The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[justin]

Quote:

---

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".

---

Well I'm very much against capital punishment. Getting rid of it is one of the few things that Britains done right.

Quote:

---

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

---

She's not a lawyer yet, she's just studying law in her spare time. I will ask though.

Quote:

---

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

---

It's been mentioned that president Bush and others haven't been to war and therefore don't know what it's like to risk there lives like this. However a worse effect is that they don't know what it's like to face the possility of killing civilians and to face this sort of guilt.

Quote:

---

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?

---

That's why I gave different definitions depending on the intent of the definition.

Of course you wouldn't expect to go into court and say that according to your personal definition it isn't murder, and get off. Unless you've got a very good lawyer, that is.



If your purpose is so you can say who does and doesn't go to prison for murder then you'd want something that's rigid and unambiguous.



However I think the beginning of this subthread was if you're a Christian you can't support the war because the Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill/murder'



But if the reason for wanting to define murder is because you want to decide whether you should be for or against the war when the bible says no to murder rather than who should or shouldn't be convicted then I can see the definition being a lot more subjective.

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


I am

[mariacomet]

bzengo

First, let me thank you for the link to that site. The top says, 'news you won't find on cnn' and that is highly accurate from what I have been reading.



I wanted to add in a few paragraphs from later on in the article you pasted. For continuity sake and to describe the mindset of the soliders fighting on the US/UK side.



Only a few days earlier these had still been the bright-eyed small-town boys with whom I crossed the border at the start of the operation. They had rolled towards Nasiriya, a strategic city beside the Euphrates, on a mission to secure a safe supply route for troops on the way to Baghdad.



They had expected a welcome, or at least a swift surrender. Instead they had found themselves lured into a bloody battle, culminating in the worst coalition losses of the war - 16 dead, 12 wounded and two missing marines as well as five dead and 12 missing servicemen from an army convoy - and the humiliation of having prisoners paraded on Iraqi television.







Bad news filtered back. Earlier that morning a US Army convoy had been greeted by a group of Iraqis dressed in civilian clothes, apparently wanting to surrender. When the American soldiers stopped, the Iraqis pulled out AK-47s and sprayed the US trucks with gunfire.



Five wounded soldiers were rescued by our convoy, including one who had been shot four times. The attackers were believed to be members of the Fedayeen Saddam, a group of 15,000 fighters under the command of Saddam's psychopathic son Uday.







"It's a bad situation," said First Sergeant James Thompson, who was running around with a 9mm pistol in his hand. "We don't know who is shooting at us. They are even using women as scouts. The women come out waving at us, or with their hands raised. We freeze, but the next minute we can see how she is looking at our positions and giving them away to the fighters hiding behind a street corner. It's very difficult to

distinguish between the fighters and civilians."



and then there's the story about the seven slain from the AP...



Monday's fatal shooting happened at a U.S. Army checkpoint near Najaf, about 20 miles north of Saturday's suicide attack. Coalition officials said soldiers motioned for an approaching van to stop, but the driver ignored them. Troops fired warning shots first, then shot into the engine and then into the passenger compartment as a last resort, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Iraq.



A little more info from Reuters and from the Washington Post...



The Post said Johnson, positioned at the intersection, described a potential threat and radioed a forward platoon of M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles to order a warning shot.



"Fire a warning shot," Johnson ordered the platoon as the vehicle kept coming. Then with increasing urgency, Johnson told the platoon to shoot a 7.62mm machine-gun round into the vehicle's radiator, the report said.



"Stop around!" he yelled into the radio network when he still saw no action being taken. Finally, he shouted, "Stop him, Red 1, stop him!," according to the report.



The Post report said the order was immediately followed by the loud reports of 25mm cannon fire from one or more of the platoon's Bradleys.



"Cease fire!" Johnson yelled over the radio. Then, as he peered into his binoculars from the intersection, he roared at the platoon leader, "You just killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!," according to the Post's account.



Some more info from www.iraqinews.com/org_ashbal_saddam.shtml



Activities

The Ashbal Saddam trains boys between the ages of 10 and 15 in military camps to learn the use of small arms and infantry tactics. They are also conditioned in propaganda of the Baath Party. In the event of war, their responsibilities would entail setting up roadblocks, conducting ambushes, sniper assualts, sabotage and psychological warfare operations.



Strength

Over 8,000 troops.



Regarding the car bombing from a few days ago:



IN THE IRAQI DESERT — A bomber posing as a taxi driver summoned American troops for help, then blew up his vehicle Saturday, killing himself and four soldiers and opening a new chapter of carnage in the war for Iraq.



Iraq's vice president said such attacks would be "routine military policy" in Iraq -- and, he suggested chillingly, in the United States. Saddam Hussein gave the bomber a posthumous promotion to colonel and two medals -- Al-Rafidin, or The Two Rivers, and the Mother of All Battles, state TV reported.



"We will use any means to kill our enemy in our land and we will follow the enemy into its land," Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said at a Baghdad news conference. "This is just the beginning. You'll hear more pleasant news later."



Some more figures....



www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm#5

None deny that Iraq sanctions have caused many deaths, but a debate has raged over how many.







UNICEF, in a widely-publicised study carried out jointly with the Iraq Ministry of Health, determined that 500,000 children under five years old had died in “excess” numbers in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, though UNICEF insisted that this number could not all be ascribed directly to sanctions. (119) UNICEF used surveys of its own as part of the basic research and involved respected outside experts in designing the study and evaluating the data. UNICEF remains confident in the accuracy of its numbers and points out that they have never been subject to a scientific challenge.



Prof. Richard Garfield of Columbia University carried out a separate and well-regarded study of excess mortality in Iraq. Garfield considered the same age group and the same time period as the UNICEF study. (120) He minimized reliance on official Iraqi statistics by using many different statistical sources, including independent surveys in Iraq and inferences from comparative public health data from other countries. Garfield concluded that there had been a minimum of 100,000 excess deaths and that the more likely number was 227,000. He compared this estimate to a maximum estimate of 66,663 civilian and military deaths during the Gulf War. Garfield now thinks the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. (121)







Death, death and more death. I want to say that it makes me heartsick to hear about civillians dieing, especially children.



But the death of children, unfortunately, is nothing new in Iraq. US Soilders are going to make mistakes, and yes you are right....it is going to get much much worse. US/UK soilders are fighting, as you accurately have commented before, an enemy using guerilla tactics. I can understand in the light of what has been said by Iraq's leaders and by some of the examples of car bombs and false surrenders, WHY the US/UK soliders are firing upon civilians. It is because right now who is an innocent and who MAY be the enemy in disguise is becoming harder to tell.



This reminds me of some stories of Vietnam I have heard, and this disturbs me. But I have to admit that I never thought this war would be won easily. And I knew when the first marine hit the sand, that the end result would likely be hundreds if not thousands of US/UK forces dead, and thousands of civilians dead. Because I knew - to my limited degree - that war is horrible.



Anyone who thought this war would be over in a few days was never looking at the big picture. Anyone that things BAGHDAD is going to be taken easily is dilluded. And anyone that thinks that will be the end of the fighting is not looking at things realisticially.



I hope we can eventually bring peace and stability back to Iraq. I hope we can return it to the prosperity it once knew. I believe we can. We have the power, if we are determined and offer action and now just words. But I believe too, that many in Iraq blame us for the poverty they have faced since the Gulf War.



I wondered before this war began, why we were starting this when there was clearly so much left unresolved in Afghanistan. I wonder why Mr. Bush was named 'the Axis of evil' effectively starting three wars all at once - at least in policy. These are the kinds of things this administration does that I am utterly against and baffled by.



I think I can sum up how I feel by saying this: We should have waited. We should have approached the UN much differently. But we're there now. I hope we can turn this into something beneficial for the International community and the Iraqi people. I'm not sure how we can, but I hope the possibility is there.



I do think we, Americans, need to learn the difference between Pride and arrogance. Between humility and being dictated to. Between power and domination. I hope we learn from the past. I hope we learn to listen to those countries much older than us, who have been through it all before. I hope we can learn to be students as well as teachers.

[Diebrock]

Here are a few interesting links about the COW.

Everyone who is of the opinion that the US didn't really need the UN since they have such a large coalition from all over the world, should probably read them. They also make the whole "look how many countries are supporting the war" argument just slightly less convincing. Especially when you realize that "a few of the countries signing on to "liberate" Iraq have human rights records that rival Saddam Hussein's."



A Coalition of Weakness



IPS Releases Report on U.S. Arm-twisting Over Iraq War

The following links go directly to the two parts of the report (in .pdf format)

www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf and

www.ips-dc.org/COERCED2.pdf

_____________________

"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

[maudmac]

US policy, both domestic and foreign, is entirely too influenced by the interests of Big Business. Kowtowing to corporations, the US has invaded sovereign nations on their behalf, has orchestrated coups to overthrow democratically elected officials who wanted to limit the influence of American corporations in their own countries, and now, in Iraq, well, surely it's not just a coincidence that there's a hell of a lot of money to be made...and, gosh, look whose friends are going to be making all that money.



Knowing our history, I cannot really embrace the notion that the Bush administration has honorable intentions in Iraq. Even so, if the objective really is to "liberate Iraq" through a "regime change," surely this could have been accomplished without bombing the hell out of civilians who are, in the words of Salam Pax, "sitting in their homes hoping that a bomb doesn’t fall on them and keeping their doors shut."



As much as it feels wrong to get a chuckle out of anything related to this, I couldn't help laugh at this:

Quote:

---

bush twins volunteer for war on iraq; other politicians' children follow

by The Dissociated Press - April 01, 2003

       

President George Bush announced Tuesday that his two children--twins Barbara and Jenna--have joined the Army in order to take part in the military action against Iraq.



“They want to help their country,” said Bush during a press conference. “They’ve heard me and my administration talk about how Saddam Hussein is a very bad man. A mad man. A sad man. Behind blue eyes. Won’t get fooled again.



“He has nucular weapons and sarin gas and anthrax and West Nile and nerve gas and all kinds of other stuff. And he’s going to use it to destroy the world, including the greatest country in history, the one that is closest to my heart. And after he attacks Israel, he might even attack the United States. Of America.



“That’s why my daughters have volunteered to join the Army. They’re going to put their money where my mouth is by defending this great land of ours. I’m so proud that they’re following in my footsteps by joining the military at their country’s time of need. But they won’t be defending the skies of Texas from the Viet Cong, like I did for a little while before skipping my last year of service. They’re actually going to be in Iraq, flying troop-transport helicopters behind enemy lines. Me and Laura call them ‘our little bullet-stoppers.’”



Reached for comment at the Kappa Omega fraternity house, Jenna Bush said, “Yeah, I’m so totally geeked about going over there! I’m sure there’s lots of mad cute guys in the Army. It’s gonna be tight.”



Barbara Bush commented from the payphone at the Flying Saucer Bar and Club: “When my dad decided that American kids needed to invade Iraq, I was like, ‘I want to go!’ I’m all about attacking Iraq. I mean, I can’t let other people my age kill and die for this country and, you know, not go myself.”



The actions of the First Twins evidently inspired other young members of the Bush clan. Noelle Bush, daughter of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, has signed up for the Air Force. At first, it appeared that Noelle’s well publicized drug arrests might prohibit her from military service, but her father stepped in. “We’ve pulled strings for Noelle so many other times,” said Governor Bush, “we figured, why not this time? She wanted to join so bad. So I called [Secretary of the Air Force] Jim Roche, and it was a done deal.”



Jeb Bush’s son, George P. Bush, who famously drew comparisons to Ricky Martin when he campaigned for his uncle, emerged from the Marine recruitment center in Austin, Texas, brandishing his paperwork. “I’m in! I’m a Marine!” he yelled to gathered reporters. “I’m so excited that I’m going to serve my country. I can’t wait to kick Saddam’s f------ ass!”



The war fever has spread beyond the Bush family. Two of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz’s three children have enlisted in the military in the past week. Wolfowitz spoke ruefully of his younger son, Jerry, who didn’t sign up. “I’m very upset with him. I told him he’s acting like a coward. As I’ve constantly said for over a decade, it is absolutely imperative that we topple Hussein and liberate Iraq. It must be our immediate, pressing priority. Every able-bodied young American should join this crucial fight. Refusing is like not going into the military during Vietnam. It’s unpatriotic, and I’m ashamed that I raised such a yellow-belly.”



Last night, Jerry Wolfowitz appeared on the Fox News talk show The O’Reilly Factor to defend his decision not to join the military. As he tried to ask why host Bill O’Reilly never served in Vietnam, O’Reilly cut him off by yelling: “Shut up! Just shut up! You’re a disgrace to your father! I hope Mrs. Wolfowitz isn’t watching this! Turn of his mic[rophone]! Get out of my studio before I tear you to f------ pieces!”



Earlier today, Vice President Dick Cheney released a statement regarding his oldest granddaughter, who volunteered for the Navy. It read, in part: “Lynne and I couldn’t be more proud. Although I had other priorities during the Vietnam era, it’s encouraging to see that Mary Junior is going to fight in a war. We know she’ll make us and our country proud. We hope she comes back alive and in one piece.”



Proving that the war fever is bipartisan, Chelsea Clinton volunteered for the Marines. Senator Hillary Clinton's office released a statement: "I fully support President Bush's policy toward Iraq. Thus, I fully support my only child joining the fight. Her father does, as well. Chelsea has told us that as soon as she gets back from hobnobbing with Madonna in London, she'll be on the first troop-transport plane to the Persian Gulf."



In related happenings, Andrew Perle has joined the Green Berets, and Jane Rumsfeld enlisted in the explosive ordnance disposal unit of the Marines. In an unusual twist, Ann Coulter herself tried to join the Army, but, at age 40, she’s well past the Army’s maximum enlistment age of 34. “I’m not afraid to get some blood on these pampered, manicured hands,” said the conservative commentator. “I'm not afraid to muss up this $150 'Friends' hair-do. I really wanted to go over there, kill Iraq’s leaders, and convert the people to Christianity, but I’m too old.” Coulter added that she’s so anxious to fight on the ground at the front lines, she’s filed an official request that the Army waive its age limit and gender restrictions in her case.

---

It is April Fool's Day, after all.



If they only had this in my size. God forbid we have access to anything that doesn't toe the party line.

---

i know there is strength
in the differences between us
and i know there is comfort
where we overlap

[tommo]

An interesting and amusing comment on the differences in way the war is being reported. Last night on V Graham Norton (this week from New York), Graham said that being in the US was wonderful, because there, we appear to be winning the war. He said he'd flown for 8 hours, and in that time, apparently the war was going really well. Makes you wonder who's telling the truth about what's going on over there, really.

Asda uniforms. Clubbing. Unmixy things.

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

But the death of children, unfortunately, is nothing new in Iraq. US Soldiers are going to make mistakes, and yes you are right....it is going to get much much worse.

---

mariacomet, I can't tell you how much this bothers me. I'm sure you're just trying to be realistic, but it comes across so cavalier: "Darn it, dead kids happen." Can't you see the difference between a tragedy (any children dying, for any reason) and a crime done in our names---with our tax dollars?

Quote:

---

Anyone who thought this war would be over in a few days was never looking at the big picture.

---

Then why did Cheney, Perle and others in the Bush administration sell it this way? Worst of all, to our troops?

Quote:

---

I hope we can turn this into something beneficial for the International community and the Iraqi people. I'm not sure how we can, but I hope the possibility is there.

---

Well I still hope that these benefits can be gained through nonviolent means (like inspections). Would you give me the same benefit of the doubt---the hoped-for possibility---that you seem to be giving Bush & Co.?



GG I loved hearing General Myers (Chair of the JCoS) explain the components of the "war plan" today, when he included "diplomacy." Isn't it great to know that U.S. diplomacy is there to serve our war-making, instead of war being the last resort to all efforts at diplomacy? If Colin Powell wasn't so *sold out*, maybe he would notice that he's been demoted to Rumsfeld's shoeshine boy! Out

[bzengo]

mariacomet,



You are so right:

Quote:

---

Anyone who thought this war would be over in a few days was never looking at the big picture. Anyone that things BAGHDAD is going to be taken easily is dilluded. And anyone that thinks that will be the end of the fighting is not looking at things realisticially.

---

The only problem is, the people, as you put it, "not looking at things realisticially" are the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and his senior advisors.





From Salon:

(registration required)



"Cakewalk"

Bush administration officials and their hawkish supporters now say they never promised an easy war -- but the record shows otherwise.



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





March 28, 2003 | Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:



"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."



"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "



Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:



"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.



Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press" March 16:



"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."



"My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."



Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN March 23:



"The course of this war is clear. The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It's over. It will not be there in a relatively reasonably predictable period of time."



"And the people in Iraq need to know that: that it will not be long before they will be liberated."



Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars March 11:



"Over and over, we hear reports of Iraqis here in the United States who manage to communicate with their friends and families in Iraq, and what they are hearing is amazing. Their friends and relatives want to know what is taking the Americans so long. When are you coming?"



"In a meeting last week at the White House, one of these Iraqi-Americans said, 'A war with Saddam Hussein would be a war for Iraq, not against Iraq.'"



"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror. Our plan -- as President Bush has said -- is to 'remain as long as necessary and not a day more.'"



Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a breakfast meeting March 4, 2003:



"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."



Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003:



"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.



"The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."

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?

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

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)!

---

GG: Desperately single?? Oh good lord, luv, you surely don't want me. I'm nowhere near some of the other hottie Kittens. Anyone who's ever seen a picture of me can attest to that. You might want to save your naughty bits for more deserving Kittens And don't look at me about that whole Texas deal! I just live in this hideous state. I in no way claim anything from it as my own I'm ready to leave....where the hell is my Mary Poppins umbrella anyway?



justin:

Quote:

---

It's been mentioned that president Bush and others haven't been to war and therefore don't know what it's like to risk there lives like this. However a worse effect is that they don't know what it's like to face the possility of killing civilians and to face this sort of guilt.

---

If you only knew how much I agree with this statement. It's all too easy for politicians to send lower ranking, harder working people to do their dirty work so that they don't have to think about some of the more drastic consequences (and before anyone goes ballistic, this is MHO...however, I think if I were to find some facts for you, they'd speak for themselves )



mariacomet: Are we finding things that we actually BOTH agree on?? Where's that cattle prod? I need electroshock therapy. My realities are getting all wonky on me Although I do agree with GG...I'm sure that your statement about children dying in Iraq wasn't meant to come off as blase, it may have sounded like it. I know what you're trying to say though, although I don't necessarily agree that we should all just accept them as "casualties of war" and be comfortable with that as a reality. I know you totally despise it too but....it may just be in your phrasing.

Quote:

---

I hope we can turn this into something beneficial for the International community and the Iraqi people. I'm not sure how we can, but I hope the possibility is there.



I do think we, Americans, need to learn the difference between Pride and arrogance. Between humility and being dictated to. Between power and domination. I hope we learn from the past. I hope we learn to listen to those countries much older than us, who have been through it all before. I hope we can learn to be students as well as teachers.

---

I really do love your optimism, dear, but if we haven't learned a damn thing in the 300 or some odd years the United States of America has been in existence, what makes you think we'll start now? It might just even get worse. Our leaders might actually start ignoring past history in the vain attempt to mold present and future history in their own image. That would be a huge mistake, IMHO. I'd like to be as optimistic as you, but I really can't afford to be. I don't like surprises and I really like to see the sucker punches coming before they land. I (and many others) were against this war from the start and saw the writing on the wall. We're not suprised but what came to pass but we are sickened and dismayed. As I said before, this is not the America I grew up loving and wanting to serve faithfully. I hope that changes real soon...I really do.



Diebrock: Your articles are interesting. I posited a similar theory earlier. I said that Dubya wasn't above a little arm twisting to get what he wants and I knew the only reason why several countries backed us is because they were nervous. They said to themselves "There but for the grace of God go I." as they saw what was happening to Iraq. They knew damn well that once the US was finished with Iraq, the President might get it into their heads to come after those who didn't support him. Honestly? I don't think that's too far from the truth, either. But isn't that the way politics works? All the double dealing and promise-breaking and blackmailing seems to be par for the course (which is the reason why I would never make a good politician ). That's not the way to make our Allies trust us and support us. That smacks of schoolyard bullying and I think it's deplorable. I was suprised at how relatively thorough the documents you shared with us are.



Cheers,

Toni

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[Diebrock]

Kieli, it's amazing what you can find when you aren't really looking for it. I, too, found it very informative since it adresses also a lot of the countries that normally fall by the wayside.

I think it showed that most of the members of the coalition don't give a sh** about Iraq (be it the liberation or WMDs). They either want something from the US or they fear retaliation for not supporting them.

I had to laugh at the example of Colombia, who heard in the news about their membership in the coaltion.



The reason I was looking into the COW was because of an article that mentioned Croatia. Croatia is part of the coalition. They opened their airspace and bases for civil American flights but the Croatian president declared the war to be illegal. Germany on the other hand is "actively opposing" the US. They granted overflight rights and the use of the military bases for military flights but declared the war to be at least problematic legally.

I guess it really matters what Germany says, but they don't really care about Croatia.

_____________________

"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

[Jimmi Magnus]

Quote:

---

It is the American propensity to eulogise violence and not to contemplate its human cost, not to empathise with the human experience of the consequences of violence, that strikes fear and enmity into the hearts of people the world over. The rest of the world may not know the origins of this violence, but Europeans know both its origin in American history and it's location in American consciousness. In westerns the hero may be hurt, but he rallies to save the day, and the enemy is dispatched with purely positive consequences. The Vietnam War familiarized the whole word with the chilling and despicable phrase 'collateral damage'. Those collaterally exterminated, it appears, count as less than real people. It is not that innocents have never died in European wars - they always do; it is American unwillingness to reflect on, or even use honest language to describe, ruined lives that makes people believe that America's freedom to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the only exercise of these prerogatives that matters.

---

This quote is taken from 'Why do people hate America?' p186-187 (2002) by Z. Sardar and M. W. Davies. A book that I can highly recommend to anyone who wants facts about how American foreign politics have shaped the way people view America.



Today on the news I saw a small report about the recent civillian checkpoint deaths. How that was sad, and unfortunate. Right after they showed footage from a hearing about 9/11 and how to prevent the loss of innocent lives in such a tragic way in the future. The comittee had survivors of 9/11 and family members of some of those killed speak about their loss and feelings.



Why is it that the loss of an American life more heartbreaking then the loss of a non-American life?

[mariacomet]

GG



I don't know if you saw this part of what I said, 'I want to say that it makes me heartsick to hear about civillians dieing, especially children.'

Quote:

---

I can't tell you how much this bothers me. I'm sure you're just trying to be realistic, but it comes across so cavalier: "Darn it, dead kids happen." Can't you see the difference between a tragedy (any children dying, for any reason) and a crime done in our names---with our tax dollars?

---

Our hands were already dirty. Economic sanctions were put forth and later approved by the U.S. (as a member of the Un) Let's go by the most 'optimistic,' and please believe that I use that term as an awful irony...number of 400,000 children dead under the age of five...ascribed directly to sanctions



I am not saying, well shucks...darn it, kids die. I am saying that my god, we already had accepted the responsibility of killing children long before this military action. The number above is ONLY children under five. How many more? How many more killed by lack of medicine or basic supplies. And how many more were killed by the Iraqi regime itself?

And guess who, as so many have aptly pointed out, put that regime in power? HOW...even before this miltary action were our hands clean of the conditions in Iraq?



After the Gulf war, Sadaam acted and we reacted and what we did effected the people much more than the man. Now, I know the HOPE of the international community. We hope sanctions cause uprisings. Or such pressure that the regime must back down and comply. I don't think Sadaam is blameless in his own people's poverty. But neither is the UN/US.



So it's fine that people die because of us indirectly but not directly? As long as we don't blatantly get our hands dirty, we're okay?



I don't agree with that.



The minute we decided to take an action against Iraq itself, we took on a responsibility. One that we never lived up to. One that, in my opinion, the UN never lived up to. The Oil for Food program stopped the numbers from rising anymore than they already had. They did NOT lower the numbers of people dieing on a weekly or monthly basis.



I am saying that it is very possible that we may kill LESS people with a war than if economic sanctions were to have continued....strictly depending on how we wage the war and...what we do AFTER the war.



Bzengo,

Quote:

---

The only problem is, the people, as you put it, "not looking at things realisticially" are the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and his senior advisors.

---

I had heard the cakewalk comment. It made me sigh then. It makes me sigh and shake my head now.



I'm really curious to know what you think about this next bit.



I was thinking about guerilla tatics earlier.



Strictly as a miltary tactic, the US could surround the city of Baghdad, cut off all supplies and slowly let the citizens strave until the city either surrendered or until the citizens were too weak to give much of a fight. We could stop worrying about civilian versus miltary targets in that city and bomb everything. Level everything.



And if we did all this, we would win.



But we aren't willing to. The American people wouldn't be comfortable with it. The international community wouldn't stand by and allow it without massive reprecussions.



Please don't think, by the way, that I am suggesting that we do any of the above or that it's the right thing to do. My point is not that we should do it. In fact, my point is that we won't.



However...the iraqi guard would. Not because they are terrible and we are oh-so wonderful. But because they can't lick their wounds and go on back home, if they lose. They are fighting for their country. And when you are doing that, you will do anything.



I don't know if all Iraq as a whole loves or hates us...or hates Sadaam - or if they are past caring, and just want all the violence from one place or another to stop. But the Iraqi guard

believes they are fighting for a representive of God on earth, as well as hearth and home.



They will use children, they will use carbombs, they will use fake surrenders...they will hit and run. They will flee their cities in darkness, let us take the town, and then come back and attack the city at night. Maybe the majority won't. But the majority doesn't need to.



Taking Baghdad may be a 'victory' but it will be mostly symbolic. It won't be the end. The hope of the Iraqi people is the Iraqi people. It will be their reactions to all of this that matters the most.



The middle east is wondering if their entire stability will be jeporized at this action. The US leaders must be more careful what they say. This is a time to handle matters delicately, especially if we stay in the war, which I believe we will. They have to stop talking about 'how easy this' and 'cakewalk' that.



Kieli Cattleprod? Hey, are we allowed to talk about our sex lives here?

Quote:

---

I really do love your optimism, dear, but if we haven't learned a damn thing in the 300 or some odd years the United States of America has been in existence, what makes you think we'll start now? It might just even get worse

---

300 years is relatively young. Ask Europe, or for that matter ask the Middle East. Someone told me as a joke, and I agree...that we have buildings 50 years old and we bustle and hem and haw over restoring them because they are historicially important.

Quote:

---

I'd like to be as optimistic as you, but I really can't afford to be. I don't like surprises and I really like to see the sucker punches coming before they land. I (and many others) were against this war from the start and saw the writing on the wall. We're not suprised but what came to pass but we are sickened and dismayed. As I said before, this is not the America I grew up loving and wanting to serve faithfully. I hope that changes real soon...I really do.

---

I'm optimstic, yes. I'm not blind. I see the dangers, or at least as many dangers as my fertile imagination will allow. (I imagine that no one can imagine all that may happen.)



I feel the doubt. I wonder if we in the US are too apathetic. I wonder if the US government is too corrupt. I wonder if 9/11 made us too afraid. Too panicked to see more than our own interests.



I wonder, what will happen in Iraq.



I do see. This country has enough resources so that there should be no one without food or some sort of housing. We have enough so that there should be an extremely small infant morality rate. Yet this is not so. We have done everything everyone believes and worse. We have twisted governments, we have displaced entire groups of people, we have used the atomic bomb. We have claimed to stand for equality and yet turned our heads as a good portion of our population have been treated as little better than animals.



But this is not the extent of our history. We have helped others nations, poor nations in crisis who had little or nothing to offer. We have helped a wall come down that seperated a nation. So many charities have their home here, so many began here. And of that, I am immensely proud. There's more that I am proud of...but I could go on for pages and well...that's a lot of typing.



I hope because I believe that the beauty of the constitution and the government on which it is founded is it's abilty to change. I hope because hope causes me to act. And I believe, I must believe, action matters. But if all is too far gone to be changed in any direction, then why not just have a few beers, watch t.v. and not give a damm. I hope, because for me...it's a choice between hope and nothing.



Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we will fight this war and it will not end. Much like vietnam, we will be far away from home and lose our way in more ways then one. The communities of the world will unite against us, villifying us as evil. Terrorism will be widespread. Nowhere, nowhere in the world save the US will an American be safe. A hundred 9/11's will happen. Iraqi people will continue to suffer until we withdraw, and we will withdraw leaving them worse off then they were.



Should I resolve myself to this? I can't accept that there are only two possibilities and only one set of choices.



To stop fighting the war does not guarantee peace, unity and the abolishment of hate against the US/UK. I don't even think it will ease the hate, honestly. To continue fighting the war, does not guarantee liberation, making friends through victory, or a terrorist free world.



There are many choices to be made, I believe. And there'sa lot that could happen - war or no war. We are at a crossroads, I believe. But if there is so much to fear, maybe there is equally a lot to hope for.

Edited by: mariacomet at: 4/1/03 4:48:29 pm

[darkmagicwillow]

---

300 years is relatively young. Ask Europe, or for that matter ask the Middle East.

---

For a culture it's young, but for a government, it's quite old. Most of the nations of Europe and all of those of the Middle East are barely 50 years old, with only a few truly old nations like Luxembourg, Switzerland, or the UK remaining. Better ideas have come since the US was founded, many of them as a result of analyzing the problems with the American system.

---

I hope because I believe that the beauty of the constitution and the government on which it is founded is it's abilty to change.

---

Its ability to change is limited though by that constitution, with some of its very undemocratic compromises like the Senate and Electoral College lingering on well beyond the times for which they were useful to not only make little accidents of history, like George Bush, who regardless of the outcome of Florida lost the popular vote, but help maintain the two party system, which is directly against what the founders intended.

--

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

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

And guess who, as so many have aptly pointed out, put that regime in power? HOW...even before this miltary action were our hands clean of the conditions in Iraq?



So it's fine that people die because of us indirectly but not directly? As long as we don't blatantly get our hands dirty, we're okay?

---

I think you misunderstand what GG is saying. I don't think s(he??? God help me, I am a fucking moron tonight ) was saying that we shouldn't get our hands dirty, I think what GG was saying is that it's time for the US to stop wading in the muck. What should have happened is the US should not have meddled in Iraqi (and other nations) affairs without a bit more foresight. I'm sure that many political advisors gave their opinions about what could happen down the long road by supporting one faction over another. I am also sure that they were probably pooh poohed with "Let's cross that bridge when we come to it." or "We're just working with the lesser of two evils." Neither of which works for me in the slightest. The more we take upon ourselves, the deeper into the mire of good intentions/self-preservation we sink.

I'm sure that doing right by the Iraqi people is what the US government originally told itself its mission was....it would help the concept of war go down the throats of the American people as a less bitter pill to swallow if the goal were humanitarian. However, given the lackadaisical assessments and comments given by Rumsfeld and The Too Wise Crew in the Oval Office, my opinion is, that goal is really not the true one.



It's not a matter of standing back and doing nothing while others die. It's more of taking responsibility that WE helped this happen to begin with. There goes that whole Road to Hell adage again. What started out well meaning has spiraled into madness. Perhaps a hands off approach similar to the one the Swiss have is best. We have no obligation to the world by law but perhaps by conscience. However, every time we step in to do good, the situation somehow ends up far worse than we could have ever imagined.

Quote:

---

Cattleprod? Hey, are we allowed to talk about our sex lives here?

---

Heh heh, don't you wish It was the whole electroshock thing. It's kinky but it works wonders with straightening out my aching back

Quote:

---

300 years is relatively young. Ask Europe, or for that matter ask the Middle East. Someone told me as a joke, and I agree...that we have buildings 50 years old and we bustle and hem and haw over restoring them because they are historicially important.

---

True in terms of a nation that time period is relatively young. But even a baby learns hard lessons once it's taken its knocks in less time than that. Surely a country can do the same. It's not rocket science or brain surgery, it's paying attention to the things that really matter; not greed or colonialism or protecting our own business interests. It's the people, in any country, plain and simple.

Quote:

---

I feel the doubt. I wonder if we in the US are too apathetic. I wonder if the US government is too corrupt. I wonder if 9/11 made us too afraid. Too panicked to see more than our own interests.

---

Oooh yes I agree 100% with the apathy part. I think that over the past 200 or so years, it just became convenient for the American people to let their leaders handle all the thinking and they would just sit back and enjoy all of this wonderful democracy, never once thinking that it could go away in the blink of an eye. Not once did it ever occur to them that the power of the public vote could be undermined to the point of near uselessness. And I'm sure it NEVER occurred to them that their constitutional rights could be endangered by their President simply saying "It's for homeland security." As I watched Peter Arnett get fired for reporting the truth from where he was in Baghdad (whilst mixing in some commentary about his personal observations about how the war was REALLY going on there in Iraq) and as Geraldo Rivera has the Pentagon actively working to get him thrown out of Iraq for reporting what he is REALLY seeing happen, I keep thinking, "Censorship...something must be going on that we aren't supposed to know about." So much for Freedom of Speech. Why don't we just take a Bic to our Constitution right now and save ole Dubya the trouble? Please pardon that last, my sarcasm is getting the better of me.



I digress.

Quote:

---

Should I resolve myself to this? I can't accept that there are only two possibilities and only one set of choices.

---

I agree that I also cannot accept there are only two possibilites and one set of choices. However, our leaders would have us believe there are. Notice how Rumsfeld has vociferously attacked any of the opponents of his and Gen. Franks war plan. He denounces the military veterans called upon to navigate the war for the average joe as "not helping". Why are they not helping? Because they're not supporting him and Myers and since they've actually BEEN through wars many times they know what the hell is going on enough to call their "plan" into question? Hmmm, what I personally find amusing as this little snarky remark from Rumsfeld:

Quote:

---

"The fact (is) that one person prints it, then everyone else runs around and copycats it and writes it again. Then pretty soon it's been printed 16 times and everyone says, 'Well, it must be true.' That's nonsense."

---

Erm, isn't that pretty close to the crap they've been feeding the American people themselves about how "good" this war is? What makes what they say any more truthful than the media he denounces? See full article HERE



Done ranting. I just love the hypocrisy flying about. I can't help but shake my head and chuckle sadly.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: maudmac at: 4/1/03 7:03:36 pm

[Gatito Grande]

mc said:

Quote:

---

So it's fine that people die because of us indirectly but not directly? As long as we don't blatantly get our hands dirty, we're okay?

---

then Kieli responded:

Quote:

---

I think you misunderstand what GG is saying. I don't think s(he??? God help me, I am a fucking moron tonight ) was saying that we shouldn't get our hands dirty, I think what GG was saying is that it's time for the US to stop wading in the muck. What should have happened is the US should not have meddled in Iraqi (and other nations) affairs without a bit more foresight.

---

Uh, what Kieli said (I think). As I understand it, at the end of Persian Gulf One (or Persian Gulf Two, if you're Iraqi or Iranian!) in 1991, the U.N. (under a great deal of U.S. control, nez pas?) came up w/ two separate but interconnected policies towards Iraq: 1) Inspections, and 2) Sanctions. 2)was to re-inforce 1), right? Or to punish failure to comply w/ 1).



Inspections---correct me if I'm wrong---had some success, but w/ Saddam kvetching and heel-dragging the whole time. He finally kicked inspectors out in '98. Sanctions, however, were unceasing, from '91 until today. Saddam kept building palaces, while children starved or died of disease. While many members of the Security Council wanted to lift (or at least ease) sanctions, the U.S. said no, substituting "Oil for Food" instead. (After '98, Saddam said he would let inspectors back in if sanctions were lifted.)



Oy vey: I'm no expert on this stuff. I confess, I spent much of the 90s feeling fairly disinterested. I knew sanctions were hurting the people of Iraq, but I don't think that I personally did anything about it. Back in '91 I remember saying "Let the sanctions work" as an alternative to war, but I can't honestly say if they would have worked to get Saddam out of Kuwait or not.



At any rate, if sanctions were a disaster, inspections were not---or at least there's no reason they should have been. As I recall, at the time of the kicking out of the inspectors, Congress was too busy trying to kick out Bill C. over his peccadilloes, for the U.S. to have a coherent response on Iraq.



Sheesh, where am I going w/ this?



mariacomet, I am in no way suggesting that, merely absent an invasion of Iraq, the U.S. did not have blood on its hands. But I cannot condone a policy of "Let's kill hard and fast now, to avoid killing slow and passively later." They're both wrong.



Speaking of "blood on hands," even though I'm greatly distressed by U.S. soldiers firing on civilians, I believe that those soldiers---the ones actually shedding the blood---are far less responsible for these crimes than the politicians and brass moving the chess pieces from safety far away. Heck, I think the soldiers are less responsible than U.S. pro-war demonstrators! Or maybe even recently-paid-my-federal-phone-tax me.



GG "s(he??" You're not a moron, K, you comprehend me exactly! (???) ---Heh, guess that belongs on the "LGBT Issues" thread, though. Out

[Dave V]

diebrock, interesting points.



Canada is not a part of the coalition, either. The U.S. ambassador actually blasted Canada for its stance.



However, Canadian naval ships are helping protect the coalition fleet launching attacks against Iraq, and Canadian soldiers are going back to Afghanistan, freeing forces for the ground war in Iraq. Writers here have made the point that Canada is contributing more than many actual members of the COW.

[darkmagicwillow]

There's an interesting analysis of how embedded reporters end up producing only pro-war coverage here. Here's a short excerpt:

The embedded reporter program lets journalists travel with troops to report what they are seeing, while simultaneously restricting what they can report (to prevent classified information from leaking). As a result, reporters who are "embeds" inevitably tell primarily the story that the U.S. military wants viewers to see.



Footage and information on the war is shot and filtered through the perspective and experiences of their military hosts: the obstacles, victories, and defeats their units encounter, become the stories seen and told by the reporters. By marrying what seems like independent reportage with a reality that is highly dependent upon the experiences of Coalition forces, embedded reporting inevitably ends up blurring the boundaries between reporting and our military's point of view.



Unsurprisingly, then, as (Jack Shafer notes in Slate), the embedded journalist program has produced a great deal of pro-war coverage. Mostly, the pro-war bent of the coverage has come from what it leaves out: The events as seen from any other point of view than that of the Coalition forces.

And here is an article addressing specific claims made by the military or press along with counterclaims.

--

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

[cassiopeia191]

Quote:

---

I hope we can eventually bring peace and stability back to Iraq. I hope we can return it to the prosperity it once knew. I believe we can. We have the power, if we are determined and offer action and now just words. But I believe too, that many in Iraq blame us for the poverty they have faced since the Gulf War.

---

I'd say that the Iraqi people are somehow right when they have this opinion because the UN sanctions that were enforced unter the pressure of the US have led to the way things are now. This is not to blame on Saddam Hussein alone...considering this, I would like to raise another question: I've heard the reproach "Well, the UN hasn't done anything for 12 years...it was time to take action." and I would like to turn it around: if the US was so interested in liberating the Iraqi people, why did itwait 12 years...the sanctions have clearly thrown Iraq back to poverty -of course, the 'Oil for Food' program that was initiated to lessen the misery at least a little bit was quite convenient for the American oil lobby)- and quite frankly, killed thousands. You can fight about the figures if you think that's the point. It weakened the Iraqi people to an extent where it would be almost ridiculing them to expect that they start a revolution soon. After all, it's not Saddam Hussein alone who has put them in the position they're in now...the UN and especially the US play a big part in that. So really, if all this democracy talk really was what this is about why react when so many people have already been killed. I mean, since there is no obvious legitimate reason now, there certainly wasn't the need for one back then. You see, I think this is highly hypocritical as well....'oh you haven't done a thing (untrue...weapon inspectors) in 12 years.' -"well, what have you done?'- 'Enforced sanctions that made the Iraqi even poorer while they changed nothing about the political situation itself...until we suddenly realized that Iraq doesn't need sanctions, they need democracy. And we need their oil.'



Bringing back stability to Iraq and the region is a nice thought but quite illusionary in and of itself...you can expect

a) terrorism as the Iraqi counterstrike,

b) uproar in the Islamic world which might lead to governments (that co-operate with the US right now) being overthrown,

c) a widening gulf between the Arab world and the 'western world' and

d) conflict among this 'western world' itself because this is what's going on right now already.

e) A country is not a house of cards that can be rebuilt easily...if a new government is put in place, it might be that in 15 years the US decides to fight it...at least, history might make us think so. As we can see in Afghanistan, rebuilding a country does cost immense amount of mones (110 billions is what I heard on the news yesterday) and you know, so far the US has given a couple of billions and it'll probably stay that way...if leading a country back to prosperity were that easy, it'd be great. Unfortunately, reality is more complex.

f) The Iraq is inhabited by Curds, Shiites, and Sunnites...peace and harmony; being a big happy family? No.

I say it again, reality doesn't work in those simplistic ways although I have the impession that many Americans see it that way.



mariacomet, I agree. Let's leave the whole faith argument out of here...I don't think any of us really wants to be convinced to believe the opposite. I still think that you shouldn't discuss words until they fit in what you want to believe but...this is not going anywhere. We could probably discuss this for hours... *shakehands*



I am getting so tired and exhausted...it seems like the arguments are repeating itself on both sides and I just hate feeling so manipulated by media like that...I really thought that we lived in times where democratic(?) countries who believe what they do is right can handle independent journalism that reports the truth. This war coverage is nothing but propaganda and I'm sick and tired of this...right now, I'm not even angry anymore, just sad and also, full of hate. I need to get this out of my system so I will be back after the peace demonstration on Friday (now that sounds like I want to beat up policemen...no...I just need to figure out to react to this now that the first anger has vanished)...see you then. Let's hope that the following nights will not cost anymore civilians' lives. We know they will but one can still dream, right?

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

Edited by: cassiopeia191 at: 4/2/03 10:57:50 am

[darkmagicwillow]

The conflict between Islam and the West is old, dating back to the 7th century when the Arabs, newly united under the leadership of the caliphs, the successors of Mohammed, emerged from the Arab peninsula to attack the ancient civilizations of Persia and Rome. Persia fell, but Rome survived, despite the permanent loss of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria to the Arab caliphate. Arab forces continued along the south coast of the Mediterranean to take all of north Africa and the Iberian peninsula (where Spain is today) from the West.



The constant conflict between Romans (called Byzantines by this point in time) and Arabs in the east was a stalmate for centuries until the Byzantine Emperor was betrayed in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, allowing the Arabs to shatter the Byzantine armies. The Byzantine Emperor appealed to the West for help, and thus the Crusades were born. The First Crusade was fairly successful, taking Jerusalem, and establishing small crusader states along the coasts of Palestine and Syria. Later crusades were less successful, and 88 years later, the Arabs had retaken Jerusalem.



Islamic forces, largely Turks instead of Arabs, continued to be successful, annhilating the Byzantine Empire by 1453 and conquering southeastern Europe. There were setbacks on the outskirts of the Islamic domains, as the Spainairds reconquered Spain by 1492 and the Russians threw off the yoke of the Islamic Tatars in the north, but nothing much was thought of those, especially given the advances in India and Indonesia. Every conflict ended in success until the second seige of Vienna in 1683. The Turks not only lost that battle, but they steadily lost border territories to Austria, Poland, and Russia after that point.



However, what really forced home the point was when a French general by the name of Napoleon invaded the Islamic heartland in 1798, conquering Egypt in only a few weeks. The Islamic forces were helpless against the French, and it wasn't until the English intervened that the French were expelled. Since that time, Western powers have dominated the Islamic nations in a complete reversal of the previous 11 centuries of Islamic successes. It would be a difficult adjustment for any civilization to make, and unfortunately, Islam has turned inwards towards fundamentalism in an effort to ignore what has changed instead of trying to adapt to that change.





Where does this leave us today? With little hope, as the best that the West can do is mitigate its interventions; real change will have to come from within. The best example of economic success and adaptation comes from the state of Israel, whose economy thrives in the same climate without oil, but despite the close relationship of the Arab and Hebrew peoples, that is one example they can't bring themselves to follow.

--

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

[lauriebear]

I have to say this media coverage of the war is digusting. I heard they just rescued a POW. That's great but at the same time it's being so sensationalized. Like Saving Private Lynch.



Rebuilding Iraq:



There are many problems with bringing Democracy to Iraq. See, the whole point of democracy is that it has to come from the people within the country. They need to want it. Democracy cannot be imposed because it will fall apart.

Quote:

---

e) A country is not a house of cards that can be rebuilt easily...if a new government is put in place, it might be that in 15 years the US decides to fight it...at least, history might make us think so. As we can see in Afghanistan, rebuilding a country does cost immense amount of mones (110 billions is what I heard on the news yesterday) and you know, so far the US has given a couple of billions and it'll probably stay that way...if leading a country back to prosperity were that easy, it'd be great. Unfortunately, reality is more complex.

---

Here's another question. How the hell are we going to rebuild Iraq and give them medicine, food, etc. When we are faced with budget cuts here in America. There's poverty in the U.S. there's no affordable health care for seniors. Money for state gov, mayors, "first responders" ?????where is it?



So the Bush Administration is going to give all of this aid to Iraq, while leaving the US ecomony in shambles. How many Americans are going to be supportive in rebuilding Iraq when Social security is shrinking and they have to go to HMO's



Yes we need to rebuild Iraq after we destroy it. But are we going to have foriegn citizens depend on our gov while American citizens fend for themselves? Trust me when I tell you the AMerican people are not going to go for it.

Quote:

---

Don't Count On Bush To Rebuild Iraq

April 2, 2003

Harold Meyerson



`We have an obligation ... to put food and medicine in places so the Iraqi people can live a normal life," President Bush told the nation last week.



That's great. I just hope the Iraqis can get the medicine without having to join an HMO.



In his appropriation request to Congress, Bush asked for several billion dollars in humanitarian aid for war-torn Iraq. The requests for future appropriations to rebuild Iraq when the shooting war is done have yet to come. Surely these are requests that Congress must honor: When we tear up a place, we have an obligation to put it back in order.



And yet, this is an administration that is singularly ill-suited to the rebuilding of Iraq, because it is so stunningly indifferent to the rebuilding - or even the maintenance - of the United States. The administration has all but acknowledged that it has failed to rebuild Afghanistan, but it insists that Iraq will be different.



I doubt it. Except in matters of national security, this is the most resolutely anti-government administration since the rise of the New Deal. Ronald Reagan's pales alongside it. It has already enacted a $1 trillion-plus tax cut and now proposes to do it again, in wartime. If the president's advisers truly believe such a cut stimulates the economy (the first cut stimulated a net loss of roughly 2 million jobs), this is even more of a faith-based administration than it has let on. In fact, the chief goal of these cuts is to reduce government's capacity to meet public needs.



And that's just the beginning. The administration still would like to privatize Social Security, and it is promoting a Medicare "reform" that would force seniors into private HMOs in order to receive adequate prescription drug coverage. It has been utterly indifferent to the plight of state governments, which are everywhere cutting back on medical care, raising average school class sizes and increasing taxes to cope with the worst budgetary crisis in 60 years.



Yet at the same time that it is rolling back public services here in the United States, the White House means to roll them out in Iraq. It won't work. On this question, the Bush administration is a house divided against itself. It cannot be the social activist abroad and the social Darwinist at home. The American public will not long support the securing of a postwar Iraq while medicine, education and other social goods are increasingly rationed by the dollar in the States.



Indeed, it was only when this nation was at its most generous at home that it could afford to be at its most generous - and strategically smart - abroad. The Marshall Plan, which rebuilt the economies of Western Europe in the years after World War II, marked a commitment of U.S. resources that this nation never approached at any other time in its history. In the plan's first year, 1948-49, the United States devoted $5.3 billion to European reconstruction - in a total budget of just $36 billion. That amounted to more than 2 percent of our gross national product. Today, our total foreign aid amounts to 0.1 percent of our gross domestic product.



How could the American people have committed so much of their wealth to the reconstruction of foreign lands? Anti-communism explained part of that commitment, but far from all of it. The truth is that Americans in the Roosevelt-Truman era were accustomed to, and supportive of, massive government efforts to promote the general welfare. From 1935 to 1941, for instance, Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration had employed 8 million Americans - as many as 3.3 million at one time - in public jobs. That came to 7 percent of the entire workforce. During World War II, the scope and legitimacy of government endeavor reached an all-time high.



Once upon a time, the neoconservative authors of the current war understood this link. Today it's these neos - from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol - who are most committed to a yearslong project of rebuilding Iraq. Many of them got their start in politics three decades ago, working for Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Washington state Democrat who was a hard-line Cold War hawk and an avid supporter of such New Deal-type programs as universal health insurance.



In the intervening decades, however, most of Jackson's onetime acolytes have repudiated the domestic half of his agenda. In 1993, Kristol wrote a famous memo urging Republicans not to compromise with Bill Clinton on his universal health insurance plan but to kill it outright lest it breed a new generation of Americans who counted on the government for their well-being. The same Bill Kristol, of course, has been possibly the single most influential war hawk on Iraq and now counsels a commitment to the long-term reconstruction of that nation.



Scoop Jackson would have told him that you can't distribute medicine in Basra while making it unaffordable in Baltimore. Only a nation that feels secure at home will string a safety net abroad, which is why the economics of the Bush administration spell a grim future for both America and Iraq.

[quote]

---

[Pixie gishmock]

DMW, first of all, I want to thank you for sharing your historical knowledge. It was quite informative.

Quote:

---

Where does this leave us today? With little hope, as the best that the West can do is mitigate its interventions; real change will have to come from within. The best example of economic success and adaptation comes from the state of Israel, whose economy thrives in the same climate without oil, but despite the close relationship of the Arab and Hebrew peoples, that is one example they can't bring themselves to follow.

---

However, I was struck by your use of the phrase "Hebrew people" in this last paragraph. My first reaction was to be offended, since Jews have not been referred as Hebrews for quite some time, and the citizens of Israel have been called Israelis since 1948, but I am interested in why you chose this wording.

Life is full of changes...The better you are at letting go of things, the freer your hands will be to catch something new. ~from Off The Map by Joan Ackerman
"It's good to be a chicken casserole," Tara murmured before passing out. ~from "Answering Darkness" by Sassette

[darkmagicwillow]

I was discussing the common ethnicity of Semitic peoples and so I used Hebrew as its primary meaning is ethnicity, whereas the primary meaning of Jew is religion and only its secondary meaning refers to ethnicity. While Hebrew is not as commonly used as Jew, its usage is still current, though I'm unsure why using an older term could be offensive.



Though I realize that you're not suggesting that I give up precision for political correctness, I should note that I'm unlikely to do so. I still find the term African-American to refer to people whose ancestors immigrated from sub-Saharan Africa misleading as the people of northern Africa were always a part of Mediterranean world, ethnically and culturally, until the Islamic invasions separated the southern Mediterranean from the Christian north. People get the weirdest ideas from that term, including the whole black Cleopatra concept when Cleopatra was a Greek monarch descended from the successors of Alexander the Great. On the other hand, I loved replacing the needlessly confusing word Indian with Native American.

--

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

[Kieli]

DMW:

Quote:

---

I still find the term African-American to refer to people whose ancestors immigrated from sub-Saharan Africa misleading as the people of northern Africa were always a part of Mediterranean world, ethnically and culturally, until the Islamic invasions separated the southern Mediterranean from the Christian north. People get the weirdest ideas from that term, including the whole black Cleopatra concept when Cleopatra was a Greek monarch descended from the successors of Alexander the Great. On the other hand, I loved replacing the needlessly confusing word Indian with Native American.

---

I think I understand the confusion. While Cleopatra was of Greek descent (and not a few Roman leaders were born in Ethiopia, like Septimius Africanus, and were of Roman descent), their geographical location and possible skin colouring due to the climate is what tends to throw people. They look at those factors in describing the "black Cleopatra" concept and many people still think that Septimius Africanus was "black" (although he did retain some negroid facial features from his Ethiopian mother) simply because he commanded a garrison in Africa and was born there.



I tend to get confused when people use the term "African-American" so loosely as even my heritage is so hideously mixed, I don't think that, even though my skin colouring is black, the term succintly describes it. My parentage is Irish/Negro on my father's side of the family (although it has to be more than that since all of his relatives, brothers included, are so light-skinned as to be able to pass for white) and my mother's side is Native American (Cherokee/Seminole)/Negro. So I guess that makes me a mutt Go figure.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 4/3/03 9:28:52 am

[Pipsqueak]

I used to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt when it came to the war on Iraq. Even though I disagree with what he's doing, I believed he was genuinely concerned about WMDs and that he at least tried (although not quite hard enough, IMO) to find a peaceful solution before resorting to violence.



But not any more.



This is terrifying. I am really, really afraid of this man. What would he have done if Blair hadn't been there to talk him down?

Live each day as if it were your last; and one day, you'll be right.
| Pipsqueak's Music Videos |

[bzengo]

Go Pipsqueak! Good for you for on seeing through Bush's intentional lies and deception!





Question: Is there any link between 9/11 and either Saddam Hussein or Iraq?



Answer: In spite of countless speeches from the White House suggesting so - which have led over 50% of the American people to believe in such a link - Bush himself along with Blair, said NO in a White House press conference on January 31, 2003.



THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.



Q: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?



THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.



THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

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: 4/3/03 4:13:27 pm

[maudmac]

Slightly off-topic, I know, but I was sad to learn this morning that Edwin Starr died yesterday.



War



Oh no-there's got to be a better way

Say it again

There's got to be a better way-yeah

What is it good for?

*War has caused unrest

Among the younger generation

Induction then destruction

Who wants to die?

War-huh

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing

Say it again

War-huh

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing

Yeah

War-I despise

'Cos it means destruction

Of innocent lives

War means tears

To thousands of mothers how

When their sons go off to fight

And lose their lives

I said

War-huh

It's an enemy of all mankind

No point of war

'Cos you're a man

*(Repeat)

Give it to me one time-now

Give it to me one time-now

War has shattered

Many young men's dreams

We've got no place for it today

They say we must fight to keep our freedom

But Lord, there's just got to be a better way

It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker

War

Friend only to the undertaker

War

War

War-Good God, now

Now

Give it to me one time now

Now now

What is it good for?

---

i know there is strength
in the differences between us
and i know there is comfort
where we overlap

[darkmagicwillow]

I found an interesting article in the Guardian entitled "US Weapons Secrets Exposed". Here's an excerpt:

In a move that stunned the international community last July, the US blocked an attempt to give the convention some teeth with inspections, so that member countries could check if others were keeping the agreement.



Mr Dando believes Washington's motive for torpedoing the deal, which had the support of its allies, was to maintain secrecy over US research work on biological weapons. He said that work includes:



· CIA efforts to copy a Soviet cluster bomb designed to disperse biological weapons



· A project by the Pentagon to build a bio-weapon plant from commercially available materials to prove that terrorists could do the same thing



· Research by the Defence Intelligence Agency into the possibility of genetically engineering a new strain of antibiotic-resistant anthrax



· A programme to produce dried and weaponised anthrax spores, officially for testing US bio-defences, but far more spores were allegedly produced than necessary for such purposes and it is unclear whether they have been destroyed or simply stored.



In each case, the US argued the research work was being done for defensive purposes, but their legality under the BWC is questionable, the scientists argue.

The US still stores biological and chemical weapons from the Cold War, including at Umatilla which I used to live fairly close to at one point in my life (and checking the local news, they just had a small Sarin gas spill in December). However, it's a giant step backwards to be violating treaties against bioweapons, especially at the same time that the US was planning to go to war against Iraq for the same kind of violation.

--

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

[maudmac]

I'm about an hour from a chemical weapons storage site. They've been upgrading it to an incineration facility. It's disconcerting to see things on the local news about what do to in case of a leak.



There are many lawsuits and various types of actions flying around about this site, the Anniston Army Depot.



The Chemical Weapons Working Group site has lots of information about our own chemical weapons activities, including stuff about Umatilla, darkmagicwillow.

---

i know there is strength
in the differences between us
and i know there is comfort
where we overlap

[Gatito Grande]

I was kind of disturbed to see this thread fallen off the first page. I know the constant breathless "war updates" are numbing (especially as it gets reduced to "so how much of Baghdad was leveled today?"). But by one estimate (maybe the BBC's? I'm not sure), we ("coalition forces") killed 2000 people yesterday. Total Iraqi deaths are well over the "9/11" range, in a country that's much smaller than the U.S.



Meanwhile, the Halliburtons, Bechtels and other Republican contributors are poised to start their profiteering amidst the Iraqi ruins.



I'm just depressed, pissed-off and frustrated that outrage seems to be evaporating due to all the "war fatigue" (I have it too, dammit).



GG Would like to join a new global conspiracy to "contain" American aggression and imperialism Out

[The Angry Lion]

India accused Pakistan of having weapons of mass destruction, harboring terrorists et al, sound familiar? now thes countries both have wmd and both are seriously pissed at each other, what example are they learning from the world atm?

this one time, at witch camp!

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

Okay, I am a pacifist and TOTALLY and UTTERLY oposed to war. But sometimes war becomes necessary, simply because we as a race cannot function properly it seems without violence.



But for such an act to happen I expect three things from those considering war.



1. That the action they wish to take is for purely noble reasons, and have no ulterior motives involved.



2. That the evidence of the need for force to be used is clear and uncontestable.



3. That the world leaders in majority agree that this is the only course of action available and support such action.



In this war, NONE of these criteria have been met. Instead, I believe a corrupt, immoral and power-hungry despot has waged war on Saddam Hussein (who is also all of the above) under the banner of "freeing the Iraqi people". I do not believe Bush give a damn for the Iraqi people and he will walk away from them the first chance he gets.



I think all here on this Board should pray for peace, for sanity and for untiy of purpose to see that justice is swift upon those who would endanger lives in the pursuit of power.



I know many will not agree with my beliefs, but we live in a land where we can, and must, view all sides of the story.