to describe the love and types of love. We use one word. So all 34 different words became one word....love.



Secondly,my preference is to get the most complete meaning possible. Again, I don't think you can do this by reading one line. The bible usually has many things to say on any one subject.



We get the original translation for today's bible from the Greek or the Hebrew. The line you quoted originally uses the word 'ratsach' for kill. This word is used 47 times in the bible. The general translation for this word is the following:



1) to murder, slay, kill



a) (Qal) to murder, slay



1) premeditated



2) accidental



3) as avenger



4) slayer (intentional) (participle)



When Jesus refers back to this same passage (and being a christian, I ocassionally listen to the guy) he uses the word 'phoneuo' meaning...to murder.



One of the commentaries I read put it this way:



It does not forbid killing in lawful war, or in our own necessary defence, nor the magistrate’s putting offenders to death, for those things tend to the preserving of life; but it forbids all malice and hatred to the person of any (for he that hateth his brother is a murderer ), and all personal revenge arising therefrom; also all rash anger upon sudden provocations, and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done, in passion: of this our Saviour expounds this commandment, Mt. 5:22. And, as that which is worst of all, it forbids persecution, laying wait for the blood of the innocent and excellent ones of the earth.



Now, some people believe all war, all killing of innocents is murder. Certainly I have seen signs and heard views that believe that our actions in Iraq are akin to murder. We

are a bigger force, and we disregarded diplomatic options. Is it unchristian to fight in a war? I think many people have grappled with that for a very long time. I think it depends on if you think war is murder. I, do not.

Quote:

---

And when I read reports on Israel beating up children who demonstrate for their fellow Muslims in Iraq, I do see where all this aggression comes from.

---

I see this point, but I also have seen too many pictures of the result of terrorism from the other side to be 100% sympatheic. I believe, we helped Israel so strongly

because when jewish people needed us during WW2, when they were being tortured and murderered - we, knowing thier fate, turned them away. Many other countries did as well.

But we, America, was supposed to be the land of opportunity.



I want the violence in Israel to stop. Palenstinians and Israelis both deserve peace. But I don't think the US has been totally silent and done nothing. We have tried to exert pressure to get both sides to the table. But the issue, again in my opinion, is complicated and layered.



My question is this: What else can we do? What else is expected of us?



I would like to know, sincerely, what the Middle east believes about those two questions. I'd like to know that view.



edited to add.... darkmagicwillow actually summed up what I was trying to say about murder in about 1/4 the space.



justastraightdog - Wow, what a fantastic perspective you have. That was a completely different angle and you made some wonderful points.



I think I was thinking more of Vietnam and Korea as examples of 'liberation', but you are quite right and thank you for setting me straight. (per your name)

Quote:

---

Can you understand what a huge disappointment it is, that it's now, of all things, our teacher who asked us to do so? That we are now being verbally attacked by the USA for doing what we've been taught to do - by the USA, no less.

---

Thank you for this. Again, a very interesting perspective.



I see your example of Florida but I place a slightly different tilt to it. Florida, NC, SC, and GA all have a group of allied states. Utah invades CA without provocation. The allied states look at that, decide it's wrong and then go in and forceably remove Utah from CA. They then discover that Utah has a chemical weapons program, watch it use those weapons on it's own people, and ALSO realize...that the leader of this country would love nothing more than to get nukes and counqueor everything around him.



So this group realizes that Utah is a bigger problem. Utah, to end the war against it, signs some papers basicially saying it won't do or produce anything that will threaten other countries again. And then, it produces to ignore what it agreed to. The group of allied states says, 'know what? we'll hit you in the wallet.'



This fails miserably. Florida comes along after 12 years and says 'Guys, enough is enough. They blew us off. They proved they were a danger. Let's do something about this.'



After lots of haggling, they agree to send some folks in to check on the situation. These people after 12 years and two months, don't really come up with anything conclusive either way. Florida says, 'That's it. War time.'



The Alllied states say, 'Ohhhh no you don't.'



Florida says, 'Ohhhh yes i will.'



Will.



Will not.



Will.



Will not.



So's your old man.



Your mother wears combat boots. Etc.

Quote:

---

What do you think the rest of the USA should do - endlessly discussing the intentions of the government and the feelings of the people of Florida? Or should they rather discuss how to overcome this clearly anti-democratic and unfair system, regardless of the intentions and feelings of the people in Florida?

---

I agree with you here. I do not believe that the USA is without reasoning or logic. But 'regime change' is such a frightening idea. Again, where the hell are the limits? What and who qualifies as a candiate for regime change?



I have no idea. It's new ground. I'm not sure it's ground that I as an America feel comfortable with or agree that we have the right to take.



But surely, the UN must become a body that backs up it's own words? Where are the limitations on that? If the UN forever slaps the hands of madmen without any real decisive action - what power does it really have? If the UN allows for 12 years someone to openly defy them, have they not lost all credibility?



Both sets of questions, equally ring in my mind.

Edited by: mariacomet at: 3/31/03 7:09:17 am

[xita]

Enlightening article considering one of the arguments that it isn't oil is because we aren't attacking other countries with Oil, like venezuela. The US has a long history of covert illegal overthrowing of goverments. Close to my heart, the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Guatemala. is an example of CIA involvement in a goverment coup in 1954. Read here or here.

-----------------------------------

Only 50 cents

Edited by: xita  at: 3/31/03 7:27:58 am

[dekalog]

Would just like to say that for anyone still thinking this will be over quickly - it won't.



The only way for this to be over quickly is for Coalition Forces to leave Iraq (which they won't) - this will be a long war with lasting global consequences.

[BeatNikJackie7777]

Quote:

---

US Works Closely With Coup Leaders shows how the United States worked to overthrow the democratically elected President and administration of Venezuela a year ago, using both military and political assets of the United States, in order to serve US oil interests.

---

IMO, youre comparing apples and oranges, and you cant bog down the venezuelan situation quite so simply. Chavez' "democratic" rise sparked huge civil unrest in venezuela, and I know many venezuelans personally who wish the US would have done more.



Dek: I think most people will agree at this point the war will be long or at least, or our presence in Iraq will last long, but the question is, if you are against war, what do you suppose we do now? Get out of Iraq now? We have to see it through. My thinking is, there's very little we can do now, so all that's left for me to do now is support our troops and wish for their safe arrival. While we are organzing protests, why dont we organize one that might actually help us for the better, like an anti-electoral college protest.

Edited by: BeatNikJackie7777 at: 3/31/03 8:10:32 am

[Kieli]

And apparently I've got a lot of catching up to do. Firstly, let me say that there is no "elitism" going on. If there were a "real" debate going on, opinion simply wouldn't cut it. There would need to be some basis or support for that opinion in order for it to be considered an "argument". Then that argument must undergo testing for its "validity". Points are valid, arguments are valid, opinions only have merit and thus are not subject to the strictures of arguments unless one is trying to make their case using "facts". If one is merely positing opinion based on personal experience or feeling, then it can only have merit. So the statement about opinions being valid is somewhat incorrect. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and though not necessarily wrong, they can also not necessarily be deemed "valid" per se.

---

Moving right along....



mariacomet: I found several of your comments rather interesting coming from a self-professed "conservative Republican"...

Quote:

---

I don't trust the government period. This administration or any other.

---

Now that's rather odd, I thought the Republicans were firmly for the present administration and are very pro-government?

Quote:

---

am aware that Cheney holds investments in companies that will help re-build Iraq. I think this is wrong. I believe that no one in the circle of power involved in deciding a war should profit from that war. But I don't think he or Bush are sending us to war simply to make a few bucks. As for oil, I said it before and I'll say it again, I think oil is a 'fortunate' by product. I think Bush thought he would show the American people that he was fighting terror. I think he believed that war on Iraq was something he could either get agreement on or that no one would judge us for, if we ignored the UN. I also believe he had some valid points. About a hostile regime and about the UN backing it's own decrees. I think recent events is a symbol of failure both for the US and the UN. What we needed was unity and thoughtful leadership. I don't believe we got that. But I believe that Bush pushed things to a head much sooner than neccessary.

---

I only agree with part of this statement and am surprised you say this since you've made clear how much you distrust the government. What's to say that Cheney and Bush DIDN'T start this war with making money in mind? Why is that so inconceivable? Do we have proof that they DIDN'T? Hardly. However, I might be persuaded that Bush really did have in mind to show the US that he was fighting the terrorist threat. Many other leaders have started wars for similar reasons; to appease his/her people and show that they are all about action and not just about words. The problem is, that is a very dangerous thing when that leader has no concrete evidence that the country they're invading is directly responsible for the terrorist activity trained on the US. They have some vicarious support that Iraq has given to terror cells in the past. But that does not a solid case make.

Quote:

---

But war, I think, was the only way Sadaam would have ever disarmed.

---

Again, I say we never will really know that and can't really know that.

Quote:

---

Iraq has many things they have not accounted for, including Anthrax. They have not let inspectors freely interview scientists. Without bugs, or the scientists being threatened. They would not allow spy planes from the US or any other country without 24 hours notice on the flight plan. They would destroy some weapons. But not all. And they kept making excuses, in my opinion.

---

Um, we have anthrax too, do we not? (And we do because I live only a few miles away from that little bubonic plague scare here in TX that gave the FBI such twitches. Texas Tech University has one of the largest caches of biological agents for a university in the US. Not THE only one but simply one among many. How scary is THAT? ) Does the US allow their scientists to be freely interviewed or allow spy planes in our aerospace? I mean really! Why should Iraq do what we are unwilling to do? Make no mistake, if the shoe were on the other foot, I'm sure the US would have done the same. We have a lot to hide, IMHO. But that's just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Certainly Iraq is not what it once was - the 4th largest army in the world.

---

I'm curious, where did you get your proof that Iraq once had the 4th largest army in the world? And what time period are you considering? Last I checked, Asia had four of the seven largest militaries in the world with China being the world's largest and North Korea among the top four largest and Asia also contains four of the world's seven declared nuclear powers.



BeatnikJackie: You stated:

Quote:

---

I'll never understand the argument against war and world-policing that argues for more wars and world-policing in order to prove our good intentions.

---

That's not the argument at all. The argument is if we're going to designate ourselves the world police, it should be non-partisan and not subject to where our business interests run more deeply. This does not necessarily mean we should make war on all the offending countries. But if we're going to SAY that we're liberating some country like Iraq, we should be giving more than token help to the other countries that need us just as badly if not moreso.



In regards to religion and one's interpretations of the Bible in this thread, I'm not sure if this is the place for it. As I am atheist and think the Bible as just a mere literary work like any other, I'm not sure my opinions on it are as welcome here as someone discussing why they are Christian or their views on the Bible.

Quote:

---

I see this point, but I also have seen too many pictures of the result of terrorism from the other side to be 100% sympatheic.

---

How do you know that the pictures you've been seeing are 100% accurate? Are you basing your observations on these pictures alone? Though I agree with your observations, I am just a little concerned about this sentence.

Quote:

---

I want the violence in Israel to stop. Palenstinians and Israelis both deserve peace. But I don't think the US has been totally silent and done nothing. We have tried to exert pressure to get both sides to the table. But the issue, again in my opinion, is complicated and layered.

---

I think this may be the first thing that we both agree on Where's your Han Solo action figure sandwich?



As for BeatnikJackie's quote:

Quote:

---

your comparing apples and oranges, and you cant bog down the venezuelan situation quite so simply. Chavez' "democratic" rise sparked huge civil unrest in venezuela, and I know many venezuelans personally who wish the US would have done more.

---

While I agree that the situation in Venezuela cannot be summed up so simply, I don't believe they're comparing apples to oranges. The comparison that the US uses its military and intelligence resources to aid regimes in countries where we have significant business interests run is the argument. The situation in Venezuela was merely an example although not a very detailed one.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[cassiopeia191]

three things:

a) mariacomet, I can't discuss bible translations with you because I lack the background knowledge (plus, I'm not too fond of anything in that direction after my last talk with some Jehovah's Witnesses because I don't think it leads anywhere), but what I meant to express was: the Ten Commandments is a moral guideline that a distinct majority of Christians do have in common. even if you don't know your way around the Bible too well, this usually is what people remember and should try to live by. It's basically Christianity 101. And those people don't go around and research the different translations, they just adapt the simple sense of these 10 statements. So, yes, maybe it should be interpreted differently, from the etymologist's point of view, but I also think this is not about intention only, it's about how people understand these words. I myself see them as a clear foundation for life in a community...and yes, I generally do believe that they apply this way and I'm everything but a die-hard Christian. But yes, 'Thou shalt not murder' might be a better translation. And I think this war is murder because civilians are killed. Period.



Two) Yes, I think that World War II has put the aspect of an Israeli state into a very delicate perspective but I'm also convinced of one thing: this doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't be held responsible for its actions or that no criticism is allowed to arise. And yes, I see both sides and I'm not taking any...I remember being in the US and reading about the Middle East: I got so angry about this enormously one-sided aricle on how Palestinians are 'the bad guys' while the US and Israel are 'the heroes', I wrote a letter to the editor. Yes, I was in a conservative region (SC) but it also seemed exemplary for how this problem is presented in American mass media.



Three)

Quote:

---

But surely, the UN must become a body that backs up it's own words? Where are the limitations on that? If the UN forever slaps the hands of madmen without any real decisive action - what power does it really have? If the UN allows for 12 years someone to openly defy them, have they not lost all credibility?

---

Two words. Weapon. Inspectors.

Only because the UN didn't decide it was time to bomb some democracy into Baghdad, it didn't mean that they didn't back up it's own words. Iraq could have been disarmed peacefully within a couple of months, which is quite the amazing result if you consider the Iraqi history - unfortunately, it was not a peaceful solution the US was interested in.

Once again: Israel. More than 20 years. Plus, this is not a war against Saddam himself, it's war against the Iraqi people whether you call it that or not because they are the ones who will suffer and be killed. If SH inhabited this country alone, I would be all for bombing it.

The US used to be part of the UN, which is a community of 191 states from all over the world -- so when three quarters of them decide that this war is wrong, this does mean something, right? The US does not stand above the UN and if it acts this way it shows that democracy is not really the strongest suit of America.

"Oh, isn't life a terrible thing, thank God?"

[darkmagicwillow]

The establishment of Israel, like that of any country, is a complicated question, dating back, like many modern troubles to the ending of WWI, in which Britain was given a League of Nations mandate to control the former Turkish territories which are now Jordan and Israel. For the first time, the name Palestine was used to describe this clearly defined piece of territory. The terms of the mandate required Britain to follow the 1917 Balfour Declaration to establish a home for the Jewish people there. In 1922, the British divided the territory along the Jordan River into two districts, allowing Jewish settlement only in the west (Israel) while preventing it in the east. In 1946, the British gave the eastern half of Palestine independence as Jordan under an Arab ruler.



In 1947, the UN voted to give much of the remaining mandate to the Arabs, including the Gaza strip and West bank, while making the remaining territories an independent Jewish state. In 1948, all of the surrounding Arab nations, supported by Iraq and Saudi Arabia, invaded the nascent state of Israel. Before this conflict, almost a million Arabs fled Israel with the promise from the invaders that the country would be theirs. Many Jews fled in the opposite direction, leaving their longtime homes in the Arab states for Israel. The borders established by this conflict are the ones the UN wants Israel to assume today.



In 1967, the surrounding Arab states prepared to invade again with the goal of destroying Israel and massed armies along its borders. Israel struck pre-emptively and defeated the Arab states in the Six Day War, taking Gaza, the Sinai, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. US-brokered peace agreements convinced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai by 1982, giving up a territory as large as the state of Israel, but creating a peace with Egypt that has lasted ever since.



The remaining occupied territories are a more difficult question as they're of great strategic interest, especially the Golan Heights from which Syria repeatedly shelled Israeli towns and farms, and the West Bank, which almost cuts Israel in half. Minor conflicts beyond the ones I've listed and a constant low level conflict have convinced both sides not to trust each other.



I think it's clear that the creation of Israel was a mistake, as the constant conflict that existed since its establishment has illustrated. It's interesting to note that more Jews live in the US than in Israel, and that the world Jewish population is tiny in any case at around 13 million. But Israel does exist and I understand its refusal to surrender the occupied territories because of their strategic value and arguably, the Palestinians were already given a state: Jordan. However, I can't support their treatment of Israeli Arabs.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 3/31/03 10:02:04 am

[mariacomet]

Top of the morning...er afternoon to you Kieli.





Moving right along....

Quote:

---

Now that's rather odd, I thought the Republicans were firmly for the present administration and are very pro-government?

---

I think that's a stereotype. I have liked SOME of what the President has done, and have equally disliked SOME of what he has done. His handling of the UN was piss poor. IMHO.



You imply that conservative and republican denotes a lack of ability to think and qualify. Just because I hold to the core of republican idealogy about what is best for the company does not mean i agree with every republican leader, and/or policy.



Pro-government....no...I am for small government. Less federal involvement. That's one of the ideals that makes me a republican. It's one of the ones I agree the most strongly with.

Quote:

---

What's to say that Cheney and Bush DIDN'T start this war with making money in mind? Why is that so inconceivable? Do we have proof that they DIDN'T? Hardly.

---

Okay, question....where exactly is the line. we should give Sadaam Hussein the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise that he's disarmed but why SHOULDN'T give that to our own leaders?



Sorry, I don't agree. Distrust means, in my mind, to view things with a critical eye. NOT to assume the worst. It would take one hell of a horrible human being to want war, and risk possibly thousands of American lives to line his own pockets. Is it possible? Yes. Have people done it? Yes.



However, for now...I do not believe that this is what George Bush is doing. If you believe he is, fine. But you have no more proof that he is, than I have proof that he isn't. We could argue about this forever. He MAY be doing what you say. You have no proof. Nor do I. Because neither of us can see into someone's heart.



I say again, it's possible. But we may have to agree to disagree on this point.



But war, I think, was the only way Sadaam would have ever disarmed.

Quote:

---

Again, I say we never will really know that and can't really know that.

---

I agree. I guess I do need to eat that sandwich. However, the man had 12 years. If he wanted to disarm, wouldn't he of?

Quote:

---

Um, we have anthrax too, do we not? (And we do because I live only a few miles away from that little bubonic plague scare here in TX that gave the FBI such twitches. Texas Tech University has one of the largest caches of biological agents for a university in the US. Not THE only one but simply one among many. How scary is THAT? ) Does the US allow their scientists to be freely interviewed or allow spy planes in our aerospace? I mean really! Why should Iraq do what we are unwilling to do? Make no mistake, if the shoe were on the other foot, I'm sure the US would have done the same. We have a lot to hide, IMHO. But that's just my opinion.

---

There is one major thing on this. Iraq AGREED to disarm, and literally the document where the agreed speficies chemical weapons. In order to stop the war, they signed agreements



Also, I don't believe at this time we are actively developing mass amounts of chemicial weapons. I DO believe the government is probably experimenting with these things, but we are not mass producing them.



There are plenty of countries with weapons of mass destruction. That is not the point. Iraq promised the international community it would disarm. It promised because it lost a war. It didn't disarm. We have proof of that at least through a few weeks ago. They STILL had weapons of mass destruction.



In my opinion, and only that...12 years shows they did not want to and had no intention of ever keeping their agreement.

Quote:

---

I'm curious, where did you get your proof that Iraq once had the 4th largest army in the world? And what time period are you considering? Last I checked, Asia had four of the seven largest militaries in the world with China being the world's largest and North Korea among the top four largest and Asia also contains four of the world's seven declared nuclear powers.

---

Actually I said this in reference to Iraq NOT being what it once was. I have read two articles that stated that before the Gulf war, Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world. I'd have to dig to find the articles though.



But I agree again, Iraq is...much mismatched men/equipment wise. From the dreaded foxnews....



Defense Spending:

Iraq: $1.3 billion (1998 Jane's estimate)

U.S.: $312 billion (authorized for FY 2002)



Total Armed Forces — Active Duty:

Iraq: 402,000 soldiers

U.S.: 1,398,238 soldiers

Quote:

---

How do you know that the pictures you've been seeing are 100% accurate? Are you basing your observations on these pictures alone? Though I agree with your observations, I am just a little concerned about this sentence.

---

I believe, that at this point, both sides have used guerrilla, questionable and horrific tactics. Right now the fighting has been going on so long that everything is blurred. I believe both sides are wrong...and right. My point is NO ONE is an innocent in this. I feel for both sides.



cassiopeia191

Quote:

---

the Ten Commandments is a moral guideline that a distinct majority of Christians do have in common. even if you don't know your way around the Bible too well, this usually is what people remember and should try to live by. It's basically Christianity 101. And those people don't go around and research the different translations, they just adapt the simple sense of these 10 statements. So, yes, maybe it should be interpreted differently, from the etymologist's point of view, but I also think this is not about intention only, it's about how people understand these words.

---

I'm gonna say this and then back away from religion in a thread that is already emotional enough without bringing religion into it.



The translation of kill is in and of itself, literally vague.Thou shalt not kill could include animals, it could mean the man you kill that was going to hurt your family. Taken ONLY in this context of four words, I believe, you gain no deeper understanding of how God or humanity works. Which, I believe, is the reason religion exists. If you believe in that sort of thing.



Btw, there's also a line in there about the Sabbath. Some people, long ago, took that to mean that if your dog is drowning on the Sabbath - too bad, dog. See ya.



But the heart of that line to take a day and remember God. There is a difference between taking something to it's most literal simplistic point - and trying to use it as a model of how best to react to react to one another and God. Again, if you believe in that kind of thing. IF you do, then no, I don't think it's simple.

Quote:

---

And I think this war is murder because civilians are killed. Period.

---

I understand, and respect that this is how, in your view, you intrepret the word 'murder.' Certainly by that meaning, thou shalt not kill means all war should be avoided and fought against. I can get how you can feel this way. War is a horrible thing. All I can say is that, I don't personally agree with that definition of murder. I haven't come to the same conclusions that you have.



That doesn't mean I don't hate when innocents die.

Quote:

---

Iraq could have been disarmed peacefully within a couple of months, which is quite the amazing result if you consider the Iraqi history - unfortunately, it was not a peaceful solution the US was interested in.

---

But I don't understand. They had 12 years prior to resoultion 1441. They had a year after 1441 was adopted.



And again, for the record, I don't think the US handled the UN situation well even remotedly.

Quote:

---

it's war against the Iraqi people whether you call it that or not because they are the ones who will suffer and be killed.

---

The Iraqi people, unfortunately were already suffering and dieing. What I hope happens is after this war, they won't have to anymore.



I don't have wonderful answers. I wish I did. I don't know if America was right or wrong. I believe that America as well as the UN handled this crisis in a childish and foolish manner. I have many hopes. Many things I wish for the future. And many things I fear, about what my country might become. About the ball we may have started rolling.

Edited by: mariacomet at: 3/31/03 11:38:21 am

[dekalog]

Hey Beatnik back at you



I wanted to add that I think the war will be long because I've heard that people want to support the war so it's short - quick and painless etc... which is becoming clearer everday won't happen, and more and more innocent civilians, and troops on both sides will die.



As for protesting - and I am - I'm CAnadian so I'm still fighting to keep my country out of it under ever increasing pressure from both within and from outside sources to become involved (or more involved since we have soldiers in with British troops, and ships in the Gulf, and what is left of our miniscule Armed Forces is either going to or in Afganistan). So for me protesting against this war does mean something. Even I did live in the US I'd still be protesting and asking my government to swallow their pride and get out - because I disagree and believe that the best thing for the world would be for them to get out - and I've never been the quiet type when I believe in something.



I'm not American though so I've been pulling back from this conversation, but everyonce and a while I can't keep my mouth shut - you know .

Edited by: dekalog at: 3/31/03 11:54:01 am

[mariacomet]

Kieli,

Quote:

---

You've voiced your distrust but as far as the viewing with a critical eye, I think you've only pushed that envelope only so far as your personal comfort zone.

---

This is one of many assumptions that you have made about (in no particular order) me, republican, conservatives. Please, stop it. You are entitled to your opinion about what I am and am not doing. But this is a personal judgement and from you, who claims to want to be logicial, I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

---

What other definition of "murder" is there? Dead is dead, killing is killing. You can't put spin on it and say "Oh they were the bad guys so murdering them is justified." That is SO not the way logic works. Last time I checked there was only one definition of murder in the dictionary not fifteen or twenty. There are some words that are not open to interpretation.

---

Excuse me, but again...this is a personal judgement that YOU have made. You have no right to tell anyone that doesn't agree with you that they are 'spinning' or wrong. Or illogical.



Are you implying that ANYONE that has ever killed an innocent is a murderer? That all soliders and all countries that have participated in war are murderers? ALL countries have had wars and in ALL wars innocents die.



There is a HUGE difference, in my opinion, between TRYING to kill as many innocents as possible, and innocents being killed in a war.



And just so that I ask....Can we all please stop making assumptions?



Please don't assume anyone is less informed, less educated, misinformed, miseducated...etc etc.



If you have a fact you think I or anyone is not aware of, please post that fact. If there's an article, you don't think I or anyone has read - then ask. Did you know this...did you know that - those questions are very useful in discussion.



There's a lot I don't know. I welcome the opportunity to learn. I think we all should.



Kieli, I'll read those sites, and any suggestions you have on alternate media, please feel free to let me know about.

Edited by: mariacomet at: 3/31/03 12:37:57 pm

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

This is one of many assumptions that you have made about (in no particular order) me, republican, conservatives. Please, stop it. You are entitled to your opinion about what I am and am not doing. But this is a personal judgement and from you, who claims to want to be logicial, I don't appreciate it.

---

I think you're not comfortable with my observations. I am NOT making a personal judgment (although you seem to feel pretty free to do so and get all worked up when someone calls you on it). I KNOW that what you're stating is opinion. But your arguments clearly show that you're only willing to take them as far as you feel comfortable with discussing. I can't make that up. This is what your words say to me. You only want to take this discussion insofar as you are comfortable with and while understandable, you can't stop me from noticing it. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but if you no longer wish to participate in the discussion that is your prerogative. Your preemptive command to me doesn't change the observations. Are you going to report me to the principal now? If you cannot handle someone disputing you or making an observation, then debate is not for you. If you want to dispute my observation then by all means do so. But give me something other than "this is just your personal judgment". You've done quite a bit of assuming on your own....like assuming I'm out to get you or assuming that I think you're an idiot. What, you get to assume but I don't? Please.

Quote:

---

Excuse me, but again...this is a personal judgement that YOU have made. You have no right to tell anyone that doesn't agree with you that they are 'spinning' or wrong. Or illogical. Are you implying that ANYONE that has ever killed an innocent is a murderer? That all soliders and all countries that have participated in war are murderers? ALL countries have had wars and in ALL wars innocents die.

---

And I NEVER, NOT ONCE, said you were wrong. Will you PLEASE check your facts before accusing me? Um no, have you checked a dictionary lately? Let's take a look at the logical, cold hard definition of murder shall we, lest you constantly think I am picking on you (why would I really bother with the effort, I ask?). According to the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition (talk about irony ), the definition of murder is as follows:



the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another, to kill unlawfully esp. wickedly or inhumanly. Noun homicide, killing, slaying, assassinating, slaughter, butchery, genocide, massacre, bloodshed, carnage, regicide, patricide, etc. Verb massacre, put to death, destroy, annihilate.



There is no possible why ANYONE can put spin on so concrete a definition. While there have been attempts to put degrees on the definition of the word "murder" (www.lectlaw.com/def2/m150.htm) there is NO WAY that murder can be misconstrued as the right and proper thing to do in ANY situation.



Murder can also be strictly defined at the following links:



dirp.pids.gov.ph/cgi-bin/dd?MURDER+eds.dict



www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/dbg.chap2.htm



Sure murder has been done "for the good of God and country", but that's only been a rationalization. LOGICALLY SPEAKING, murder is murder. Period.

Quote:

---

There is a HUGE difference, in my opinion, between TRYING to kill as many innocents as possible, and innocents being killed in a war.

---

But it still does happen and its still murder, no matter how one tries to justify it in order to assuage a guilty conscience.

Quote:

---

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I thought the purpose here was discussion. I don't expect comments to get personal and anyone's view to be invalidated.

---

My comments aren't personal. They are addressing YOUR OPINION and not YOU. They are addressing your method of argument and debate and not YOU. So if this discussion is getting a bit too much for you to handle, then by all means say so. Many peoples' opinions are based on assumption. It happens, people assume. Many of your own opinions, I've noticed, are based on assumption as well as my own. And there ARE people who are miseducated, misinformed, etc. That's why there are such things as debates and coursework. Not everyone was born with a complete knowledge of everything.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 3/31/03 1:03:28 pm

[darkmagicwillow]

I think people are overgeneralizing about political parties Because of the two-party system, both parties are coalitions of many conflicting views, making it difficult to attribute any particular view to someone just because they state that they're a Democrat or Republican. And neither party's candidates have demonstrated a widespread support for small government or the rights of the people; they just differ on where they want government to expand (often social programs for Democrats, military for Republicans, and pork barrel projects for their own districts for both sides), and which freedoms they want to reduce. That's why I won't vote for candidates of either major party.



p.s.: Kieli, thanks for the compliment. I'm applying for teaching jobs now; can I get a recommendation from you? (-;

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[justin]

Quote:

---

And I NEVER, NOT ONCE, said you were wrong. Will you PLEASE check your facts before accusing me? Um no, have you checked a dictionary lately? Let's take a look at the logical, cold hard definition of murder shall we, lest you constantly think I am picking on you (why would I really bother with the effort, I ask?). According to the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition (talk about irony ), the definition of murder is as follows:



the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another, to kill unlawfully esp. wickedly or inhumanly. Noun homicide, killing, slaying, assassinating, slaughter, butchery, genocide, massacre, bloodshed, carnage, regicide, patricide, etc. Verb massacre, put to death, destroy, annihilate.



There is no possible why ANYONE can put spin on so concrete a definition. While there have been attempts to put degrees on the definition of the word "murder" (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m150.htm) there is NO WAY that murder can be misconstrued as the right and proper thing to do in ANY situation.

---

To be honest this doesn't strike me as being a concrete definition since it depends on how you interpret the word unlawful.



The obvious definition would be something that's against the law, but then the question is whose laws. So personaly I think you can put a lot of spin on that definition.



I looked at the two links. The first went straight over my head. The second says that

Quote:

---

The killing of one person by another is murder whether done because the victim was Black or White, refused to repay a loan, or hurled an insult. It is murder if the killing was a premeditated act or the person died because of a reckless and wanton disregard for their life. Nor does it matter whether the killing is done for high moral ends, for altruistic reasons, or for any other purpose, it is murder under Western and most other legal codes (unless officially authorized by government, as for judicial executions or military combat).

---

You'll note it explicitly states that if the killing is authorized by government then it isn't murder, so again there is ambiguity.

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[Kieli]

DMW: I'd be happy to. I'll just mention that you graduated from the Dr. Jack Fischel school of Modern Jewish History. That might work.



I agree about the two party system. Both parties have pretty much sat on the fence or have vacillated so wildly between opinions that it's hard to tell where either of them stand. Voting is a chore for me, mostly because I'm stuck with the lesser of two evils. I hate that. But I guess politics are never clear.



justin:True that is one website's interpretation of murder, but the definition of murder given in most dictionaries and texts are a little more hard and fast.

Quote:

---

To be honest this doesn't strike me as being a concrete definition since it depends on how you interpret the word unlawful.



The obvious definition would be something that's against the law, but then the question is whose laws. So personaly I think you can put a lot of spin on that definition.

---

Aren't there laws that specifically address the taking of a life, any life, in any situation that are universal? Granted, I suppose one could make the argument that this definition is subject to interpretation but whose interpretation? And how far must it go? If one were to liberally interpret the definition of murder, then maybe there are far too many people imprisoned for self-defense. But looking at these definitions one cannot deny that murder is still killing. One could give any reason they wanted to but never change that fact.



I do have a question though.....how should the definition of murder read if one were to account for many interpretations? Should we say the definition is fluid to the point of inconsistency? I am asking this mostly because I am curious.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 3/31/03 1:30:55 pm

[mariacomet]

Kieli







I think that kinda sums it up. I don't like where this is going with you. We're talking privately now and I think that's probably a good idea. But I will be staying in the thread. I don't mind things getting heated. There are other things I do mind, but...I will discuss that with you privately.



For the record, i don't believe in arguing just to argue. I don't believe in speaking just to hear myself speak (despite what the rumors are. ) If I start feeling that is what is going on, I will then likely, bail. My hope in coming to this thread was to share what I think/feel and listen to what others think/feel. I expect hard questions from others and I expect to ask some. I hope that happens.



I am coming late to the dance though...and I admit that.

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

I got so angry about this enormously one-sided aricle on how Palestinians are 'the bad guys' while the US and Israel are 'the heroes', I wrote a letter to the editor. Yes, I was in a conservative region (SC) but it also seemed exemplary for how this problem is presented in American mass media.

---

You're so right, and it isn't just in a "conservative region." Eleven years ago, I was at a Democratic Presidential Candidates Forum held in the Upper West Side of Manhattan (NYC). Candidate after candidate (or mainly their reps---Clinton, e.g., wasn't there) full-throatedly pledged their support for Israel. Timidly, I raised my hand: "What about the Palestinians? Any support for them?"



Now I should have known better, for this crowd (Hint: It was not Palestinian-Americans that were disproportionately represented!), but I was new there. However, I was totally unprepared for the way the *air just went out of the room*. There was this painful silence, accompanied only by "tsks," throat-clearings, a few guffaws and, of course, everyone in the room staring at me! After several seconds of this (not one word from the candidates/reps---some careful shoe-examination, though), the moderator took another question.



I bring up this story only in connection to one of the long-range U.S. goals of the war: the winning of Arab hearts and minds. Transforming Iraq is seen as model for doing this (if those pesky Iraqis will ever start cheering their "liberators"!), and as a continuation of the heart-and-mind winning begun with the U.S. propagan-- uh, excuse me, "information" campaign under (recently resigned) PR exec Charlotte Beers.



In my opinion, failure is guaranteed in this endeavor, because the assumptions are mutually exclusive. The only thing that Arabs want to hear from the U.S. (even more than democratizing their own governments) is how the U.S. will use its $13+ billion dollar "influence" on Israel (as in "Get out of the Occupied Territories, or Not One More Red Cent!" ). Anything else is so much hot air.



But, as my story above indicates, for Democrats and Republicans alike, exerting real pressure on Israel is the one thing that's absolutely off the table.



Sure, we (the U.S.) can get rid of Saddam & Co. But as far as winning Arab heart and minds---and thus defusing the powderkeg that is the Mideast---we are asking young American (and British) soldiers to give their lives in a lost (unwinnable) cause.



GG Hail to what Commander-in-Chief? Out

[bzengo]

Just found Get Your War On, and it totally cracked me up.



The Onion - Special War Coverage



And the White House as you've never seen it before.



And who can resist Dave Barry? Or his Official Blog?



Because if we don't crack ourselves up, who will? Oh wait - this isn't the Lesbian Jokes thread? My bad. Sorry.

bzengo


Robert A. Heinlein The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs.

Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?

Edited by: bzengo at: 3/31/03 2:25:54 pm

[justin]

Quote:

---

Aren't there laws that specifically address the taking of a life, any life, in any situation that are universal? Granted, I suppose one could make the argument that this definition is subject to interpretation but whose interpretation?

---

I don't think there are any universal laws against the taking of any life. In most countries there are cases where taking a life isn't murder. Such as execution, abortion and euphanasia. The point is that since laws aren't universal any definition that includes unlawful is open to interpretation.

Quote:

---

And how far must it go? If one were to liberally interpret the definition of murder, then maybe there are far too many people imprisoned for self-defense. But looking at these definitions one cannot deny that murder is still killing. One could give any reason they wanted to but never change that fact.

---

Yes, murder is killing, but is killing always murder.



I've had a look in Collins and that gives a number of definitions. As well as the one you quoted it also says that murder is to kill someone brutaly which seems to suggest that beating someone to death is murder but giving them poison isn't.

Quote:

---

I do have a question though.....how should the definition of murder read if one were to account for many interpretations? Should we say the definition is fluid to the point of inconsistency? I am asking this mostly because I am curious.

---

Well that depends on whether you're interested in a legal definition, a moral one or just having a definition so you can say murder is x.



In the first case then the definition would need to be as thorough as possible and contain as many corner cases as possible without becoming inconsistent. My sister's studying law so I'll tackle her on the subject when I see her tomorrow.



In the second case I think it depends on each individual. Though my own definition would be that murder is the premeditated taking of a life except when it is to preserve another life.



in the third case then the dictionary definition is reasonable enough as long as you realise that it doesn't necessarily count for much.

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[BeatNikJackie7777]

bzen: I mentioned the onion earlier too, lol, their war coverage has been hilarious.

[bzengo]

BeatNicJackie -



Yes, you did mention The Onion earlier.



But in the spirit of Donald Rumsfeld, I intend to take credit for all that goes well in this thread, and blame everything that goes wrong on Tommy Franks.

bzengo


Robert A. Heinlein The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs.

Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?

[ra da el]

Hello kittens, I'm almost a lurker, mainly because I don't feel I can express my thoughts in english well enough (I'm italian), but, reading this thread, my admiration of you as a specially clever and socially and politically advanced community increased even further.

I see a polite, informed and responsible debate, making me hope a lot of american people are not well represented by this current administration.

I think people like Rumsfield, Rice and mr. Bush himself have clear interest conflicts about oil and are involved with other companies that will be active in iraqi post-war reconstruction, not talking about the utterly unacceptable doctrine of 'preventive war', totally against international right.

These facts make me think about this war as a very, very wrong one despite the fact Saddam Hussain is a cruel dictator.

I hope I will share more articulated thoughts with you soon.

For the moment I'd like to thankyou for giving life to this wonderful community.



Oh, a last thing: W/T forever.

[Kieli]

First off to GG, you make me ROTFLMFAO! I love ya to pieces.



Justin, m'lad you've helped to segue into something that I consider to be a little two-sided. How the US can condone public executions of criminals while screaming from the high heavens that abortions are "murder".

Quote:

---

I don't think there are any universal laws against the taking of any life. In most countries there are cases where taking a life isn't murder. Such as execution, abortion and euphanasia. The point is that since laws aren't universal any definition that includes unlawful is open to interpretation.

---

True, there are countries (like many Middle Eastern countries) that consider execution, abortion and euthanasia legal life-taking measures. So does that mean that even our own international laws are subject to some creative interpretation? Can the World Court truly prosecute someone for "war crimes" or even for "crimes against humanity" if their culture's laws permit some of the things you mention? What about ethnic cleansing? It would be cool if your lawyer sister could help us out with some of these questions



Just a side note about civilians getting killed in this war, here is a rather chilling little article that did little to assuage my feelings about how wrong I think the whole kit-n-caboodle is:



story.news.yahoo.com/news...accuracy_3

Quote:

---

Well that depends on whether you're interested in a legal definition, a moral one or just having a definition so you can say murder is x.



In the first case then the definition would need to be as thorough as possible and contain as many corner cases as possible without becoming inconsistent. My sister's studying law so I'll tackle her on the subject when I see her tomorrow.



In the second case I think it depends on each individual. Though my own definition would be that murder is the premeditated taking of a life except when it is to preserve another life.



in the third case then the dictionary definition is reasonable enough as long as you realise that it doesn't necessarily count for much.

---

I can't imagine that such a word would be that open to interpretation in the real world (well unless you were trying to stay out of jail). True many interpretations are feasible but can you really see your own definition of "murder" getting you by in a court of law?



(edited to add: Dare il benvenuto all'Asse di Gattino, Ra! Il mio italiano non è molto buono ma è buono per averlo qui. Rallegra!)

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 3/31/03 5:31:05 pm

[darkmagicwillow]

While I agree that the American conquest and rebuilding of Germany was the most successful effort of its kind outside of perhaps Japan, it's atypical of US interventions, perhaps because it was in a first world country, and the cost is also worth noting: military government of the country from 1945-1949, followed by a large military presence (70,000 troops before this war started) for over 50 years.



Even before it began, this war on Iraq reminded me of the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union. That war was also justified by pre-emptive defense (against Stalin.) Given the definite presence of millions of Russian troops near the German border, it was more clearly motivated than the war against SH who may or may not have WMD. It achieved initial success, then bogged down in urban warfare in Stalingrad or in the refusal to engage in such warfare in the seige of Leningrad. As I expected, American forces have become bogged down in the same way in cities like Basra. The mobility and technology of the Americans is as useless in urban warfare as that of the Germans was over 50 years ago.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 3/31/03 5:43:56 pm

[BeatNikJackie7777]

LOL bzengo, intent duly noted. Speaking of Rumsfeld, what is with him and Bush with the squinting? If they ever mated with Renee Zellwelger, they'd eliminate eyes from the gene pool.

Edited by: BeatNikJackie7777 at: 3/31/03 6:51:33 pm

[Gatito Grande]

BNJ!



Maybe the squinting's a Texas thang? Kieli? (Though I wouldn't wish them cowboys on poor Renee!)



Speaking of shallow mocking of a physical attribute, has anyone else ever wondered about Dubya's left eyebrow? The thing looks like it's about to calve, like an iceberg!



Ra, your english is excellent, and it's good to know (not that there was any doubt) that Berlescone (sp?) doesn't speak for all Italians, either!



Back atcha, Kieli! It's dangerous to love me to pieces, though. In my "desperately single" state, I had to check to see if you were attached (the better to fling my "pieces" at you, m'dear)!



Kidding aside, I wanted to mourn the seven women and children that the U.S. shot to death today. Can Americans imagine this? That foreign soldiers were in our country, yelling "Stop!" at us (in heavily accented English if we were lucky, in another language if we weren't), and that if we didn't, fast enough, they would open fire on our vehicle w/ high powered weapons? I mean really, can you imagine?



GG Perhaps the better reaction is Out

[bzengo]

Yesterday, we were speaking of the likelihood of increased civilian causalities, and changes in the rules of engagement, to make it easier to kill civilians.



Today, we're seeing the results.



I just updated my weblog, Bastard Zen, and one of the stories I blogged today is from the online version of The Times. You can read the entire article by going to the link, or you can read the first five to ten paragraphs.



And remember, this is just the start. Its going to get worse. Much, much worse.





US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death



THE light was a strange yellowy grey and the wind was coming up, the beginnings of a sandstorm. The silence felt almost eerie after a night of shooting so intense it hurt the eardrums and shattered the nerves. My footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead.



Some 15 vehicles, including a minivan and a couple of trucks, blocked the road. They were riddled with bullet holes. Some had caught fire and turned into piles of black twisted metal. Others were still burning.



Amid the wreckage I counted 12 dead civilians, lying in the road or in nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town overnight, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks and heavy artillery.



Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the coalition's supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young American marines with orders to shoot anything that moved.



One man's body was still in flames. It gave out a hissing sound. Tucked away in his breast pocket, thick wads of banknotes were turning to ashes. His savings, perhaps.



Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who may have been her father. Half his head was missing.



Nearby, in a battered old Volga, peppered with ammunition holes, an Iraqi woman - perhaps the girl's mother - was dead, slumped in the back seat. A US Abrams tank nicknamed Ghetto Fabulous drove past the bodies.



This was not the only family who had taken what they thought was a last chance for safety. A father, baby girl and boy lay in a shallow grave. On the bridge itself a dead Iraqi civilian lay next to the carcass of a donkey.



As I walked away, Lieutenant Matt Martin, whose third child, Isabella, was born while he was on board ship en route to the Gulf, appeared beside me.



"Did you see all that?" he asked, his eyes filled with tears. "Did you see that little baby girl? I carried her body and buried it as best I could but I had no time. It really gets to me to see children being killed like this, but we had no choice."



Martin's distress was in contrast to the bitter satisfaction of some of his fellow marines as they surveyed the scene. "The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy," said Corporal Ryan Dupre. "I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi. No, I won't get hold of one. I'll just kill him."

bzengo


Robert A. Heinlein The Earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep all your eggs.

Prof. Gerard K. O'Neill Is the surface of the Earth really the right place for an expanding technological civilization?